Comments Off on The ANUSA Explainers: An Introduction
The goings-on of ANUSA, and student politics on campus remain widely misunderstood and ignored by ANU students. The fault here does not lie with these ordinary students. The intricacies of ANUSA are overtly complicated and bureaucratic – which anyone who has attended an ANUSA meeting can confirm.
So, we at Woroni News present to you: The ANUSA Explainers
We hope this helps you feel less lost when someone starts yelling at you about the most recent motion passed at SRC 3.
ANUSA
ANUSA (or ANU Students’ Association) is, ‘the peak representative body for all undergraduate students and ANU College students at ANU.’ They advocate for the interests of students directly to the university. This includes promoting student welfare, as well as coordinating social events like O-Week.
With such a broad role in ANU, ANUSA is split into several individual groups which handle different aspects of student life. These include the Executive, College Representatives, General Representatives, and Department Officers.
Importantly, if you are an undergraduate student at ANU, you’re a member of ANUSA.
Meetings
Generally speaking, most students have a brief un- derstanding of who ANUSA is. What is less under- stood, however, is how decisions are made and what goes on in ANUSA meetings.
There are two distinct types of public meetings that ANUSA holds of significant interest to students: SRCs and General Meetings. The key difference between these is that any ANUSA member (i.e. any undergraduate student at the ANU) can vote on motions in a General Meeting. SRCs are the most common, occurring roughly once a month during the university year. While open to the whole student body, only members of the SRC (those representatives mentioned above) can vote on motions presented in the meeting.
The SRC meetings themselves are divided into two ‘acts’ if you will, and follows an agenda posted by the General Secretary five working days before the meeting takes place. Firstly, executive and department reports are given. These reports provide an overview on the members’ activities over the last few weeks and are often taken as read, meaning that the report is not given at the SRC and is simply left on the agenda to be read by any interested parties at their leisure. At this time, the questions can be directly asked to the member giving the report.
Following this, motions are debated and voted on. These motions are moved and seconded by any member present, and changes may be made to the motion any time during the meeting. These amendments can be ‘friendly’ (accepted by the mov- er) or may otherwise have to be debated. Through- out this process, the meeting is led (‘chaired’) by the General Secretary who attempts to keep the meeting both orderly and on schedule. However, the chair may be passed for several reasons – of- ten when the Secretary themselves is involved in a motion.
General meetings follow a broadly similar structure; being led by the General Secretary and including reports and motions to be voted on. There are three types of these meetings: an Ordinary General Meet- ing (OGM), the Annual General Meeting (AGM), and Special General Meetings (SGM). At least one OGM must be held in each teaching period, except in the same period as an AGM. As suggested in its name, an AGM is held once a year: ‘convened by the General Secretary within six months after the end of each Financial Year.’ Unlike other General Meetings, AGMs must include a financial review. SGMs can be called any time during the following a petition ‘of the Association’ or a ‘simple majority of the SRC.’
In any of these meetings, an individual can be ‘named’ at the discretion of the Secretary. If some- one is named three times they have to leave, and the meeting cannot continue until they do so.
*This article has been updated for online to aid in clarity.
The annual election for ANU Student Association (ANUSA) positions is bound to be overwhelming for any first year. How do you engage in this election discourse? Keywords such as ‘NUS accreditation goals’ or ‘low SES representation’ will be foreign to people who have just settled into university. At the same time, it’s impossible to ask someone to click and read up on every General Representative’s profile picture to learn about their background and goals. To a certain extent, both Observer and Woroni have done a fantastic job in recent years of providing election coverage that has narrowed this information gap.
My personal experience with the elections has been unique: I’ve always supported my friends’ endeavours to run for something that means a lot to them. In my first year, I found the ANUSA elections overwhelming, as a large number of strangers – as well as my friends – ran for roles I didn’t quite understand. In the next year, Observer election breakdown articles and explainers gave me a better understanding of what candidates were advocating for. This even prompted me to take part in some of Facebook group ANU Schmidtposting’s Q&A sessions. Finally, I gained the courage to run on my own terms after being involved with ANUSA opportunities such as the Clubs Council and volunteering on a first-year camp.
‘Selling yourself’ on ANUSA’s official expression of interest form is one way to get involved. However, the creative freedom (whether that be aesthetic design choices or the goals I wanted to achieve) I would retain from organising my own campaign appealed to me. Overall, elections challenge you to think outside the box and consider how you might differentiate yourself from your competition. Anyone who saw me during last year’s campaign zone knew me for my “Believe” campaign slogan and the large banner that I frequently used.
Branding will be your most important element to set yourself apart. As always, logos have to be ‘catchy,’ but must retain important properties such as being visible when shrunk. In today’s modern age, do-it-yourself graphic design is made easier with apps such as Canva. At the same time, it’s important to have a dedicated website that contains detailed word breakdown and explanations ready at the same time as when you launch your Facebook platform. This way, interested readers will know what to expect immediately. In another instance, running solo means you’ll have more time and space to promote your own content, whereas group tickets have to equally dedicate their time on social media to promote their members.
