Sunday, 05th May 2013 (TT Wk 3) 4pm in the JCR

SU Meeting: Agenda

A: Officers Reports: B. Discussion Points: Rent Negotiations - Proposed by Jahni Emmanuel "What to do with 3000 for the SU?" Proposed by Jahni Emmanuel As the year's now drawing to a close and we've held all our bigger and costly events/projects, I'm now hoping we can decide on something good we can spend this money on. So, how would you spend 3,000 for something for the SU? Below are some things I've thought about/started working on already - let me know if you have any questions/comments on any of them: College bike scheme: getting a few Wadham bikes which could work like London "Boris Bikes" and be borrowed by students for a certain period of time. This will cost around 3,000 in initial costs and 2,000/year for maintenance. Gym: as you probably know, we're in the process of getting a gym installed. The MCR, College and Boat Club have already agreed to contribute money. We're bidding to the Wadham Society as well, but might not get the full amount. Overall, it's going to cost around 5,000 - so any portion of that we can get for the gym would be good! Projector for the JCR: the one we have at the moment is old and crap. I'm thinking of getting a HD one which could connect directly to the Sky box (as opposed to now, where it has to go via a laptop). This is about 1,700. Bands Room: anyone who uses the Bands Room regularly will know that lots of the equipment is old and in desperate need of replacement - this year, we've spent at least a couple of thousand pounds (not to mention time) on ad hoc repairs. A bid is also going through to the Wadham Society for this, but it's worth thinking about the SU putting in a substantial investment in new kit now (given that we pay for repairs as need anyway). The overall estimated cost pitched to the Wadham Society by Jake Dillarstone on behalf of a number of bands was 1,270.

B: Motions: This SU notes: 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) That the SU recently passed a motion adopting a new zero tolerance policy to Sexual Harassment That sexual harassment is a complex and endemic problem. That no-one should have to suffer sexual harassment. That sexual harassment is illegal. That every accusation of sexual harassment should be taken seriously. That the college has a policy against all forms of harassment and that this policy is detailed in the student handbook.

This SU believes: 1.) 2.) That any policy implemented to combat sexual harassment should be constructed and implemented on the basis of improving the existing policy. That any policy implemented to combat sexual harassment should aim to create an environment in which those who feel like they have been harassed are free to speak out. That the policy as it stands, by mandating removal, removes the sovereignty of the victim to have meaningful control over resolution, which could, from the impetus of the victim, include reconciliation, meaningful apology, or any of a multitude of forms in which the victim feels satisfied and comfortable without removal of the accused. That the policy as it stands therefore, further removes power from the victim. That the stigma, shame and humiliation associated with a wrongful accusation would be seriously damaging to the psychological, emotional and social wellbeing of the wrongfully accused. That the stigma, shame and humiliation resulting from a wrongful accusation would be impossible to avoid given the nature of forceful removal and the spectacle that would no doubt ensue. That the stigma, shame and humiliation following a wrongful accusation would be exacerbated by the intense social atmosphere of college. That even if an accusation was publically and prominently revoked, shit sticks. That an attempt to remove a wrongfully accused and perhaps heavily inebriated student could result in violence and/or serious injury were they to defend themselves, feeling they have not done anything wrong. That Wadham College is an intelligent, engaged and for the most part sensitive community. Given this, awareness amongst students of notes 8-13 would likely result in those who feel like they have been harassed being less

3.)

4.) 5.)

6.)

7.) 8.) 9.)

10.)

11.) 12.) 13.) 14.)

15.) 16.)

17.) 18.) 19.) 20.)

21.) 22.) 23.) 24.) 25.)

26.)

27.)

likely to feel free to speak out for fear of repercussions, and that the zero tolerance policy is therefore contradictory. That the punitive and exclusionary nature of the policy is likely to result in alliances, divisions and therefore conflict. That these conflicts would disrupt college and may well result in stigma, humiliation and blame being felt by the victim as much as the accused. That these conflicts could, therefore, exacerbate victim blaming. That these conflicts and their potentially deleterious effects on victims of sexual harassment are a necessary result of the combative, recriminatory and punitive constitution of the policy. That the potential for the weaponisation and abuse of the policy by students is practically limitless. That a record of an accusation (because all accusations of sexual harassment are recorded) leaked, stolen, and therefore ending up in the public domain, could have serious consequences on a students chances of employment, especially if they plan on a career in public service. That this adds a significant and potentially life long temporal dimension to the potential for the weaponisation and abuse of the policy. That the policy as it stands with regards to keeping records of accusations is in contravention of the Data Protection Act of 1988 and is therefore illegal. That the policy as it stands with regards to keeping records of accusations is in contravention of the spirit of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That it would be as nave to hold the view that its Wadham so it wont happen with regards to false accusations and/or the weaponisation and/or the abuse and/or the leaking of information as a result of this policy as it is with regards to sexual harassment itself. That zero tolerance policies have been met with a transnational movement of left-wing resistance. That zero tolerance policies are an acknowledged failure in terms of false allegations and shaky prosecutions. That over a hundred empirical studies support this conclusion (references to a number of book length summaries available on request). That some of these studies show zero tolerance policies to create a culture of suspicion, fear and distrust. That Wadham College is a progressive, tolerant and diverse community whose goal should be to create an atmosphere free from all forms of harassment, exploitation and/or discrimination . That Wadham College is a progressive, tolerant and diverse community in which no person should feel afraid to speak out when they feel that a line has been crossed. That a policy which seeks to include, educate and create dialogue where possible and where consented, viz. a policy that seeks to make positive and productive change at the level of social interaction and culture, is always more desirable than a reactive, combative and punitive policy that seeks only to blame and exclude.

28.) 29.) 30.)

31.) 32.) 33.)

That no student should have to suffer stigma, shame or humiliation on the basis of an accusation they have made against another student. That no student should have to suffer stigma, shame or humiliation on the basis of a wrongful accusation made against them. That any policy with such potentially grave - and this deserves emphasis here potentially grave consequences should have adequate checks, balances and safeguards in place, such as those found in the college policy. That the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of democracy and a vital safeguard against the abuse of judicial power. That any augmentation of any punitive policy should respect basic democratic standards such as fairness and equality. That as a very basic standard any SU policy should operate within the bounds of law.

This SU resolves: 1.) To revoke the previously implemented zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment. 2.) To mandate the SU to open up a period of consultation to review the efficacy of college policy. This consultation would include the college sexual harassment officers, who have already been consulted and are involved in the working group concerning the policy as it stands, the SU womens officers, the welfare officers, the SU president, and any other interested parties. 3.) To mandate the SU to open up a discussion to include the stakeholders identified in 2 with regards to creating a proactive, inclusive and transformative policy on sexual harassment, rather than one that could very well only serve to blame and exclude. 4.) To mandate the SU, as part of these discussions, to consider setting up its own independent student board to deal with problems such as sexual harassment should it be found that the college policy is ineffective, underutilised, intimidating, or otherwise a failure in the achievement of objectives discussed above. 5.) To mandate the SU, as part of these discussions, to consider running a student led and discussion based sexual harassment workshop at least once a year. 6.) To mandate the SU, as part of these discussions, to consider running a seminar series on sexual relations in contemporary society with a view to using the knowledge and insight gained from the seminars to further improve college policy and further improve the college community. 7.) To return to the SU following the conclusion of these discussions with policy recommendations regarding sexual harassment. Proposed by Luke Buckley Seconded by Charlie Goodman D. OUSU