Student Direct - what the editorial didn't quite say

by
Robbie Gillett
Communications Officer

Jennie Killip
Women’s Officer

This article was due to appear on the Union page but was pulled by the Editor and replaced with an advert. So here it is online instead...

It’s been a big year at the Union and our Student Paper has played an important role in articulating the conversations on campus and reporting all the news, campaigns, music, lifestyle, fashion and so much more that makes up student life.

We would like to say a great big thanks to all those who have volunteered and worked so hard and professionally at Student Direct - week in, week out - to demanding deadlines. Without you there would be no paper.

We are also aware that the Paper tends to get singled out more often for criticism, than for praise, nonetheless there’s a been a few too many reactionary editorials and what seem at times as thinly veiled personal attacks which seem to have more to do with a distaste for the characters involved rather than wishing to further the debate.

With this in mind, we’ve compiled a few rebuttals to some of the opinions put forward in the editorials this year to act as a counter point to what has been previously been printed, and further contribute to the discussion.

RE: Issue 1, Editorial ‘Unisex Toilets’

“The ‘non-gendered’ facilities will be provided for all those men who do not ‘self-identify’ as men, and all those women who do not think of themselves as women. This potty parity is good news for all those students who’ve always fancied a bit of titillation in the bathroom, but may have been put off by the awkwardness of entering the Ladies’ or Gents’ hand in hand. Political correctness gone mad?”

Ah - the Unisex toilet debate – kick-starting the year with that classic reactionary caper, “PC gone mad” and creating the animosity between Student Direct and many LGBT students on campus that continued throughout the year. Identity is a massive issue for trans students and the right to self-identify has been won on the back of decades of repression against LGBT communities.
Furthermore, the Student Direct Officer was present at the Executive meeting at which the toilets were agreed upon (10/07/08) and supported the move. Only one set out of four were de-gendered. The Editorial team underwent diversity training the week before this editorial was written. Which seems to have gone to waste. A letter with over 60 signatures was sent to Student Direct for issue 2 and printed, yet the apology that appeared seemed intentionally ambiguous.

RE: Issue 2, Editorial ‘Riveted at Recent Labour Conference’ (regarding the presence of the Womens Officer at a climate change protest)
“The eight campaigners […] accosted a Labour MP, quizzing him on that well known feminist bugbear – climate change. […] Following the horrifying story of rape in our midst last week, Student Direct only hopes that the forthcoming weeks will see more relevant campaigns being directed from the Women’s Office.”

What this editorial missed is that women are disproportionately affected by climate change, making it very much a feminist issue. In many places that will be the worst effected by climate change, women simply work harder. When water is scarce, they are the ones who will have to walk further to collect it. And when resources are short domestic violence levels increase. Climate change is a feminist issue.
And insinuating that the rape of a student was the fault of the Women’s Officer for attending a demonstration in her free time is totally unfair.

RE: Issue 5, Editorial ‘Hands Off Our Paper’
“One Students’ Union Officer has made a number of attempts to prevent Student Direct from publishing content of direct relevance to students”

The officer in question was concerned that the article “Where did the money go?” was inaccurate and misleading. The article resulted in the University calling in the auditors and cost the Union thousands of pounds. They found no wrong-doing. In this respect, it was entirely right that the Officer, a trustee of the Union, should urge more caution from Student Direct before printing sensationalist, yet unfounded, front covers.

RE: Issue 10, Contact Hours: Do we really care?
“Student direct….struggle to name any (non-politically active) students who actually desire more time spent in the lecture hall or seminar room…Do students really want a minimum cap on teaching hours? Or would we all just prefer an extra hour in bed?”

Whilst some courses, particularly in the sciences, do have more than enough contact hours, other students, notably in Humanities have seen their lecture and seminar times dwindle to as low as four hours a week. This can leave some degrees feeling like glorified library subscriptions. This Easter, Law students, not known for having particularly radical politics, stood up successfully to an attempt slash their contact hours by a third. Hats off to them.

RE: Issue 13, “Under Occupation: Resistance is Futile”
“While the intentions, atmosphere and energy of the occupation are admirable, Student Direct can’t help but view the protest as an act of naiveté on the part of the campaigners.”
So let’s all just go home then and not worry ourselves. Fortunately, some people are brave enough to come down off the fence and take a stand against the ongoing injustices in Gaza and around the world. It is easy to call people naïve, it makes you look sophisticated and grown up. But the students who have campaigned so tirelessly this year to do whatever they feasibly can to help those suffering in Palestine should be applauded. History is made up of such people standing up and fighting back. Right on.