I think overall, my greatest advice would be to hone in on what makes you you. I’m referring to this in two ways. Firstly, the flexibility of the Gen Rep role means that you’re able to determine what you’d like to do during your time at ANUSA. Developing this comes easier when you choose to run on something you’re passionate about. Coming from a clubs and societies background, I refrained from dabbling in things I never fully understood such as residential policy. Next, keep close to your own core values, and only do what works for you. I was adamant on running as fairly as possible on my own terms, and made the conscious decision not to have endorsements from any of the platforms I was running at the time. I also decided not to implement certain tips I was given, whether that was the suggestion to use Mandarin to communicate with native Mandarin speakers or using a spreadsheet to keep count of whom I had messaged.
Although I was running as my own candidate, I was never alone. I recruited my friend Alexa Malizon, who generously created my campaign advertising materials and gradually became my pseudo-campaign manager. I sought advice from members of last year’s general representative cohort and people with previous experience with ANUSA elections before knowing for sure that I wanted to run. At the same time, I took a break from physical campaigning during the third day of open polls, because I was falling behind on completing an assignment.
Overall, contesting elections the way I wanted to was an eye-opening and rewarding experience. I would encounter old friends on the campaign zone while meeting new people with whom I’d be working in the next year. I think one of the most exciting aspects of being on ANUSA was attending a Kambri student focus group shortly after the election. One last thing: remember that being in ANUSA isn’t everything, and there are many different ways to contribute to student life at ANU. If you’re reading this, and will be running for something you’re passionate about, then I wish you good luck.
Comments Off on How to Run for ANUSA: Lessons from the 2018 CAP Rep Race
ANUSA elections are inherently inaccessible. Most people lack the institutional knowledge, connections or time needed to run a successful campaign alone. While running on a full ticket increases accessibility, under the current election culture joining a ticket requires the social connections to be shoulder-tapped and a willingness to campaign for the entire ticket. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Last year I, along with my partner, contested the College of Asia-Pacific (CAP) Representative positions. Without any guidance, we made many mistakes. And yet, we still (mostly) succeeded. With the 2020 ANUSA elections just around the corner, I want to share my experience and advice so that any passionate individual can feel confident running for ANUSA.
If you are interested in running for ANUSA, I encourage you to read the electoral guide publication that the association has published for this year, as it provides official advice and guidance on how to run. This article will focus on my personal advice.
Why do you want to run?
If you want to run, you need to first ask yourself ‘why?’ Why do you think you’re the best candidate? Why do you think ANUSA is the best place in which to achieve your goals? Forming a clear vision for what you want to do if elected will help you convince people to elect you and guide you through your term.
When communicating what you want to do, focus on your broader vision. Candidates running in ANUSA elections have often focused too much on the small policy fixes, ignoring the big ideas needed for meaningful change on campus. This means you should find an important structural issue to focus on and build a policy around that.
It’s important to remember that you actually need to stand for something. Many candidates in the past have promised vague goals or bland policy, like improving mental health services. Here’s the thing: no one is against that. However, a more specific policy stating that ANUSA should scrap Clubs Council and use its funding to pay for a full-time counsellor is something you can campaign for.
Likewise, words like ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency,’ need to be backed up. Do these words mean you’ll be overly critical at Student Representative Council (SRC) meetings at the risk of alienating your colleagues? Or, will you maintain your campaign page and give frequent updates on your campaign promises? Taking a specific stance on a complex issue, promising actionable goals, and showing a commitment to work towards them will make you a strong candidate.
How do I get started?
To run for ANUSA, you first need to nominate yourself and register a ticket. Even if you’re running by yourself, changes in the electoral rules mean that you must be either on a ticket or placed in ‘group unspecified.’ If you’re on a ticket you’ll be able to brand yourself, spend money to campaign, and have access to printing credits. If you choose the latter, you will only be listed on the ballot.
The new rules have removed the option of running as an ‘independent.’ But it’s still possible for you to run as an individual. There is no minimum number of people needed for a ticket. This means that you can organise a one-person, two-person, or small group ticket.
You need to come up with a ticket name, list yourself as the convener, and then have five students sign off on the ticket nomination (they do not have to be on your ticket). Then, you nominate yourself on a separate form and list your ticket.
If you’re running as a college representative, you also should think about whether to run alone or with a partner. The benefit of having a partner is that the two of you would ideally have a good working dynamic, similar ideas, and the ability to support each other during the election process.
The downside, however, is that because college reps are decided proportionately, you are effectively competing against each other (if the race is contested). If you decide to run with a partner, you can always choose to preference yourselves to let votes flow or make preferencing random.
After this, you need to familiarise yourself with the electoral regulations. The important bits are the financial regulations and electoral offences. They can be confusing to read, and I recommend getting in touch with the probity team if you have questions. They’d be more than happy to help you – they helped me several times during my election. Probity will also run information sessions after nominations close.
How do I campaign?
Now for the intimidating part: campaigning. This can be far easier for individuals and small tickets, with good preparation. If you don’t have to manage a group of 30 or more people, it’ll be easier for you to find photographers or graphic designers. Plus, you will have more time to focus on campaigning for yourself, rather than for 30 other people on a ticket. You can also take advantage of your underdog status when campaigning.
