A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
The first motion of the night was to ratify the Union Council minutes from October to January. This was proposed in the last UGM, but did not reach quoracy.
Next was a constitutional amendment proposal, proposed by the Union Council and seconded by acting Council Chair Tom Langrish.
The proposal is to approve the new constitution, which has been amended by Langrish. In his speech Langrish said: “Governance has to be flexible, it has to change to suit the changing needs of the student body.”
If the motion is passed, it will complete a number of changes made by the union, including rebranding the Athletic Union’s as York Sport, reviving the York University Media (YUM) Committee and splitting the Academic and Welfare Officer position into two roles. Langrish added: “Please vote for it, otherwise I’ve wasted quite a bit of time.”
The proposed changes to the constitution can be found at this link.
Next up was the first of Jason Rose’s many motions, which was seconded by YUSU Officers Jamie Tyler, Alex Lacy and Charlie Leyland and Labour Club Chair David Levene. If passed, YUSU will be mandated to oppose any attempt by the government to increase the tuition fee cap.
Rose said: “At present, I will be leaving university with £35,000 of debt, including £12,000 of tuition fees. If the cap is lifted to £7,000, this would increase to over £50,000 of debt.” He added that the current system is “very dodgy and unfeasible for over half of all students”.
The fourth motion of the evening was submitted by Jonathan Krasner-Macleod, and seconded by Amit Sinha, Charlie Leyland and Therese Hermann.
Krasner-Macleod put forward a proposal whereby provision marks would be returned within four 'term' weeks, and adequate feedback returned within six 'term' weeks. If this motion is passed, YUSU will be mandated to campaign for this.
Krasner-Macleod said: “If they [exams] are meant to help us learn at all, to engage our understanding of a topic, to see where we need to refocus our attentions then we need feedback when we can still remember sitting them.” He added that he’s “not asking for the impossible, the ridiculous or even the overly optimistic” but didn’t think his proposal was “unreasonable”.
Next was Jason Rose’s second motion of the night, seconded by Chris Northwood. If passed, YUSU will be mandated to lobby Sinclair Properties and other landlords in York to bring all of their properties up to the standard described in the Code of Best Practice.
Rose said: “There have been allegations of theft, allegations of breaking contracts, allegations of poor management, poor assistance, problems on a variety of levels.”
Though he did not give a speech last night, YUSU Societies and Communications Officer Rory Shanks has expressed his support for the motion. He said: “This is a great chance for students to let us know what they think about some of the local companies with which we deal.”
Rose then took the stage again to submit a third motion, seconded by David Levene and YUSU Student Activities candidate Ella-Grace Kirton. The proposal requires YUSU to label vegetarian and vegan items on the menus when they need to be replaced, and to make more vegetarian and vegan meals available.
The union would also have to consider other dietary requirements and, where possible, provide full ingredient lists for their menu items. Rose defended the union in his speech, saying: “This was obviously an oversight, because so much was going on at the start of term.”
The seventh motion of the night was proposed by Ralph Buckle, and seconded by Anna Appleton, Matilda Sheppard, Craig Martin and Sam Westrop. The motion proposed mandating YUSU to campaign against the introduction of National ID cards.
Buckle said: “Even if you do support ID cards, still support this motion. This motion is against the forcing of ID cards onto students.” He then explained that the current proposals would mean students needed ID cards to apply for their student loans, and all international students would require cards.
The penultimate motion was proposed by Daniel Renwick, and seconded by John Nicholls, Freddy Vanson, Jason Rose, Sanja Bilic and Farzana Khan. The motion called for YUSU to speak out against events in Gaza, and lobby the university to issue a similar statement.
If passed, the union would also be mandated to lobby the university to offer assistance to the Islamic University of Gaza and to lobby the government to investigate Israel’s conduct and recognise the Hamas government.
Renwick said: “I do not believe that YUSU will bring an end to the humanitarian crisis... but I do believe that the small victories and changes matter.”
The UGM ended on a humorous but controversial note, with a motion proposed by ex-Derwent Chair Oliver Lester and seconded by Jason Rose.
