MOTIONS

UNION COUNCIL PLENARY

Ordinary Motions

BOYCOTT PREVENT

PRINTED SHORT COURSES CATALOGUES

LIBRARY SMS REMINDERS FOR RENEWALS AND TO RETURN BOOKS

NO-SMOKING ZONES AROUND ENTRANCES TO CAMPUS BUILDINGS

TO FORCE “CODE FIRST: GIRLS” TO ACCEPT MALE STUDENTS

BOYCOTT PREVENT

The Council believes:

  1. The government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places a statutory requirement on public bodies and ‘specified authorities’ – including universities – to ‘prevent people being drawn into terrorism’ and to implement the ‘Prevent’ agenda.
  2. The Prevent agenda, as part of the Government’s ‘anti-extremism’ work has been used to create an expansive surveillance architecture to spy on the public and to police dissent, disproportionately affecting Black people and Muslims.
  3. Under Prevent, lecturers are expected to report students as being ‘at risk of radicalisation’ for merely taking an interest in political affairs in class, or for observing their religion more closely. It also targets politically active students and staff members and potentially criminalizes any ‘disobedient’ practices on campus.
  4. The Government’s counter-terrorism/security policy is fundamentally flawed in its approach; its operant concepts of ‘extremism’ and ‘radicalism’ are ill-defined and open to abuse for political ends.

The Council further believes:

  1. Islamophobia is massively on the rise across Europe, with European governments and the mass media considerably contributing to its institutionalisation.
  2. The UK government’s identified ‘warning signs’ of “radicalisation” problematise and renders suspect those with mental health difficulties.
  3. That the Act could serve to isolate many students who already feel that the only avenue through which the Government will engage with them is ‘anti-radicalisation’ initiatives, resulting in further alienation and disaffection.
  4. The Act discourages free expression and analysis of ideas. Academics, as well as anyone in a public sector job, should not have to be part of this surveillance.
  5. We fundamentally believe that universities and colleges are places for education, not surveillance.
  6. The implementation of the Prevent Strategy on campus will not only isolate Muslim
    students but undermine the civil liberties of other groups such as environmental, political and humanitarian activists. In this regard, Turkey’s recent criminalisation of a group of academics called 'Academics for Peace' who signed a petition for peace is highly indicative of what legislation such as PREVENT may legitimise here in the future.
  7. That the National Union of Students (NUS), University and Colleges Union (UCU), and more recently the National Union of Teachers (NUT) have passed motions at their conferences opposing the Act and Prevent. Academic staff at several universities has already began to organise in opposition the Prevent duty.
  8. The neoliberal fragmentation of the Higher Education sector has had a depoliticising effect, rendering universities more co-optable in the institutionalisation of PREVENT and furthermore leading to a failure to engage with wider debates around the issue beyond our singular institutions.
  9. In many instances those most impacted by the law– namely students and staff – have largely been excluded from any debate on the issue. Already we are aware that Birkbeck's Registrar's Office has submitted details on how they intend to comply with PREVENT and have approached the Students' Union for comment on their implementation plans.

The Council resolves:

  1. As a Charity, we as a Union are not legally bound to engage with Prevent and should seek toboycott it.
  2. To instruct the SU officers to inform the student population of any consultation process they have been engaging in with the Registrar thus far on this issue.
  3. To mandate the Officers of this Union to not engage with the Prevent strategy or implement
    theproposals of the Act, and to boycott it as far as possible.
  4. To work with campus trade unions including UCU, educators not informants on combating the Prevent strategy and itsimplementation on campus.
  5. To commit the Student Union to a broad information and education campaign on the dangers of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act and its Prevent Strategy.
  6. To lobby the university to be open, inclusive and transparent about how they are engaging with Prevent and other already ongoing similar initiatives pertaining to student policing.
    This involves amongst other things:
  7. Holding consultations with the Birkbeck student population regarding how these policies will affect students.
  8. Holding a critical evaluation of how controlling policies already in place have affected students and how they might enhance the implementation of PREVENT (e.g. comprising policies on termly attendance of oversea students and use of related technologies, IT surveillance, fitness to study policies and so forth).
  9. To organise a boycott strategy based on this information.

PRINTED SHORT COURSES CATALOGUES

The Council believes:

  1. That there are a large portion of students and prospective students that wish to browse and keep a short courses catalogue, at their leisure.
  2. That student would like to have the option open to check if the course is going ahead or places available online and yet having the option of not having to log on constantly.
  3. That there are prospectuses for the Bachelors and Masters degrees should be an indication, that it is in fact the colleges’ short courses which are hugely popular, and should have its own catalogue.

The Council further believes:

  1. Providing a hard copy that prospective students and current students can keep at hand, would make them more likely to enrol, when and as they wish.

The Council resolves:

  1. Whether the hard copy prospectus is available on order or simply to pick up from the university, it still would be justified to provide that option to students, and the college should look into this, and makes attempts to provide hard copy short courses prospectuses, for the following academic year.

