2020 Annual General Meeting

Date: 29th November 2020 (2020-11-29)

Agenda

Matters Arising

Amendments to Governing Documents

1. Creating the role of Men*’s Mental Health Welfare Officer (MH & JP)

Motions Relating to Financial Matters

Any Other Motions

Appendices 

--------------- 

Matters Arising 

Amendments to Governing Documents 

1. Creating the role of Men*’s Mental Health Welfare Officer (MH & JP) 

This JCR notes that: 

This JCR believes that: 

• The welfare of men* is important. 

• Men*’s welfare includes some issues that are related to being a man* (instead of general welfare issues), that would be better understood by a man* than a woman*.

This JCR resolves to: 

• Create the role of Men*’s Mental Health Welfare Officer 
• This role can be held by anyone that identifies wholly or partially as a man (denoted by the 1test.html csv date.sh date.test end.html final.sh main.sh onlysection.html test2.html test3.html test.csv test.html title.sh title.test usingformfind in the above text). 
• There will be two positions available, as in the case for all other welfare roles.

• This role will start in Hilary Term 2021 and will be elected before the start of that term. 
• It will subsequently be elected every Michaelmas as part of JCR elections.

Motions Relating to Financial Matters 

Any Other Motions 

Minutes

Meg introduces the motion. When she wrote it, she was only focused on the welfare aspect, it wasn’t anything to do with men’s rights and representation. She’s been Dr WHO for the last couple terms, has been peer support trained, and has received welfare support. Through this, she’s identified a problem in current welfare provision around men*’s mental health. Although men are a privileged group in society, they are three times more likely to commit suicide than women, suicide is the leading killer of young men, and men are less likely to go to the doctors with health concerns. The rep created by this motion would be there to create a space to speak out about men*’s mental health and masculinity, aiming to remove the stigma around these topics and designate a clear person to deal with the issue. 

Josh is seconding the motion; he ran the JCR’s Movember campaign, focusing on their slogan that men’s health is in crisis. As students, we are all susceptible to mental health problems, and we should do whatever we can to solve this problem. If a male-identifying fresher saw a male* mental health officer on committee, it would send a clear message that they have somewhere to go. It wouldn’t be about men’s rights. The role won’t solve all the problems around masculinity, but we should take any possible steps in the right direction. 

Short factual questions 

Millie asks what the role would involve - would it mean getting more men peer support trained? 

Meg says she has a basic idea of what the role would be, but is happy to add or change this to make it as effective as possible within the JCR. The rep would be peer support trained, in charge of running the Good Lad workshops, would organise speaker events based around mental health, would sit on welfare sub-committee, and would generally act as a welfare role more visible than peer supporters. 

Millie asks how this would be different to the role of Dr WHO, and whether this role risks making the Dr WHOs redundant. 

Meg says that everyone’s mental health is important, but the experience of being a man and of being a woman are different. Although women* are less privileged, someone with first hand experience identifying as a man would be more effective at providing support for other men* than someone peer support trained but without that first hand experience. Dr WHOs have responsibilities beyond men*’s mental health, so would not be redundant. 

Cerian asks how the officer would be elected. 

Meg says it would follow the same process as elections to other welfare sub-committee roles, so voting would be open to those who self-identify as a man. 

Cerian asks how creating this role is different to requiring that one of the Dr WHOs self-identifies as male. 

Meg says that Dr WHO should be a genderless role. They’re also responsible for more than mental health, whereas this role will be specifically focused on mental health. 

Points of debate 

Rory says he’s in support of the motion. As a gay man, there are some issues he’d prefer to speak to a men*’s mental health officer about over any other welfare role. He thinks female* members of the LGBTQ+ community would feel the same way towards the women*’s officers. Patterns of suicide among gay men are also even more severe than those among men*, and even more disproportionate than other members of the LGBTQ+ community. We should try and widen access to welfare support to as diverse a group of people as possible. 

Meg agrees with Rory. 

Emily says she and Millie as women*’s officers are not in support of the motion. She says Movember was a huge success; it filled a gap in the conversation around men*’s health, and set a great precedent. It clearly showed that men*’s mental health support is something people want and need, and the Dr WHOs and peer supporters should pick up on this. She thinks the motion is well-intended, and understands the distinction made between men’s rights and men’s representation. However, she thinks creating an institutionalised figure through this motion, similar to the women*’s officers, would mean something quite specific. She and Millie have four main concerns. 

