Why did NUS executive vote down an anti-racism motion?

At the NUS National Executive Council meeting on 8 May, a motion on fighting racism and fascism was voted down, by 8 votes to 11.

The motion was a composite of NUS Black Students’ Campaign text (written by the Student Broad Left group) and text from NCAFC supporters about traveller/Roma solidarity – with an additional NCAFC amendment making the whole thing far more substantial and radical (see below for all the text). The amendment was passed by one vote before the whole motion was defeated.

At NUS conference in April, NUS Black Students’ Officer Aaron Kiely had made a big effort to have the motion discussed by pushing it up the agenda, but was opposed by the NUS leadership. NUS President Liam Burns said that he did not want the motion moved out of the Society & Citizenship ‘Zone’ to Welfare (where it had originally been submitted), but that he would be happy to see it prioritised once the Welfare debate began. When this move was made, however, he joined – or led – those voting against.

At no point did Burns and co. say they were against the motion itself. Yet when it came to the NEC, they voted it down. Why?

The justification was that the motion advocates working with Unite Against Fascism, whose leading officers include Martin Smith, a Socialist Workers Party leader accused of rape.

As I have said many times, the SWP’s handling of the Martin Smith case is a major issue, and indicative of much wider and deeper problems in their organisation and on the left.

Moreover, UAF is a deeply problematic organisation. Wanting to militantly fight racism and fascism does not mean supporting UAF. On the contrary, it necessitates criticising it. Workers’ Liberty has been making this point for some time, long before versions of it became widespread (see ‘Why we voted against support for UAF’, from NUS conference 2011).

It’s a shame that the SWP and SBL put support for this crappy organisation (and defending Martin Smith) before actually fighting racism and fascism.

Having said that, the NUS leadership’s vote was both cynical and wrong. I believe that some of those who voted against the motion did so in good faith, on what they felt were principled feminist grounds, but it was cynical and irresponsible of the leading faction not to outline what I am outlining here, because those concerns were – on balance – not a reason to vote against the motion. I believe supporting the motion as a whole does not make me any less of a principled feminist, nor does it undermine the actions taken by the women on the NEC last year over rape apologism. I believe there were people in the room with speaking rights who would have been able to represent this position quite clearly, but the fact that they did not led several people to feel unnecessarily uncomfortable (and therefore vote against), and I believe this was a matter of factional manoeuvring.

It was cynical because of the way they manoeuvred the motion away from open debate in a public forum so they could quietly vote it down in the NEC.

Cynical because the Blairites who run NUS are happy to make all kinds of alliances and deals with all kinds of people – including not saying a word about reactionary, misogynistic, homophobic figures in UAF for years – but have now seized on the (real) issue of Martin Smith for factional reasons.

And wrong because it shows a complete lack of concern to fight racism and fascism.

Several women on the NEC felt that in the aftermath to this motion at the NEC they were misrepresented as ‘racists and fascists’ by SBL members on Twitter and Facebook, and then on their website, for voting against the motion due to concerns about UAF. This was wrong, and a disgusting way to speak about people, several of whom had genuine concerns about the implications of supporting such a motion. It is legitimate to have feminist concerns and criticisms about UAF, just as it is legitimate to have many other concerns and criticisms of that organisation. But the NUS leadership’s previous record and what the motion said (it didn’t say NUS should put Martin Smith on its platforms!) and the dynamics of the situation meant that voting against the motion did not follow.

Whether or not the NEC passes this or that particular text probably doesn’t make much difference. But not submitting any anti-racism text to conference themselves, manoeuvring the only anti-racism motion off the conference agenda and then voting it down later says a lot about the leadership’s attitude to actually fighting racism.

At a time when the far right is burgeoning across Europe, and when there is a surge of racism and nationalism in Britain (UKIP!), anti-racism should be a top priority for NUS. But the NUS leadership don’t want to fight on this any more than they want to fight on anything else – be it tuition fees, or housing, or abortion rights. (Their promotion of the Tory Peter Smallwood to the NEC shows that these Labour Party careerists don’t even want to fight the Tories as a party.)