LIBRARY SMS REMINDERS FOR RENEWALS AND TO RETURN BOOKS

The Council Believes:

  1. That many students need to promptly return their borrowed items and to renew items on time.
  2. That many students will benefit and be reminded to keep up to date with their library commitments.
  3. That it should be available as option students can choose.

The Council Further believes:

  1. That many simple mobile phone tariffs provide 3000 sms messages a month at £25, so the cost option for that is minimal.

The Council Resolves:

  1. That staff and the software should be created by the college to provide this service to students of the College.

NO-SOMKING ZONES AROUND ENTRANCES TO CAMPUS BUILDINGS

This Council believes:

  1. This council believes that students have the right to enter and exit University buildings as they please without endangering their health an safety due the the effects of passive smoking.

This Council further believes:

  1. This council further believes that the lack of designated smoking zones at a safe distance from University buildings is causing smokers to congregate around entrances to buildings, and so the University is not paying due attention to the health, safety and well-being of both smoking and non-smoking students.

This Council resolves:

  1. This council resolves to implement a 'no smoking' exclusion zone around the entrances and exits of University buildings, and to build smoking shelters for smokers a safe distance from the aforementioned entrances, or, if this is not within the Council's power, to take all action necessary (including legal action) to force the University to do so in line with its responsibilities toward the health and safety of its students.

TO FORCE “CODE FIRST: GIRLS” TO ACCEPT MALE STUDENTS

Birkbeck University is currently partnering with “Code First: Girls” to run a 6-week coding workshop for female students at Birkbeck University. This council believes that “Code First: Girls” should accept male students as well in order to restore real equality of opportunity for all students, regardless of gender.

By excluding male students purely based on their gender you are denying them equality of opportunity. This is sexism in itself, the very thing ‘Code First: Girls’ claims to be fighting against.

Both male and female students deserve equal access to the acquisition and development of skills which are invaluable in the workplace in the 21st century. By denying male students this opportunity, you inhibit their potential to succeed in the workplace and attain a higher-level position in the workforce than they otherwise would have.

By making this workshop exclusively female you are implying that women need special treatment to reach the same level as men. That woman are incapable of competing on a level playing field with men. It is self-defeating on countless levels.

A male-only coding workshop would be branded as sexist and shut down by the University. There is a massive double standard present in Universities up and down this nation. Yet, it is acceptable to create a female-only workshop? This does not represent gender equality. Male students are being excluded from also attaining these skills and being alienated purely because of their gender.

Denying equality of opportunity for women is viewed as sexist. Denying equality of opportunity for men is viewed as empowering.

Laura Gemmell, one of the advocates of this workshop, has stated “Code First: Girls is a social enterprise which focuses on supporting women as there is a specific challenge for women entering technology and entrepreneurship”, yet provides no statistical evidence to support this claim.

The challenge is there for every student, regardless of gender. Another argument is that the IT sector is too male-dominated. The reason that certain fields are dominated by men, and others by women is not because of any ingrained bias in society, but because men and women will innately gravitate towards certain subjects. There is absolutely no need to have a 50/50 gender split in all fields. As long as there is equal pay for the same work between the genders across all fields (which there is by the way) there is no problem. Give all students equal opportunity, and let them choose what they want to study, but do not pressure more females or males into certain professions purely for the purpose of gender representation.

Certain fields are male-dominated and others female-dominated because men and women will naturally gravitate towards different professions: The response from Birkbeck University to the petition I have started ( , current signatures: 23):

“This workshop has not been designed to exclude male students but to develop a safe space for women to learn as other events may not be accessible to them. This event has been developed because other events on this topic may not be easily accessible to women". – Birkbeck University

When women apply for a job in this field, work in this field and train in this field they will have to work with, apply against and train with men.

The need for a "safe space" implies that the mere presence of men in a class presents a danger to women.

There are currently no male-only workshops at Birkbeck that are not accessible to female students.

This council believes:

  1. That “Code First: Girls” should be forced to accept male students as well as female students.
  2. Male students are currently in the minority at Birkbeck:
  3. 3160 female undergraduates compared to 2824 male undergraduates2 (as of 2014, most recent data available).
  4. In 2014, Birkbeck degree recipients were: 53% female, 47% male.
  5. This is the majority oppressing the minority within the University.
  6. Denying male students the right to attain skills critical to succeed in the workplace in the 21st century is unjust and sexist. This destruction of equality of opportunity for male students cannot continue.
  7. No statistical evidence has been provided by the organisers of this workshop to justify it being female-only.

This council further believes:

  1. That future workshops that allow students to attain key skills should not be allowed to be gender-exclusive (male-only or female-only).
  2. That the response from Birkbeck University was unsatisfactory and request that the University apologises for it.
  3. That Birkbeck University should strive to eliminate all forms of gender discrimination.

This council resolves:

  1. To force “Code First: Girls” to accept male students.
  2. To ban future workshops that allow students to attain key skills to prohibit any students from attending based on their gender.
Sources: