2020 General Meeting

Date: 7th June 2020 (2020-06-07)

Agenda

TT20 Week 7 GM Agenda

To be held over Zoom 

Matters Arising

Amendments to Governing Documents

Motions Relating to Financial Matters

1. Supporting the BLM movement (KK & ABM) Passes

Any Other Motions

1. Condemning the delay in the publishing of university diversity data (SK) Passes
2. Condemning the actions of the Christ Church deans and JCR Committee (DS) Passes
3. Signing the Oxford Rough Sleeping Charter (LL & AK) Delayed
4. Banning relationships between college staff members and students over whom they hold any responsibility (LS & NP) Passes 

Appendices 

--------------- 

Matters Arising 

Amendments to Governing Documents 

Motions Relating to Financial Matters 

1. Supporting the BLM movement (KK & ABM)

This JCR notes that:

• The disproportionate police brutality towards black people in the UK and the USA, especially in light of recent events, is a prominent and concerning issue that needs to be addressed appropriately.
• Black men in the US are 4 times more likely to be killed by the police than white men. 51% of boys in young offender institutions (aged 15-17) are BME and only 14% of 15-17-year-olds in this country are BME.
• The Black Lives Matter movement requires financial support from various charities in order to bring about any substantial legal changes.

This JCR believes that:

• Especially in light of recent events, we should support the Black community as much as we possibly can, and show support for our fellow black students in Balliol.
• The black community needs to be supported and one way we could do this is through donations to charities fighting with the BLM cause such as the Minnesota Freedom Fund, ‘Reclaim the Block’, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, ‘The Bail Project’, ‘Stop Hate UK’, etc

This JCR resolves to:

• Donate a minimum of £500 from JCR reserves towards Black Lives Matter UK, a more specific legal aid charity within the UK, and a US charity (if possible), splitting the money 75%/25% between the UK and US (if possible)
• Post a link on the JCR Facebook page to encourage JCR members to also donate towards these causes 
• Sanction the use of the political campaigning fund to subsidise student costs of going to BLM protests, for example the cost of travel or PPE
• Request that college issues a public statement condemning racism, in order to show support for the fellow black students in the UK and to follow these up with the implementations of things which would support their statement and show their dedication towards anti-racism such as racial bias training, etc
• Look into longer term action to support the BLM movement, for example an optional levy in Michaelmas and pushing for a more diverse curriculum

Any Other Motions

1. Condemning the delay in the publishing of university diversity data (SK)

This JCR notes that:

• The University of Oxford has delayed publishing its diversity data indefinitely, on account of ‘current world events.’
• There has been no formal communication from the University revoking such a plan.
• The University alone collates data on ethnicity and race, thus colleges are not able to publish such data independently.

This JCR believes that:

• The University should be held accountable for its admissions statistics.
• The University should not evade public scrutiny at a time when engagement with issues of race are at an all time high.
• This delay appears evasive and insensitive, implying the transience of the Black Lives Matter movement and protests.

This JCR resolves to:

• Publish an official statement condemning the decision of the University.
• Sign an open letter to the Master of the College, expressing such a view and asking her to join the JCR in condemning the decision of the University.

1. Condemning the actions of the Christ Church JCR Committee (DS)

The JCR notes that:

• Racial inequality is a problem we all have a duty to fight
• College administrations, JCRs, MCRs and SCRs together are representative of Oxford University as a whole
• Any incident of potential discrimination, whether it be because of race, sex, gender, disability or other protected identity must be investigated in an open and transparent manner
• Christ Church JCR TT20 Cake hustings candidate (Redacted) made a crude, callous and insensitive analogy about George Floyd
• The JCR president of Christ Church sought to prevent other JCRs from debating these issues by appealing to the presidents of these JCRs to abuse their powers in his favour

The JCR believes that:

• When one college fails to uphold the principles of equality, other colleges have a duty to call it out
• In making their crude comment on George Floyd, the Christ Church JCR candidate exhibited exceptionally poor judgement
• The Christ Church JCR President and committee failed to deal with this issue appropriately
• Calling out insensitive racist remarks made by office holders across the university is a duty for all of us
• Christ Church JCR committee and the Christ Church deans have sought inappropriate and wholly oppressive measures against a student who sought to challenge a racist and insensitive comment
• That the statement provided by Christ Church on this matter failed to adequately apologise for their efforts to other and shame Ms Onovo in to keeping quiet about the incident for fear of their own reputations. 

