Students ‘detached from YUSU campaigns’ as portering row between leaders continues
Ngwena, Etheridge and Humphrys used to unite for the cause; Photo: George Lowther
Concerns have been raised over what has been perceived as a split in the campaign to restore 24 hour portering on campus.
Minutes from a campaigns committee meeting on the June 9 suggested that there is a growing divide between the official portering campaign coordinated by YUSU, and the more postering based portering campaign run by former YUSU campaigns officer Chris Etheridge and Miles Layram. The meeting noted a sense that students were becoming “detached from YUSU campaigns” as Etheridge and Layram split off, raising questions over the extent of YUSU’s representation of students over this issue.
The growing divide has left some students feeling particularly disenfranchised, uneasy over the apparent politicisation of the campaign. “Etheridge and Layram need to be working with Ngwena and Humphrys to get our porters back, not arguing with them. It seems as if behind all the talk, each group is trying to trump the other,” said a first-year Politics student.
The discontentment between the two strands of the campaign has become increasingly evident, as both YUSU officers and Etheridge have recently spoken out against each other. Tim Ngwena, YUSU President, stated that the portering campaign was “led by the campaigns officers, with the support of myself and Ben. If the campaigns officers felt our actions were not sufficient, then I would have appreciated some honest professional words as fellow officers then, rather than an attack having left office. It’s a shame that even after all the support, resources and advice we offered, Chris Etheridge only has criticism for the work that we have done this year.”
This was in response to a statement released by Etheridge, listing the ways in which he argued YUSU’s approach was “flawed”, commenting: “I believe there is a feeling amongst the sabbatical officers that the portering campaign is a toxic campaign for their own interests; in other words, they don’t wish to be associated with it because it might damage their reputations or personal standing.
“This is proven by the fact that in November, I was told by Ben Humphrys that we had to be careful in how we ran the portering campaign because it might damage our chances in the YUSU elections. The implication was that he did not want to be associated with the campaign if it did not achieve its aims because it might damage his chances of re-election and my chances of being elected.”
He also claimed that “Tim and Ben have used their position to foster a subservient relationship between YUSU and the University, rather than operating through strong and active campaigning and standing up for students”, and that YUSU even went as far as to hold back him and Jason Rose from launching a campaign until the Autumn term.
Ben Humphrys, YUSU Welfare Officer responded to the claims, stating that his “position on portering has been firmly consistent in UGMs, committees and meetings across the year”. He continued to say that he “strongly believes that an aggressive direct action campaign would ruin our negotiating position with Heslington Hall, that attacking our international recruitment will ruin our position in league tables and that it would be presumptuous and counterproductive to tell the University to abandon the fiscal prudence that has put us in such a strong position to face the coming political storm.
“As a former campaigns officer whose unsuccessful bid for Democracy and Services officer did not even mention portering, Chris’ comments seem disingenuous, his attacks deceptive and his motives overly political. I am, and have always been, committed to portering on campus, and I reject outright any claims that I’ve ever been anything else but fully dedicated to York Students and their campaigns.”
2 responses below. Comments are open.
Leave a Reply
Sam Lawson
Features Editor (2010/11)
Hannah Ellis-Petersen
Editor (2010/11)
Polls
Loading ...
After trying to show that they’re together, they actually show how far apart they are.
Tim says that “It’s a shame that even after all the support, resources and advice we offered, Chris Etheridge only has criticism for the work that we have done this year” but from what Chris says (“I was told by Ben Humphrys that we had to be careful in how we ran the portering campaign because it might damage our chances in the YUSU elections”) it sounds like the advice was to drop the campaign. And Ben’s response (“…former campaigns officer whose unsuccessful bid…Chris’ comments seem disingenuous, his attacks deceptive and his motives overly political”) are very hypocritical, since that is blatantly political and a personal attack.
I want to know what Miles Layram thinks about the reason they split and want to know why Jason Rose, who is labelled as being “held back” with Chris and Miles, hasn’t commented. Surely if he refuses to comment then he either doesn’t want to damage Tim/Ben or doesn’t want to side with the new branch of portering campaign. Why are those two not commenting?
I’m not commenting because I see no advantage in doing so. My aim is still to try and get the best resolution possible in the portering campaign and my involvement isn’t completely at an end. Either way, whoever is correct (and both are to some extent), in-fighting will not benefit YUSU and having been victimised by association, I feel that trying to dodge the shrapnel before taking the next step is a sensible aim at the moment.