1. It’s not clear what the institutional role of the officer would entail - most of the women*’s officer role is admin, e.g. organising pads, sending emails; they don’t think this would transfer well to the role of men*’s mental health officer, so don’t know what the officer would actually be doing
2. The role’s responsibilities should be covered by other officers. There are not women*’s mental health officers. This motion would create a specific male* mental health officer, which wouldn’t mirror the women*’s officers. The peer supporters and Dr WHO’s should provide mental health support, not the women*’s officers. It’s a coincidence that Millie, one of this year’s women*’s officers, has been peer support trained. 
3. Balliol has historically been a male dominated space. The current third year is far from an equal gender split. The current welfare officers aim to run socials and events to combat the othering of specific groups within college including women*. This dynamic would not be present for a men*’s mental health officer, as men are not an othered group within college. 
4. This motion is well-intended, but we need to think about what the role could come to mean in the future. We all know there is a problem around men*’s mental health. However, there is symbolic significance to having a male* mental health rep, and if there is a gender split in an incoming year of freshers, this could alienate non-male* students.

Emily says she thinks this motion has identified a problem, but it should be tackled in other ways. For example, we could require there to be a male-identifying peer supporter who leads the charge of men*’s mental health and Movember. 

Josh says that if we can recognise there is a gap in existing welfare provision, we should create something new to fill it rather than fall back on the existing structure that we know if lacking. He thinks this role is independent of the women*’s officers, as addressing men*’s mental health is independent from tackling discrimination against women*. 

He doesn’t see the lack of admin as a problem, as pushing to improve men*’s mental health could span to include tons of activities. 

He acknowledges that college is male-dominated, but thinks we should try and create inclusive spaces rather than exclusive ones. He thinks the existing welfare roles and men*’s mental health officer can co-exist perfectly well. 

He doesn’t see how the role could be interpreted negatively. We would still need and have women*’s officers, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need men*’s mental health officers. 

He thinks if we designate that one peer supporter must identify as male and take on the responsibilities this role would take on, we may as well make a men*’s mental health officer anyway. 

Meg says St. John’s, Magdalen, St. Catz, and Exeter have men*’s welfare reps, and our role would be more specific than theirs. There is precedent to creating a men*’s welfare role, John’s have had one without issue for five years. Men* can still suffer even though they are a privileged group, and as Dr WHO, she feels she would not be doing her role properly if she did not address this issue. We raised a lot through Movember, but this wasn’t to support men* in college. 

Emily says that the peer supporters are not JCR committee members. She understands the men*’s mental health is a massive issue, but there are not women*’s mental health reps, the Dr WHO’s are meant to be mental health reps for everyone, dealing with big welfare issues as well as specific welfare complaints. The JCR committee is already big, and we should think carefully about adding more officers when there is a role that can already deal with the issues at hand, and scope for peer supporters to tackle the issue as well. 

Cerian says that a lot of the opposition to this motion is stemming from the comparison of a men*’s mental health officer to the other welfare roles on committee. She asks if Meg would be willing to take out the preamble comparing the two. 

Meg says that on the website, the women*’s officer role description includes offering mental health support, hence why she thought the two were comparable. She’s willing to take the preamble out if this is not the case. 

Keren says that the preamble to the motion was badly worded and insensitive, comparing incomparable experience. She acknowledges the issues around men*’s welfare, and thinks Meg has the best intentions, but thinks that in a few years, this role could be perceived very badly, as the lack of a parallel officer for women*’s mental health means the role would not bring us closer to gender equality. 

Meg says she herself is a part of three marginalised groups, and she never intended to cause offense. She thought that because the women*’s officers provide welfare support, and mental health is a part of welfare, that there was effectively a female* mental health officer, but that she is happy to remove the comparison now. 

Cerian says that nobody thinks this motion was made with bad intentions. 

Keren says that Meg is a lovely person with good intentions, but good intentions are irrelevant if they create something negative. If we want mental health officers, we should make men*’s and women*’s officers for this to put everyone on an equal footing. She thinks there is a high risk this motion does not go as intended. 

