Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

OUSU VP (Women) position survives referendum threat

A motion to hold a referendum on
whether the OUSU position of Vice-President (Women) should be kept has been
rejected by members of OUSU council. The referendum would have been held in 6th
week for female members of the University with the question “The position
Vice-President (Women) should continue, yes or no?” The motion, which was put forward
by Helen Bagshaw from Balliol and Lorna Stevenson from Hertford was defeated by
an overwhelming majority of council. Both declined to comment on the motion to
Cherwell.James Lamming, Merton JCR
President, who was present at the meeting said the reasons for putting forward
the motion appeared to be “to encourage consultation and discussion on whether
the VP (Women) should still exist, rather than to call for its removal.”OUSU President Emma Norris said, “The
major issue for rejection seemed to be the lack of consultation with those who
matter such as women’s officers and common rooms.” She said the reasons for
creating the post of VP (Women); “to fight discrimination and make provision
for women in a male-dominated university” had not yet been dealt with and
added, “A simple yes or no doesn’t address all the responsibilities of the VP
(Women) and opportunities for changing the post rather than getting rid of it.”Bex Wilkinson, a former VP
(Women) said that she was “very glad that the motion was defeated,” and felt
the issue was raised because “people always want to change things about OUSU
and, because OUSU is limited by money, there are always positions that people
think can be moved or got rid of.”Lamming said that he supported
discussion of OUSU’s various roles but said that “a referendum in the middle of
an election campaign would have simplified and trivialized the issue too much.” He continued, “More generally I
support the role because a VP (Women) is much better qualified for a variety of
female welfare issues such as pregnancy, which I do not believe a male welfare
sab [sabbatical officer] would be as approachable for.” He added that he was “pleased
the motion did not pass”.Ellie Cumbo, the current VP
(Women) believes that the motion was rejected because “there is still a strong
recognition in common rooms that the post is still necessary as long as women
remain in the minority at every level of Oxford
life.” With regards to Bagshaw and Stevenson, Cumbo said, “I know that their
motions were pure if a little naïve.” She said that she wants to “show students
how valuable the position is” and move closer to a time when “the need for
someone to campaign full-time on these issues will disappear.”ARCHIVE: 2nd week MT 2005

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles