Save NUS democracy

Heading: Save NUS democracy
NUS Zone: Strong and Active Unions

This union believes:
1. Every movement that has won change has combined popular action with grass roots democracy, from the struggle for the vote to the US Civil rights movement
2. That since the early 90’s the NUS leadership has been gradually eroding its democratic structures, centralising power and cutting back on grassroots involvement - moving away from being a campaigning movement on the ground.
3. The democratic structures that remain are under resourced, under prioritised. As a result they often seem complicated and disempowering to new students
4. At last years annual conference a “far ranging review of NUS’ governance” was proposed to solve these problems and present to annual conference.
5. The steering group selected by the national president to conduct the review was not particularly politically broad or diverse.
6. The consultation process itself found it difficult to incorporate a wide range of opinion.
7. The resulting “NUS white paper on NUS governance” was presented to the NUS national executive in two emergency meetings in October reflecting the views of the leading NUS factions.
8. The NUS leadership have included a call for students’ unions to request an undemocratic emergency conference.

This union further believes:
1. That the moves to restrict democracy are an accommodation to the declining democratic involvement in society. With the government pursuing an ideological offensive against the public services, trade unionism and social education we need to expand our grassroots base or face incorporation into the narrow bubble of Westminster debate.
2. The proposed changes will in turn the NUS into a professional Labour lobby group and completely break our link with student activists.
3. The leadership’s vision of NUS is one of highly paid professionals that are part of the policy debate within government and operating within the limits of “mainstream” Westminster opinion.
4. The idea that this can win real change is refuted by the struggle for the vote, the civil rights movement, trade union struggle and every movement through out history that has changed society.
5. That scrapping conference, an elected NEC and a part time exec is scrapping the concept of NUS as a democratic campaigning organisation.
6. The debate around external trustee boards, “best practice” and liability are dishonest and a smoke screen for destroying democratic accountability within the student movement.

This union resolves:
1. To reject the conclusions of the NUS governance review as a dangerous attack on democracy and student rights.
2. To oppose all proposals coming out of the governance review and defend the existing structures.
3. To oppose calls for an undemocratic emergency conference.
4. To mandate our delegation to vote according to this policy at all NUS events.
5. To send this motion to NUS Conference 2008 in the Strong and Active Unions zone and to any emergency conferences where appropriate, changing the word “union” to “conference” in each of the three section headings, deleting point 8 in “this union believes” and points 3, 4 and 5 in “This union resolves”. The proposer of this motion or their proxy will be sent to NUS compositing.

Words: 394 after deletions (502 before deletions)

TRAPPED IN GAZA!

Allow Khaled Mudallal and all other Palestinians to travel.

A Palestinian student urgently trying to get back to Bradford University to start his third year of study, has found him self unable to do so after Israel identified Gaza as "hostile territory" this week, effectively closing it off to the outside world and in the process creating the world’s largest open air prison. Khaled Mudallal, 22, a British-educated business and management student who risks losing his third year if he does not return to Bradford next week, has become its latest inmate. The Israeli human rights organisation Gisha, is presenting a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that new restrictions which have so far prevented several hundred Palestinian students from Gaza to return to courses abroad is a violation of international law. Khaled must be allowed to return to the UK immediately to continue his studies, and all other Palestinian students studying abroad should be allowed to return to their respective universities. Any delay in Khaled’s and the other Palestinian students return is damaging to their future prospects and thus unacceptable.

http://www.actionpalestine.org/index.html

sign the petition here
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/KhaledMudallal/

also join the facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5119413550&ref=nf

NUS have also set up a website
http://www.letkhaledstudy.co.uk/index.html

Blaming the Victims - gun crime, violence and the Afro-Caribbean community

NUS NEC Notes:
1) The tragic murder of Rhys Jones, shot dead playing football in Liverpool, that follows a spate of shootings in recent months in Liverpool, London, Nottingham and Manchester.
2) Much of the debate and discussion in the media and parliament on crime and violence has revolved around the Afro-Caribbean community, with the use of phrases such as “black on black” crime and “gang warfare” used frequently.
3) That there has also been much talk of the need for “positive role models” in the black community, coupled with the idea that many black families are dysfunctional, with black fathers in particular being part of the problem.
4) Figures such as black businessmen, politicians and now army officers have been promoted as an example for black youngsters to try and emulate.
5) The recent Reach report into “raising the aspirations and attainment of black boys and young black men” focuses heavily on individual psychology of black teenagers without looker at wider issues – “racism” is mention just five times in the 85 page report.

NUS NEC Believes:
1) That black teenagers are the victims of this situation and not the perpetrators – the average age of black Londoners murdered by a gun is 19 and the average age of black Londoners charged with murder using a gun is also 19.
2) The current “solutions” and suggestions ignore the real roots of the real problems faced by black young people, and the idea that military officers can help counter violence in communities is laughable.
3) It is poverty, deprivation and lack of opportunities, all of which are fuelled by racism, which are at the heart of the problem. Afro-Caribbeans are more likely to live in poverty, be targeted by the police, be victims of crime, and be discriminated against in the job market.
4) Black children are also disproportionately affected by exclusions from schools and colleges.
5) Racism, as well as being the root cause of the problem, is also behind supposed government “solutions” – the idea that black children have more dysfunctional families and inherent problems with their culture is disgraceful. Terms such as “white on white” crime are never used, implying that the race of a criminal is only important when they are black.
6) NUS has a proud history of opposing the rightwing concept of “blaming the victim” and demonising the poorest in our society.
7) Initiatives like “Tell It Like Is”, a campaign based around a book addressing the root causes of the problems black children face in education, and the NUT’s recent initiative around black boys in education are campaigns that look at the real problems being faced by the Afro-Caribbean community without pandering to the racism prevalent in the media and rhetoric of politicians.

NUS Resolves:
1) To release the following statement to the press:
“NUS expresses our sympathy with the families and communities torn apart by violence and gun crime. It is tragic that we live in such a violent world and that violence has found so destructive a presence in our communities. Crime is so often a result of people falling out of society through poverty, racism and desperate personal circumstances. The current drive in the media and government is to further criminalise communities and youth and ignore the real problems of poverty, deprivation and racism.
NUS believes that the only way to end gun crime is by pulling communities out of poverty and creating a more equal and just society. The government has made a lot of noise about being “tough on crime” but done very little to tackle the root causes of poverty, inequality and racism. We call on all progressive individuals and organizations to add their names to the call for a real debate on ending poverty and racism to tackle gun crime.”
2) For the NUS Vice-Presidents of FE and Welfare to work with NEC member Rob Owen to work on a campaign to launch in FE colleges (that include the age group most affected by these issues) around these issues.
3) To organise joint meetings with trade unions such as the NUT and UCU around these issues, including “Tell It Like It Is” meetings, in FE colleges to address the issues, raise awareness about the real problems and to campaign both for the kind of equality that can eradicate crime, and against the current climate of racist demonistaion and scapegoating.

Assed Baig for NUS Black Students' Officer

Student Respect member, Assed Baig, will be standing for NUS national Black Students Officer at the conference next May.

Assed is a committed activist both around his local community in Alum Rock, Birmingham and at Staffordshire University where he sits on the students’ union executive committee. At this year’s NUS conference he stood as Student Respect’s candidate for National Secretary and achieved our best ever vote at national conference. And at this year’s Black Students Conference he was elected to the Black Students Committee with the highest vote for the “open rep” position.

“My recent campaigning priorities have included Stop the War activity, and campaigning against Islamophobia and racism – but I see a link between these issues”, says Assed.

“The war, in addition to the destruction of the Middle East, has created an increase in racism back home as politicians have tried to scapegoat minorities. But there are many other important issues too – I was at the Heathrow Climate Camp recently. The results of climate change are going to disproportionately affect poorer countries, as is the fight to grab the world’s resources in the interests of profit”.

“Part of my vision for the Black Students Campaign involves a massive increase of our activist base, in addition to building closer links with existing student groups such as Stop the War coalition societies, anti-racism groups and other important campaigns. Crucially, we need more activists and more radical action”.

The Black Students Conference will be held on 17–18 May. Student Respect activists and supporters should be getting themselves delegated and talking to other delegates about Assed’s candidature. More information and publicity will be available soon, or contact students@respectcoalition for more information.

National Organising Meetings

With the start of the student year just weeks away hundreds of student activists will be coming to London to discuss the politics of the movement and how we can organise to stop the war and build a society based on equality, justice and respect.

National Stop the War Student meeting
With Tony Benn and Gemma Tumelty (NUS President)
8th September SOAS Students Union
11am-3pm
More details on the NUS website.

Student RESPECT national activist meeting.
With John Rees National Secretary of the Respect Coalition
2pm Sunday 9th September central london
venue tbc
Open to all members and supporters email students@respectcoalition.org to register

NUS affiliates to the Stop the War Coalition

NEC - Monday 13th of August

Monday was an unusually tame meeting but one that still marked an important moment for NUS with a near unanimous vote to affiliate to the Stop the War Coalition (www.stopwar.org.uk). Affiliation to Stop the War and support for the Communications Workers Union (CWU) was voted through less then an hour after the NEC accepted a priority campaign without any campaigning, and the most significant points need to be discussed more widely.