Josh agrees that the wording of the motion is not appropriate, and thinks the preamble should be removed, as this role is unconnected to any other welfare role, occupying a different level and focusing on specific mental health concerns. He thinks someone should be looking out for the JCR’s mental health, and would support creating a women*’s mental health officer. However, he thinks there is a gap in welfare provision if both Dr WHO’s are women*, for example men* are unlikely to approach them with issues around erectile dysfunction. 

Naa says that other colleges with men*’s officers like St John’s include in their role description that male* specific events should be organised - she asks if Meg thinks that would be a part of this role. 

Meg says she left it intentionally broad, and is happy to include whatever the JCR wants. She envisions the officer holding men*’s welfare teas, alongside the women*’s and general welfare teas already run, increasing the provision of the Good Lad workshops, and organising Movember in the absence of other volunteers. 

Emma asks if the Good Lad workshops would come under the intended responsibilities of the role. 

Meg thinks they would; they tackle toxic masculinity which has a big impact of men*’s mental health. 

Huw says that when we came to Oxford, he became very involved with Balliol rugby team. He thinks his time here would have been tough without them; he doesn’t know who he would have spoken to without that support network. He isn’t sure he’d have spoken to a male* mental health officer, but he wouldn’t have spoken to the Dr WHOs and thinks creating this new role could make men*’s time at Balliol a bit easier. 

In terms of the Good Lad workshops, you have to be trained in order to run them. There are three sections - one on male* mental health, one on diversity and inclusion, and one on relationships, sex, and other genders. He isn’t sure if the workshops would come under the role. 

Josh asks if Huw is the only Good Lad facilitator at Balliol. 

Huw says he is. 

Josh says that the officer could make sure someone in the JCR is always trained as a facilitator, to make sure the workshops don’t end because the facilitator graduates. 

Huw says the workshops don’t have to be given by a facilitator from the college receiving the workshops. He did not feel comfortable giving the workshop to Balliol rugby team, so a facilitator from another college delivered it. 

Bee says the motion is well-intended, but it doesn’t make sense to have a distinct male* mental health officer and no parallel women*’s mental health officer. As Rory said, different mental health stigmas affect those from different identities to varying degrees of severity across intersecting axes. Women* are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety. She thinks that as a female fresher entering a male dominated space, she’d have been very aware of the different levels of welfare provision. 

She also thinks the JCR is already massive, and it’s already fairly hard to find candidates to run for Dr WHO. Most roles in the recent JCR elections were uncontested (there are over 20 roles on the JCR committee; four of these were contested). Practically, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to create more roles to be filled; it could be more helpful to focus on peer supporter recruitment. 

Kitty agrees. The Dr WHOs have a remit over mental health, and as we want to tackle the issue from an intersectional standpoint, it may be risky and unproductive to divide this remit into demographics. There are a plurality of identities in the JCR, and this role risks reinforcing a gender binary. 

Millie says that though mental health provision must be differentiated, reaffirming the gender binary is unhelpful; we should work to widen provision for different identities through the peer supporters. 

Meg says that she doesn’t understand why women*’s mental health provision doesn’t come from the women*’s officers, when this is stated in the constitution. 

Kitty says that though identity-based welfare roles do provide mental health support, this support is related to the experiences of that identity. Although they wouldn’t turn away someone seeking support beyond this, that wouldn’t be a primary part of their role. 

Meg thinks that this doesn’t invalidate the case for a male* mental health officer, as the women*’s officers can provide mental health support from the experience of women*, and the LGBTQ+ reps can provide mental health support for trans and non-binary students. 

Cerian says there is a long standing recognition in the JCR that the LGBTQ+ reps don’t represent trans individuals to the extent that they should be represented; it’s been a long time since trans issues were at the forefront of the role. 

She says that the mental health aspect of the roles based around identities focus on raising awareness and visibility around the issues suffered by that group, and creating safe spaces for them, rather than offering peer support, or help with specific mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety. She also says the stated role on the website or in the constitution may well be different to the responsibilities of the role in practise, and we should consider what the roles actually do. 

Meg says we could create a trans rep if we think trans issues aren’t being tackled enough in the JCR; she doesn’t think a lack of roles to deal with other issues means we can be happy with continuing failure in another area. She’s a vocal advocate for mental health; she’s written two personal articles on the subject, is peer support trained, is Dr WHO, and has experience dealing with counselling, doctors, and Bruce. She knows from this that the Dr WHOs are currently failing men*, independent of whether the JCR is failing in other areas as well. 

