17.1
Clarification Dominic Todd asked which products the boycott would apply to. - Sophie Richardson replied that the Union’s Executive would be responsible for enacting the motion if it passed into policy. The Executive would use the policy to create a clear definition of which products were to be boycotted.
Gabriel Doctor (Medicine) spoke against the motion. He argued Universities and Students’ Unions should not boycott goods and allow students to make their own decisions. The motion was vague and did not specifically refer to any goods or services. Wanda Canton spoke for the motion. She argued that Students’ Unions boycott of South African goods contributed to the fall of Apartheid. Students’ Unions should engage in politics and fight against injustices taking place around the world. Kacper Pancewicz (Mathematics) spoke against the motion. He argued the Palestine-Israeli conflict was so complicated the Union should avoid taking a stance. Boycotting Israeli goods could be considered racist, and the Union should avoid taking any such stance. Chair moved to a vote. Student Council voted against the motion. - 4 members voted for - 13 members voted against - 13 members abstained 18.0
Condemnation of Library Staff Redundancies Wanda Canton spoke for a motion seeking Union condemnation of College staff redundancies. She argued the Union should support library staff facing redundancies. Most affected by the staffing changes were part-time staff, positions more likely to be held by women. 17.1
Clarification Officers asked for further details on the staffing changes including how many members of staff would lose their jobs and what impact it would have on library provision. - Sophie Richardson and others replied with differing interpretations of the consequences of the staffing changes. More staff hours had been committed by the College, however, there was also an intention to move to having less staff (more full-time and less part-time staff).
Chris Smith spoke against the motion. He argued the Union needed a wider policy that took into account the impact of the cuts across the College, not one that specifically referred to the Library. Ozzy Amir spoke for the motion. He argued that the Union should take a stance against all cuts, but that did not mean the Union should not take a stance against cuts to a specific service. Wilson Wong argued against the motion. He argued Student Council did not have information on whether this would negatively impact upon Library provision. Chair moved to a vote. Student Council voted against the motion. - 7 members voted for - 9 members voted against - 14 members abstained
9