Image: Flickr/ Sheep purple

Elections Coverage – Are LGBTQIA+ being truly and fairly represented?

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his piece was written by two authors, both on the LGBT+ spectrum

Just as you don’t have to be a woman to care about women’s issues, you don’t have to LGBTQIA+ to care about the issues facing LGBTQIA+ students.

Warwick’s Student Union doesn’t seem to understand this.

The first step to voting online for the 2016/2017 elections is “Self-defining”, an unfortunate process for self-identifying heterosexual students.

You don’t have to LGBTQIA+ to care about the issues facing LGBTQIA+ students.

This large majority of students are deprived from the get-go of being able to express an opinion about LGBTQIA+ matters in the university, simply because they don’t identify with the group themselves – not because they don’t care.

Warwick famously struggles with their turn out of student voters, with only 5,184 voting last year. They have made increasing these numbers harder by preventing the largest majority of students from voting for certain positions.

Warwick famously struggles with their turn out of student voters, with only 5,184 voting last year.

By doing this, the union are intrinsically segregating minority groups in the university. Only if you identify with that group, can you vote for the candidate that represents it – so does this mean that the true values and opinions of students are really represented?

After browsing through candidates manifestos for 2016-2017, we noticed that not much attention is being drawn towards LGBTQIA+ specific issues. Some candidates are headed in the right direction but we had to do a lot of trawling through manifestos before we found these policies.

The union are intrinsically segregating minority groups in the university.

The Presidential candidates do not have any distinctive LGBTQIA+ points in their manifestos. This is a worrying concept as this position of responsibility is the face of the SU. What kind of message does this send to minority students?

The only position that truly tackles LGBTQIA+ issues is the LGBTQIA+ officer. This position unfortunately does not get nearly as much visibility as the six major roles which is problematic considering awareness has to be raised if we are to get anywhere close to confronting these issues.

The Presidential candidates do not have any distinctive LGBTQIA+ points in their manifestos.

It is paramount that such an important universal issue is represented and given the visibility it deserves.

The fact that all the responsibility is placed upon one single candidate undermines the importance of the community and the issues it faces. It seems like the Student’s union, the heart of the university, does not recognise the community and the vulnerability of students within it.

It seems like the Student’s union does not recognise the community and the vulnerability of students within it.

This may not actually be the case, but the fact that candidates have side-lined these issues as a consequence, makes it seem like the problems we face are being brushed under the carpet.

The executive of any student body should work cohesively together and thus the issues they, as a whole, are trying to tackle must permeate through all positions.

Comments (3)

  • straight cis people shouldn’t get a say in lgbtua+ issues – your role as an ally is to sit back and listen to what WE have to say, and support OUR voices. cishet voices have no place in these conversations
    whether or not the SU does enough to help the community, limiting voting for our lgbtua+ officer to those who self-define under that umbrella is one thing that they have most certainly gotten right

  • Firstly, the acronym used at Warwick is LGBTUA+, rather than LGBTQIA+, and there is good reason why the ‘I’ is not included. The ‘I’ is intended to represent intersex people, but this is usually mere tokenism, with nothing ever being done to help or even represent intersex people. On top of that, intersex people themselves have told us that they do not want to be included because the issues they face are so different from those of the LGBTUA+ community.

    I don’t understand how the process of self-defining can be considered “unfortunate” for heterosexual students.

    While some cisgender heteroromantic heterosexual (cishet) people will genuinely care about LGBTUA+ students, the fact is that most don’t and some hold actively harmful views (LGBTUA+-phobia still exists on campus). Besides, the LGBTUA+ Officer is elected to represent LGBTUA+ people and to campaign on issues affecting us, and why should cishet people have any power over who represents us? Allowing people to vote on positions that don’t directly affect them can cause serious issues because most people just don’t care; while its a different situation, the Postgraduate Officer is actually elected mainly by undergrads and this can lead to a lack of votes and an excess of RONs. Additionally, Faculty Reps are elected only by the people who are part those faculties, so do you really think that this shouldn’t be the case? Is it also unfair that we can only vote for candidates in our own constituencies in General Elections?

    I fail to see how voter turnout could possibly be affected by the existence of self-defining positions; there will be fewer votes for the LGBTUA+ Officer, but overall turnout will be completely unaffected.

    Most of the newly-elected Sabbs do actively support the LGBTUA+ community, so even if their manifestos don’t include specific points, the support is still there. As it happens, Luke Pilot, the President-elect, does have such a manifesto point: “Problem: Non-binary students are still not recognised on campus. Solution: We need non-gendered options in all identification processes and for all faculties.”

    Most of the reason that the LGBTUA+ Officer and the other liberation officers don’t get as much visibility is because they are unpaid part-time officers, as opposed to the seven salaried full-time sabbatical officers. They are very different positions. Additionally, a position doesn’t need widespread awareness of its existence for it to be used to help confront issues; campaigning on LGBTUA+ issues other than awareness at the University is often best done by continually having meetings, passing policy and making suggestions for how things can be done better.

    The LGBTUA+ Officer is someone whose focus is on LGBTUA+ issues, but there are other LGBTUA+ people within the democratic structures of the SU and within societies, including Warwick Pride. LGBTUA+ issues are well represented within the SU, regardless of the number of LGBTUA+ Officer candidates; part of the reason that there are so often so few is that LGBTUA+ people aren’t limited to just that position and often choose to hold other positions. Besides, Warwick Pride is a fairly large society that’s engaged in numerous campaigns, and some of the people who would run for the LGBTUA+ Officer position are already engaged in campaigning via the society.

  • Ugh, shut up.

    You’re not gay, get over it. Stop throwing a hissy fit over issues that don’t even concern you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.