The JCR resolves to:

• Condemn Christ Church JCR president and other committee members who were negligent in their duties
• Condemn the Christ Church deans for their handling of the situation.
• Condemn the abusive comments made by members of Christ Church JCR and the wider public towards Ms Onovo since she spoke out at the JCR hustings
• Affirm their support for Ms Melanie Onovo
• Offer Balliol welfare support for Ms Onovo
• Request the public and wholehearted apology of the JCR committee and Christ Church deans for their actions 
• Refuse to accept any collaboration project with Christ Church until these measures are carried out. 

1. Signing the Oxford Rough Sleeping Charter (LL & AK) 

This JCR notes that: 

• The Oxford Rough Sleeping Charter created by Oxford Homeless Movement aims to increase public awareness and understanding of rough sleeping and to generate funding, commitments, and solutions to rough sleeping in Oxford through local groups. https://www.oxfordhomelessmovement.org.uk/charter
• The values of the Charter are as follows: 

• Rough sleeping causes significant harm to physical and mental health, and people are safer off the streets
• Prevention is always better than cure. Every opportunity should be taken to prevent people from sleeping rough
• The best way to help rough sleepers is to provide the accommodation and support they need to help them off the streets, to rebuild their lives, and to prevent a return to street homelessness
• People who are rough sleeping should have the same opportunity to access information, work, training, volunteering, leisure, and creative activities as the rest of Oxford’s community
• People with lived experience of homelessness should have a voice and a say in finding the answers to their own issues, to rough sleeping, and in the wider world
• Everyone can do something to help end rough sleeping – this includes individuals as well as organizations. We are stronger together and will deliver joined-up services to help realise our vision
• We will listen to and treat with respect all those who share our vision to ensure that nobody has to sleep rough on the streets of Oxford
• Signing the Charter is a commitment to a) adopt the values listed above; b) work with Oxford Homeless Movement and their partner organisations to ensure that no one has to sleep rough in Oxford 
• Rough sleepers are especially vulnerable during the Covid-19 pandemic and colleges have already taken steps to support rough sleepers by providing food and shelter. 

This JCR believes that: 

• Everyone should do their part to support the most vulnerable members of our community and colleges must play a large part in making positive change. 
• The above is especially important during the Covid-19 pandemic and while we have already seen an incredible display of support by some colleges, more can be done.
• Signing the charter is an appropriate first step for this JCR to express a commitment to continuing support for rough sleepers through the pandemic and beyond.

This JCR resolves to:

• Sign the charter as a JCR and adopt the values listed above
• Explore ways to provide long-term, effective support for rough sleepers.

1. Banning relationships between college staff members and students over whom they hold any responsibility (LS & NP)

This JCR notes that:

• As it stands, the only university-wide limit to a romantic or sexual relationship between a student and a staff member who has responsibility over that student, is that the staff member must declare it to their Head of Department. Such a declaration will (as far as possible) be treated confidentially and will not disadvantage either party. 
• A 2017 investigation undertaken by the Guardian showed Oxford University to have the highest number of student allegations of sexual misconduct by staff of any UK university.
• All Ivy League universities have a ban on relationships in this context and most implement a blanket ban on relationships between staff and students.
• In 2020, University College London became the first Russell Group university in the UK to ban intimate relationships between a member of staff and a student that they teach earlier this year. 
• In 2018, St. Hughs implemented a cohesive policy stating that a romantic or sexual relationship between staff in a role of teaching, professional or pastoral responsibility and their student is “always inappropriate” and will prompt disciplinary action. 

This JCR believes that:

• Our college should prohibit such staff from engaging in romantic or sexual relationships with students with whom they hold any such teaching, professional, or pastoral responsibility.
• Relationships in this context “raise issues, relating to inequalities of power in a relationship, or perceived favouritism, or the undermining of trust in the academic process” as stated by the current university policy. 
• Our college should follow the lead of St. Hughs College and implement an equivalent policy as laid out here, by the start of Michaelmas 2020.
• Breach of said policy should be investigated promptly to ensure the safety of all college members and will be subject to disciplinary action.
• This would reinforce the maintenance of a College environment in which students and staff feel safe, supported and free from sexual harassment.

This JCR resolves to:

• Signify support for a college-wide ban on romantic or sexual relationships between staff members and students with whom they hold any such teaching, professional, or pastoral responsibility, by the start of Michaelmas 2020.
• Appoint a student representative or representatives, to communicate this request to the head of Human Resources in college. (This could be the JCR president, women*s or gender reps, or any other member of the JCR). 
• Follow up on the request after the summer vacation, so as to ensure that college responds in due time.

Appendices

Minutes

Condemning delay in publishing diversity data 

Shreya introduces the motion. Earlier this week, the university announced they were delaying the publishing of their diversity stats for this year’s admissions indefinitely. This may be revoked, but even a suggested delay should be condemned. The university should be held accountable for diversity and shouldn’t evade scrutiny. Basing any delay on the current increased focus on race suggests they see Black Lives Matter as transient. There should be a long-term commitment to tackling racism within this university. If this motion passes, Shreya will write an open letter covering these points that the jcr will sign. She also wants to contact the master to see if she will co-sign the letter.

There are no short factual questions. 

Points of debate 

Jamie asks if there is college-level diversity data diversity, and if so, when that will be released. 

Shreya says that the college has data on some aspects of diversity, for example gender, but data on race is only processed via ucas, so only the university has access to it. 

Cerian agrees - she’s talked to the vice master about this, all of college’s data on racial diversity belongs to the university, so can’t be released without their permission. We could ask college to ask the uni on our behalf for the figures to be released. 

A vote is taken. The motion passes. 

Supporting the BLM movement 

Keren introduces the motion. In the last month, police brutality towards black people has been highlighted in the media, following murders in the US and severe beatings in the UK. This isn’t a new issue, it has just gained attention. In solidarity with the black community, we should donate to charities supporting Black Lives Matter. Whilst the current protests were sparked by the murder of George Floyd in the US, racism towards black people is very much a problem in the UK and Europe as well, and thus we should consider donating to both US and UK charities. Furthermore, we should ask college to issue a public statement condemning racism and committing to anti-racism. This would include concrete changes such as racial bias training for tutors and staff to tackle microaggressions targeted at black students. 

Short factual questions 

Jonny asks how much money we have in the political campaigning fund. 

Conor says it has £250, but there’s a lot more in other places that we could donate. 

Cerian says she thinks we should donate from reserves or the charities account; the campaigning fund can be used to subsidise travel to and from protests. 

Fonie says she’s not sure if we can donate to US charities. She’s optimistic that we can, but we should have a back-up plan.

Keren says ACS have produced a pdf of US and UK charities, we can use that as a guide. 

Cerian says we could pick a US charity, UK charity and a back-up UK charity. Other colleges have bought products from US companies that donate their profits to BLM, however this is less effective than a direct donation. 

Bruno says donations would get to UK charities quicker; there’s less paperwork and tax. 

Bea says donating in the UK is a good idea; a lot of US charities have been overwhelmed with donations that their infrastructure can’t handle.

Keren agrees, larger, popular charities are now diverting money to smaller charities. She thinks that whilst we’re angry about the US, a UK donation would help more people faster. 

Millie says there are donation pots which split money between charities so we don’t just fund one cause. 