I’m against affiliating to UAF. But the idea that we shouldn’t work with them in the fight against racism and fascism is simply sectarian. Does that mean NUS will be boycotting demonstrations called by UAF?

NCAFC members Michael Chessum and Roshni Joshi voted for the motion, and if we’d had votes our larger number of new NEC members would have voted for it too. We took this stance while maintaining our criticisms, and while promoting our more radical amendment (no doubt Burns and co. were happy to vote down text criticising the Labour Party too).

As a member of a political group that has taken a lot of stick for criticising UAF – and is proud to have done so – I think the NUS leadership’s attitude stinks.

***

Motion 416 (voted down 8-11, with 4 abstentions)
[The sections from traveller/Roma rights were submitted by written by NCAFC supporters and submitted by Royal Holloway SU; the rest is from NUS Black Students’ Committee]

Conference Believes:
1. Far right mobilisations, such as those of the English Defence League’s (EDL) and the British National Party (BNP) are a threat to society.
2. It is a national priority for the student movement to stop fascists from winning MEP seats by mobilising the progressive majority to vote.
3. The student movement must never give a platform to fascists because fascism seeks to eliminate free speech and democracy, and annihilate its opponents and minorities.
4. Giving fascists a platform in the student movement destroys the safe spaces our campuses must be for Black, Jewish, Muslim, women, LGBT and disabled people.
5. Racism is a scourge in society, including on campuses, that needs to be opposed.
6. The far right mobilisations, such as the fascist English Defence League’s (EDL) violent protests and the fascist British National Party (BNP) are a threat to society.
7. Discrimination and harassment of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities – among the most marginalised minorities in the UK – is considered an “acceptable” form of racism.
8. The violent eviction of 83 families from Dale Farm, which was home to almost 1,000 people for more than 30 years. This cost Basildon council £7 million!
9. More than 90% of Travellers planning applications are initially rejected by local government authorities, compared to 20% overall.
10. Basildon council recently voted to take ‘direct action’ against families living at the roadside near Dale Farm.

Conference Further Believes:
1. NUS must actively campaign against racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and the far right as these are dangers which threaten the welfare of millions of our members.
2. The BNP is a fascist organisation which stands for an “all white Britain”, a goal which can only be achieved by violence, the annihilation of entire groups of people and the ending of democracy.
3. BNP leader Nick Griffin and fascist Andrew Brons are standing for re-election to the European Parliament in 2014. It’s a national priority for the student movement to stop fascists from winning MEP seats by mobilising the progressive majority to vote.
4. The student movement must never give a platform to fascists because fascism seeks to eliminate free speech, democracy and annihilate its opponents and minorities.
5. The lesson of the 1930s was that the Nazis used violence to gain power and carry out a Holocaust. They slaughtered millions – in the gas chambers and concentration camps – of Jewish people, Eastern Europeans, communists and trade unionists, Romani, LGBT and disabled people.
6. Giving fascists a platform in the student movement destroys the safe spaces our campuses must be for Black, Jewish, Muslim, women, LGBT and disabled people.
7. The racism and disadvantage experienced by Roma and Traveller is a disgrace.
8. The eviction of Traveller sites is a form of discrimination which results in people being forced onto the road against their will and children being pulled out of education.

Conference Resolves:
1. To actively challenge racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and fascism on our campuses and in our communities.
2. To campaign for no platform for fascists within NUS or in our Students’ Unions.
3. Launch a massive student voter registration drive as part of campaign to get Griffin and Brons out of the European Parliament in 2014.
4. Reaffirm our support for NUS organising an annual Anti-Racism/Anti-Fascism Conference and providing adequate resources for this work.
5. Continue working with Unite Against Fascism, Searchlight, One Society Many Cultures and Love Music Hate Racism.
6. To work with self-organised Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups, as well as the Traveller Solidarity

Amendment 416a (passed and incorporated into motion before it was voted down)
[Written by NCAFC supporters, submitted by Royal Holloway SU and Birmingham Guild]

Conference Believes:
1. While the BNP and EDL are in disarray, the far right remains a serious threat, taking inspiration from the Front National in France and the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece.