Additionally, if you’re running for a college rep position, you only need to campaign to the students within your college. Depending on your college, this can range from just over 100 people to over 1,000 people. Previous election results, available on the ANUSA website, can paint a picture of how many people in your college tend to vote.
In ANUSA elections, there is often an emphasis on in-person campaigning. But here’s an open secret: physical campaigning at ANU is on its last legs. Most students don’t engage with campaigners, and the ones who do usually don’t understand such campaigns.
Instead, focus on digital campaigning. This can include an attractive Facebook page accompanied with eye-catching graphics that clearly outline your policies. It can also mean securing endorsements from relevant people in ANU or within your college.
Some Facebook pages or groups will also organise discussions or opportunities for campaigners to introduce themselves. The Facebook group ANU Schmidtposting has a rule that you may campaign in there twice: once to announce your ticket, and another time to share your page. Other groups have their own rules, so it’s best to get in touch with the admins of these pages. Residential colleges, however, generally have a policy against campaigning.
A caveat to this advice is that it’s still important to have a physical presence. While campaigning in person might be a waste of time, putting up posters around campus can help you break outside of your social media and friendship bubbles. ANUSA provides tickets with 300 printing points with conversion determined by the probity team, so use them!
For my campaign, I focused on putting up posters around relevant student spaces. It’s also best to mix up your poster designs; put simple, image-based ones in high-traffic areas and more complex, policy-focused ones where people might linger. A good example of this is outside of tutorial rooms.
Anything else I need to know?
When student media contacts you for comment, it’s best to respond quickly. But ask for more time if you need it. If you believe that student media should help organise a debate or write an article, get in touch! Please remember that reporting is hard, and sometimes facts get misreported. Politely get in touch for a correction, and it should be sorted.
Since most campaigning takes place on social media, you might feel pressured to respond to tags or queries immediately. Do so when you have time to think through your responses. You may also feel pressured to message friends to encourage them to vote. Only do this if you confidently think it’ll work, and not because other candidates are doing it. I didn’t message anyone, because I felt that most of my friends already knew I was running and had voted for me.
Most importantly, take care of yourself. Set boundaries on how many hours you’ll commit during the campaign, and take time for yourself the weekend after the election to recover. Rely on your friends not just for emotional support, but, if they’re willing, to help with your campaign. Last year, we even had strangers reach out to offer support!
Ultimately, the ANUSA election is not worth losing sleep over or sacrificing academics or friendships for. When you’ve been preparing for weeks and spending days campaigning, it can feel like ANUSA means everything. But it’s always good to take a step back and keep perspective.
While running for ANUSA can seem intimidating, just know that it’s a lot simpler than it seems and that there’s support at each step of the process. I hope that through this informal guide, more people can become engaged and lead ANUSA to new and exciting places.
When you are elected to a position in student politics you are knowingly entering into a contract of sorts whereby you represent the student body. All of it, not just the parts you like.
As a mature age student (if I can say that for the hundredth time since coming to ANU) I have never felt myself to be a particularly important part of this community. I am not a postgraduate student, so PARSA is out. I live on campus, so Griffin Hall’s Walter Wing is out. Every now and then there is a mature age ‘meet up’ but mostly we are left alone. Still, I was particularly sad when reading the agenda for SRC 8 to find that there was no movement on providing an event for mature age students during Bush Week. But amongst all the amazing work ANUSA does, my feeling left out didn’t seem very important in the scheme of things. After all, we are a small group, and I am inclined to listen to my anxiety when it tells me I am unimportant.
Then I attended SRC 8. I was already wary after having read outgoing president Eleanor Kay’s final report where she stated that, “as an Association [we] have to stop letting [student media] define what we do”. As a student reporter I can say that this insinuation is something that I have to vehemently disagree with. Student media exists to give voice to the student body and from this humble reporter’s opinion, our news is a means through which we can let the student body know what is happening and give them reason to give a damn. I say this as, from my own experience in a past life at the University of Melbourne, I was more likely to look at Farrago (yes, I am sorry, I was one of those people) for news than go searching for reports and minutes to keep up with student politics. I think student media allows the democratic process to be more transparent because it allows students a look-in on meetings that they are allowed into but may not have the time to attend. Regardless, I went in hoping for the best. This year’s ANUSA executive has put in a year of hard work and letting it all out probably felt good. After all, Eleanor wasn’t the only one to get a little spontaneous in their report.
As the name suggests, it’s the union that represents tertiary students Australia wide, the union that individual universities’ student associations (or their equivalents) may affiliate with, and in doing so, may also choose to pay an accreditation fee. This has long been a contentious issue: ANUSA pays a hefty sum of money in accrediting and sending observers (ANUSA bid for $18,000 in their 2019 SSAF bid for NUS costs according to their OGM 3 agenda) to NUS. On the other hand the NUS’ efficacy and value have been questioned many times. Earlier in the year, the SRC recognised both sides of this debate and passed motions that laid out key performance indicators (KPI’s) that would determine whether ANUSA exited or reaccredited with (and the monetary value with which we’d reaccredit) the NUS.