Lester was unable to attend the UGM, but he told The Yorker: “I feel very passionately about renaming the Student Centre to the ‘The Matt Burton Dance Hall’. Burton has tirelessly devoted himself to YUSU; he has given students their own bar and he has brought world class acts to York Balls such as Alphabeat, The Saturdays and Booty Luv.
“But more importantly, on a personal level, Burton has been a father figure to me. This UGM motion was York's way of saying ‘Cheers Burton, we'll miss you and don't forget us... we'll never forget you!’ I'm sure every York student will strongly agree.”
If the motion is passed, not only would the Student Centre’s official name be 'The Matt Burton Dance Hall' for the next three years, but Burton would be mandated to lobby the government for a new national holiday called 'Matt Burton Day'.
Rose spoke on Lester’s behalf at the UGM. In his speech, he noted that this would not cost the union money – the sign will not be changed, but 'The Matt Burton Dance Hall' would be the Student Centre’s official name.
This was the only motion which saw more than one speech given, with Tom Scott and Alex Lacy expressing their support and Matthew Pallas and John Nicholls speaking against it.
Scott said: “Many years ago, the Athletic Union submitted a motion very much like this to change it to ‘The Vaseline Centre’. As a result they won £6,000 for their creative marketing campaign from Vaseline. I’m in favour of this because it may spark off a string of name changes and York Sport may get even more money from its sponsors.”
Lacy added: “Matthew Burton is the quintessential YUSU Officer... He has spilled his blood, sweat, tears and many other bodily fluids in the YUSU building, and you can’t go through the Student Centre without feeling the musk of Burton in the air.”
Pallas had another name for the Student Centre in mind, saying: “This motion is plainly ridiculous. The Student Centre should not be called ‘The Matt Burton Dance Hall’. It should be called ‘The Trevor the Duck Memorial Dance Hall'.”
Nicholls was also in favour of renaming the Student Centre, but not after Matt Burton. He said: “I’m not going to say that it’s silly and ridiculous, I think it’s quite amusing...We should have another consultation as to another, perhaps a wider leader, or a society.”
Rose then opposed his own motion, saying: “Come to think of it, this is a silly motion, don’t vote for it.”
Voting for this motion takes place from Monday at 12pm to Thursday at 12pm. For more information about the motions submitted, click here.
I don't think it's YUSU's job to be representing students on political issues unrelated to issues directly involving students. The political opinion at York is diverse and varied, especially in a situation as complex as Palestine/Israel. If the motion passes and the entire Union takes a single opinion (let's remember that the Union is the sum of its parts - that's us) to the situation those diverse views will be lost.
Politics is an individual thing, and I honestly believe it is inappropriate for the Union to be taking a single opinion on this.
"(i) To issue a statement calling for an end to Israel’s military attacks, for Hamas rocket attacks to stop, for Israel to lift its siege of Gaza, and to demolish the illegal security barrier surrounding the occupied Palestinian territories.
(ii) To mandate the President to lobby the University to issue a statement to the same effect."
I don't think that it is inappropriate in the slightest for the Union to be calling for peace. The fact that this motion is being interpreted as anti-Israeli means that it could fail but the motion itself is calling for a resolution to the conflict with both sides ceasing attacks.
Jason, you've only listed the first two points there. The other points are not quite as heroic and impartial, are they? Offering scholarships to anyone in Israel who refuses to serve in the IDF is wrong. Encouraging an enquiry into whether Israel has committed war crimes but not Hamas is unfair. To indicate support for an Israeli boycott is also unfair. Don't even pretend to claim you have attached your name to a document for peace. It's biased. Call it what it is, whichever way you go, or you sound even more ridiculous and idiotic.
No Jason, it's not.
This motion will fail because the same individuals who try to assert ther polarising and niche left-wing, anti-Israeli views on a politically apathetic campus have made a gross error in the wording of this particular UGM, and I think they're regretting it already!
It's opened up people's eyes to what many people have been saying for a long time: that view like you hold hide an alterior motive over and above furthering the status of YUSU members. If you genuinly can't see how biased this motion is, then you are blind. If you can see it and can't accept it, you are stupid, but then again, there's no surprise there. Anyone who thinks they will go cap-in-hand to Mr. Desk-job at the council and make him think he'll pop a swimming pool out from his Bowler hat would have to be.