Conference Further Believes:
1. Conditions feeding the far right include:
a. Widespread racism, encouraged by a government and press promoting the idea that immigration is a major cause of social problems;
b. Huge cuts and perceptions of a struggle for scarce resources, which the far right actively exploits;
c. A Labour Party failing to challenge the Conservatives’ narrative;
d. A labour movement failing to challenge the Tories.

2. We need an anti-fascist movement which:
a. Is genuinely democratic, allowing activists to debate the way forward;
b. Challenges all racism, including Islamophobia and anti-semitism, and campaigns for migrants’ rights;
c. Mobilises to drive fascists off the streets, instead of calling for state bans;
d. Unites workers and communities for demands to undercut the demagogy of the far right: black and white, all religions and none, British-born and migrant – unite and fight for jobs, homes and services for all.

Conference Resolves:
1. To produce campaigning materials based on these ideas, and fight for them in any anti-fascist campaign we support.

NUS Passes Policy to Demand Expropriation of the Banks

The National Union of Students national executive council meeting on 9 May unanimously passed policy from the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts to demand expropriation of the banks to tackle poverty and create jobs. (I’ll publish a full report of the NEC meeting soon.)

The meeting was discussing motions remitted from NUS conference to the NEC due to lack of time (more and more of a problem, as NUS conference has been repeatedly cut back). The “expropriate the banks” demand was part of an NCAFC amendment to a motion on child poverty, which can be read below – adding some teeth to a worthwhile but pretty vague piece of text.

Ever since it was founded in 2010, the NCAFC has made “Tax the rich” a central slogan. In the last year, it has also demanded expropriation of the banks – full, permanent nationalisation, under democratic and not bosses’ control, to create a public banking service and provide resources to stop cuts and rebuild public services. The December 2012 NCAFC conference explicitly voted to use the word “expropriation”, rejecting arguments to use softer formula.

It is very good that NUS NEC has passed this policy, but there is more to say.

Firstly, there must be a possibility that some or all of the NUS leadership would have opposed the amendment if it had been debated at conference. Certainly it is unlikely they would have defended it against right-wing opposition.

Secondly, there is an irony in NUS passing radical demands of this kind while it refuses to campaign for free education or adopt a serious strategy for fighting cuts, fees and student debt (or fighting for anything). If the NUS leadership really wants to expropriate the banks and tax the rich, then its stance that free education and so on is “unrealistic” makes no sense at all. Of course, it’s easier to vote for something radical you think no one will hold you to than a more basic demand you think you’ll be challenged to fight for!

So we need to ask whether NUS will do anything about this policy at all. Last year, NUS conference voted to use “Tax the rich” as a major slogan, but that policy ended up in the bin. Similarly, last September’s TUC congress voted for an FBU motion for public ownership of the banks – but the TUC has ignored its policy.

Student activists should demand NUS speaks up for its policy and use the NEC vote as a lever to spread the demand as widely as possible. And we should explain that it logically implies opposing all cuts and demanding free education too.

Policy passed by NUS National Executive Council on 9 May 2013

Amendment No: 405a
Submitted by: Birmingham University, Royal Holloway

1. To demand
– a minimum wage, without exemptions, at the London Living Wage rate, £8.55.
– benefits you can live on, rising with inflation or earnings, whichever is higher.
– taxing the rich and expropriation of the banks to create decent jobs in the public sector.
– the scrapping of the anti-union laws, so workers can organise effectively to defend and improve pay, conditions and rights.