Stop the War Coalition
Over the last few years NUS has done more and more work with the coalition. Both Gemma and Veronica King have spoken at recent demonstrations and Gemma is speaking at the relaunch of Stop the War’s student work on the 8th. Stop the War has mobilised thousands of students repeatedly in numbers that no other campaign has reached and maintained a level of visibility and influence on far less money then the NUS spends in a month. Joint work around broad slogans between the NUS and StWc can and will be of huge benefit to both organisations. NUS will be helping with a “Troops Out” tour featuring comedian Mark Steel and ex-SAS veteran Ben Griffen that will be among the biggest meetings to take place at any university this year. This year’s campaign will be discussed at the Stop the War activist meeting on the 8th with Tony Benn.

Stop the War – Student Organising Meeting
With Tony Benn, Gemma Tumelty, Lindsey German.
11am-3pm, Saturday 8th September, Room G2, School of Oriental and African Studies, Thornhaugh St. Central London

The only attempt to derail affiliation came from Sophie Buckland of Education not for Sale (ENS), the one organisation of the “left” not to call for an end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. ENS attempted to exploit Wes’ cheap demagogy about the right of Israel to “defend” itself to derail the discussion and succeeded in passing an amendment marking out NUS as on the rightwing of the coalition. The vote on the amendment was close with many abstaining and others pressured into voting for by the emotive (and dishonest) posturing of Labour Students and ENS, and the main thrust of the motion remains an overwhelmingly positive desire to put NUS at the heart of the anti-war movement.

Education
Wes attempted to sell the education priority campaign with the twisted logic that “it’s very easy to campaign but it’s far harder to have breakfasts and lunches with important people.” The campaign will be formally launched on the 4th of September and loath though I am to spoil the surprise there are some things that need discussing now. The concept of the campaign is based around two basic points:
1) We need to “keep our powder dry.” It is argued that it is unwise to run any public campaigns until 2009 because campaigning “puts students off” and furthermore that organisations like the NUS should model themselves on Amnesty International and call on our members for set piece actions every now and again (like turning on and off a tap.)
2) We can’t “pre-empt the review” by proposing what we believe in at this stage as that would stop the government listening to us. Instead we must brown nose officials and gather data to put forwards a pragmatic alternative later which will be considered as a serious option.
The fact that this is deeply flawed on many levels was raised only by the left on the NEC. The comparison between NUS and a lobby group like Amnesty is one of the most worrying aspects of the campaign. It is a marked difference from the idea of a union of students. Our strength is based on the fact that we collectively organise students at the point where they engage with their education and the world around them. To successfully develop that strength we need to be involving them in understanding our education system and attempting to change it. This has to be through a consistent series of activities and events to engage our members with our activists and the NUS. It simply won’t work to expect people to suddenly engage en masse with NUS in 2009 unless we have done the hard work of building up a base.
The second point is the changing nature of universities themselves. It simply isn’t true that the “debate on HE” is actually very narrow and directed. Since New Labour’s theory of “the knowledge economy” the government has systematically accelerated the drive to subvert Universities to the interests of the neo-liberal economy. It isn’t possible for NUS to tinker around the edges and expect a better deal for students - we need to fundamentally challenge the direction the government is moving in. We need to be open about our principles to our members and potential supporters and politically win them to the need for a free and fair education.

Solidarity with the CWU
Almost unanimously the executive voted to show our solidarity with the post workers strike. Scott Cuthbertson spoke well in favour of encouraging a sense of Trade Union solidarity amongst our members. The strike may currently be suspended but the prospects of wider public sector strikes to defend public services are very much on the horizon.

Other motions included unanimous support for the BMA’s organ donation campaign and work to lower the age of consent to 16 across the board.

Two Motions for13th August NEC

We have submitted the following two motions to the next NEC meeting please send any questions or comments to students(at)respectcoalition.org.uk

Stop the War Coalition

NUS NEC believes:
1) That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan remain the most high profile and significant political issue in the news and popular opinion
2) That the Stop the War Coalition is a broad organisation encompassing the huge majority of peace, anti-war and trade union organisations.
3) Stop the War demonstrations have mobilised millions of people and thousands of students with local demonstrations, meetings and events.
4) That the Coalitions aims are as follows,

"1. The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'. We condemn the attacks on New York and we feel the greatest compassion for those who lost their life on 11th September 2001. But any war will simply add to the numbers of innocent dead, cause untold suffering, political and economic instability on a global scale, increase racism and result in attacks on civil liberties. The aims of the campaign would be best expressed in the name Stop the War Coalition.

2. Supporters of the Coalition, whether organisations or individuals, will of course be free to develop their own analyses and organise their own actions. But there will be many important occasions when united initiatives around broad stop the war slogans can mobilise the greatest numbers.3. The Coalition shall elect a steering committee which reflects the breadth of those involved to carry forward the aims and objectives. Local groups should have regular, open and inclusive meetings.

4. We call on all peace activists and organisations, trade unionists, campaigners and labour movement organisations to join with us in building a mass movement that can stop the drive to war.