RE: Issue 14, “Pointless Politics”
“Student Direct would like to congratulate the supporters of the GM motion “Gaza Crisis” for [… ] essentially achieving…very little. Now union policy has passed, Gilbert will have to sit up and listen though! Will he heck.”
Yes he did. The University may not have agreed with all the resolutions of the motion, but it met with the Union, talked and agreed to a number of requests such as sending surplus academic supplies to Gaza. Having official Union policy and importantly the sustained protest by grassroots activists in the Simon Building, gave the ensuing negotiations a greater weight and legitimacy.

RE: Issue 15, “A touch of Global Glamour”
“SD would like to applaud and congratulate the Union’s International Officer for her successful efforts with global; glamour week.”
And we too like would applaud this Editorial for saying something positive about the Union for once. Nice one.

RE: Issue 16, “Up in Arms”
“What is it with a certain group of student activists and illegal activities? Last week’s theft of recruitment materials from a graduate recruiter certainly isn’t the first instance of illicit conduct on the part of present and former representatives of our Union. How could the students involved have thought that the best way to influence the actions of the Ministry of Defence was by stealing from them? Yes, the Ministry of Defence exacerbates international problems by producing and exporting military technology and the civil sector does in many cases offer better employment benefits to students. But “confiscating” (their words, not ours) others’ belongings not only gives the MoD the moral high ground, it also represents an attempt to take away the choice of other students who may have wanted the freedom to make an informed decision as to how to spend their futures.”
This editorial was puzzling - it admitted that the military-industrial complex has a negative effect on the world but then argued it should be allowed. What the arms industry shows and their presence on campus is that what is legally right isn’t always morally right. And what the action against the arms recruitment stall showed is that what may be legally wrong, isn’t always morally wrong.

RE: Issue 19: “Trust me, I’m a lawyer”
“Student Direct was pleasantly surprised by the perpetrators of the latest high-profile protest to take place on campus. While impassioned causes such as the Israel/Palestine conflict and Reclaim the Uni have galvanized segments of the student community in the past, such causes tend only to appeal to a politically-active left-wing minority, who line Oxford Road in their droves waving megaphones at unsuspecting passers-by with suspicious amounts of glee.”

Actually, Reclaim the Uni in its origin was praised for having broad appeal to a range of students. And what’s meant by ‘suspicious amounts of glee’? Should we campaign with solemn dirges? Being politically active is empowering and inspiring. It is not a self-sacrificial burden we take onto our shoulders on behalf of the rest of the world with glum faces. It is about smiling in the face of adversity and stepping up to the challenge. We are sincere, but we know how to have fun.

RE: Issue 20, Editorial ‘Girl Power’
“It is telling that eight women were elected to positions on next year’s Union Executive compared to just six men and only one candidate was willing to stand for the Women’s Officer role in last month’s elections. These manifestations certainly suggest that the justification for a Women’s Officer at UMSU is more tenuous than previously thought – and we refute the inevitable allegation that it is sexist to say so.”
And after the anti-woman, anti-trans, anti-feminist writings that have littered the paper all year, how many women would feel comfortable going to the woman editor of the paper for advice and help? Not many perhaps. The need for a dedicated officer to fight for women students’ rights has been proved in the Editorials alone.

RE: Issue 21, Editorial ‘Spread Your Legs’
“This week the Women’s Officer is to be heard complaining somewhat predictably about the name of club night “Spread Your Legs” […] but the Union are simultaneously welcoming such objectification […] at this year’s end of exams party, Pangaea. […] Student Direct can’t help but stifle a smile at the lack of consistency between Union officers on this occasion.”
And finally, a thinly veiled personal attack, which is nowhere near newsworthy. And brought us to write this counter-editorial that’s been building up all year.


Conclusion

Difference of opinion and debate is a healthy part of campus life. With the benefit of hindsight it is also easy to point out that the predictions of the paper proved incorrect. At times though, this strayed beyond a healthy critique of student tactics and strategies, and towards the suggestion that we really shouldn’t bother trying to change anything. At their worst, these editorials saw an active attempt to undermine parts of the Student Union and student community – to portray them as abnormal, and to use the editorial to launch personal attacks, noticeably against one particular election candidate running for the Editor post.

The University of Manchester Students Union has a proud and radical history. Our main building is named after the South African anti-apartheid campaigner Steve Biko – who battled and died fighting injustice in his country. Our Union is renowned across the UK for its vibrant political and cultural scene. This year has continued that tradition and Student Direct has facilitated this process. We congratulate again all those in the SD office who have worked so hard, including the Editor. We look forward to more debate, more campaigning and more progressive politics next year.