Millie says that creating extra roles on committee will do little to solve the problem, and it may be more effective to expand peer support training. 

Meg says that peer support training is very intense, dealing with intersectionality and stigmas around mental health conditions, but dealing with men*’s mental health specifically opens the door to even more issues. She thinks that if current roles on committee are not offering sufficient welfare support to students, they’re ineffective and we should reform how those roles work instead of abandoning the project of offering welfare support as a committee. 

Cerian says that it’s not so much that the roles are ineffective, but that they’re tackling a different part of mental health. 

Meg says they should also be tackling a wider range of welfare and mental health issues. 

Cerian says that this is traditionally avoided because of the weight it would be put on students voluntarily filling committee roles. 

DP agrees with Huw; without sport and the rugby team, he’d have nobody to turn to. He’d personally never go to a female* welfare rep, and thinks there needs to be some sort of role held by someone wholly or partially identifying as male to provide welfare support to men*. The JCR is failing if welfare support is only stemming from sports teams. He thinks that the issue of the JCR growing too big is irrelevant when weighed against the benefit of helping men* and making sure everyone in the JCR has someone to turn to. 

Millie says she supports the motion. She thinks the size of committee is a separate issue. The role would provide representation for a huge issue for a lot of the student body. She doesn’t think the role would take away from the representation of women* in the JCR; men experience some issues very badly, and this often stems from the patriarchy. The face of the JCR is also changing; the last two years have been female* dominated, so having a men*’s rep could increasingly become a good idea. 

Meg says she thinks if one person is helped by creating this role, it will have been a good thing. 

Kajuli says that it’s valid that men* don’t feel comfortable going to a female* Dr WHO, but thinks this issue has arisen from the specific situation of having two female* Dr WHOs. She understands the concern about gendering welfare, but creating a men*’s mental health rep genders welfare anyway, so thinks a male* welfare rep would be a better way to tackle the problem. 

Michael says he doesn’t understand why peer supporters and Dr WHOs can’t deal with this issue. If he was looking for welfare support, he’d look at the existing welfare roles and find someone who looks the most like him, and who he identifies with the most. He doesn’t understand the need to have a named identity attached to welfare roles, rather than having a range of people take welfare roles, and let students choose who they’re most comfortable bringing their concerns to. 

Meg says there are more than two genders, and designating a male* and female* Dr WHO could exclude trans and non-binary students from taking on the role. We could have three Dr WHOs, one male*, one female*, and one position with no gender requirements. She doesn’t want anyone to be excluded. 

She doesn’t think the role is about gendering mental health, rather it’s about including more people in our welfare provision. 

She thinks creating the role would have no effect on most people, but would be really helpful for some, and therefore why not do it? 

Kajuli disagrees that it would have no effect on most people - seeing only a male* mental health rep could make people feel less welcome in the JCR. She says that other colleges have arranged their Dr WHOs to require a combination of different genders guaranteeing there is a man* in a welfare role, for example through having three Dr WHOs, so there are ways around the gender binary issue. 

Meg says that would be creating a new role anyway, so why not just create this role? She’s open to creating a women*’s mental health rep on committee as well. 

Amy says that she’s against the motion. She thinks the responsibilities of the role should already be covered by the Dr WHOs, and thinks creating mental health reps starting with men*, the most privileged group in society, is misguided and exclusionary by definition. We should focus on expanding existing welfare provision rather than bloating committee. She also thinks many people are more comfortable with certain people based on their personality, rather than their identity. She thinks the motion is misogynistic. 

Molly says that she thinks we could bypass the gender binary issue by creating a Movember rep, who would specialise in a similar area. She thinks that if the officer has little admin to do, and nobody asks for welfare support, they could easily become redundant, and just a peer supporter with a title. Specific responsibility for Movember could fix this. 

Josh thinks there could be issues with this as it uses the name of a charity. He also thinks the campaign is tightly linked to November, so is unsure what the rep would do in other months. He says it’s a good idea he’s thought about, but it doesn’t have the same power as creating an officer. 

He says that men are certainly privileged, but their mental health is still in crisis - these can be believed at the same time. Everyone suffers at Oxford, and he just wants to help more people through that. He understands the role may look divisive, but it’s actually inclusive, ensuring nobody gets missed out, and filling an existing gap. 

