NSA censorship: A confederacy of dunces

There are few real lessons in journalism, but this is one: don’t let yourself become the story. It is doubtful that The Journal would receive a passing mark on the basis of the past two weeks, but if this publication is made to stay after class to write lines, it is only fair that they should read: "We will not be dragged into election battles by the NSA constitution again."

The events at Edinburgh Napier University over the past two weeks are difficult to unravel, but their foundation is simple: there has been a personal and constitutional breakdown at the NSA. Unless these two fundamental failings are addressed, the chaotic scenes witnessed recently will doubtless repeat themselves.

The personal breakdown is not difficult to identify; the presidential election race between Kasia Bylinska and Nathan Sparling was nasty, and did little to serve Napier students. The failure to observe the most basic standards of political decorum on either side resulted in an election that, whatever the result, was entirely devoid of grace. If Ms Bylinska’s claims are borne out, it would seem that this sort of unpleasant personal vendetta is far too common of intrapersonal relations at NSA. No organisation can run in such a fashion; regardless of political positions and rivalries, individuals must be able to come together in the best interests of the students they are elected to serve.

NSA’s constitutional problems are more difficult to pinpoint, but its results are equally clear: empty Journal distribution bins across Napier campuses last week were testament to an elected body whose governing documents are too weak to protect freedom of speech, maintain the integrity of elections, or serve the needs of students.

Freedom of speech and a free press are not nebulous concepts; they are living rights that can thankfully be taken for granted in this country. If the government took exception to political coverage and emptied stores of all copies of the publication it appeared in, the outcry would be deafening.

The NSA Elections Committee constructs its constitutional role so strictly that any reporting of fact that might affect an election result can be deemed to be defamatory, and censored. The staff of the School of Journalism at Edinburgh Napier University will be interested to learn that the local students’ union has judged the press to be redundant.

If the Edinburgh University Students’ Association took the same view of the role of the press, then The Journal would have been banned at the University of Edinburgh, too. The coverage in the 3 March edition of Laura Jayne Baker’s abstention from voting on the motion for online referenda at the most recent AGM may well have influenced some voters in the EUSA elections. Thankfully, being home to the UK’s oldest student newspaper does wonders for a union’s respect for free speech.

The most sinister detail of this affair is the fact that the Elections Committee may well have acted within its remit: Schedule 7, subsection B, paragraph 2 of the NSA constitution asserts that "it is the sole authority on elections", and has no need to refer to the Publications Council, which out with an election period would have been obliged to "liaise with the editor of the publication over content and/or forms of words" in the case of an allegation of libel, and "aim to reach a mutually negotiated solution to difficulties". There was, of course, no question of any legal action, as there is no case to answer.

Napier would do well to implement changes to their constitution to reflect the most basic standards of a free community. 

An election that bars any reporting or scrutiny of the events or the candidates, essentially makes the result pointless. It simply reduces the vote selection to who your mates are or how slick your presentation is. Student politics has to be done well, when it is done like this it is condemned to be petty and meaningless from the start.