Referenda to decide Union policy on sponsorship and facist speakers

This week Warwick students will vote in two referenda to decide vital aspects of Students’ Union policy. The two motions regard whether the Student Union should continue to enforce its boycott against several “black-listed” companies, preventing sports clubs and societies from seeking sponsorship from organisations that are perceived as unethical, and secondly whether ‘fascist and racist speakers’ should be banned from speaking at the Students’ Union.

A public debate will be held on Monday, the first day of voting in the Atrium of the Student Union with speakers to be confirmed.

The SU constitution states that at least 7.5 percent of Union members need to vote in order for either motion to pass, which will require 1,695 individual votes, although the motion will also pass if 5 percent of Union members vote in favour, regardless of whether the 7.5 percent total is reached. Although a relatively small number of students to convince to vote, previous referenda have failed, having not achieved this quorum.

Chris Luck, Democracy and Communications Officer, claimed that “traditionally at this point of the year it’s an apathetic time for Union democracy, after the Sabb elections and the Big 5, so it can be difficult to convince enough students to vote.”

Nevertheless, the Students’ Union hope to see a better turnout given the contentious topics up for debate, in comparison to previous referenda, such as the 2009 vote on whether the SU should disaffiliate from the West Midlands Area National Union of Students, which a third-year PPE student claimed “did not really arouse any strong feelings from students”.

Certainly, the referendum proposing a lift of the ban of sports clubs and societies from seeking sponsorship and advertisement from companies deemed “unethical” by Union regulations has provoked debate amongst students. Under current regulations, companies like Nestlé, companies involved in the arms trade such as Rolls Royce and oil companies like Shell are banned as potential sponsors.

Students in favour of maintaining and reaffirming the ban on what they call “unethical sponsorship” do so for a variety of reasons, not least a belief that a Students’ Union boycott sends a powerful message that ethical sponsorship is an important part of student consciousness, demonstrated by the Fruit of the Loom boycott in 2009 where the actions of Warwick students resulted in better labour rights and pay for Honduran workers.

Those in favour of keeping the ban, although wishing to remain anonymous, have complained that the referendum is “ridiculously worded” and “the title is presenting the current ban as old-fashioned,” thus working in favour of the motion’s proponents.

Yet this specific ban, over clubs receiving sponsorship from arms-dealers and oil companies, has consistently been met with widespread opposition, with the motion being bought to referendum last year as well. Sports Officer George Whitworth and Societies Officer Andy White are amongst those campaigning for the ban to be lifted.

PHD student Jay Warnett argues that “societies should remain as far as possible, autonomous from the Union and the members of the individual societies should have the right to choose their sponsors”.

Controversy surrounding the referendum on this issue last year led to the dismissal of the then Communications Officer, Isaac Newton Acquah, after the Union Council passed a vote of no confidence in his tenure. Acquah was accused of breaching referendum regulations for sending to nearly 20,000 students, saying that “referenda week is upon us and we are going to have some big issues up for you to decide upon… [including] removing the sponsorship ban, so any club and society can choose for themselves [sic] which companies they can get money from.”

This was perceived as violating referendum regulation 10.20 whereby Union sabbatical officers “may not use the facilities provided by their office for campaigning in any referenda”.

Newton Acquah was reinstated to his position in April after an appeal, and a Facebook campaign launched in support of him. Despite this, last year’s inconclusive referenda had the end result that the ban stayed in place.

Chris Luck believes that the motion to prevent racist and fascist speakers appearing at the SU will also incite student interest. First year mathematician Daniel Freund believes that there is no straight-forward answer to the proposition and “the Union has got to tread a fine line so as not to give offensive speakers a platform to legitimise their view and offend our fellow students, whilst being careful not to restrict the realm of debate and free speech and allowing everybody the right to freely express their opinions”.

This referendum triggers memories of the infamous incident at Oxford University in November 2007 when accused holocaust denier David Irving and BNP leader Nick Griffin were prevented from speaking at the Oxford Students’ Union amid outrage and rallies against their appearance.

Nevertheless according to third year sociology student Minh Chau, the fact that the BNP now have one seat in the European parliament and secured nearly two percent of the vote in the 2010 general elections means that “by denying fascist and racists from speaking at the SU is effectively denying some of the population what they voted for”.

This year debate is rife amongst students and is likely to lead to a fiery debate this week when Union officials will closely be watching the levels of turnout and the results, which both will have important implications for future Union democracy.