Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 2. March 5 1979

SRC The Bias that wasn't

page 4

SRC The Bias that wasn't

The Student Representative Council is the only means whereby the voice of students can be directly heard, and where their demands, suggestions and directions can be implemented. Every student is entitled to speak, vote, move and second motions at SRC's. The strength and power of SRC has been carefully husbanded over the years so that the position of the Executive has become akin to an administrative sub-committee, constitutionally bound to honour the decision made at SRC. This powerful, democratic body had its first meeting of the year on Wednesday last.

There has been much talk in the past that SRC concentrates far too much on 'politics' and not enough on questions of student welfare. This charge is particularly dear to the hearts of the student right, and it is used by them as an excuse for demanding the return to a students' association controlled solely by the Executive. Yet for almost the entire length of the meeting last week students were presented with it) concealed attempt: by the right wing to bring politics into the SRC - their politics.

There were many important matters on the agenda, perhaps the most pressing of which in purely student terms was a motion calling for the Student Community Service Programme to be impleted again in 1979/80 summer holidays. This was the third motion on the agenda - it was not discussed. Instead, students were compelled to endure the perverse floor show of the right as they struggled to demand satisfaction from recalcitrant Handbook Editors, and to voice disapproval of a women's photo and graphic competition on the grounds it was sexist.

The motion against the Handbook was down on the agenda as "censuring them for the blatant political bias in the reports on the Executive". However when it came to the meeting it was amended so as to call for an "explanation" and "justification" of the bias. This change meant that Wright / McElwee did not have to justify the censuring or give evidence of the bias. Perhaps as well because McElwee anyway seemed to have little idea of what had actually been said. When asked to provide an example of the bias he claimed that Handbook had criticised someone (Phil Sowman) when in fact Phil had been praised for his work last year. He then changed his tack and said it was so obvious he didn't have to justify it, it just was!

He explained that he felt the Executive should be given a fair go, and not be criticised before they have had a chance to prove themselves in office. Fine words from a man who had not five minutes earlier publically and viciously attacked his colleague Jonathon Scott (SRC Coordinator) for not realising that Simon Wright although he has paid no association fees, is constitutionally a member of the Association until the forthcoming Annual General Meeting.

Simon Wilson (one of the Handbook Editors) got up and spoke sharply against the motion and in the face of his attack, the movers of the notion wilted a little. But when a supporter of the motion was told by Peter Beach the other Handbook Editor that the Handbook hadn't cost students anything, as it had been financed completely out of advertising the call for the retreat was sounded.'

Next on the smorgasbord was the motion condemning the women's photographic and graphic art competition as sexist. The basis on which Simon Wright and Ian McElwee moved this motion was that it contravened existing SRC policy against sexism. As it happened this was not the case, but they continued, arguing that it was discriminatory against men thereby being sexist and so running contrary to SRC policy.

The debate was brought to a close with a short, clear and salient speech by Paul Norman which outlined the faulty basis of their argument. Drawing parallels from other cases in which there was valid discrimination (eg religious clubs) he made the important point that one must look at far more than merely the fact that a group is excluded from an event before condemning it. In this particular case some of the important factors given by speakers were that: women seldom have the opportunity to organise things by themselves; also that they are not able to achieve the same recognition in their field as men generally are. The motion was put and it also was lost.

The rest of the meeting was mostly taken up with motions dealing with shortages in Library finances, copying charges, overseas students not being permitted to travel for holidays to Australia, and a long and tedious report from the, President on matters (as one member of the meeting feelingly called out) that had already been covered by his column in Salient.

The Chairing of the meeting was fairly poor, a mixture of hesitancy and dictatorial commands, (during the taking of a division, members were ordered to put their hands up if they agreed with the motion and then sharply told to put them down). There was more than one occasion when no-one at all was in the chair, as worried exec members congregated to determine how to handle a difficult situation.

The indifferent chairing certainly added to the length and confusion of the [unclear: meeing]-many, many times distressed people were heard to call out and ask what motion was being debated.

Obviously at the beginning of the year it's hard to make predictions about how the year will unfold, but unless the chairing improves the meetings will drag on so long that SRC will never get around to discussing serious business - we'll barely get out of reports.

Lisa Sacksen