5. We are committed to opposing any racist backlash generated by this war. We will fight to stop the erosion of civil rights."

NUS NEC further believes:
1) NUS has backed almost every national activity of the Stop the War Coalition and had speakers at all the most recent national demonstrations.
2) The coalition is currently re-launching its student work with a focus on activities in universities. Our national president is speaking at the first activists meeting on Saturday 8 September.
3) Many members of the NEC and NUS are under the impression we are an affiliate but we have actually not discussed the war at annual conference since 2003 due to our own internal failures around annual conference.
4) The Society and Citizenship zone meeting agreed in principle to support the upcoming international peace conference on Saturday 1 December and Stop the War Coalition university tour with comedian Mark Steel and ex-SAS Officer Ben Griffen.

NUS NEC resolves:
1) To include the Stop the War national meeting on 8 September in our next mailing to students’ unionsTo agree in principle to affiliate to Stop the War (£200) and request that the NUS president sits on the steering committee on behalf of NUS. If necessary to refer the question to the next Society and Citizenship Committee.

Support Our Post Workers

NUS NEC believes:
1) That the NUS have consistently campaigned against the privatisation of our public services.
2) The Communication Workers Union’s (CWU) ongoing action has involved 130,000 workers in strike action to break the pay freeze in the public sector and halt the devastation of our postal services.
3) That both the government and the Royal Mail management have refused to back off from the harsh new conditions, pay cuts, 40,000 job losses and over 2,000 Post Office closures.
4) That as a national union whose members are both part of and dependant on public services we are clear about which side we are on.
5) The TUC supports the postal workers in their dispute and has called on others to do the same.

NUS NEC further believes:
1) That it is a disgrace that Royal Mail bosses can say that post workers are “25% overpaid and 40% under worked.”
2) That the CWU dispute has to be seen as part of a wider fight to defend public services and break Gordon Browns public sector pay freeze (a freeze on pay increases of 2% - half of the inflation rate).
3) That this dispute may be drawn out and solidarity and wider public support may well be key.
4) That the national CWU demonstration on the 21st August (assemble 12 noon, Clerkenwell Green) will be key in rallying CWU members and joining up the dispute with others in the public sector.

NUS Resolves:
1) To support the national demonstration and advertise it on officer online and the brief.
2) To draw up advice (with relevant NUS staff) on how students’ unions and sabbaticals can get involved with local CWU supporters groups. (Rob Owen to lead.)
3) To encourage officers to visit picket lines with messages of support from NUS and local unions.
4) To write a letter of support to the CWU executive stressing our attempt to build solidarity in line with the TUC’s wishes.

A Vision of NUS

Introduction
Student Respect has not focused on the structures of NUS but has campaigned for peace, justice and equality as well as building the NUS’ own education campaign when many student officers have shied away from “politics.” Unlike many of the individuals who have focused on governance the left is a key component of any future campaigns the NUS will need to run to defend itself

The Current Direction
Substituting “mission statements” for real political vision is a symptom of a bigger problem - NUS is turning itself away from being a mass campaigning federation into a centralised professional lobby group. Staff are more central to a conception of campaigning based on tinkering within the limits set by parliamentary committees rather than ideologically opposing the government’s marketisation of education. With this mindset, NUS conference is an unwieldy expensive bolt on to the process of creating specific campaigns (to be “actioned” by the national office); The National Executive (NEC) is “too diverse, large and political”; and matters of finance, accounting and process are the determining factor in deciding a new structure for the organisation.

On the issue of student political groups the green paper states “that much political conflict that does occur is often habitual and pointless”. Very little of the conflict has been “pointless” and at NUS Conference this was confirmed – these conflicts actually centre on real political differences as to the direction of NUS and its campaigns, and should be seen as part of a healthy debate. The governance review shouldn’t seek to minimize political difference that is healthy and honest. When people are honest about their political affiliations real and meaningful debate can take place. The review should therefore include provisions to empower students to be strong and confident in forming, debating and defending their political views, not vilifying those students who believe the issues that NUS face are political.

Later, the section posits that the distaste for a ‘political NUS’ should be seen in the context of a wider rejection of current political structures, and these are problems that “go far beyond our organization”. This is correct and should reinforce the need to reengage students with the political decisions that affect their lives. The alternative is to shy away from tough decision-making in favour of ‘a students not politics style of operating that tries to remove students’ issues from their wider context.

Governance
The language used in the parts of the Green Paper on the legal form of SUs tends towards the kind of legal changes that have seen some SUs become involved in business like exercises not geared towards their members’ needs and aspirations. Despite changes to the law NUS should not take such changes as a given and should support efforts to retain the democracy, interdependence and student-led nature of our SUs.