Ramon Bouckaert, someone with whose politics I have never personally agreed, raised a question about said KPI’s: since the NUS had not met with one of ANUSA’s KPI’s, isn’t it the case we do not reaccredit next year? Following this he was swiftly shut down by the chair, general secretary Eden Lim, without, in my opinion, being provided a direct answer to his question. After later reframing the question he was again given a dismissive and condescending answer, this time by president Eleanor Kay and education officer Harry Needham, the latter of whom specifically added a snarky remark about the Liberal Party. I felt that there was a valid question being asked and that the responses being given were evasive.
The unwarranted bluntness of this response floored me. Eleanor and Harry appeared annoyed that they were having to address this again: during their responses they exchanged glances as if they couldn’t believe this was happening. This is not the first time this year I have seen kind of behaviour at the SRC: earlier in the year, Ben Creelman, who in frustration used inappropriate language, was spoken to in a similar manner by the ANUSA executive at SRC 4. While I in no way excuse the use of inappropriate language, neither can I excuse the dismissive tone taken by the chair during this exchange.
These people were elected to represent the student body, all of it, not just the people who voted for them and here they were treating one of those students as though they were a nuisance. If it was okay to treat Ramon in this manner then I could easily imagine myself or any other student being treated the same way by our leaders and that is not okay. Young or old, Liberal or Labor, we are all students and we are all equal and I can only implore the incoming executive to please, please treat us as such.
Caitland Coulson is a News Reporter for Woroni. The opinions in this piece are hers alone and are not representative of Woroni.
The minutes for SRC 8 have not been published, but agenda and reports can be accessed at https://www.facebook.com/events/489689498200273/?active_tab=discussion
Comments Off on Peer-to-Peer Support at ANU Residential Halls
I’m worried – and I need to know if the student body is too.
In 2017 I ran in the ANUSA elections with a clear commitment to safe, sustainable and fair peer support models in ANU residential halls. In my experience they haven’t been any of these things – but I need to know if that was an anomaly or if it’s the norm.
I was elected with a strong majority, so I know I have a mandate to look into this issue – but for the university to be convinced of any real change I need you to share your experiences.
While I was a senior resident at B&G, I’m almost certain that I received more sexual assault disclosures than my male counterparts – and overall I would have contributed more hours and more emotional labour to the job. I was a woman doing more work than the men in my role – and receiving the same pay.
I would avoid being in my room alone because all I could think of was the harrowing stories I’d been told by my residents, friends, and peers while they sat on my bed.
The people running your training call this burn out. It’s not burn out. It’s vicarious trauma, and the university needs to do more to support students in this situation.
Because I was being paid via a scholarship and therefore wasn’t an employee, I couldn’t access an Employee Assistance Program. This is where your workplace covers counselling costs for you. If I needed time off, I had to apply for leave. If I was going to be away from the hall for longer than 48 hours I had to apply for this leave. There are so many structural issues like this one that make peer support at ANU residential halls unsafe, unfair and unsustainable. I’ve spent the last six months talking to people about these issues, but I haven’t spoken to everyone.
There are some questions that I still can’t answer on my own.
Should SRs and RAs be paid as employees if they are doing overnight shifts and some are taking on more hours than others?
Should CC’s be responsible for overseeing and training other students, while they are students themselves?
What kind of structural support do we offer these students, and who can access EAP (employee assistance program) to get free counselling outside of ANU?
Why isn’t anyone talking about vicarious trauma?
What are the benefits and non-negotiable aspects of peer support that we must maintain?
Should SRs get penalty rates for being on call over a long weekend?
My experiences were not all bad. I had incredible residents and a supportive SR team to work with and I am so grateful for having the opportunity to befriend these lovely people. But this issue is a systemic one that is disadvantaging women, and people from linguistically and/or culturally diverse backgrounds – people I believe are often receiving more work than others, but not being remunerated for it.
I need to know if this issue is widespread or localised to some residential halls – and I need to know what the student body wants me to advocate for. Should we have trained mental health nurses on call overnight? Do we need paramedics? I know I would have appreciated both of these when I was 19 years old, dealing with mental health crises and doing CPR on my peers.
Your experiences will help to inform a report that will make recommendations for peer pastoral care models in ANU residential halls in 2019. If you’ve been an SR, CC, RA, Women’s Officer, Men’s Officer, Gender and Sexuality Advocate, Mental Health Advocate – or any other peer support role – please fill out my survey, or get in touch with me to talk about your experiences. I want to hear from you.
Survey: https://goo.gl/forms/zDl5OQryEFrFDIYB3
Email Tess Masters, ANUSA Vice President: sa.vicepres@anu.edu.au
Woroni is committed to standing with survivors of sexual harassment and assault. If you or someone you know have been affected by this piece, please reach out to the support services listed.
Canberra Rape Crisis Centre (6247 2525)
CRCC are on campus and available to support you if you have experienced sexual violence, harassment, or anything that has made you feel uncomfortable. You don’t need a medicare card to see them, all appointments are free, and nobody will be told you have spoken to them. You can call CRCC on 6247 2525 between 7am and 11pm.