Keren says that some charities do specific things; she wants to discuss what issues we particularly want to focus on.

Points of debate 

Leyla says she supports the motion, and thinks it’s important to consider diversity in education as a related issue, perhaps in a separate motion. History courses ignore racism in the UK, for example we learn about the US civil rights movement a lot more than the British Empire. She thinks we need more globalised reading lists at university too - her law reading list is often only white middle class men. 

Keren agrees - she read one black author for French and was impressed; this shouldn’t be something of note. She hasn’t looked into the issue much, but there are petitions focusing on secondary school history courses. She’s not sure how the jcr could go about achieving change.

Cerian says we should ask about diversifying reading lists. Some tutors sit on department boards, we could ask them to push for more diversity. We could also ask the college academic committee for more diverse reading lists. We could think about quotas, or just moving towards more diversity. 

Keren says there is an open letter pushing for diverse reading lists, we could sign that as a jcr and as individuals. 

Cerian says she could take a paper to college meeting, containing the master and all the fellows. We could ask them to make a statement commiting to anti-racism. 

Shreya thinks that it’s important to also push for diversity in non-humanities subjects like law and sciences. It’s easier to hide a lack of diversity there as compared to history or english due to regional papers, political context etc.. She thinks a quota could be a good idea, or asking them to align their diversity statistics with other departments. 

Keren agrees, some change has already come about because students have pushed for it. She volunteers to help edit and write any statement on this. 

Millie says she heard politics were decolonising their reading list; we should chase up such statements to make sure they’re acted on. 

A different Millie agrees, the politics department could be used as an example for others; some modules have really expanded their reading lists, it proves there’ll be no decrease in academic rigour. 

Andi says that there’s a huge list of issues around Oxford and race; this motion is about financially supporting BLM, we should focus on that now, and take up other issues elsewhere e.g. Shreya’s motion, to tackle everything effectively. Logistically, we need to plan out what we want to do and when. 

Keren agrees, we should be as specific as possible in what we want, this has the best chance of achieving meaningful change. 

Millie says St John’s jcr passed a motion to establish a black literature society buying black authors’ books from black-owned bookshops. She thinks this could be a good idea, we could commit jcr funds towards it. 

Cerian says she has a meeting with the master soon feeding back from this meeting; we might want to focus on things we can do quickly, and develop more complex, longer term plans later. She invites any BME members who want to be on this call to get in touch with her. 

Bea says tackling systemic racism within Oxford would take far more than one motion. We need to open up a discussion within Balliol, perhaps based on the Common Ground open letter on racism. In regards to many academic issues e.g. reading lists, little can be done on a college level; we need to target the faculty. 

Dan says that as a STEM student, he didn’t really read books for his degree, and asks for clarification on reading lists. 

Andi says that for classics, she writes two essays a week, with fifteen to twenty five authors listed as sources for each. Over three years, she’s read one book by a black author. Academia is overwhelmingly white; this poses issues with getting BAME students into academic institutions, or interested in certain disciplines. Moreover, it means alternative perspectives are ignored; the voice of the Etonian white man is always centred. In subjective subjects like humanities, this leads to huge blind spots. It limits your horizons, and doesn’t encourage critical thinking. There are few academics of colour working in fields like classics, and many get ignored and pushed out of the mainstream. There are similar issues with female academics; essays on women will have reading lists without female authors on them, let alone women of colour. Science subjects have similar issues, they’re just harder to spot because of the subject matter. The issue is worsened by the fact that many tutors are also privately educated white men. 

Zak suggests donating to legal aid funds supporting BLM. Bail is important, but we want to fight for systematic change. A positive legal precedent could achieve this. 

Keren says she wants an open discussion on which causes to support; bigger charities could be good, or could direct us to good smaller charities . 

Cerians says we should discuss a few options, put them to a vote, and take the top US and UK charities. 

Keren says we need to decide what the money will do, then pick charities from there. 

Cerian asks what cause people want to target. 