From the very leading questions on external trusteeship it appears the extension of external trustees is already a reality (at least in the minds of those conducting the governance review.) This is a shame in terms of making the NUS a truly democratic body in which students feel they have an important participatory role.

The rhetoric that external trustees offer wonderful skills and expertise is disingenuous. When people argue that the House of Lords should remain unelected for the purposes of retaining the knowledge of its members they are really arguing for a continuation of the status quo - the stifling of radical change. If anything external trustees with no links to student unions or student issues are an even more absurd idea. The calls for external trustees tend to come from people who do not care much for democracy or active campaigning. They are moving SUs more towards a model of business unionism that will destroy the NUS and accelerate the trend of students choosing activism over involvement in NUS. People who call for external trustees claim that they are trying to depoliticise student issues in the name of improving students’ lives. In actuality the very political agenda behind their calls is based on a view of politics that seeks to isolate issues from their context and limit the scope for change; maintaining that students must only focus on student issues in the belief that students are not affected by wider socio-political circumstances. If SUs and the NUS seek external advice when it is thought to be necessary, that is fine. But giving external trustees huge powers over the supposed representative of British students is a centralizing measure on the slippery slope concentrating power in the hands of the few while decisions are increasingly unaccountable.

Where this governance review sees a problem, it has two ways to go – a radical way involving hard decisions or a conservative way that buys in to current trends in society. When confronting a lack of accountability and democratic credibility it has two choices – deepen and radicalize NUS involvement in student issues while improving the participatory mechanisms for the involvement of ordinary students. Or following the model of business unionism that might look great in management-speak and financial figures but has nothing to do with changing the lives on students.

Conference and Cost
Over the past few years, it seems that National Conference has been downgraded in importance. This is an affront to democracy in NUS. A proper amount of time should be given to pass policy, hold meaningful elections and scrutinize the past year’s work. This year’s Conference was a disgrace – whole sections of policy were not debated, and a year’s work for some people was in vain. If NUS is serious about being a democratic, grassroots organization, then it should take its Conference more seriously.

It seems that the financial arguments against conference are untenable. How can NUS spend so much on wasteful resource practices but not instead channel that money into real efforts to involve students in more participatory structures? Conference operating costs in 2006 were just £328,000 out of a total of £5.5m operating costs, having grown £100,000 from 2005. By comparison, 2006 expenditure on “Fundraising and Marketing” was £1m, up from just £291K in 2005. At the same time, £191,000 was spent on “Leasehold Improvements” to the NUS office.

Next year Associate Cards are also supposed to jump from £310,000 to £455,180. This means that, if NUS Extra somehow makes another £1m in 06/07 (as predicted by NUS), and Associate Cards bring in an extra £150K then NUS will only make a £21,000 loss next year. Nonetheless the Senior Management Team has set themselves a target of making savings of £347,067 by April 2007 so that the overall deficit is brought down. Many people therefore fear that more attacks are going to be made to NUS democracy, particularly conference. There is no way that financial security should be put ahead of the organisation’s democracy and campaign effectiveness. Where there are gaps in funding NUS should see a problem and fix it by fundraising a hell of a lot more, wasting less and finding better ways to use the money it has.

The NUS’ campaign against fees has been tame on a large budget; in contrast People and Planet make huge changes with only a tiny fraction of NUS’ financial clout as have the Stop the War movement any many other organisations. This is what NUS has to do better.

Conference simply must be longer to avoid situations where whole policy zones are condensed into fifteen-minute discussions and vital motions fall foul of the curtain. There needs to be more time for election debates, fringes and policy debates. No financial argument should stand in the way of this. It seems those who are using the financial argument have another vision of NUS; one that is not of a strong, campaigning body for students but a lobbying organisation or bureaucracy.

A political NUS
To rebuild NUS we need to start from the sort of campaigning and vision we need to win and then work out how to pay for it. NUS’ central role must be pulling together the widest number and range of students to discuss their experience and build up an understanding of our education and the world around it. Only then can we start discussing how best to campaign effectively. To move NUS forwards we need to be working out ways to re-engage activists on the ground and politically debate the way to lay a base for our campaigns. To do this we need at least,

A large as possible conference focused on debating our experiences and political understanding of events and developments.
A broad, diverse National Executive representing political experience and range of student opinion (containing some form of block of 12.)
To put liberation campaigns at the heart of NUS campaigning
Supported local campaign groups/areas to link our debates and decisions to our activists on the ground.

