Student apathy in students’ unions around the world is an institutional problem. Students do not see themselves reflected in the operations of their unions, and unions have lost their identity. Limited transparency, un-accountable governance, and the after-effects of the ongoing commercialisation of education are at fault. There are a number of institutional issues to blame – and make no mistake: there is no one to blame other than the institutions themselves. I’ll make the case below and then follow with some sharp warnings about faulty democracy in practice following last night’s charade at the Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union Council meeting dated 29th February 2024.

tl;dr – the SU’s recent push to change its constitution is anti-democratic and unconstitutional, and recent incidents demonstrate an internal push towards anti-democratisation. In the meantime, read the recommendations at the bottom to support genuine EDI and wellbeing objectives.

On student apathy.

A councillor last night raised an important reminder: students want to be pro-actively and actively engaged in the Union.History reflects this. Student feedback reflects this. And, current affairs in student politics clearly demonstrate this.

Earlier this year, student officers passionate about championing student voices in management meetings rightfully ramped up a proactive campaign to see more student voices at the table.

Why is that relevant? Well, in the past, management meetings were usually reserved to the Union President and Union Director. That will no longer be the case as a result of this advocacy, and from the support of activists. We need to see more of that push to place more passionate students across campus at the table who are prepared to put in the work and who have the resources and the encouragement to be active co-designers in their higher education experience. After all, we’re paying between £2,000-£30,000 in fees annually for this experience.

With so few students engaged in the Union, in order to develop legitimacy and credibility with students and staff alike, the Union must champion the active participation of all students, including those traditionally not engaged or interested in student politics.

Students’ fees fund the Students’ Union. And, the Students’ Union is first and foremost a charity responsible for supporting a positive student experience for all students at Queen’s. Those employed by the Union are responsible to the charity and its mission to support a positive student experience for all fees-paying members.

Reforming the Queen’s Students’ Union Constitution.

On the logistics of democracy:

The Union sent to Councillors an email at 2:27am — hours before a Union Council meeting — with the agenda for our meeting, as well as proposed bylaw changes to the constitution. That is unacceptable. Moreover, the Union’s constitution stipulates that councillors receive an agenda and items for deliberation no less than two days in advance.

The post of Student Officer Campaigns & Engagement has been vacant for over several weeks (since 2023) — the Union has opted in such time not to hold a by-election to the fill the post pending the results of the March 2024 election because that’s what it wanted to do. The Union could have held a quick by-election for the post; but it made an intentional and political decision not to do so. Transparency around such decisions would be helpful towards shifting the tone of the Union and deliver on real democratic-style leadership.

Rule 1.16 reads that “The quorum at a Council Meeting shall be one-quarter of the total elected membership of the Council.” That 1/4 was not met last night.

Rules 12.2.1 of the QSU Constitution stipulates that ten working days are required for constitutional rules changes. The draft was issued to councillors at 2.27am of a meeting which took place at 5pm.

More importantly, however, were some of the points raised in gentle critique of the proposed changes that should sound the alarm to students:

• • Under the latest draft, for a proposed committee (the ‘ideas committee’) that would review and consider all proposed motions to be debated by the Union Council, unelected and unaccountable Union staff reserved the right to sit on the ‘ideas committee’ and vote on decisions. How does the appointment of unelected and unaccountable staff to a committee with voting rights on student motions advance democracy for students?

• • Meetings of this ‘ideas committee’ would be held in secret. Meetings would be held virtually but only those members elected to it by the Council would have the authority to observe deliberations. This is counter-democratic values. Moreover, should students have access to the meetings where their proposals are being scrutinised by their peers? Democracy dies in the darkness. So too does democracy. The Union should explain to the student body why it thinks that students should not have access to the committee’s deliberations. To placate students’ concerns, councillors voted to compel minutes from the meetings to be published. That is a welcome development; however, anyone who has read meeting minutes of the Students’ Union know that the minutes lack substance or detail and are best referred to as highlights and action items. Students should be able to be critical of those who scrutinise their petitions and proposals. That scrutiny is not possible through a review of limited and anonymised minutes that provide little insight into deliberations and logic. The Union President will continue to reign control over such meeting deliberations and will be the arbiter of communicating panel decisions to the student body whether students like it or not.
    • • The Union’s response to this would read: ‘Well, students can scrutinise the Union President under the rules of the Constitution.’ Students who have made efforts to follow constitutional procedure at the Queen’s Students’ Union understand this not to be true. The proposed changes would further empower the president authority to quash proposed motions to the authority, scope or standing as president. All in all, the unconstitutional push of these proposed bylaw changes generate little faith in true ‘democratic’ changes.

• • The proposals ignore the postgraduate or limited-course community. Under the initial rules, students would be prohibited from re-introducing a proposal that has failed for 12-months. Most postgraduate courses at Queen’s are for less than 12-months; this means postgraduates whose ideas are rejected at first iteration are then discouraged from pursuing them again. Again, another counter-democratic process. We should be encouraging more active and proactive communication and debate – not silencing members.

• • The infrastructure does not exist. At the moment, the Students’ Union’s ‘democratic’ wing, SU Voice is limited to 2-staff. The Union has not made clear how two staff members can effectively support over 800 academic representatives, support candidates for officer positions, support the student officer team, or lead robust indisputable academic-level insight research to engage student members.
    • • I, like many others, welcome electronic voting, online forums, and more student assemblies to give members a chance to communicate. Unfortunately, however, the proposal issued to the Council last night does not deliver on democracy, transparency, inclusion or community that some 25,000 fees-member paying students a Queen’s deserve. It is worth noting that of some 88 student councillors, midway through deliberations only 21 remained in the room (apparently, a lack of a quorum). A proposal to convene a special meeting to discuss the changes was initially dismissed and concerns that the written proposal was being pushed through Council with less than 24-hours — in violation of the Union’s own constitution — too were dismissed.

I was a student officer last year. I appreciate the amount of work that has clearly gone into this. I saw how hard some staff worked to help champion student advocacy and have a bit of craic in the process. 

I do, however, think that the Union is more interested in aligning itself with what some others in the sector have pursued without exploring the consequences. These proposed changes further evidence an inability to think out of the box. At the very first Council meeting of the year, a freshman walked up to the podium at his very first meeting of a student union and raised a question about a highly controversial political issue. That student wasn’t just brave; he was empowered, and he delivered a well-spoken point. That moment — that freshman’s debut speech — reflected what students’ unions look like at their best: empowering young and new voices to rise and to take up space and be comfortable being uncomfortable.

I cannot in good faith support the Union’s unconstitutional proposed changes to its constitution for that reason, and I implore other students to read the proposal, minutes from the meeting, and confer with their own reps before making a conclusion themselves. After all, we’re in this together — everyone has a right to feel included, represented, and reflected in our Union — these proposed changes in last night’s kangaroo-court-style session do not meet that threshold. With less than 4-8% of Queen’s students responding to the surveys that influenced this proposal, the Union needs to think more seriously about how it is going to address member apathy, lest call into question its objectivity and democratic structure.

We carry on.

In the meantime, I have some straightforward recommendations that would hopefully aid efforts to truly democratise our Students’ Union:

1. 1. Ask why councillors and academic representatives do not stay for the length of an SU meeting. When I enrolled at Queen’s in 2021, SU meetings saw higher engagement and input. Last night, most of the chairs in the room were empty when we got to the proposed constitutional changes. The SU should delegate its intern or a staff member to conduct light-touch surveys, asking councillors why they left early or failed to attend altogether

1. 1. Become accessible. The conduct of SU meetings are not accessible. They are not accessible on physical, emotional, mental or practical accessibility standards. Here’s how they can be:
      
      1. 1. Mandate hybrid meetings for every meeting – parents, carers, working students, and non-traditional students have a right to participate — we’re in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and the idea that students who cannot afford to be on campus from 5-8/9pm or those who, perhaps, feel more comfortable in virtual environments or those whose studies take them away from Belfast should not disadvantage any fees-paying student.
      1. 1. Invite local disability rights advocates to conduct a review of proposed venues and meeting layout. For example, can all students read the material projected on the screen? Are students’ socio-emotional needs met by the layout of SU meetings? Potentially not. This year, the SU have sampled a number of meeting rooms and seating layouts; if this were a classroom, it would be in violation of students’ ISA agreements in place with schools. (Students within the university have a right to receive notice about the scope of their meeting rooms, as needed.) Professional workspaces also adopt these practices. Showing up to Council meetings shouldn’t put students in shock. Another example: a student hard of hearing may not be able to hear speakers due to the lack of audio amplifying equipment and the seating layout. In a general sense, the SU’s seating layout during the Covid-era made most sense.
      1. 1. Pre-Council support hour. While perhaps this would not be feasible due to staff shortages in the Union, a trained and independent staff member could host a pre-SU Council meeting with students to help coach, mentor, and provide generic public speaking advice to students in advance of each meeting. Anyone who has attended these meetings has observed students who are anxious or afraid about attending, or attend these meetings independently; the support of a trained professional staff member — and to help students feel welcome into the building — could be transformative.

1. 1. Compel schools to collect feedback. It is within the Students’ Union gift to compel university partners to act. The Union can lead a student feedback campaign and demand that schools distribute the survey and act as partners in developing it. Yes, it is timely, and yes, it requires the consent from management, but these piecemeal approaches have proven to be ineffective. What does compulsion look like? Pay students to visit schools to advertise campaigns, incentivise with as many giveaways at the SU spends on elections, name and shame the schools. Less than 8% of the Queen’s population responded to the last survey — can we genuinely say that feedback from that survey makes credible the Union’s proposed rule changes?

We share more in common than we disagree, and it’s time that we have more lively conversations about how to build a Union that works for all of us. Line-by-line or section-by-section discussions similar to last night was a positive first start. A start does not make a final product, however. It is incumbent upon the president and the Union Director to identify ways to authentically and proactively engage students both in- and out-side the SU bubble to deliver on the Union’s charitable purpose in advance of all of our interests.