I have had facebook messages from people saying normally a motion like this would go through, and 'I never normally support you Dan, but I think is *quote* "really the straw that broke the camels back".'
This motion will fail.
God, I agree with Dan Taylor.
I'm by no means pro-Israel (I'm not pro-Palestine either - this isn't black and white, both sides are being daft).
If it was calling for peace Jason, that's fine. But it's not just that, it's very pro-Hamas/anti-Israel. It's too one-sided.
The reason I believe that this motion, and others like it, are inappropriate for YUSU to be representing are, as Dan said because of "the same individuals who try to assert their polarising and niche left-wing, anti-Israeli views on a politically apathetic campus".
Whether YUSU have a stance or not makes no difference imo. If those people who are politically motivated to do so go and do whatever they want politically, that's fine. Just don't drag the apathetic student body into it.
'ROFL' (Jason 'Ron' Rose, 2009) at DTs main paragraph.
This UGM highlights exactly what i respect and despise about YUSU in roughly equal measure.
The promotion of vegetarian food is sensible and achievable. Rather than reprint menus, a 'specials' board with veggie meals on would do the job nicely and would be cost-effective. There are lots of vegetarians on campus, the SU venue should play to its audience.
The Gaza motion is wholly inappropriate. A waste of time and money, and over-simplifies a very complex issue. I've read the motion and it's horrendously biased and verges on un-truths. Hamas have a terrorist wing, are supremacist, and explicitly want to destroy a sovereign state. It's just not balanced at all. If we're going to pretend we can 'make a collective difference' or 'have a positive impact', at least call for peace between the two territories, not explicitly support one that, although under fire, has not exactly acted ethically. It's such a complex issue, and so distant from student life, that we are not be in a position to judge, based upon some biased and incorrect facts. Maybe a politics degree would help those who claim to know about legitimacy. It's about a lot more than just getting voted in.
What the UGM shows is that the union could be a very effective lobbying group on small-scale student issues - library stock, veggie food on campus, access, transport, maybe even heslington east facilities. But all that credibility is damaged terribly by a few 'campaigners' who get a bit too big for their boots. We can't get rid of israel or their army, we can't stop global warming, we can't stop world hunger, we can't close down the arms trade. And quite frankly, we don't need to bother. Other pressure groups do a great job at addressing global issues, and work with global agencies to seek a solution....YUSU doesn't.
Stick to the achievable, folks. It'll gain respect, stop alienating the centre, moderate and right wings of campus, and will make us seem credible to the university, york council and local people.
The first step to gaining this respect would of course be to vote YES on the burton building motion!
Here, fucking here 'Robbie'.
And great volley today.
Chris, Robbie and Dan, if you think it is inappropriate for YUSU to pass the Gaza motion, why didn't you speak against it at the UGM, or get someone to speak against it on your behalf?
Because I have a dissertation due in in a week. Which I should be doing. Yet I'm not.
Oh, and only the title of motions get published before the actual meeting, not the body, so it's impossible to know what it contained. If it did indeed contain just points 1 and 2 as Jason posted above (which the title suggests) then I wouldn't object to it as strongly (although I still think it's inappropriate, but harmlessly so, unlike this which I think is damaging to the Union).
No-one knows what motions contain unless you actually go there.
Whilst I don't like what's happened in Gaza, I predict the motion will retracted before the vote finishes... (apologies to fellow "lefties").
You don't have to go to a UGM to oppose it. You can vote against it, set up a FB group against it and discuss it.
I'm sorry, but the content of it is utterly ridiculous.
> It specifically advocates discriminating against students because of their country of origin.
> It fails to recognise 'war-crimes' committed by Hamas during the conflict, something that even Amnesty International said was prevalent, particularly the use of human shields.
> It makes sensitive political points the centre of a student body, that, like Robbie says, should be there to promote the interests on students on campus, not make alienating, niche political points.
> Frankly, it borders on anti-semitic and the reason I think this justification is justified is that it picks not on the government of Israel but the people of Israel and I think that is disgraceful be it to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc.
