The issues that matter: why student politics needs a rethink

The 19th of November saw what is now becoming something of a tradition in student politics: a demonstration in London against rising tuition fees and the marketisation of universities. Or, at least, that’s what I believe the protest was about. In truth, had national publications such as the Guardian not done an effective job of collating the information, I’d be hard pressed to deduce exactly what it was that students were protesting over.

A glance at the various tweets and photographs from the event sends mixed messages; whilst the general subtext of student discontent is present, there seems a lack of focus. Images show a cacophony of placards and banners with starkly different messages, from “deport Theresa May” to “smash all boarders”. Often these messages appear conflicting and confused, lacking unity or rational reasoning. If you want to get a feel for what I mean, simply glance at your own Education Officer’s cover image on Facebook.

The reality is that ‘student’ politics is, in it’s current form, irrelevant, and these protests serve as the very emblem of this; bloated, directionless and lacking any real focus or intent for the anger and frustration that is clearly felt by so many students. Students are being failed in this country, and they are being failed at not one, but three distinct levels.

Whilst the general subtext of student discontent is present, there seems a lack of focus

It would be logical to assume that the government are the primary source for this failure, but instead I would argue that the initial failure comes from the Sabbatical Officers that represent these students. Often, instead of choosing to listen to the demands of the wider populace, they seek to align themselves with fringe groups and fringe ideals such as universal education which, whilst noble, are utterly unrealistic.

They become meglomaniacal, inflating their own self importance whilst dismissing any criticism. Certainly, some are listening, and these are the officers that actually seem to be helping on a day to day basis, actively supporting and protecting students. But others seem more concerned with pushing political ideology than helping the students under their remit. This must change.

Instead of choosing to listen to the demands of the wider populace, they seek to align themselves with fringe groups and fringe ideals

If they wish to find relevance, sabbatical officers must present platforms that incite passion within students; election turnout is often so low because students simply don’t care about issues that these elections deal with. Boycotts don’t matter to a student struggling with deadlines or housing, and dismissing criticism of this as a “tired trope” or a “partisan” issue only highlights the disconnect and an unwillingness to learn. The SU ultimately propagates its own irrelevance, and if they wish to break this cycle they must improve their aims or step aside and allow those with genuine concerns for students take their place.

Much of this sentiment is only amplified by the body designed to represent students nationwide, the NUS. If you wish to see exactly why student politics is largely irrelevant, then you need look no further than Malia Bouattia. Whilst the accusations of terrorist sympathies and racism are over-exaggerations by the press, it cannot be denied that Bouattia seems poor choice for president; coming across egotistical, distant and out of touch with the demands of the role she’s taken up.

 The SU ultimately propagates its own irrelevance, and if they wish to break this cycle they must improve their aims or step aside

Bouattia seems more interested in laying the foundation for her transition into governmental politics than helping the students she represents. The fact that the NUS under her watch would even entertain, let alone pass, the motion of abolishing prisons speaks levels about the disconnect between the NUS as a political organisation and the students they represent. Such policy is not their remit, and they should stop participating such masturbatory exercises that serve only to inflate their own egos.

Influence within the political spectrum is primarily an insider’s game, and the NUS should be serving as this insider; constructing logical and workable education policy that they can then lobby ministers with. Instead the NUS, in its current form, seems intent on playing the role on the outsider, consigned to the crush of parliament square rather than the halls of parliament itself.

The fact that the NUS under her watch would even entertain, let alone pass, the motion of abolishing prisons speaks levels

The NUS have become a laughing stock, and the move by four universities to disaffiliate this year alone is a damning indictment of their incompetence as a representative body. If the NUS ever hopes to become a relevant student organisation again, it must rid itself of those who do not put students first and refocus its energy on higher education as its sole focus.

Perhaps most overlooked of the three, however, is the universities themselves. Unsurprisingly, universities such as Warwick, which have benefited greatly from increased fees, have little reason to object to the marketisation of higher education. The rise in funds allows them to fund contraction, research projects and invest in partnerships with corporate enterprises such as Jaguar Land Rover. Despite the consternation over rising fees preventing students attending university, Warwick is frequently oversubscribed due to its high standing in the league tables and strong reputation internationally.

Universities such as Warwick, which have benefited greatly from increased fees, have little reason to object to the marketisation of higher education.

Why then, would the likes of Peter Dunn and other vice chancellors across the country object to higher education reform? As long as student applications remain high, they have no incentive to object to reform that provides them with valuable income, save garnering some token moral credibility with their students. Students move through the university like a revolving door, hardly remaining long enough to leave any impressionable mark.

The Government is, of course, partly to blame too; their pursuit of a market driven economic model has improved the quality and funding of universities, but at the cost freezing out swathes of the population who would, and should, benefit from higher education. Students are right to object to this, but when they’re led by the ineffective forces of their disconnected Sabbatical Officers and the delusional NUS against  the combined might of the universities and the government, they stand little chance.

The Government is, of course, partly to blame too

If students truly wish to make a difference they must take a step back and re-evaluate their approach. They must demand better from their representatives. They must not tolerate the delusions of grandeur that permeate student politics. Only then, as a unfixed and focused force, can students hold the government to account effectively.

Students can change the game, but they must change the rules of the game first.