People need to put petty vendettas aside and look at the welfare situation objectively.

I don’t think I know anyone who didn’t at least smirk when they heard the news. Between the “mutually disagreeing” pair, feminist Grace Fletcher-Hackwood and notorious conservative activist Dan Taylor, it is hard to work out who has more critics on campus. This means that when it comes to passing judgement it is very difficult to discern who is really thinking objectively, and who is acting out of spite.

The primary concern of everyone involved should remain student welfare; whether that means Taylor’s welfare, or the welfare of the entire student body. Unfortunately, seeing as Fletcher-Hackwood is usually the final word on what is and is not for the welfare of the students, things are a little complicated. The fact of the matter is that Fletcher-Hackwood is meant to be responsible for our welfare and she had undermined her position herself, way before Dan Taylor could set up an inflammatory Facebook group.

I am, of course, not without sympathy. Other people are free to settle their personal disputes without a campus furore. Other people are free to get wasted without such allegations of gross irresponsibility. However, Fletcher-Hackwood stopped being other people when she chose to become Welfare Officer. Let’s not be overdramatic; being a sabbatical officer doesn’t entail a sainthood. However, it does require an awareness of one’s actions, and more importantly, taking responsibility for one’s failures.

But therein lies the crux of the problem. Fletcher-Hackwood’s main mistake was not the punch itself. That was, I’m sure, a temporarily lapse in concentration, if quite a major one. It was rather her awkward subsequent handling of the situation, and her failure to admit adequate responsibility. In her recent statement she fully admits it was a “fuck-up” on her part. How much weight does that really carry? A fuck-up? Such a term hardly smacks of remorse, let alone indicates that she’s taking the issue even a little seriously.

In addition to this, she described the incident as at worst “inappropriate”. Perhaps it was, but I think Fletcher-Hackwood is underestimating the gravity of “inappropriate”. On what level was her behaviour inappropriate? Was it because she, our main advocator of safe drinking, was so excessively drunk? Was it because the event she was at was a campus event, where she should reasonably be expected to set some kind of example? Or was it because she hit a student, a student whose welfare she is nominally responsible for? Take your pick; people have cited any number of these reasons for the inappropriateness of her behaviour. It’s a justifiable and damning critique; but does inappropriate really amount to so much that she should lose her position?

I do think that there is a sustainable defence for her to remain Academic and Welfare Officer. As a starting point, though she is ultimately responsible for her own actions, it is difficult to see that Taylor is doing anything other than relishing every continuing minute of the scandal. As somewhat of a celebrity political figure on campus, Taylor is not without his influence in rallying the troops against Fletcher-Hackwood. I have never seen evidence of someone enjoying being hit in the ear so much as Taylor appeared to.

No doubt anyone jumping to the defence of Fletcher-Hackwood will be accused of making allowances because of her diminutive size, as well as her passion for student welfare. If Matt Burton had done the same would we have called for his resignation in a heartbeat? He may be the villain in far more campus dramas, whilst Fletcher-Hackwood rides in like a beacon of moral justice, but I like to think that in both cases we would afford them at least a second chance. As I said at the beginning, this isn’t about spiteful vendettas against those we love to hate; this is about student welfare.

Grace Fletcher-Hackwood behaved absolutely unacceptably, but for several reasons, she should not be made to leave. Firstly, for the sake of keeping a welfare officer who has consistently appeared nothing short of passionate about what she does, and secondly, though by becoming a sabbatical officer she gave up the liberty of being quite so ridiculous in public, there is no point calling for her resignation based on the opinions of a viciously vocal minority.

By keeping Fletcher-Hackwood in her position we are not condoning her behaviour; far from it. We are merely preserving a necessary position and setting a precedent for how we as a student body should react to sensationalised campus morality battles. Indeed, you’d be naive to think she won’t be punished at all for her misdemeanour, because it’ll be quite some time before anybody can take her remotely seriously.

The prospect of the upcoming UGM brings with it the opportunity of reaching a final decision. In this way we can hope to come to an end of the whole messy situation. Whether Burton and Bayley will advertise it as much as they planned to, to get their ethical merchandising bill through, is another matter.

Related Posts

• YUSU sabbatical officer calls for dismissal of Fletcher-Hackwood
• Graduates RON welfare candidate for first time
• Grace is out: has the student body spoken?
• Taylor denies making mental health allegations
• Report strongly criticises YUSU's poor structure