THAT is not something I want our Union 'supporting' and I think there are enough intelligent students to realise this isn't about the 'Israel/Palestine' question. It's about what we believe our Union should be working for and rejecting certain specific minded individuals furthering their own selfish causes at the expense of an apathetic campus.
Have a watch of this and see why any motion that seeks to 'legitimise' Hamas is something YUSU should not support.
It's a leader of Hamas talking about new methods of achieving martyrdom through the means of human shields.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=72305420445&h=XAcW1&u=wkcBm
Watch it, don't shy away from it.
> It specifically advocates discriminating against students because of their country of origin.
lie. based on absolutely nothing too.
> It fails to recognise 'war-crimes' committed by Hamas during the conflict, something that even Amnesty International said was prevalent, particularly the use of human shields.
Terrorist acts are not the same with war crimes. They are reprehensible to be sure, but not war crimes. Hamas controls a terrorist wing, not an actual army.
> Frankly, it borders on anti-semitic and the reason I think this justification is justified is that it picks not on the government of Israel but the people of Israel
and you justify this ridiculous assertion on what?
It suggests giving preferencia treatment to Israels who have not served in the IDF, and, given that all Israelis are conscripted, it's a no brainer.
The "boycott" of Israeli goods is another example of this. What the hell do Israeli companies and potential students have to do with the actions of their government? They might like their actions less than yourself!
Over and above all of this is that I believe YUSU can't have 'one' policy on such a polarising and divisive issue because it clearly wont represent 'students' per-se.
YUSU shouldn't be making the political points of a few. It should further our interests at the University of York as students. This, does not do that. It's the chance for a few to force their wider poltical agenda onto an apathetic campus and I have a big problem with this.
"If you can see it and can't accept it, you are stupid, but then again, there's no surprise there."
Interesting that you'd attack me for calling what you said "foolish" and then call me "stupid" in the same day, Taylor.
In other news, the point about the Gazans being preferred is because their university has been destroyed by the IDF and there ISN'T a boycott of Israeli goods. In fact, between the time the UGM was submitted and the UGM on thursday, Costcutter actually removed all Israeli-expansion-zone products from their shelves anyway. So that wouldn't require any work from the Campaigns Officers.
I agree that YUSU shouldn't be making the political points of a few and that the resolves should have also included condemning Hamas alongside Israel - they've both acted illegally and have killed civilians - but I don't think that this UGM is biased.
The UGM does condemn Hamas as well.
And it does not call for a YUSU boycott, it only mandates the Union to provide the appropriate information to students about products. People can then make their own choices and, agree or disagree, you have no right to deny that choice.
As the debate shows, students here have varying opinions on the conflict, and varying degrees of knowledge.
What do we gain by publishing a 'statement' as a union, when people clearly do not agree? When the information given in the motion is awfully biased, we are not even publishing a statement having given the student body a wide view of sources.
Why can we not just accept that for most students, a statement of support for hamas and condemnation of israel does not reflect their views, and to speak on such a controversial topic as a whole is not fair.
The motion will pass, of course. Motions rarely fail, and the most active on campus seem to support this wholeheartedly.
But the reason a lot of people are inactive is nothing to do with their support for the IDF or their apathy towards suffering - its simply that they don't know who to support. I'm one of them. It's such a complicated issue that goes back centuries before the British Mandate and creation of modern Israel.
What do we gain by having a single union statement?
Nothing, i suspect. Nothing other than division and greater alienation of people who want a student union to be for student matters.
Offering scholarships to the people afflicted by a humanitarian disaster is a student matter. And we will have to see whether people actually care about it - that's the purpose of voting, isn't it?
You may disagree with the public statement against the Israeli attack and the Hamas rockets, but even if you think it is completely unnecessary and devoid of all symbolism, you can't say it is unbalanced and you can't deny that scholarships and aid are very real and very practical and have the potential to be really beneficial.
The fact that students are apathetic is a problem in itself, it's not a reason why nothing should be happening. In short, it is not the motion that is biased, it is the same old right wing extremists having reached a level of paroxysm where anything other than a unilateral condemnation seems unbalanced.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report