Bresheeth couldn’t make it to debate the anti-boycott, anti-occupation motion at my local branch, but somehow Stephen Rose now coming. Not bad for a plain old ordinary, current-policy-confirming, motion. While this is a great compliment to the anti-boycott initiative and DH in particular, both the Exec and the member of the committee who is organising this are completely out of order.
I emailed our Exec in support of somebody else who has already done so extremely articulately. Does it take its members for such dimwits that it has to draft in outsiders to make an antiboycott case which may or may not exist within the sphere where this belongs – a local UCU meeting? Does it think its members are so easily intimidated that they require a hero from outside to rally them to the “righteous cause”?
DH, who put forward the original motion, is now required to debate whomever this committee member comes up with, at an open meeting, possibly in front of students. He has also emailed to flag these irregularities and to put some records straight.
I am waiting for the two emails above to be circulated to the local membership as requested by their authors. Nothing so far, and no reply to mine which went to the Exec among others. The way this is being organised stinks. It has also been called ‘baroque’, ‘partisan’, ‘eccentric’ and ‘unilateral’. They should account for themselves.
But there’s something in my inbox now, which makes me cranky. I hate this – damn those bloody boycotters wasting my Union’s time. And making me have to work late.
Well somebody copied me into something which says that the meeting will now be a UCU meeting, rather than open within the College or public, both of which were on the table. Now negotiations are about whether the debate and the vote will be at the same event, which is the only sensible approach, who will chair (and it should not be this committee member), and whether somebody can come to talk about current UCU general boycott policy, hashed out by an Investigative Commission last year.