Leyla agrees with Zak. Legal precedent makes a huge difference; once one case is decided e.g. that police touching a victim anywhere but the arm is illegal and carries a prison sentence, it is far easier to prosecute other cases. 

Keren suggests we support a US and UK legal aid charity. 

Bea supports donating to legal aid funds. She suggests donating to a selection of UK charities; systematic racism exists everywhere, and issues in the UK seem to be getting ignored at the moment. We could donate to BLM UK. 

Cerian suggests voting on the split between US and UK charities. A vote is taken. A split of 75% UK, 25% US is decided. 

Cerian suggests using the political campaigning fund to reimburse people going to protests. The government is driving the line that nobody should protest, but we should enable anyone to safely protest if they want to. 

Conor says he can authorise this, and is happy to, but we can take a vote on it to show support as a jcr. 

A vote is taken. The political campaigning fund is authorised to be used towards the cost of attending protests. 

Millie suggests supporting longer term policy campaigns. Lobbying for changes to qualified immunity in the US is particularly important. 

Keren says that it might be hard to find a specific charity doing things like that; it might be best to donate to umbrella organisations. 

Millie suggests donating to BLM directly; they’ll know how to effectively direct funds.

Cerian suggests donating to BLM for the US charity, BLM UK and a more specific UK charity. A vote is taken. This passes. 

Conor says splitting funds means more goes to admin fees; we need to weigh this up against the good coming from splitting. 

Zak says umbrella organisations are important, but targeted charities can have a huge impact in a specific area. It’ll take a long time for political lobbying to pay off, but only one successful case is needed to change legal precedent. 

A vote is taken on donating to BLM UK and a UK legal aid charity. This passes. 

Fonie reiterates that we need to check if we can donate to US charities. 

Cerian says she’ll check what other colleges are doing. 

Fonie doesn’t think there’ll be an issue if it’s a private donation. She wants to get confirmation though to be safe. 

Conor says he’ll email Amande to check. 

Cerian says she’ll talk to the master about getting a paper into college meeting committing college as a whole to anti-racism. 

Ben asks how much money we’re donating. 

Conor says Wadham donated £500 at their gm. We’re in the position to do that as well; we haven’t spent money on welfare, the bar, electricity this term. 

Cerian suggests splitting the UK portion of the donation equally between the two UK charities. There’s no opposition to this. 

Zak suggests posting a link to the jcr page to our chosen charities to allow individuals to donate. 

Cerian says we could consider an optional levy in Michealmas supporting these charities too; this can resolved later. 

Michael asks which fund the money will come out of. 

Cerian suggests it comes from reserves. The political campaigning fund doesn’t have the funds we want, and should go towards actual campaigning. The charities fund has been earmarked to give to the charities we chose in Hilary. Donating from reserves would make a statement of support and solidarity, rather than just redirecting our existing charitable commitment. 

Andi suggests donating the unused BME society fund from this term. She asks who decides where the funding for societies and officers goes or can go. 

Cerian says budgets are left to the officers’ discretion, and Conor has final approval over them. She suggests donating £500 from reserves, and any officers budgets can be additional to this. 

Conor says that funds for societies and officers only really exist on paper; we just have an account with a massive lump sum. He’d need to check how this should be divided up. 

Cerian suggests donating a minimum of £500 from reserves, requesting that college releases a public statement committing themselves to anti-racism, posting a link on the jcr page to our chosen charities, and looking into long term support for BLM in Michealmas. 

This is put to a vote. The motion passes. 

Condemning Christ Church jcr committee, and deans 

Dhruv says that as has been reported in student newspapers and the Guardian, at Christ Church jcr hustings, a candidate for cake rep made insensitive, trivialising comments towards BLM protests and George Floyd’s death, comparing them to flour shortages. When Melanie Onovo brought this up at the hustings, she was muted as she wasn’t a candidate. When she tried to bring the issue up again, the jcr president tried to silence her again. We shouldn’t ignore the reputation and past of colleges when events like this are still happening. A student wearing a KKK outfit to a Christ Church bop was punished only by being banned from bops. It’s ridiculous that BAME students are still having to speak out about this. Furthermore, an article in the Oxford Student written by Christ Church students aimed to undermine the seriousness of the issue. He thinks we should express solidarity with Melanie Onovo, and offer her welfare support due to the shocking abuse directed at her for speaking out. We should support anyone challenging racism. 

