Referen-dum-dum-dum!

Photo Cat Wayland

The YUSU Democracy Committee has decided to hold a referendum on a controversial motion that looks to overhaul the position of Women’s Officer.

If members vote ‘yes’ to the motion, “Should the role of YUSU Women’s Officer be replaced by Gender Equalities Officer?” the Women’s Officer position will change to Gender Equality Officer and will be held by two people. One of the officers must self-define as a man and the other must self-define as a woman.

The motion, proposed by an ordinary student of the union and since sent to referendum by the Democracy Committee, has stirred up a whirlwind of controversy.

Women’s Officer Cat Wayland tweeted: “@yorkunisu @YUSUWomens cannot even begin to articulate my rage #fuckingchauvinists”.

Wayland and her co-Women’s Officer Nell Beecham expressed concerns over the adverse effect the proposed motion would have on views about gender equality.

They told Vision: “Whilst we recognise that gender inequality is detrimental to all persons, not just women, losing the Women’s Officers and Committee allows us conveniently to forget that women historically have suffered and still do suffer disproportionately.”

They fear that running campaigns and providing information on issues “appertaining specifically to women” would not be in the remit of the proposed Gender Equalities Officers.

Wayland and Beecham have also hailed the proposition as “deeply transphobic” claiming that the role would prevent “anyone who self-defines outside of the gender binary, who neither consider themselves a man nor a woman, from standing.”

Many critics of the proposition are aware of the lack of women’s representation worldwide. YUSU President Tim Ellis told Vision: “Women are consistently under-represented around the world, in the UK, and even in our Students Union where I am part of an all male Sabbatical team.

“I would argue that it is necessary to have a Women’s Campaigning Network that is led by women to create awareness of the inequality that women still continue to face.”

Another educational institute has also opposed the motion. In a letter to YUSU, the Executive Committee of West Thames College Student Union (WTCSU) stated: “It is not typical for us to comment upon democratic matters within another SU, but these circumstances are so grave that for us to choose to remain silent would constitute an act of reprehensible cowardice.”

WTCSU explained: “Without a Women’s Officer who is necessarily female, female students no longer have the right to be sure that somebody on the Exec [committee] fully understands women’s oppression.”

This motion to is the second of two contoversial propositions being put to a referendum. Motion 1 asks, “Should YUSU ‘twin’ with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem?” If the members vote yes YUSU will “twin” with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and lobby the University of York to do the same. Furthermore, the Union will work to build links with students at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Jacob Campbell, Press Officer for UKIP Friends of Israel thinks that this measure is important in expressing “solidarity with Israelis at this time of great uncertainty in the Middle East.

“I believe that by building links between British and Israeli students we can forge a relationship of mutual understanding that is conducive to greater sympathy for the Middle East’s only democracy.”

Peter Spence, the coordinator of the “no campaign” against this proposition wrote on their Facebook page: “As a foreign policy target to increase sympathy with Israel, this motion falls well beyond YUSU’s remit, while wasting Union resources on international campaigning.”

Spence is also concerned that, if passed, the motion will have a dire effect on the way the University’s political stance is perceived, “potentially labelling York as a ‘pro-Israel’ University, putting off neutral and pro-Palestine students and staff.”

Ellis expresses similar sentiment, claiming that the Union would be stepping on “dangerous territory.”

He urges “all students to think carefully about the implications of the referendum motions if they were to pass.”