Our Proposals

Policy and our sovereign body
The principle with political decisions and debates is that they should involve as many students as possible, be visible and accessible to those interested. The model across the Trade Union movement is an annual national delegate conference. The reasons for this are many but can be reduced to 3 main points
- A large annual conference draws big organizations together and focuses activists on a collective debate about the way forwards
- High profile events are more visible to members and attract interest from press and public
- It allows activists to network politically and develop specialist and priority campaigns alike.
Most trade union conferences are significantly larger then our own and far more focused on the political questions of the day. Our own conference is confusing in direct proportion to the constriction of the time for debate and the increase in space for bureaucratic items on the agenda. Common criticism from activists consists of:
· The lack of time for policy debates
· The number of consensus motions taking up time
· The amount of time taken up with financial, structural and bureaucratic business
· Frustration at the short length of speeches on political differences
Student Respect Suggests;
- A pre-conference meeting on each policy zone to draw together the consensual policy in into one document to be voted on as a whole at conference
- To change the motions structure to a simple word limit of 300 without a set format of believes, notes, resolves to encourage the elaboration of political differences and points to direct the national union. Amendments at 100
- Greater flexibility in zoning to allow delegates and political groups to understand the links between issues. For example between the marketisation of education and the drive to war and neo-liberalism.
- A week long conference with four full days of policy debate with time for elections and fringe meetings.
- A first afternoon to ratify finances introduce new delegates and deal with procedural business
- Longer speeches on the new format motions to allow the space for conference to be a real debate about the politics and strategy of our national union.
- For national conference to remain the sovereign body of NUS.

Delegates
Delegates should remain elected by cross campus ballot in the current form. Low turn out is a reflection of apathy and disengagement from NUS. This is something we should be fighting to change through campaigning not making concessions to. Those that argue for a different form of election or a sabbatical conference follow a model of NUS as a business like association of SUs along the lines of NUSSL not as a mass campaigning Union.

National Executive Committee
After conference NEC is the most effective body to set tactical and strategic path of NUS. At present it is caught between two contending realities (our idea of our selves as a campaigning organization and the creeping managerialism.) NEC must remain diverse, political and accountable to our sovereign body. It most also be the body which oversees the development of policy into campaigns and held accountable to conference: maintaining the principle of involving as many students in open decision making as possible while retaining an understanding of being elected to lead. NEC also have the advantage of being both democratically elected (so having a base in the movement) and being “cheap labour” (in the words of a senior member of staff.)
- A Block of 6 Fulltime officers elected from annual conference Made up of
National President
General Secretary (combining the current Nat Sec and treasurer)
VP Education
VP Further Education
VP Welfare
VP Society and Citizenship (to convene Society and citizenship)
- A Block of 15 (elected in the manner of the block of 12) to ensure the plurality of NUS is represented on the NEC funded to a level where they are expected to take on a level of work for the NUS within their remits. NUS has the resource to fund the block to a level where they can operate as both a political balance on the NEC and an organizer for NUS in areas of work that would otherwise fall off the NUS agenda.
- Liberation officers to remain as the campaigns decide.
- Special Nations Officers to remain.
- To Maintain an International Students officer.

We should aim to maintain a well funded NEC of 30 and train the part time offices as organizers and activists so they can not only feed their differences into the strategic debate but reflect that debate by being equipped to build within the student movement to develop and expand NUS. Policy Sub CommitteesEach VP should convene a sub committee to develop relevant campaigns and work. They should also organize a one day Zone conference for activists to present their work and develop out of the motions submitted (to annual conference) a consensual policy document to be voted on to open the policy debate at annual conference.

Officers Group
The block of 6 should be responsible for overseeing the work of NUS by meeting on a weekly basis. They should be seen as a sub committee of NEC and report the minutes and actions on line to be seen by the NEC. NEC must remain the body that develops campaigns, strategy and direction.

Management Committee
The president, General Secretary and CEO are responsible for the staffing, finances and governance of NUS. They should also report to the NEC

Liberation
The liberation campaigns must be properly funded and maintain their autonomy over:
1) What they call themselves
2) What kind of committee structure they have.
3) What form their campaigns take
4) What policy they pass, even if that policy contradicts or is critical of the current policy or operation of NUS
5) How they spend their money on campaigns and administration
6) What kind of extra, autonomous fundraising they wish to undertake, if any
As long as what ever they do is decided democratically.

Regions, council and areas
NUS should be working towards dropping regions and abolishing annual council immediately as an undemocratic and pointless waste of time. Instead we should be working towards a development of policy making areas which could assist Unions in coordinating campaigns on a local basis. Areas should work within the framework set by annual conference and draw funding for their actions directly from CM’s on a campaign by campaign basis. It is a myth that good campaigning costs a lot of money.
- Abolish National Committee
- Change regions into semi autonomous democratic areas with small elected non-sabb committees convened by their RO. The RO to be tasked with representing the policy of NUS and ensuring a dynamic relationship with the National Union.
- Move towards the breaking of these Regions into more sensible local area units (maintaining the relationship with the RO/regional office mentioned above.)

Such areas could provide a democratic link between the policies of the NUS and the campaigning work on the ground as well as making NUS assist Unions in coordinating their campaigns. If we can succeed in this NUS should be able to save money by shifting some of the cost on to better off HEs within local areas as well as ensuring campaign development is dependent on developing an expression amongst our grass roots members and SUs.

Accountability
To ensure accountability between the NEC and annual conference we need a winter meeting of conference. This need not be more then one day affair where we vote on the plan derived from conference and amend as necessary. Our experience of extraordinary conferences demonstrates that this needs not be an exceedingly expensive compared to our campaigns launch etc. Motions of no-confidence (etc) could be heard at such an event so long a suitable notice was given. Best practice should also ensure all documents up for discussion are available a suitable time before the event. It would also be an opportunity to develop networks between officers, activists and the NEC and to ensure conference delegates saw their relationship with NUS as more then a few days in Blackpool.

Governance and Trusties
Student Respect does not accept the drive towards an external trustee board is in the best interests of NUS. The charities commission is not insisting upon it. The experience of Student Unions which have pursued this root is at best mixed and often reflects a move away from being political and democratic campaigning organizations. It is our firm believe that if the political basis for our changes is carried through into looking at our finance and governance a solution can be reached which maintains a line of accountability and power running between students, annual conference and the NEC without shifting power to a unaccountable and non-student lead trustee board.

In peace and Solidarity
Rob Owen on behalf of Student Respect.

Student Respect opposes “a British Version of Islam.”

The DfES sponsored report “Islam at Universities in England- Meeting the needs and investing in the future” is a further attempt to mark Islam out as a cause of separatism and terrorism. In an increasingly desperate attempt to blame Islam for the radicalisation of people exposed to the realities of war abroad and racism at home. The government giving extra funding for a “less middle eastern” focus on Islamic studies is nothing more than an attempt to narrow down and proscribe free debate and discussion around religion, politics and the modern world.

Ruth Kelly’s recent comments in the New Statesmen about a “British version of Islam” and government sponsored training for Imans is part of the same islamophobic logic. NUS’ recent statement glosses over this fundamental point. We must be at the forefront of defending a free and fair debate on our campus to aid students in coming to a critical understanding of the world we live in. Teaching of Islamic studies and free discussion of “radical” ideas doesn’t draw people towards violence: it is the violence and racism of the world around us that draws in a tiny minority. Banning of ideas or enforcing an idea of “Britishness” will only further increase the isolation of Muslim students.

Building the movement against racism and war by uniting and working with all communities in addition to Muslims, socialists and progressive activists against the politics of New Labour can achieve this.

Student Respect NUS Conference Election Campaign

Student Respect Candidates for NUS Conference 2007

Student Respect candidates for NUS Conference 2007 attending the Unite Against Facism conference.
From left to right: Assed Baig, Rob Owen, Siobhan Brown and Clare Solomon.
Standing for National Secretary, President, Vice-President FE and Vice-President Welfare respectively. Rob Owen and Assed Baig are also standing for the block of 12 part-time executive.

NUS leaders attempt to stop anti-racism debate

The NUS steering committee has ruled out of order nine motions submitted by Student Respect to be discussed at NUS Conference 2007.

The motion, passed in various forms by nine student unions, appears in its original form below. It describes the climate of Islamophobia that currently exists in Britain and especially in universities, supports the right of women to wear the hijab and niqab, and aims to strengthen the current anti-fascist stance of the NUS. It was passed by the student unions at: Portsmouth, UWE, Manchester, University of the Arts, SOAS, Swansea, Leicester, Cambridge and Sussex.

The motions have apparently been ruled out of order on the basis that they were submitted into the wrong zone (they were submitted for discussion in the Welfare debate, the other three zones being Strong and Active Unions, Society and Citizenship and Education).

The decision by the steering committee is being challenged on the following grounds:

• The issues addressed in the motion, racism and Islamophobia in general and the "no platform" policy in particular, are very much issues that concern students' welfare. No other zone fits this discussion better. The welfare zone contains other motions on racism that have been accepted.
• At last year's conference, Student Respect and other organisations and individuals submitted very similar policy (on Islamophobia and the no platform policy) to the Welfare zone, which was accepted without being questioned. There was absolutely no indication that any changes had been made to the process this year that would result in these motions now being applicable to a different zone.
• One of the motions submitted and accepted in the Welfare zone, whilst coming at the issue from a completely different angle, is very similar in terms of its context. Motion 703, entitled "Anti-Semitism: A Definition", refers to a general context of anti-semitism and goes on to talk about the NUS's no platform policy. While we disagree with aspects of this motion, we agree with the steering committee that it should be discussed in the Welfare debate, and that therefore so should the Student Respect motions.
• The fact that this motion was passed by nine student unions (more than any other single motion that has been submitted) show there is a strong desire amongst NUS's membership to debate these issues in the Welfare zone. Ruling them out of order is therefore a large attack on democracy (as was another decision by the steering committee which has meant that there will be no debate at all on international students).
• The recent change in the method of submitting motions to conference has not been accompanied by any changes to the NUS constitution and standing orders, and as such relies on a large amount of interpretation and therefore subjectivity from the steering committee. The inconsistency highlighted in the above points does nothing to instill confidence among students fighting to get their voices heard.