My Views on the NUS NEC Policy coming up 9th/10th May

Motions remitted from NUS conference to the 9 May National Executive – what I’ll be saying, what I think activists should say

On Thursday 9 May, at the first meeting of NUS National Executive Council attended by me and a number of my NCAFC comrades, NEC members will discuss a large amount of policy “remitted” from NUS National Conference.

This is happening because NUS conference has, over the years, been cut to the bone. 20 years ago NUS had two annual conferences, one five days and one three. Now it has one barely more than two. This has, of course, gone together with various other attacks on our national union’s democracy.

The situation is made worse by the fact that the leadership and its supporters submit reams of ultra-bland filler “policy” which makes no difference to anything. The agenda gets clogged up with this stuff, preventing the discussion of more substantive issues and disagreements (mainly, but not exclusively, put forward by the left), by burying them so far down the agenda they get ‘guillotined’.

In addition, most “big” political issues get stuck in the Society and Citizenship Zone, which is always deprioritised. This year, Society and Citizenship barely got half an hour! When the leadership don’t want something discussed, it can even be moved from the Zone it was submitted in to S&C – as was done this year with anti-racism/anti-fascism.

Most, though not all, of the motions remitted to the NEC are from Society and Citizenship. They include some very important issues for the student movement and the world more generally.

I won’t comment on every motion here, but will try to highlight what I see as some of the key or most controversial issues (which doesn’t mean the motions I don’t comment on are unimportant). This is so activists know where I stand on them and what contribution I’ll attempt to make at the NEC meeting (I can’t vote yet!), but also to provoke much wider debate and discussion.

I should apologise for not getting this stuff out sooner. In general I’ll try to get things out well in advance of NEC meetings, so activists can feed back to me and we can work together to put pressure on the NEC.

(The NEC papers, with remitted motions starting on p53 of 80, can be read here

Motion 326 – Marketisation (Birkbeck)

This motion highlights McDonalds’ infiltration of our education, calls for them to be stripped of qualification-awarding powers and seeks to terminate the cosy relationship NUSSL (NUS’s commercial arm – or now it would be more accurate to say, fully commercial arm) has with them. I will be supporting this. I suspect the leadership will oppose it or seek to gut it, as they have a tendency to avoid anything that could upset NUSSL bureaucrats. Money before political principles! But let’s see.

Amendment 403a – Ethical sourcing/investment (Birmingham Uni)

This amendment, no doubt developed by People & Planet activists at Birmingham Uni (where they work closely with Defend Education/NCAFC), seeks to give some teeth to Recommendation 403 by proposing a campaign around the Workers’ Rights Consortium model code of conduct. S&C Zone Committee is opposing this, presumably on the grounds that it is too concrete/radical. I look forward to hearing their ridiculous arguments. If this amendment is voted down, P&P and other student workers’ rights activists on campus need to start a discussion about what to do about NUS.

Amendment 405a – Child poverty (Birmingham Uni, Royal Holloway)

Again, an attempt to add some teeth to a Recommendation. This very short amendment sets out the kind of demands necessary to really tackle poverty – a living minimum wage without exemptions, benefits which you can live on and which rise so their value doesn’t depreciate, creating decent jobs in the public sector (the rich and the banks should pay) and scrapping the anti-union laws so workers can organise for their rights. Inroads into poverty in the past weren’t simply handed down from above. They were won from below by organisation and struggle, and aiming high. That’s the approach we need now.

I’m working for a charity that works with children who are in the majority, living in poverty or at the bottom end of the economic scale. The kind of approach outlined in this motion will do little to help them. I’m quite keen to write more on this later.

Btw, I don’t agree with Further Believes 8 of the main Recommendation. I don’t see why people on a wage as low as the “living wage” should have to pay taxes at all.

Motion 411 – Council cuts (Northumbria Uni, Newcastle Uni)

It’s a shame this motion doesn’t say anything more radical (like supporting the Councillors Against the Cuts network) but it gives a base to build on and it’s important that it passes.

