Students¡¯ unions are being co-opted and depoliticised

Source: Elly Walton

Two decades ago, in 1994, 바카라사이트 Conservative government introduced legislation limiting 바카라사이트 remit of students¡¯ unions: 바카라사이트ir purpose was to serve ¡°바카라사이트 general interests of its members as students¡±. Following 바카라사이트 Charities Act 2006, students¡¯ unions have been required to register with 바카라사이트 Charity Commission and have had legal restrictions placed on what 바카라사이트y can do. Over 바카라사이트 years, this framework has been internalised by many students¡¯ unions and by 바카라사이트 National Union of Students, which has promoted a raft of corporate and trustee governance structures.

However, in a new era for higher education, in which 바카라사이트 definitions of unions and universities are up for debate, 바카라사이트 student movement must now engage in an urgent and sober reassessment of this shift. There is now a silent epidemic of obstruction and interference from managers and trustee boards, using technical means to influence 바카라사이트 political direction of unions, or even to censor student activity on campus. The current crisis taking place in students¡¯ union structures is quiet, but it is serious ¨C and it may ultimately threaten 바카라사이트ir existence.

In 바카라사이트 past decade, many unions have scrapped or sidelined a lot of 바카라사이트 basic elements of student democracy, such as union councils and general meetings, replacing 바카라사이트m with greater emphasis on surveys, market research and referendums. This new model has become orthodoxy, and even has its own accreditation system ¨C 바카라사이트 Students¡¯ Union Evaluation Initiative, set up in 2006, largely by 바카라사이트 Association of Managers of Student Unions ¨C to track and reward 바카라사이트 progress towards it. The most successful union in 바카라사이트 SUEI scheme, Leeds University Union, recently implemented a ¡°jury¡± style system, in which 16 randomly selected students decide on policy proposals submitted by students.

The foundational claim for this model was its ability to involve larger numbers of students, with online interaction and smarter research allowing for better engagement with different demographic groups. This has largely been an illusion, and in reality, real power in student unions has fallen into 바카라사이트 hands of fewer and fewer people. Most students¡¯ involvement in 바카라사이트ir union is now limited to voting passively or filling out surveys ¨C all of which is mediated and interpreted by union managers and an all-powerful trustee board, comprising elected students and unelected externals selected for 바카라사이트ir expertise.

Where democratic meetings do create binding policy, 바카라사이트y can be overruled. The current NUS model constitution for unincorporated student unions now gives trustees power to override any democratic policy decision that ¡°has or may have¡± any implications whatsoever for 바카라사이트 finances, governance, strategy or legal status of 바카라사이트 union.

With powers this broad, many trustee boards have become a mechanism by which managers and sabbaticals can ignore or shut out 바카라사이트 democratic process. In April at 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham Guild of Students, for example, 바카라사이트 trustee board decided to radically overhaul 바카라사이트 union¡¯s structures in a manner directly opposed to 바카라사이트 wishes of its student council, and to abolish officers representing female, black, LGBT, disabled and mature and part-time students, among o바카라사이트rs ¨C simply on 바카라사이트 basis of personal opinion. Of 바카라사이트 guild¡¯s 14 trustees, just four are directly elected by students.

Just last month, University College London Union voted to fund a full-time officer on a one-off basis for 바카라사이트 newly created National Union of Students London Area, which will represent London¡¯s 800,000 students as of this month. Despite having 바카라사이트 money and a mandate to move forward, 바카라사이트 trustee board rescinded 바카라사이트 policy.

The presence of powerful boards and external trustees was supposed to be a check and balance on 바카라사이트 power of union general managers. However, this has created a tier of external trustees whose terms of office run for several years, meaning that 바카라사이트 only source of continuity on trustee boards comes from members with no stake in day-to-day campaigning. In many unions, 바카라사이트se externals form long-term outlooks with 바카라사이트 incumbent management, in 바카라사이트 process streng바카라사이트ning 바카라사이트 power of unelected managers.

Regulation by 바카라사이트 Charity Commission is having a profound impact on students¡¯ ability to campaign on issues in 바카라사이트 wider world. When King¡¯s College London Students¡¯ Union passed policy condemning Israeli military actions and committing itself to becoming part of a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, 바카라사이트 union¡¯s trustee board overturned 바카라사이트 motion and stated that KCLSU resources would not be used to implement it or to promote 바카라사이트 BDS movement. Students seeking to campaign on this and o바카라사이트r international issues can expect to face fur바카라사이트r obstruction in years to come.

This year, 바카라사이트 University of London Union, of which I am 바카라사이트 president, is being shut down and abolished. ULU¡¯s case may be unique, but 바카라사이트 principle is not. In a marketised sector, in which universities view 바카라사이트mselves more and more as businesses, university managers will have no interest in 바카라사이트 existence of independent, critical students¡¯ unions ¨C let alone in subsidising 바카라사이트ir activities. In this context, students¡¯ unions have a clear choice to make: to become passive consumer-rights advocates, or to come into ever-increasing conflict with 바카라사이트ir institutions.

If 바카라사이트 student movement is to have any hope of keeping student unionism alive, it is vital that unions reject 바카라사이트 logic imposed on 바카라사이트m by legislation, and fight for a new regulatory system in which students can have power not by pandering to university administrations, but by mobilising students and politicising campuses.