We, the undersigned, demand that these motions are accepted into the Welfare zone.

• Suzie Wylie, NUS NEC
• Noreen Fatima, Vice-President London Metropolitan University Student Union, Student Respect chair
• University of Manchester Student Union
• Swansea University Student Union
• Cardinal Newman College Student Union, Preston
• John Collins, President, Imperial College Union
• Ben Harris, Vice President (Education and Welfare), Imperial College Union
• SOAS Student Union
• University of Portsmouth Student Union
• University of Sussex Student Union
• University of the West of England Student Union
• Kat Rayson, President, University of Plymouth Student Union
• Katie Shaw, Vice President Education and Welfare, University of Plymouth Student Union
• Assed Baig, non-portfolio Executive officer, Staffordshire University Student Union
• Issahaku Kotomah, President, Middlesex University Student Union
• Abu Shohid, President, London Metropolitan University Student Union
• Monty Sultan, Communications Officer, London Metropolitan University Student Union
• Reena Begum, Diversity Officer, London Metropolitan University Student Union
  

To add your name of that of your student union, email students@respectcoalition.org

National Committee

This is where the Student Respect National Committee lets you know what's going on. What they are up to, date and times of national committee meetings and general stuff from us.

Noreen Fatima, London Metropolitan University (Chair)
Rob Owen, Manchester University (Secretary)
Dominic Kavakeb, Essex University (Treasurer)
Colin Smith, SWP student organiser (Communications Officer)

Non-Portfolio Officers:
Assed Baig, Staffordshire University
Malika Barakat, Queen Mary, University of London
Bill Boon, University of the West of England
Jennifer Jones, Goldsmiths College
Sian Ruddick, Swansea University
Alison Smith, Plymouth University
Clare Solomon, SOAS
Harri Sutherland-Kay, Portsmouth University

Student Respect hails Conference success

Over 100 delegates came to Student Respect's first full conference last weekend. They represented Student Respect groups from around the country and the event was a fantastic opportunity to discuss the way forward for Student Respect. In the opening session John Rees, Respect National Secretary and Tower Hamlets councillor Rania Khan spoke on 'Britain after Blair'. They highlighted the redundancy of the New Labour leadership and the importance of continuing to build the Respect alternative on the campuses and beyond.

In the closing rally, George Galloway MP, Lindsey German (Stop the War Coalition convenor) and Respect mayoral candidate for Newham, Abdurahman Jafar discussed the issues around "War and Imperialism".

But perhaps the most important part of the day was the workshops. These provided a real opportunity for activists to share experiences and ideas, and to chart the way forward for Student Respect in the coming months in each of these areas. Yvonne Ridley's workshop on Islamophobia was particularly well attended, as were the student-led discussions on Climate Change and Palestine. In the latter workshop, Student Respect member Hanif Leylabi described the recent victory in twinning Leeds University students' union with a university in Birzeit, Palestine.

The conference also elected a twelve-member National Committee, which will sit for a year and oversee the running of Student Respect at a national level. Committee meetings will also be open to two delegates per university Student Respect group. The results of the committee elections are shown below. Heather Humphreys from the outgoing provisional committee gave a brief report of the outgoing committee's work, which included the drawing up of Student Respect's NUS motions that have now been passed through many students' unions, and the publication of several important national statements and leaflets.

The newly elected Chair of Student Respect, Noreen Fatima, a Vice-President of London Metropolitan University's students' union, closed the conference. She welcomed the impressive turnout and highlighted the importance of students returning to their campuses and putting the day's discussion into practice. The conference provided an excellent opportunity to focus everyone's minds on the coming months and the need to continue the fantastic work Student Respect has been doing, both in the ground and in the students' unions and NUS.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Student Respect National Committee – election results

Noreen Fatima, London Metropolitan University (Chair)
Rob Owen, Manchester University (Secretary)
Dominic Kavakeb, Essex University (Treasurer)
Colin Smith, SWP student organiser (Communications Officer)

Non-Portfolio Officers:
Assed Baig, Staffordshire University
Malika Barakat, Queen Mary, University of London
Bill Boon, University of the West of England
Jennifer Jones, Goldsmiths College
Sian Ruddick, Swansea University
Alison Smith, Plymouth University
Clare Solomon, SOAS
Harri Sutherland-Kay, Portsmouth University