Motion 415 – Responding to NHS reform (Kent Uni, Manchester Uni) and amendment 415a (Kings College London, Birmingham Uni, Royal Holloway, Goldsmiths

At conference, VP Welfare Pete Mercer said that NUS hadn’t campaigned on the NHS this year because it didn’t have a mandate from the 2012 conference! This is typical of the bureaucratic idiocy that characterises so much of what the NUS leadership does, and it’s bizarre that the Welfare Zone isn’t campaigning on what is arguably the biggest welfare issue for students (and the rest of the country). The NHS is a huge issue for students and for all of us: let’s pass this policy and build a powerful student movement in defence of our health service. (There’s a student contingent on the 18 May London demonstration in defence of the NHS and a student meeting afterwards – see this facebook event ) and this one )

Motion 416 – Challenging Racism & Fascism on our campuses and in our communities (Black Students Committee, Mid Kent College, Birmingham South & City College, Dudley College, LSE, Birmingham Uni, Worcester Technology College and Gateshead)

This is the motion the leadership were so determined not to discuss at national conference. Let’s be on the look out for any more chicanery at the NEC, and get it passed.

Well done to NCAFC SUs for getting stuff on the fight against anti-traveller/Roma racism in there.

Amendment 416a (Royal Holloway)

This amendment seeks to understand why the far right is a growing threat across Europe and how we can fight it effectively. That means mass mobilisation on the streets and raising the kind of social demands necessary to undercut the fascists’ demagogy. It means not being afraid to criticise the record of the last Labour government and the current Labour leadership. Naturally, Labour Students and co. will oppose this. The question is whether anyone on the left, miseducated by the SWP’s soft liberal anti-fascism, will.

Motion 418 – the Bedroom Tax (Kings)

This is a massive issue and we should support the motion and act on it!

Motion 419 – Hands Off Africa and the Middle East (Worcester College, Dudley College, NUS Black Students Cttee, Mid Kent College, Gateshead College) / Motion 426 – Syria (Manchester Uni, Newcastle Uni)

What this motion represents is the Stalinist politics of Socialist Action aka SBL, which I would call “reactionary anti-imperialism” – lining up with anyone, as long as they’re against the West. This is the same politics that led to the Galloway and Assange fiasco. The writers of the motion weren’t brave enough to say it, but the thought underlying it is support for regimes like Assad’s in Syria. Hence the stuff about Western support for the Syrian rebels, when in fact events in Syria including the sectarian degeneration of the rebels have been shaped by the fact the Western powers really don’t want to intervene.

Yes, we should oppose war and imperialism, but not like this. Unless the motion is stripped down to the support-worthy bits (like opposition to Trident), I’ll be voting against. And I’ll be voting to support motion 426 from Manchester Uni and Newcastle Unis on supporting Syrian students!

Motion 422 – an NUS for migrants’ rights (International Students’ Committee)

Very important indeed!

Motion 423 – Boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel (Sheffield Uni, Goldsmiths)

This is an issue on which I suspect different NCAFC members on the NEC will go different ways. I can only speak for myself, though an increasing number of people on the student left share something like this view. I will be opposing most of this motion.

In summary: I think BDS does less to help the Palestinians (because it will drive Israeli workers into the arms of the Israeli government and the right) and more to tap into a reactionary narrative which seeks to delegitimise not Israel’s occupation of Palestine but Israel’s very existence. I am against that. A single state for both peoples would certainly be desirable, but it can only happen voluntarily. The Israelis do not have the right to oppress the Palestinians, but they do have the right to self-determination.

So I will be seeking to move positive parts on the bits of the motion I support (opposition to the occupation, solidarity with Palestinian students’ struggle for education) and opposing the call for a general boycott of Israel.

For a more detailed argument on why boycotts of Israel are in general not a good idea, see this 2010 briefing.

Motion 424 – Greece (Royal Holloway, Birmingham Uni)

The motion is self-explanatory, but again very important. If it passes, we need to fight to make sure it is carried out.