ANU Counselling
The ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community. It is a free, confidential and non-diagnostic service available to all currently enrolled ANU students. No referral or Mental Health Treatment Plan from a General Practitioner is required to attend appointments.
http://www.anu.edu.au/…/…/counselling/anu-counselling-centre
1800RESPECT
Provides support for people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, sexual assault, domestic or family violence, their friends and family, and workers and professionals supporting someone experiencing, or at risk of experiencing sexual assault, domestic or family violence. Call 1800 737 732.
https://www.1800respect.org.au/about-1800respect/
Lifeline (13 11 14)
A national charity providing all Australians experiencing a personal crisis with access to 24 hour crisis support and suicide prevention services. Call 13 11 13.
https://www.lifeline.org.au/
ANU Women’s Department
Contact the Women’s Officer, Laura Perkov:
For non-urgent inquiries: sa.womens@anu.edu.au
The Women’s Department is part of ANUSA, and it advocates for and supports all ANU Women and non-binary students. As Women’s Officer, Laura can provide pastoral care, referrals to local support services, and give information about options for reporting within ANU and the support ANU can offer.
ANU Queer* Department
Contact the Queer* Officer, Matthew Mottola:
sa.queer@anu.edu.au
The Queer* Department is part of ANUSA, and it advocates for and supports all Queer* identifying students. Matthew can provide pastoral care, referrals to local support services, and give information about options for reporting within ANU and the support ANU can offer.
Comments Off on ANU and Ramsay Centre: Trading Academic Independence for Cash
ANU loves to brag about its scholarships. Its brochures are plastered with smiling shiny faces of Tuckwell scholarship students reading books on green grass under blue sky, with dust and heavy industrial equipment from the nearby construction site neatly cropped out. But ANU – the thought leader that it is – is changing away from this, as it quietly releases piecemeal information and timidly defends its negotiations with the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilization (RCWC) over a divisive new scholarship and degree originally slated for 2019.
Late last year ANU announced it was in negations with the RCWC to create a new Bachelor in Western Civilization for a cohort of 60 students, of which it would provide some 30 students with a $25,000 per annum scholarship. But this group doesn’t exactly have the same appeal as the kind-faced, generous Tuckwells, with their passion for education. No, RCWC is instead staffed by some of the most disliked politicians in Australian history and has repeatedly said it will use the degree to push its ideological beliefs.
RCWC launched in November 2017 thanks to a $3 billion donation left by healthcare-magnate and top Liberal party donor Paul Ramsay. The group aims to get universities to teach a positive interpretation of Western civilization. To achieve this RCWC turned to ANU, promising a fortune to the university if they establish a degree that adheres to the group’s goals.
RCWC chairman and former prime minister John Howard described the degree as “an exercise in the unapologetic exposal of what Western Civilization has brought to mankind over the centuries.” There are three main issues with the degree: firstly, its politically biased approach; secondly, the ambiguity of RCWC’s control over the degree; finally, the involvement of sitting MPs and partisan political figures.
Members of RCWC board and its CEO have repeatedly said that the degree will only address the positive aspects of Western civilization. Board member Tony Abbott said that RCWC is “not merely about Western Civilization but in favour of it.” Even when Howard acknowledged that western civilisation had “its share of moral failures”, he didn’t elaborate. Instead, Howard said people should look to the successes of western civilization, such as the defeat of Nazi Germany. Of course, Howard did not explain why Nazi Germany – a European nation-State influenced by Enlightenment thought, Christianity and Graeco-Roman culture – was not part of the West. Nor have any of the board members mentioned colonisation, fascism, autocracy or imperialism; governmental structures that characterised the West for far longer than modern democracies. RCWC will not address these issues. They are explicitly narrow-minded and have no intention of approaching western civilization with the complexity it requires. Such an approach is not only an insult to students, but also to those affected by the negative aspects of western civilization.
ANU and RCWC have both said they will respect the traditional course approval structures, but this hasn’t stopped RCWC officials from also saying the exact opposite. During negotiations, CEO Simon Haines said “we would not be wanting to hire somebody who is coming in with a long liturgy of what terrible damage western [civilization] had done to the world.” If academic integrity is respected, then a politically motivated third party should not get to have a say in the hiring and firing of staff. A similar stance has also been taken on the syllabus of the 16 new courses in the degree. RCWC said that they will choose the readings or “great texts” for the degree, while also saying that ANU will treat the courses like any other. These two things can’t be true at the same time. To drive home the strong arm tactics, Haines threatened to pull funding if the courses and teachers did not tow RCWC’s ideological line.
There is also the issue of RCWC’s board members also being sitting politicians. On the board, there are both former MPs – Howard and Beazley – and, more worryingly, current MPs. Liberal Party parliamentarians Leeser and Abbott sit on the RCWC board and have a deep involvement with the new degree. A sitting MP – particularly an ideologically divisive one, such as Abbott – having input on the curriculum of a public university is extremely unsettling and goes beyond a simple philanthropic donation. With all these issues you might have thought that justifications for ANU’s deal would be stronger.
The most common argument in favour of the degree is a version of: ‘well people can do Asian, studies major so why not a have a Bachelor in Western Civilization?’ The response to this is twofold. Firstly the Asian studies major is not funded by a group called the Xi Jinping Lord President for Life Appreciation Society. In fact, any whiff of political bias in any course is met with legitimate anger and concern. Courses at ANU are – or if the deal isn’t stopped, were – run by academics that have independent say over course material with the sole goal of educating students. As a result of this, the Asian studies major does not ignore negative aspects of said society or mislead their students to guarantee funding. Secondly, ANU already has a heavily Western-centric model for teaching the humanities – look no further than English, Ancient History and International Relations. And the best thing about these courses is that they don’t sell the education of their students to politicians for some extra cash.