Cerian says people should check the articles written on this, and Melanie’s own twitter to see just how bad the abuse towards her has been. 

Toye agrees, it’s been disgusting, the welfare impact is huge. 

Cerian suggests amending the motion to explicitly offer welfare support. Dhruv takes this as a friendly amendment. 

Leyla says our welfare policy on racism needs updating; there is no specific process to deal with complaints. She asks people to get in touch if they have any ideas for this. 

Cerian agrees that we need to update our welfare policy; the same issues pop up constantly. We can write this over the summer. 

Dhruv agrees, we need to support people who speak out. 

A vote is taken, the motion passes. 

Oxford rough sleeping charter 

Neither the proposer or seconder of the motion is present. 

Student-staff relationships

Lauren introduces the motion, proposing that student-staff relations involving any academic obligation should be banned. There is currently no centralised mechanism dealing with the problems of such relationships; they should be disclosed to the head of department, but only for fairness rather than to protect the student. If passed, we’d communicate this to college and aim to institute a policy before Michaelmas. 

Michael asks how far the policy would extend; would it cover relationships between Balliol students and tutors from other colleges? 

Lauren says it would be Balliol policy. It Happens Here is trying to bring this motion at all colleges, so there should be equal protection everywhere. 

Zak doesn’t think there should be a concrete ban, but rather guidance to college HR and an onus on staff to disclose relationships, with disciplinary action in place if not. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, a lot of interference might do more harm than good.

Lauren says the spirit of the motion is that student-staff relationships are always inappropriate, as there is always a power imbalance. Many institutions have similar bans in place; it’s safer than just giving guidance that can be ignored. 

Zak would prefer a more flexible approach, but agrees with the sentiment. 

Maddy says that an outright ban could drive relationships underground, preventing them from being reported at all for fear of disciplinary action. This stops students receiving the support they need. Whilst she agrees these relationships are inappropriate, making them easier to report may be a better option. A ban could lead to a complete lack of discussion around the issue, whilst relationships continue hidden away. 

Lauren says this is a fair point. Wadham included an amendment specifying welfare support for students in these relationships no matter what. She thinks it’s important welfare officers are sensitive to the issue. 

Natalina says a public ban would be a statement that student-staff relationships are always wrong. 

Lauren agrees. 

Bea supports the motion as it stands. Reporting systems are often flawed. 95 universities have disclosure policies for staff-student relationships; when asked, only 31 provided the numbers of relationships reported, most of these had zero reports. The policies don’t protect students, and can lead to students being disciplined e.g. for failure to report. A ban would clearly condemn the abuse of power inherent to student-staff relationships and put the focus on the predatory approaches of staff rather than student actions. 

Millie asks if the policy is limited to undergraduates. 

Lauren says the policy is intended to only cover undergraduates. Grad students are a different discussion, and the policy may need amending if it were to apply to them.

Natalina says this motion is being put through some mcrs as well. 

Zak asks which positions of authority over a student the policy would apply to, and if there would be any consequences for students resulting from the ban. 

Lauren says the policy would extend to any academics with a formal obligation towards the student e.g. providing tutorials, personal tutor. It intends to put the consequences on the academics, not the students. 

Molly asks if it would apply to uni staff, or faculty staff as well as college staff. 

Lauren says we can only ask college to ban these relationships for their staff, to apply further, other jcrs would need to pass the motion. 

Michael clarifies his earlier question; would the policy apply if a student from another college was in a relationship with a Balliol tutor? 

Lauren says it would apply in that case. 

A vote is taken. The motion passes.