Motion 425 – Europe (Royal Holloway)

This motion explains why anti-EU agitation is an essentially right-wing cause. Our response to the coordination of capitalist attacks across Europe should not be to advocate a “left-wing” version of British nationalism, but to seek to build our own cross-European links. At a time when we are seeing the rise of UKIP, we need to have this argument urgently. I’m sorry, btw, that the SWP and SP members on the NEC will oppose this – another sign of how much the far left needs sorting out!

Motion 428 (listed in document as a second 423) – Coordinated action with the trade union movement (Ruskin College, University of the Arts London)

As a socialist trade union activist, I’m not convinced that this motion has a lot of strategy – I think the union bureaucrats talking about a general strike while they demobilize every actual struggle against cuts and austerity is unlikely to come to much. Nonetheless, it’s important that the NEC passes this motion to reiterate our solidarity with workers’ struggles and put down a market for student coordination with strikes and disputes in the months and years ahead.

Agree or disagree on any of this? Get in touch to tell me what you think and discuss!

Hi everyone!

Hi everyone,

So I’ve decided to start a new blog for the duration of my time on the NUS National Executive Committee. I don’t take office until July, but I am attending the final NEC of this year on 9th & 10th May as an observer and so I thought I’d get the ball rolling here.

You can expect political comment, my views on what the NUS is up to, and reports from my work in the student movement.

A bit about me then…

I’m one of five members of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts to be sitting on the incoming NUS NEC, alongside James McAsh, Edmund Schluessel, Arianna Tassinari and Gordon Maloney. The NCAFC is a broad left wing anticapitalist student organisation working across the UK, and you can find out more about us at http://anticuts.com (where I also write). I’m on the National Committee of the NCAFC too.

I’m also a member of the revolutionary socialist group, the Alliance for Workers Liberty (Workers Liberty or AWL for short). With AWL I organise in the labour movement and student movement, and have written for our paper Solidarity, and worked on a number of campaigns since I joined in 2009. I’ve travelled to meet workers and activists in Israel and Palestine with AWL and other comrades, and wrote about my experiences there too.

Workers Liberty is proud to be a socialist feminist organisation, and that’s what I call myself too. Socialist Feminism is a particular school of thought (it’s not just me lumping to unrelated words together!) in the tradition of Marxist Feminism and the idea of ‘Capitalist Patriarchy’, looking at women’s oppression by capitalism, and their role in class struggle. There’s lots to read on socialist feminism, a good place to start is the Workers Liberty pamphlet ‘The Case for Socialist Feminism” available here.

I’m not the typical NUS NEC member…but I probably am the typical student. NUS is often seen (and accurately) as full time undergraduate focused, but the majority of its members are in the Further Education sector. I finished my undergraduate degree in 2008, and I’ve been working in the Civil Service as an admin worker ever since. I also work part time for a women’s refuge charity too. During that time, like a lot of people, I’ve been studying part time at my local college to further my career prospects as well as train in labour movement skills. I studied Trade Union Studies through the TUC from 2009 – 2012, and this year I’ve been studying counselling. I’m returning to university in September (fingers crossed) to study a placement-heavy masters in Social Work.

I’ve been a trade union activist in PCS since 2008, and held local and regional positions since early 2009, during which time I’ve been Young Members officer and Branch Chair of  a union branch of 800-1000 low grade DWP workers. I’m also a member of Unison in my charity sector job.

I’m relatively new to the student movement, and I’m still learning a lot of the NUS structures. I’m particularly keen to represent the interests of mature and part-time students like myself, and the issues that matter to them.

My work in the ‘women’s sector’ and in DWP means I have a wealth of experience on welfare issues and I hope to represent these in my year on the NEC.

Anyway. Enough of that! If you want to ask me anything about what I think or what I stand for, you can always contact me on rosiescomputer@yahoo.com and my phone number is 07810632653 (if I don’t answer, I’m at work, I’ll get back to you!).

Rosie