This extra cash will also come with its own cost. RCWC is not a charity: they are not donating, they are buying. RCWC is trying to make their own degree and is paying the university to turn a blind eye to academic independence to do so. The world will see this and treat the ANU accordingly. Secondly, there are MPs on the RCWC board. If they really wanted to properly fund universities they could do it the old-fashioned democratic way, not with the vast wealth of a political partisan’s estate. Finally, we as students also pay ANU, under the presumption that we will be given the best education possible. At a Ramsay Centre forum Rae Frances, Dean of CASS, was asked what the threshold donation for someone to create their own degree would be, she tongue in cheek replied “$50 million.” Well, we – the students – provide ANU with hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and we don’t ask for a degree that mimics our personal political bias. We just ask for the university not to sell our education to the highest bidder.
Sam Brennan is an admin of the Facebook page ‘Keep Ramsay out of ANU’
Comments Off on The ANU Women’s Department: Then and Now
Departments and autonomous collectives have played a vital role in activism at the ANU for decades. When the Women’s Department was first made an official part of ANUSA in 1993, Emma Partridge was the Women’s Officer – a role largely underfunded, misunderstood, and taken for granted. Although the Department has gone through a substantial amount of change since then, a few things remain the same.
The formation of supportive communities
Women’s spaces are an important way to meet other women on campus – to learn from each other, seek advice, and be in a safe and comfortable space. The Women’s Department was initially separate to a group called Women On Campus, who ran social events and took care of the Rapunzel Room, the women’s autonomous space. A series of notebooks were used to communicate with others who used the room. Entries in these books give insight into a close-knit community of students – from mundane statements (‘just popped in for a quiet spot on a busy day’) to the more serious, like advice about pregnancy. Other entries show just how much the Department has changed: a call-out for Women’s Officer described the role as not ‘too onerous’, and another entry detailed how many thought that it was a ‘nest of lesbians’.
Women’s spaces and activism on campus in previous decades have been in-person spaces. Today, this work largely takes place in online communities – which is more readily accessible to a greater amount people and is more immediate. The Women’s Department online spaces are a popular way of finding solidarity, learning, promoting interesting things that women and non-binary people are doing on and around campus, getting recommendations, advice, and as a forum for advocacy at the ANU.
Men complaining
Another constant is the backlash from men on campus – one entry in a notebook from 1993 describes how a man, upset that women had an autonomous space on campus, broke into the Rapunzel Room. An entry by Lise states: ‘they don’t actually want [a room], they just got cut that we made the Women’s Room happen. Besides the rest of the world is men’s space (or at least male dominated). I would suggest the bar, any café, lecture theatre, and so on and ad nauseam if they are looking for a men’s room’. Calls for a Men’s Department continue today.
Issues of safety on campus, sexual harassment and assault, and intersecting oppressions
Most of the problems that women and non-binary students faced in the past are still impacting us today. An article from 2002 titled ‘Security on campus: still not high on the university agenda’ by Nicola Jackson details the failings of the ANU Security in protecting vulnerable students. Today, areas of campus and surrounding suburbs are still poorly lit, security measures like the UniSafe Bus remain ineffective, and the University continues to treat students who speak up like a nuisance or a legal liability. Sexual assault and violence in our community is still endemic, as the recent release of the AHRC Survey demonstrates.
The marginalisation of the most vulnerable continues – 2002 articles ‘Racists hiding behind feminism’ by Allison Dellit and ‘Trans women in NOWSA: The case for inclusion’ by Julie Peters indicate that the Women’s Department has never been immune to the white and cis-centric feminism that is prominent in mainstream women’s spaces. We have made progress – the creation of the Women of Colour Collective has been imperative in the success of the current Department, and we are currently working on the inclusion and celebration of trans, intersex and gender-diverse people in the Department. But we still have a long way to go.
As long as there are groups who face oppression, there will be a need for a space in which a voice can be nurtured and heard. The ANU Women’s Department continues to provide this voice for those who are marginalised – for those who are spoken over, for those who feel like they can’t speak out at all. We will continue to advocate for the interests of women and non-binary people on campus and provide a safe and supportive community for them at the ANU.
Laura Perkov is the 2018 ANUSA Women’s Officer.
Comments Off on THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL: HANDS OFF OUR EXPERIENCES
Movements are only as strong as the people who fight for them. Without manpower or bodies in the field, lies little more than abstract ideas and weightless platitudes.
Look at any social movement, and you’ll see how vital harnessing personal identity was to their success. In harnessing the personal identity and expressing pride in its (perceived) subversiveness, we begin the arduous process of unpicking bias and normalising non-hegemonic peoples.
Feminists embraced nudity in the ‘Sex Wars’ and bodily autonomy debates of the 1970’s.
Queers continue to storm the streets expressing their diverse beauty, embracing difference rather than settling for toleration under a society governed by heteronormativity.
Black Lives Matter spoke explicitly about skin colour, relating it to how it affects their treatment before the law.
