St Andrews Radio

DoRep Sam Fowles writes exclusively for STAR on why this Sabbatical team is not afraid to be labelled political.

"This semester, I addressed the first ever Students Representative Forum, an event bringing together School Presidents, the SRC, SSC and the Senior Students of halls and open to every student in the university. I launched a new direction in student representation; defending the opportunity for innovative thinking, open debate and individuality at a time when we are increasingly in danger of reducing education to a commodity.

Another issue raised was that of communication. It was thought that, historically, students have felt a certain detachment from the Union. We want to know what’s going on but when the Union does try to communicate (emails, facebook, twitter etc) we find it irritating. I completely agree with this – so here’s me not emailing you to tell you what I’m doing about it.

A union that’s disconnected with its students is obviously not acceptable but if we can’t force people to read their emails (or even The Saint!). I don’t think it’s about the method of communication so much as what we’re communicating. Action improves engagement, not finding new ways to talk about doing nothing. You have no reason to be interested in what we’re telling them unless what we’re telling you is interesting. In 1990 Coca-Cola spent millions on a marketing campaign to tell people about “New Coke” but that couldn’t make up for the fact that no one liked the taste.

For us this means we must have the courage to deal with the difficult issues. This can be on a big scale like tuition fees, supporting the strikes or, in the case of the SRF, setting out new goals for the Higher Education sector as a whole. But we must also not be afraid to take on the difficult issues in our own student community. In the past there has been a temptation in St Andrews to see ourselves as in the famous “bubble”, that our community is isolated and that we are in some way protected from the responsibility that our actions reverberate in wider society. The issue of effigy burning demonstrated clearly that we no longer have that luxury. It makes it even more important that the Union is prepared to show leadership.

Of course, in doing this, we open ourselves up to criticism of “politicising” our offices. But I believe that this is criticism we should be prepared to take on the chest. Obviously none of us stood for election as a “party political” candidate. But each of us was elected based on a certain set of promises and a certain set of values. We have to accept that not everyone will agree with those promises or share those values (none of us were elected unanimously) but this is not reason to be ashamed of them. Our offices are political, whether we admit it or not. Declining to speak up on issues is as political as speaking out on them because, from an elected representative, silence is de facto acceptance. When we deal with the difficult issues we make ourselves an active body which can have a genuine effect on our constituents lives: When we refuse to deal with issues for fear of being labelled “too political” we deserve to be ignored. As such our choice is not whether to be political or not to be political but whether to be relevant or irrelevant. You can never represent everyone at once but by doing nothing you represent no one at all.

It has been my privilege this year to serve in a Union that has increasingly demonstrated the courage to deal with the difficult issues, both nationally and within the St Andrews student community and also demonstrated the maturity and integrity to resolve them. In a recent issue of The Saint Patrick and I wrote about the dangers that the, so called, “Principal’s Student Advisory Group” posed to student democracy. In this issue I’m happy to announce that we have reached a compromise with the organisers and the group will continue as a fair and accountable focus group; open to all. This is just one of the issues this year in which SRC action has lead to a positive compromise. I was delighted to rewrite our motion condemning the GIG (for an objectifying event and ad campaign) into a motion commending them for the integrity and maturity they showed in resolving the issue and this semester I worked in cooperation with a number of students to end effigy burning in St Andrews for good after the SRC endorsed my statement on the subject. But there are still issues with which we are failing to deal; we can still do more.

All of these matters ended in compromise but one cannot compromise if one never states a position to begin with. Our core values may be worlds apart and the best solution is often in the middle ground, but it is better to have different values than none at all. Members of the SRC have established a new working group on communication and I look forward to this group’s recommendations. But there is very little point in talking about communication until we have something to communicate. We must first speak before we can hope or expect to be heard."