Why referendum motions will fail

The YUSU policy referenda have already stirred up a lot of hot air, with a significant amount of the YUSU ‘establishment’ up in arms at the suggestions, already campaigning to defeat them. But what can we learn from these motions and the reaction to them? And what are their chances of passing?

First we’ll take the motion on the Women’s Officer position. This has no doubt created the greatest debate, with current Women’s Officers Nell Beecham and Cat Wayland laying out the case against: “The position of women's officer is vital within the welfare remit for tackling issues surrounding rape, sexual assault and harassment and many other areas appertaining to women students who might not be comfortable discussing these with a self-identified man. The women's network also runs many campaigns on women's welfare, gender equality and feminist issues that benefit immensely from being led by students who self-identify as women and have lived experience of the systematic discrimination women face in our society.”

This is a debate that has been simmering under the surface for a while, particularly amongst right-of-centre students on campus. Many feel, rightly or wrongly, aggrieved about the fact that the only individual without a specific representative on campus is the white, heterosexual male. Now whilst those on the left will argue this is because the levels of discrimination felt by minority groups are significantly greater, it does not stop that resentment being there.

However, it seems unlikely that the motion will be carried. The majority of those who vote in these elections have consistently showed that they support moves to increase involvement from minorities. What’s more is that this motion seems to miss the greater debate about roles such as women’s officer, the LGBT representative and racial equalities officer. This is whether one achieves true representation through positions attributed to a minority or whether every member of the group should be tasked with increasing representation from minority groups.

Whilst there is no doubt that there is a role for female only positions in welfare, it is a contentious step to state that this is representation of women. By simply attempting to rename the role “Gender Equalities Officer” the motion has sidestepped this debate and produced a product which is as unappealing to the left as it is to the right. What’s more, the inevitable defeat of this motion is likely to take the greater issue of the forms of representation in YUSU off the table until at least after the proposer has graduated. It’s fair to say they are likely shooting themselves in the foot.

The second motion is somewhat bizarre and calls for the union to twin with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is likely to be in response to former YUSU racial equalities officer, Lawrence Binitie’s, anti-Israel tirade on Heslington Councillor David Levene’s Facebook wall. The comments forced Bintie to resign after he attempted to associate Levene’s faith with the actions of the Israeli state.

The move is likely to be a controversial one, especially considering the union’s active policy which condemns Israeli actions in Gaza. The alumni of the university include former Prime Ministers of Israel Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.

Once again, this is a motion which seems destined to fail. The Gaza motion passed in 2009 was somewhat of an anomaly; it is unlikely many York students want their union to spend time and money on international matters. As Peter Spence noted in the final Union General Meeting last year, “Student Unions have thus far failed to affect foreign policy anywhere. There is no evidence that this is likely to change”. York students are likely to agree with him.

If I were a betting man, or at least somehow able to bet on YUSU referenda results, I’d be putting a large chunk of money that neither of these motions will reach quoracy. The biggest problem will be the lack of postering – there’s little methods open to campaigners to get their message out. Those who are contacted on Facebook are likely to have already made up their minds and were going to vote anyway.

The ordinary student is unlikely to get involved in these debates, nor are they likely to want to. The issues being discussed are beyond everyday student problems and, for your average student, debates around who can run for a position in YUSU and whether we twin with the University of Jerusalem are irrelevant.

The only way to get students engaged with these referenda is to debate motions which really affect their everyday lives. Until then, YUSU will always struggle to engage with the student population during these debates.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.