or, "The one where we realised domestic students can mess up proof-reading as well"
Michaelmas 2 got off to an ominous start, as we were sternly reminded of CUSU's 'Safe Space Policy', which requires us not to use language deemed 'aggressive, disrespectful, threatening, intimidating, or designed to cause harm or disruption'. This was presumably in response to the uncomfortable moment last week regarding the correction of a non-native English speaking student's grammar in his motion. More on that below.
In response to complaints last week, I will basically not be using a certain word in this post.
Summarised below are the main points from the meeting. The list of motions was very long, but most were dealt with quickly since they were the lapsing motions which were not dealt with at Mich 1 (see point 3 of the last post).
1. Who said what last week
* 2. Upholding the Safe Space policy
3. Rattle, rattle, rattle
* 4. "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so, so, sorry"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Who said what last week
Some corrections were suggested for the minutes from last week, regarding what was actually said in relation to the correction of the non-native English speaking student's grammar. The original minutes are as follows (AG is the non-native English speaking student, MC is the person who challenged the correction as discriminatory):
"Another amendment was proposed to correct grammatical mistakes.
AG indicated that he was happy for minor copy editing to occur. MC
said that we must now have a debate. It was said that it is unfair to
make fun of the use of the English language by someone whose first
language is not English and as such the proposal of this motion is not
fair and offensive. The proposer apologised for the tone of the proposal
but stood by the content and said that CUSU should still produce
documentations written in correct English and said that CUSU should
provide reasonable support to these people as it would to someone
with a disability affecting their use of the language. SW proposed to not
put the question. Council voted to not put the amendment."
MC now wanted to change these minutes so that the part in yellow should be deleted. This is because she said she was offended by the suggestion that being an international student was the same as being disabled, and she didn't like how the comment was being sanitised with the addition of the highlighted text.
For his part, the guy who made the comment said that he thought he said 'disability such as dyslexia'.
Personally, I don't see what the difference is. If you were going to get offended at all, I think you would be offended whether or not the highlighted text was there.
Thankfully, Ros (CUSU President) suggested we all take two weeks out to work out what was said and talk about it next council. Someone pointed out that our collective memory was likely to be even worse then, but Ros' suggestion was upheld. I'm hoping the collective CUSU memory will not care in two weeks time, and be busy with the topical and gripping issues that define CUSU council as an institution.
* 2. Upholding the Safe Space policy
Our friend MC was not finished there. Under the innocuous title 'CUSU celebrate Cambridge diversity', she brought a motion which would uphold CUSU's commitment to its Safe Space policy, mandate the Chair to apologise for not upholding it last week, and mandate the Chair to proof-read all motions.
Her argument, which was well put, was that the comments about proof-reading last week made her and other non-native English speakers feel uncomfortable, undermining CUSU council as a safe forum for debate.
Ironically, although she supposedly had four 'native' English speakers proof-read her motion, there were still quite a few mistakes (including the great Yoda-ism "CUSU is a democratic body that encourage should participation and freedom of speech").
Hackles were raised at the suggestion that the CUSU Chair should apologise for not upholding the Safe Space policy last week. I think this was because people couldn't see how the comments made were offensive. Whilst I agree that the comments were not intrinsically offensive or discriminatory, CUSU ought to have reminded everyone of their obligation to avoid language which could be considered 'aggressive, disrespectful, threatening, intimidating, or designed to cause harm or disruption'. I think that the comment made last week could be considered disrespectful regardless of who it was directed to, and it was unfortunate that in the context it made some non-native speakers feel uncomfortable. Therefore when there was a vote to remove the requirement for a CUSU representative to make an apology from the motion, I voted against it. I was strongly in the minority, and that part of the motion was scrapped, but I would be interested in hearing whether or not you agree with me.
The rest of the motion passed pretty much unanimously, since all it did was mandate the proof-reading of motions (which ought to be done anyway).
3. Rattle, rattle, rattle
We managed to get through 18 lapsing motions pretty efficiently. All was well until we were asked to hold Julian Huppert and the Lib Dems to their pledges...
* 4. "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so, so, sorry"
At the outset, let me just say that Julian Huppert (Lib Dem MP for Cambridge) did not break his pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, since the Lib Dem whips did not need to use his vote to get a Coalition majority on this issue.
Seeing as the vital vote has happened, and his pledge has already been adhered to (or in Nick Clegg's case, broken), there doesn't seem much that CUSU can do to hold them to their pledges. People also objected to this motion on the grounds that it seemed to unfairly single out the Lib Dems for tuition fee increases, when it takes two to tango in a coalition.
I felt uncomfortable by the motion, especially since NC had made his apology video (the auto-tuning makes it just about bearable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo). Therefore I was grateful when someone suggested a procedural motion to not vote on the issue, on the grounds that the motion was in some way inappropriate. This was surprisingly overwhelmingly voted in favour of. Either there are lots of Lib Dem voters in CUSU, or everyone just wanted to get out. I might suggest similar motions in the future if I feel things are dragging on a bit. Watch this space.
Thats all folks! Slightly shorter than usual. Also slightly saner. I think no-one had the energy to bring up some major CUSU craziness because of all of the rattling lapsing motions which needed to be processed. Tune in next time for the next thrilling instalment!
Dom
No comments:
Post a Comment