I returned from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans Campaign conference on Sunday night in a most agitated state (not least due to lack of sleep I'm sure) and have been enthralled by the debates on 'ednet' ever since.

I was going to post on 'ednet' on Sunday, and the longer it got, the more it turned into bloggable material so I've altered it slightly and present it here. It's also spurred me on to other subjects, on which I will hopefully have a chance deliver my verdict during down time at my current temping job (tut tut tut).

I thought it was a real shame how conference ended. I don't think there was any need to personally attack NEC collegues - grace in defeat might have made people stop and think more closely about their election choices. As it happens I'm afraid he did NOLS (national organisation of labour students for those who don't know) no favours. I'm also surprised at how little self-assesment there seems to be amongst the NOLS camp. I'm sure people's election chances next year, and their chances for doing real good in NUS this year, are worsened by this. My only concern is having the people elected who are most able to do the job, but factional members (and I'm not just talking NOLS here) seem happy to sink their best candidates for the sake of the herd, even though the herd's direction/image may be at logger-heads with what they purport to be about.

Many of the people who walked out during Ben's speech were James J's supporters (unsurprisingly) but there were others too. I stayed, more because I found myself transfixed by the spectacle, unable to tear myself away from witnessing the catyclism, than because I agreed or disagreed. The point at which there was a mass exodus was when Ben said of Sian Davies "to be honest I don't think she could string a sentence together". It may not have been Ben's intention to but I think he unwittingly offended every SWD student and many more besides by using this turn of phrase. He also accused her of undermining the conference, which also didn't go down too well (somthing along the lines of "screwing us over"). He offended a fair few with his comments about Flick as well, which I found all the more blazen as she was in the room.

The personal bitching and public feuds were not confined to leaving speeches however.

There was constant misinformation, biased comment (why I ever think there could be anything else in NUS I don't know), and unsubstantiated acusation throughout proceedings. Both electioneering cliques were out in force. Kat F and James Lloyd were accused of undermining autonomy, 1st by being in Edinburgh, though not at the conference, (arguament insinuated: "they are here to try and get James Walsh elected". Counter arguament not given: "they are here at the request of staff in order to support staff in their constitutional capacities in case of staff protocol breach, staff being worried that this may occur". Evidence of the accusation was not forthcoming). The rumour-mill continued: Kat and James want to attend our social (I rang James to quiz him on his evening's plans, possibly to entice an unwitting revelation but he told me he was going to see star-wars).

Who's to say which is right or wrong?

Exactly.

All we got was constant one-sided accusation, so delegates didn't really get the chance to decide for themselves.

There were numerous accusations and counter accusations about accessability, financial planning, staff protocol etc etc. I wasn't surprised by it but was severely disheartened, others were angered and intimidated.

It was my first LGBT conference in some years. I'd stayed away, partly because of other commitments, and partly because I was afraid of what I might find. Whilst I didn't know what took place I could happily imagine that the campaign was fighting for my rights in an inclusive, responsible, informed way - practising, in fact, what it preaches.

My worst fears were realised when the behaviour displayed differed so very little from the behaviour displayed in other parts of the organisation. The sublimation of reason to passion, of the collective good to the ego (of groups and individuals), and of understanding to insensitivity. The conference ended (as it seems does every NUS conference I attend) in a farce. A farcicle debate on wether to debate debating, fallen guillotines, a lack of reform, the leaving rant and some very disheartened delegates.

We must address the way NUS engages with people who do not have a partisan interest in the organisation. At the moment our structures are far too dominated by our petty squabbles and interests. What we need to realise is that irresponsible behaviour creates irresponsible behaviour. Those with responsability, from all sides, must exercise restraint. By this I don't mean ignoring their principles, but rather upholding them. If you believe in social justice, equality, and the collective good then act like you do. All of us on the NEC are at some point guilty, some more-so perhaps than others. It is our behaviour and our egos which need curbing. Only then will the students be able to fully engage with us, and only then will they get the candiates and the movement they deserve.

BEST OF THE REST:
For other views on the conference that I found particular resonance with read Hayley Mills "LGBT FROM THE INSIDE" and AGC "In Summation" on ednet at the moment. Some good parallels are drawn when re-reading stuff about annual conference as well, eg "Part 3" from far2cynical. I might ask their permission to have them on here as other material but till then they're available on the message board of www.educationet.org scroll down till you find them.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/danchilcott/270899.aspx