The House moves...

The 2010 iteration of the EUSA annual general meeting is upon us, and with it comes the usual eclectic assortment of motions tabled for consideration by the student body of the University of Edinburgh. And, as usual, it seems to be creating something of a divided house.

Among these proposals is a motion to hold a referendum on EUSA membership of the National Union of Students. This is a wise move, and a timely one. Rarely before has the NUS been so active on the national stage, and never has a strong, vocal advocate of student rights been so essential. The continuing presence of NUS at the forefront of the discourse surrounding higher education funding makes it imperative that each constituent union ensures that its affiliation with NUS is well founded in the will of its members.

Equally, we support the principles underlying the motion to remove sweatshop labour from the EUSA and University supply chains. Its intention, of diverting the purchasing power of the University of Edinburgh away from exploitative industry, is a noble one. Several motions touch on the contentious issue of government higher education policy, and we support the call for the Association to lobby for a carefully controlled graduate contribution and for widening access to be at the top of the agenda. We reserve particular praise for the motion of resistance to government cuts, which notes that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, not just the Conservatives, have had a hand in our current tenuous situation. A pox on both your houses, indeed.

But The Journal cannot endorse the motion expressing solidarity with students facing prosecution for involvement in the Millbank riot. This is not to say that much of the proposal is not perfectly sound, in particular its assertion that “the value of education stretches beyond that dictated by market forces.”

However, there is one glaring fallacy in the wording of the motion which leads us to question its wisdom. The notion that “damage of property is not a form of violence” is simply untrue: vandalism is a violent act, and the fact that in this case violence was directed at a building rather than an individual does not make it any less an act of intimidation. For EUSA to align itself with such misguided methods of effecting change would be a significant error of judgment.