That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
In the latest, gripping episode, a drunken Grace Fletcher-Hackwood - on the Union's payroll as YUSU Welfare Officer - landed Taylor a punch, and he hit back by initiating a vicious campaign for her to get the boot. With one woman's job and another man's pride suddenly on the line, alas, laughing at their antics is no longer an appropriate response. The one-time comedy duo now seems to be involved in something that's a cross between the Itchy and Scratchy Show and an unfortunate reality TV experiment.
Oh yes, that's right: there's an new, interactive element to all of this. Should she go, viewers?
YOU get to decide.
Since the incident took place, I have been invited to two Facebook groups set up to garner support on either side of the debate. "Want Grace to stay, guys?" enthused the first. "Join her fan club!" (Okay, I'm paraphrasing.) "Want her out? Sign our petition!" encouraged the other. Both groups have turned into rallying grounds, as allies of the two protagonists try to get their supporters out for Thursday's UGM to vote on the motion of no confidence that Taylor has brought against Fletcher-Hackwood.
The choice, tell me, is simple. Just pick your side.
This short-sighted focus on Thurday's vote is stopping us from asking the questions that need to be answered here
The difficulty is that this is one choice that is far from simple. Because of the stupidity of BOTH Mr. Taylor and Ms. Fletcher-Hackwood, we're faced with two, equally undesirable fates: either we keep a Welfare Officer that we know has physically attacked a student, or we lose her and - if YUSU do as they have threatened - have no welfare sabbatical officer at all.
I can't help but feel that this short-sighted focus on the result of Thurday's vote is stopping us from asking the two questions that need to be answered here. Firstly, how have we been forced into this corner? And secondly, can we prevent a similar situation arising again? This isn't the first heated exchange between a YUSU officer and a student and it's unlikely to be the last. Twenty-odd years into the future, what if Master Taylor and little Graciee Jnr. are on the scene once more? UGM, anyone?
Firstly, this is what we get from YUSU response to the incident: "YUSU is absolutely opposed to violence and does not condone such actions for any reason. Grace understands that she made a serious mistake..." Hardly damning is it?
Secondly, YUSU have no guidelines on how to proceed when a sabbatical YUSU officer acts inappropriately - apart from a UGM. This, in turn, has meant that Dan Taylor's cronies have drawn support from those who don’t necessarily believe she should lose her job, but do believe that a Welfare Officer who punches a student deserves something in the way of reprisal. YUSU should be prepared to use formal disciplinary procedures when one of their officers falls out of line. This could potentially avoid a vote of no confidence being successfully called against an officer. What's more, they should have a plan on how to replace officers, should motions of no confidence be passed. This would mean that "yes" voters were voting because they wholeheartedly wanted to keep him or her - and not just so that their post remains filled.
Grace's first mistake was to get completely wasted at a campus event.
The very fact that Grace was drunk at a YUSU event seems bizarre – and unprofessional. YUSU sabbatical officers earn however-many-thousands-of-pounds a year running our Union, which organises parties for us. If they were real professionals, with ‘real’, out-of-the-York-bubble jobs, would they turn up to office events and get hopelessly drunk? Picture this: Jennifer Lopez in The Wedding Planner plans a lavish wedding for her clients. Then she – or one of her colleagues – pitches up to the reception, gets wrecked, and hits one of the guests. Would they hire her company again? No. Would her boss stand behind her, and put two fingers up to the bride and groom? I don’t think so.
Yet it seems that getting drunk at a campus event is not unusual for union officers. Typically, when anointed at the annual Students’ Union Elections, the new sabbatical team gets hopelessly smashed. And this behaviour doesn’t stop when they take up their posts. In the office, they might wear suits to make them look more professional – but when the jackets are off, they’re quite happy to get pissed along with the electorate. And then post the photos of each other passing out/spewing/generally embarrassing themselves on Facebook.
Getting drunk in a room full of the students that you are supposed to be working for is dangerous. What if Anne Marie Canning - Grace's taller, more robust colleague - had hit Taylor? He would quite possibly have been knocked out, in which case she would most definitely be fighting for her paycheck. A union with no president?
Now that would be a spectacle.
I completely agree with the middle section of this comment. YUSU could of prevented the situation spiralling out of control. From the start I have not been able to understand why they have given complete backing to an act that is so obviously wrong!
Would it not have been better to say that the welfare officer had to be fined, or that she had to do some sort of campus community service?
If some sort of action had been taken I would not be voting against her next week.
This article is inaccurate. YUSU did not give Grace full backing for her actions, as stated in the release that came out yesterday (see http://www.yusu.org/news/?id=36).
Also, to clarify, YUSU is a Union and run by the members, so the other officers can't impose any sanctions. The only way that a disciplinary action can take place is through a UGM, which is what is happening.
So PLEASE check your facts and read the press release properly to allow yourself to vote on this motion with full knowledge of what happened and what you're doing.
Sam Bayley
Societies & Communications Officer
Apologies, Sam is right. The original blog stated YUSU came out in full support which was incorrect. We have since edited this blog to include their press release.
I read the press release, it says it was posted on January 24th - that's yesterday. This debate has been going on for almost a week now, why has it taken YUSU so long to release a statement? Ok, so they didn't come out in full support, but their initial silence is pretty damning. But maybe it's just me...
Hi Anonymous
The reason that the press release took a while was that I felt it was best to get guidance from the Executive Committee before releasing a statement on their behalf.
Please do not try and interpret the delay as anything other than getting the release right and with a good level of Exec input.
Hope that clarifies...
And to clarify further, exec meets on Wednesdays - the press release was put out on Thursday after exec had the opportunity to discuss the issue.
Although clearly no-one felt a welfare officer hitting a student, might have been worthy of calling an exec meeting earlier?
Exec Committee doesn't get payed to do extras!
What does Exec committee get paid to do exactly?
You've got to love how embarrassing YUSU really are - if anyone wants a particular insight into Team YUSU watch Burton and Bayley work their magic in Gallery.
Why is there no process for replacing officers who fail a vote of no confidence??
No other organisation refuses to replace disgraced officers, imagine if tony blair were voted out and suddenly the queen said "oh by the way PM was Tonys job. So we're not going to have a new one".
I'm largely apathetic to YUSU-related issues, and have never felt the need to use any YUSU welfare service, so i don't feel i can comment on GFHs suitability for the role, and as such shall not vote.
But to refuse to replace an officer who is democratically voted out shows YUSU up for the sham it really is - not democratic, not representitive, poorly prepared, and focussed first and foremost about protecting the clique at the top.
Lets forget personality politics, lets forget it was GFH and DT for one moment and focus upon the underlying problems in which this sorry case has exposed.
David S. (first year)
David,
Just to be clear, the Exec is only following the constitution, a document which was duly voted into 'law' by the student body. Its pretty clear on the issue, so to say that Exec are 'refusing' to do something is pretty misleading to say the least.
Apathy isn't something to be proud of, if you think its wrong, then do something about it. You as a union member are entitled to propose a constitutional amendment, and it will go to a vote at a UGM. Simple as that.
I don't think its fair to say that YUSU is "not democratic, not representitive (sic), poorly prepared, and focussed first and foremost about protecting the clique at the top." When you're talking about a motion which was submitted by a ordinary student and is about to be voted upon. I would have thought that is about as democratic and representative as it gets.
I think I might well agree with your point though, so I look forward to reading your motion at the next UGM.
Lewis
The constitutional issue is very important and I find it ridiculous that the YUSU constitution does not contain any section for replacing sabbatical officers after no-confidence votes, illness etc etc. It is typically 'YUSU'- it makes it much harder to remove someone from their position because people often take the stance, "well what she did was wrong, but its better to have her then no-one". This is YUSU looking after themselves. What does a sab. have to do to get booted out? Grace hit a student and all YUSU can offer is wishy-washy statements and a constitution that some of the mpst corrupt post-colonial African despots would be proud of.
Grow a bit of backbone, accept your college was wrong, recognise the damege to YUSU she is doing and get her to stand down.
And to Sam Bayley, comepltely agree with him on the last of his bullet points. Do you not think thought that not having any constitutional contingency plan for the removal of a sab. (however rare it may be) is ridiculous and reeks of incompetence? What if, for example they were taken ill for a prolonged period of time, had pressing personal issues or (God forbid) had a vote of no-confidence against their name? This is a hole that needs filling.
If any of you out there watched a film in which a small character was being bullied by a nasty piece of work and gave him a light knock, you would cheer and you know you would. Well stop being so stuffy and cheer- common sense has prevailed!
call me a dreamer but i hope that maybe all this will pass over and maybe this Master Taylor and little Graciee Jnr we talk of will in fact be brother and sister, following the wedding of Mr Taylor and Ms FLetcher-Hackwood.
has anyone else noticed that this blog has become a question and answer session with sam bayley?! perhaps he should write a blog that covers all these points and get it over with in one go. and don't worry sam, there is no need to post a 1.19 response to this.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report