Ultimately, the personal is political. Your identity cannot, and should not, be divorced from your politics.
Here’s some context.
During the recent ANUSA elections, seeing friends run for positions, watching Shake Up’s – seemingly – controversial ‘Objectively’ video and catching ANUSA’s OGM livestream we witnessed a debate over the politicisation of the issue of campus violence. Some expressed their credentials, activism and subjective self-assuredness on their ability to represent students. Others, in response, condemned them for ‘politicising the issue.’
To me, and considering my own experiences, activism around campus violence and the university’s systematic, historical and ongoing failure to protect sexual assault survivors is especially, and necessarily, political.
The movement’s very existence is thanks to the survivors of campus violence and administration mismanagement politicising their experiences. To suggest that the issue – which, in essence, is the disclosures, voices and experiences of survivors – cannot be politicised is, in my mind, ludicrous.
We express our politics, and therefore politicise ourselves, in different ways. Some want liberation; others want acceptance. Some protest, others lobby. Some identify as radical, others as moderate.
In the end, it’s up to voters to determine which approach best represents them.
To be clear: no one individual, lobby group, or President of ANUSA controls the narrative around sexual assault, life as a survivor or their activism on the issue.
For governments to pay proper attention, for universities to acknowledge their failures and for Brian Schmidt to accept, rather than block, the demands made by ANUSA/PARSA; activists must be elected. And where there is an election there is politics, clash and self-promotion.
Indeed, when elections are held for positions that involve sitting before Senate Estimates or the ANU Council to make demands on how students can be best protected from Campus Violence; the personal is made political once more.
Candidates’ ability to speak publicly, protest, consult, include marginalised voices in the debate and be truly representative – they’re all factors. A real, robust, respectful debate over who’s best for that job is beneficial for ANU students.
To politicise yourself is not ‘disgusting’, nor deserving of vitriolic, undignified condemnation at an ANUSA OGM. In reality, it is vital for the success of the movement.
No one voice speaks for this movement. No one President determines its direction. No one approach will ensure its success.
To deny survivors the ability to be activists on this issue in the way they desire undermines the campaign. Furthermore, it disempowers their voices more than they already have been.
And what’s the hope in that?
This past week, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) Survey on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault has been a topic of discussion across many university circles. What shocks me most is that there are still people on this campus who found these results shocking at all.
Survivors, friends of survivors, student representatives, and staff members who have received disclosures are all painstakingly aware of the horrifying excerpts of cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment on our campus. For us, these results merely confirm what we have suspected for decades.
I am lucky to have a voice and would like to share on behalf of some students who have been silenced due to the mistreatment of their disclosure of sexual assault. They have confided in me and are comfortable with me sharing their stories anonymously to raise awareness of the unfortunately gross mishandling of sexual assault and sexual harassment that our peers here at the ANU have endured.
A Senior Resident at a residential hall was accused of assaulting a student. The hall did not remove the SR from the hall of residence; rather, he chose to leave weeks after rumours of the alleged assault circulated. In another instance, a fellow resident and alleged abuser was appointed to SR after the administration of the residential hall had been made aware of the abuse. Unsurprisingly, the AHRC survey found a common theme of perpetrators abusing positions of power. Not only is staff engaging in this behaviour towards students an area of concern. The survey also identified instances of senior students in leadership positions sexually assaulting or sexually harassing other students in clubs and societies, at Uni Games, on orientation camps and within residential colleges.
There are also other types of power imbalances when it comes to perpetrators and survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The AHCRC survey highlighted that students with disability were more likely to have been sexually assaulted in 2015 or 2016 than students without disability. As the Disabilities Officer, I am deeply disturbed to know that in some instances students have even been declined special consideration for assessments when applying on the basis of having been sexually assaulted.
There are far too many incidences of survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment not being offered support. Rather, at times they are told that little, to nothing, can done about these allegations and are recommended to leave if they feel threatened or unsafe in their current living situation. Let’s get one thing straight: no survivor should ever be forced to be in the presence of or make peace with their perpetrator, especially not when they are being encouraged to do so purely on the institution’s best interests. In the above two SR incidents, the residential halls preferred to stand neutral between the survivor and the perpetrator. Make no mistake, neutrality favours the perpetrator.
When, if any, in any other crime is the victim blamed and ostracised?
These mishandled cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment discourage other survivors within the community fromto disclosinge and create a barrier from receiving much-needed support. Our institution continues to silence survivors, but we can no longer continue this battle. I came to Australia to study at the ANU in hopes of escaping the violence towards women and lack of respect for my education as a woman in Pakistan. Yet, I personally know two students who were left to drop out of the ANU due not only to the lack of support but even the accusational attitude that they were met with when disclosing to the university. How, in today’s Australia, can sexual assault and sexual harassment still prevent women from receiving an equal and fair education to those of their peers? To paraphrase, how does our university allow perpetrators to continue studying at the ANU while victims of a crime are targeted and left unsupported to the extent that some have found it impossible to complete their tertiary education?
Of the students who were sexually assaulted at the ANU, 93 per cent did not make a formal report or complaint to anyone at the university. I am stunned that the horror stories we are aware of only shape four per cent (three per cent preferred not to say) of the disclosed cases of sexual assault on campus. This alone should compel the ANU to advocate for its large community of survivors to encourage them to seek support rather than be made to feel like a liability.
