A recent University of Manchester Students’ Union Assembly motion has generated intense backlash both online and from the University, as voting for the motion has been postponed.
Community groups and Jewish-related news outlets have expressed upset at the contents of the motion.
Wednesday 26 March saw the debate of a ‘Solidarity with Palestine’ motion, covered by The Mancunion. The full policy can be read here with additional context given here.
A University of Manchester spokesperson has described “aspects” of the ‘Solidarity with Palestine’ motion as “wholly unacceptable”, stating that the University has “raised serious concerns with the Students’ Union regarding its wording particularly where it risks undermining the principles of equality, safety, and wellbeing”.
Following on from this, they also said:
“The conflict in Gaza and Israel is deeply distressing for many in our community. As a university, we are committed to upholding free speech and fostering respectful debate within the law. However, we will not tolerate abuse or discrimination of any kind towards members of our community”.
Union Assembly motions are not binding: if passed, the Students’ Union acknowledges that they represent a majority of students’ views but do not have to “lead to further action”, according to the Byelaws.
The Students’ Union is a charity, so for ‘non-student-as-students’ issues they take on ‘corporate conclusions‘. This is where the Union communicates to members that a policy has been approved, with the percentage of yes and no votes given.
This is “not a binding stance of the Union” and only serves to communicate the views of Students’ Union members. Within the ‘Solidarity with Palestine’ motion, the Union would provide resources to campaign groups inline with pre-existing services. Other than this, the corporate conclusion will be taken.
All members of the student body are eligible to vote and are encouraged to attend Union Assembly meetings.
Any student is allowed to propose a policy. These are then checked to ensure they adhere to the byelaws and any legal checks before being discussed at a Union Assembly meeting.
A follow-up email was sent to attendants on March 28, stating “we can’t give an exact date when voting will open” but expressed their aim to open voting “asap”.
Outlined in the email was a meeting with the Union Assembly Committee “to confirm a delay to voting to seek legal advice on the policy […] the Trustee Board will meet to discuss the legal advice once it has been received”.
An article from ‘The Jewish Chronicle‘ uses photographs that appear to be taken within the Union Assembly meeting as well as of unknown people within the Students’ Union building.
It is unclear how these photos were obtained as there was a blanket ‘No Photographs/ Filming/ Audio Recording’ rule in force during the Union Assembly event. Faces have been blurred.
The second photo, captioned “Manchester University student union members wear masks and keffiyehs while it deliberates a motion on ‘Solidarity with Palestine’”, seems to show blurred students sitting in the foyer of the Students’ Union building.
Union Assemblies are held within events spaces in the Students’ Union as to allow for students to engage in debate in a safe space.
The same article accuses the Students’ Union of “glorify[ing] terrorism” after an amendment calling for wording changes was not passed.
The amendment (1) was as follows:
“In point 7, removing the wording “in recognising that, as an occupied nation” and adding in the sentence “We condemn all acts of terrorism and recognise Hamas as a prescribed terrorist organisation, in accordance with UK law under the terrorism act 2000”.
The full point 7 “In recognising that, as an occupied nation, the people of Palestine have the right to armed resistance under international law”.
The Union of Jewish Students and Manchester Jewish Society have released two statements related to the motion, calling its debate “Dangerous and irresponsible”.
The first of these statements states that it is “unconscionable for Manchester Student Union to have permitted a motion that frames “violent resistance” as legitimate”.
The second statement, posted just a day later, outlines their upset at the proposed amendment, “A new definition of antisemitism should be left to Jewish students discretion and changed only if Jewish student communities are in agreement” being rejected. The statement further notes that “Those in attendance overwhelmingly voted against this, including SU executives”.
Uploaded to Instagram, the post implies that the amendment failing to pass “sends a clear message: our concerns, safety, and lived experience do not matter to the SU”.
‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’, a legal campaign group, outlined plans for “our lawyers” to examine “whether the motion runs afoul of charitable or criminal law”. They also expressed plans to contact the University of Manchester, the Students’ Union and the UK Charity commission.
Responding to online concerns, the Students’ Union Executive Team emphasised that the Students’ Union “is taking steps to ensure the wellbeing of all students during this process”. They emphasised a commitment “to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment for all students”.
This has included “meeting with affected student groups such as JSoc and with the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) to hear their concerns and shape any support offered”.
On the point of the University’s concern, they expressed that they had “met with senior University colleagues and, in agreement with the proposers, have delayed any vote on the motion while we seek further legal advice to ensure it aligns with equalities law and our obligations as a charity”.
“While the University has made a public statement describing aspects of the motion as “wholly unacceptable,” this forms part of the legal advice we are seeking, and we are not in a position to comment further until that process is complete”.
