ASM: No Confidence in Thrift and other motions
Voting for the SU motions have now closed and results have been released.
The All Student Meeting took place on Monday 3 February at the Students’ Union (SU) Atrium. The meeting was overseen by Oliver Rice (chair) and Catherine Holbrook (deputy chair) and approximately 60 students attended.
The agenda involved questions to sabbatical officers and four separate motions (click to jump to section):
- a proposal for a 24-hour library all year round
- a proposal for an official code of conduct for security on campus
- a motion against Eden Springs, the University’s water supplier, an Israeli company extracting water from Palestine
- a motion for No Confidence in Nigel Thrift
The meeting began with the proposal for a 24-hour library. Introducing the motion, Andrew Thompson, SU postgraduate officer, said that he had been lobbying for a 24-hour library all year but that he needed more support from students if there is to be any change.
The library opens 24 hours during the undergraduate examination period in Term 3. However, it was argued by Jenny Wheeler, disabled students’ officer and second-year Chemistry student that some students who have their exams at the end of Term 2 do not have equal access to facilities during their exam period compared to other students.
Other points included giving greater access to disabled students, who need to be able to work whenever they can, and supporting international students who might be working or contacting family and friends in different time zones.
Ms Wheeler also pointed out that this issue sheds light on “other problems like public transport. Buses stop at a certain time so students can become stuck on campus.”
Miguel Costa Matos, a third-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student, added: there is no reason for the university to discriminate between those who work better in the morning and those who work better at night.”
A representative vote on the floor suggested that the majority were in favour of this motion, with one person voting against and one abstaining.
Security code of conduct
The second motion concerned a code of conduct for University security on campus, following the violence between University security and students at Senate House last year in December.
An introductory speech explained how students on campus last year were afraid of being randomly searched for drugs by security in their own rooms.
It was mentioned that “awful events of [3 December 2014] means establishing a security code of conduct is necessary.” A security code of conduct is not explicitly present in other universities, but it was suggested that Warwick can set an example should this motion be passed by online voting.
Ms Wheeler said that unfortunately, “there is very negative press about security services.” She and others felt that a security code of conduct will showcase the positive side of the security services and will also make sure students feel safe.
Andrew King, a Philosophy and Literature finalist, made a point against the motion when he said that “a lot of this policy is reactionary to the event in December, which was to do with police and not security on campus.”
However, Callum Cant, Free Education leader and third-year Literature student, responded by describing his experience with campus security: “it’s quite unpleasant and uncomfortable to be on campus when security members know you by face and name.”
Josie Throup, the women’s officer and second-year Literature student, added that the code of conduct should also include security responses to cases of sexual assault.
A representative vote suggested that the majority were in favour of the motion.
Water without Politics
The third motion on the agenda involved lobbying the University to discontinue its contract with Eden Springs and develop an ethical water procurement policy.
According to an introduction speech, Eden Springs “is an Israeli company that bottles, markets and distributes mineral water from territory illegally occupied by Israel in 1967.”
The National Union of Students has had policy specifically relating to Eden Springs for years, in supporting students to lobby for the cancellation of contracts with the company for their involvement in the illegal settlements.
Eden Springs is said to be taking water from illegal settlements, where refugees need water from, and are selling it elsewhere.
There was a lengthy and heated debate on the issue that concerned whether or not this had anything to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Zena Agha, an activist and fourth-year History student said: “by boycotting this company, we are boycotting a company that is breaking international law.”
Mr Matos added that “there is a harm in keeping Eden Springs, but there is no harm in leaving Eden Springs.”
A speech against the motion implored that “It is about Israel & Palestine. That’s why this motion is dangerous. We’re targeting the company because it has to do with [the conflict between] Israel and Palestine.”
Another speaker told those who were present that “If you want peace, don’t support boycotts. Don’t boycott companies and cloak it as not anti-Israel”
The education officer added to the debate saying: “Everything is political, even the clothes we wear…This is about making a stance”.
Samiya Ali, president of Warwick Friends of Palestine and second-year Politics and International Studies student, tried to bring both sides of the debate together when she said “I’m not being anti-Israeli, racist or against Jewish people. It’s about human rights.”
The majority among those present at the meeting supported the motion, though about a quarter voted against.
No Confidence in Nigel Thrift
The final SU motion called upon no confidence in Nigel Thrift. Miguel introduced the motion saying: “It is very clear to all that [Thrift] needs to be held accountable. He blamed peaceful protesters for that [police] brutality.”
The outrage that formed this movement stems from Nigel Thrift’s recent knighthood and his salary, which has increased 55 percent since he took the vice-chancellor post seven years ago, representing an annual increase of 6.5 percent.
In a speech against the motion, Mr Thompson said “We make this discourse that it’s all down to Thrift. It’s not just down to one issue, structural issues need to be tackled.
“There are other members in senior management team that make decisions. That’s why this motion can be quite dangerous.”
Mr Matos replied to Mr Thompson’s statement: “Of course, it isn’t just Nigel. But he’s the chief executive, he has to accept some responsibility.”
Mr Cant also reminded students: “My tutor Thomas Docherty was suspended for making political statements… we students will not accept this passively!”
Another speech against the motion proclaimed that “Thrift has actually done a very good job. More people [want] to go to the University… You don’t just get a knighthood for doing nothing”.
Ms Agha also felt that tutors at the University were not being treated fairly. She said: “we are here to be educated. And if we and our tutors aren’t being treated right, something is wrong.”
Mr Cant concluded: “A vote of no confidence [in Nigel Thrift] does not preclude structural change. It means we are willing to have an SU that will stick up for us.”
A vote on the floor suggested that the majority of students supported the motion, though approximately one-seventh voted against.
Final votes for all motions will be counted on Thursday 5 February. Vote now on the SU website.
Comments