Like so many of the ministerial scandals splashed across national front pages, the Grace Fletcher-Hackwood affair is rapidly taking on a momentum of its own. There is a victim who couldn’t be more pleased at having been attacked and having the opportunity to initiate formal proceedings against his long-time political nemesis. There is a loyal opposition that rallies around their champion, too quick to allow the sour motivations of her detractors blot out the genuine need for accountability. And there is a bemused majority, watching on as the ruckus grows and the spittle flies.

The fact remains that Fletcher-Hackwood’s behaviour has been disgraceful and very serious questions need to be asked as to whether she is fit for her job. Neither of her contextual circumstances, that she was blind drunk or in “a relationship of mutual disagreement” with the student in question, are in any way mitigating. She should never have let the situation degenerate to such a point nor let herself veer so wildly out of control. It is questionable if she can ever be taken seriously again after this.

But another fact: if Fletcher-Hackwood resigns the Union will be left without any Academic and Welfare Officer and her duties will be split between the five remaining sabbs, whose workloads are already being audited due to apparent “problems and pressure points”. Regardless of what you think about the YUSU’s efficiency there is no getting around the point that the current structure is designed for six elected officers supported by Union staff. To lose an officer would stretch the remaining five even further.

This is a situation which would benefit no one. If they are truly serious about student welfare, and not just gaining petty political satisfaction from watching her fall, then her detractors would do well to remember this. This is the same reactionary crowd who railed against the NUS without any responsible contingency for what we would do in the event of disaffiliation. The fact that Fletcher-Hackwood’s continued tenure is the ‘least-worst’ option should be of little comfort to anyone, but it seems to be the only one. A quorate vote in the UGM will draw a line under this affair one way or another, but it is difficult to imagine a bout of executive blood-letting feeling like a good result.

Related Posts

• External consultant to assess ‘ongoing problems and pressure points’ in YUSU
• Derwent LGBT reps under threat
• Graduates RON welfare candidate for first time
• Student complaints force YUSU to change free condom manufacturer
• Report strongly criticises YUSU's poor structure