Meg says the misogyny point is upsetting; she’s a strong feminist, and the motion is absolutely not rooted in misogyny. She has noticed a problem as Dr WHO and is looking to fix it. She says as well as the colleges previously mentioned, Teddy Hall, Oriel, Mansfield, Univ, Corpus and Brasenose have male* welfare officers; they can exist without controversy and they have something to do. 

Liz says that in those other colleges, the role of men*’s officers is not the same as what is being proposed here. For example, at Magdalen, they have a tripartite welfare system, with a head of welfare, and a male* and female* welfare trustee. She thinks this is a good idea, effectively managing the interests and identities in play. She thinks creating a separate mental health role means only a certain group of the JCR have that level of mental health support, and suggests that other forms of welfare are not as important. She thinks the motion is well-intended, and it’s a shame it hasn’t developed as wanted. 

Hamzah says that he supports the motion. He thinks the Dr WHOs don’t have the capacity, time, or energy to tackle this issue effectively, and tasking them with solving it would put a lot of pressure on them. The motion exists because of a gap in provision, and that gap is there for a reason. He thinks creating an extra role on committee is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. 

Susie says we should absolutely have more discussion on this issue, and that Josh has done a fantastic job this month. She thinks creating a separate role has been construed as something it’s not intended to be, and would unintentionally reconstruct the whole welfare team. 

Meg says everyone’s mental and physical welfare matters, but men*’s mental health is not being focused on. There are constitutional provisions to support the welfare of other groups within the JCR. She also points out that almost every man* who has spoke has been in favour of the motion. 

Emily says the motion is literally gendering welfare. If we want ungendered welfare provision, we already have it through the Dr WHOs, and she thinks it’s perfectly in line with their role to provide the welfare support the motion is trying to achieve. She thinks peer supporters could easily hold events aiming to improve male* welfare. There are already important roles we could use to tackle this issue, rather than creating a new role and introducing a whole range of broader issues alongside it. 

Conor says that misogynistic and antifeminist men are likely not those who care much about mental health anyway, so they wouldn’t want to take on this role. He thinks the role gives permission for men* to be weak to each other, and could only lead to men* becoming more in touch with how they behave, leading to better interactions with other genders. He is unsure how the role could directly harm anyone, but it could definitely directly help someone, although he acknowledges he may not be able to appreciate the harm done as a man. 

Millie says the role would create issues around the optics of having solely a male* mental health rep, potentially othering non-male* members of the JCR and suggesting male* mental health is more important than that of other genders as the distinction inherently places the mental health of other genders second, particularly with existing gender dynamics. She says there are other routes to tackle the problem that won’t create the same tensions. 

Meg says she does not want to gender the Dr WHOs; their role consists of liaising with Bruce, getting tutors training on dealing with students with anxiety or panic attacks, liaisng with college, running welfare walks and teas, providing condoms and prescriptions, overseeing peer support training, writing welfare emails, organising welfare week events - there’s plenty to do beyond the specific axis of welfare this motion tackles. 

Danish says he would not be comfortable speaking to a female* welfare officer. He thought that Dr WHO was a role for women* and was surprised when James ran for it. 

Cerian says that is definitely not the case. This is the first year she can remember where only women* have been Dr WHOs; when she was Dr WHO, her partner was non-binary, and the year before, it was a man and a woman. 

Gwen asks why Meg is opposed to gendering the Dr WHOs, but not explicitly gendering mental health welfare provision through creating this role. 

Meg says that the JCR already has roles providing welfare tailored to certain characteristics, so already genders welfare and this motion simply expands on that. 

Gwen says that existing identity based roles are not there to provide welfare. 

Meg says that constitutionally, they are; they sit on welfare subcommittee, the constitution says they provide welfare, and they run welfare teas. 

Gwen says the reality of the roles is different to what the constitution says they are, and we can’t use the constitution to disprove the reality of the committee. 

Leah says that if the motion does not pass, the issue is still important and we should do something about it. She suggests a constitutional amendment that if when the Dr WHOs are elected, they all identify as the same gender, the committee can co-opt another Dr WHO of a different gender identity. 

A vote is taken and 60% are in favour of the motion. As this is a constitutional amendment, it must receive a 75% majority in order for it to pass, so the motion fails. 

It cannot be made into a standing order amendment, as that would also require 75% to pass.