As I mentioned at the Speak Out and Sit In by ANUSA and PARSA, I echo what fellow survivors have said. There are no congratulations to be had at the release of this survey nor are comparisons between universities appropriate. We demand the ANU to do better. We can no longer work around mishandled cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment. I demand that the safety of students become an utmost priority and can only hope that the ANU will follow through and continue to take ANUSA and PARSA’s demands seriously. We need to finally recognise sexual assault and sexual harassment for what it is, a crime, and take appropriate action against perpetrators of this crime.
To all survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment: we believe you, it is not your fault, and you are not alone. Please reach out to available resources for support during this painful and infuriating time.
Aji is the 2017 ANU Disabilities Officer.
The Disabilities Student Association is the only on-campus group run by students with disability, for students with disability. Aji can be contacted for all non-urgent matters. She can provide confidential support, referrals to local professional support services, and can offer assistance when navigating the ANU’s support systems. Aji can be contacted at sa.disabilities@anu.edu.au.
If this story has raised any concerns, you can contact:
Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, Crisis Line
(02) 6247 2525
ANU Counselling
(02) 6125 2442
1800 RESPECT
1800 737 732
ANU Women’s Department
Contact the Women’s Officer, Holly Zhang:
– For non-urgent inquiries: sa.womens@anu.edu.au
– For urgent matters: 0467 092 808
When the Women’s Department was cleaning out the Women’s Space a few weeks ago, I found campaign materials protesting sexual violence which was 40 years old. I was so confronted because the problems they spoke about are the same ones we are facing today. It made me wonder: how this issue has been allowed to go on for so long?
My disbelief, of course, comes partly from a place of horror. My instinct to support and believe survivors is so strong that I can’t comprehend why universities don’t punish such a heinous crime. But, it is also shocking to me because students and activists have been fighting this issue for decades, and to little avail.
We have seen dozens of survivors go public with stories of mistreatment, Women’s Collectives and allies have been staging protests and campaigning since the 1970s, and, anecdotally, we know that most people will know someone who is a survivor of sexual assault. Yet, by most metrics, not a lot has changed in the way universities respond to sexual assault, and the problem is as rampant as ever.
If this story has raised any concerns, you can contact:
Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, Crisis Line
(02) 6247 2525
ANU Counselling
(02) 6125 2442
1800 RESPECT
1800 737 732
ANU Women’s Department
Contact the Women’s Officer, Holly Zhang:
– For non-urgent inquiries: sa.womens@anu.edu.au
– For urgent matters: 0467 092 808
It makes me wonder, how did this happen? How have universities defeated so many campaigns over so many years?
Step 1: Students alert the administration of the issue. In response, the administration ignores or minimises the issue. Students may alert the administration to ‘red flags’, they may present demands or reform proposals, and in response… nothing. Administrators may nod in agreement and give an understanding smile so that students get the impression they are on the same side. But then there is total inaction.
Step 2: Students escalate pressure through organising campaigns, petitions, protests, speaking to the media, etc. to try and force administrations to act. In the past year, we can see evidence of this; the Open Day and Wesley College protests at the University of Sydney, women coming forward about the ‘Eagle Rock’ rituals at B&G, the NOWSA mattress protest at Parliament House and numerous articles and disclosures published in student and mainstream media.
Step 3: Administrations offer to consult with students, and set up a committee to look into the issue. For most organisers, this is thought to be a win. If an administration is seen to be cooperating, it is often seen as counter-intuitive to continue escalation strategies. As a result, the campaign group often becomes demobilised and disintegrates. It is also much harder to maintain public pressure, especially through the media, when the university is seen to be cooperating.
Students begin working with the administration, usually volunteering their time and labour for free.
Step 4: Progress slows down. Delaying tactics are a particularly effective one for universities. The institutional memory in student organisations is limited.
Students are only at university for a very limited period of time – so it is only a matter of time before they go home for the summer or graduate. Most student leaders serve their organisation on a one-year term. The handover from one leader to the next is not always guaranteed, particularly when you factor in burn-out which means that leaders often step away from activism once their term is over.
The result is that the administration can let the committee die or ignore student contributions because the pressure on them to act has relaxed. Students working on the issue leave, and their replacements often struggle to learn the ropes and the momentum going. Nothing changes.
Repeat steps 1-4.
What this cycle illustrates is that universities have refused to take proactive action. They have swept the issue under the rug and, while they do nothing, more and more students’ safety is put at risk. All the while, the burden of supporting survivors of sexual assault and campaigning against sexual violence has fallen on students. Students have had to remind universities of their basic duty to provide a safe learning environment. Students have been first responders and the support person for survivors. Students have been left to envision, design and reform policies and procedures.
Ensuring students’ safety is the one of the most essential pillars of a productive living and educational environment. This is not student’s responsibility. Enough is enough. It’s the university’s turn to take a
stand against sexual violence.
In 40 years-time, when members of the Women’s Department look through our campaign materials, I hope they don’t have the same reaction I did.
Freya Willis is the Deputy Officer of the ANU Women’s Department