The ‘Women’s Empowerment’ motion which sparked controversy in Jesus last week was defeated in an online referendum last Friday.
The motion would have mandated Jesus’ Female Welfare Officer to hold an annual event “related to the topic of empowering women”.
188 Jesus undergraduates cast their votes in the referendum, with 43.2% voting in favour and 56.8% voting against.
The motion was initially proposed in a JCR meeting on 14th May but was defeated after falling short of the two-thirds majority required for constitutional change with 61% of JCR members for and 39% against.
After JCR President Thomas Rutland was given a petition with 50 signatures, he called an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss the issue.
Natasha Frost, a second year languages student, spoke in favour of the motion, followed by finalist Alexandra Bassett who spoke against on behalf of Danielle Zigner, the former JCR president.
Bassett suggested in her speech that the organisation of a Women’s Empowerment Event should be mandated to the recently created Equal Opportunities Committee rather than the Women’s Welfare Officer.
After the result, Bassett praised the running of the EGM. She said, “It was chaired spectacularly and with complete fairness by Rosie Colthorpe.
“Voting against this motion is in no way sexist but simply a matter of whether the role of our Welfare Officer should have a campaigning or a welfare emphasis.”
JCR President Thomas Rutland, who had initially proposed the motion, said there was “widespread support for running the event but not for codifying it into the constitution under the Women’s Welfare Rep role”. He added, “[Jesus JCR] will be running an event related to Women’s Empowerment either this term or next.”
Rutland claimed that the motion’s failure to pass “does not represent a sexist decision. The main source of disagreement was regarding where to place it within the constitution.”
Some students were disappointed at the defeat of the referendum. One wrote on Facebook, “We should all be very, very ashamed of this.”
In a separate post they said, “The suggestion that we should not make this constitutional because the female welfare rep might not be interested in gender equality is a staggering one.”
