This week saw an unusual event taking place on the concourse. A protest, organised by the Union, against the University on the issue of the cost of accommodation.
When you bear in mind the last placard-waving contest was undertaken by lecturers over the issue of pay, it’s clear this is no everyday occurrence.
How exceptional the protest is however is not contentious. What is debatable is how effective it will prove to be.
The issue of the cost of University accommodation needs to be addressed as it is surely too high and too inflexible.
But is this tactic the best way to be tackling the problem? After all, our Union is not known for its protesting mantle.
So where has the push for this demonstration originated from?
It could be the result of a feeling that something noticeable and impressive needs to be done to make the University and the student body take stock.
Something physical and exhilarating, which will feel that much more satisfying to those whose idea it was than convening another sub-committee.
After all, it is much easier to be enthusiastic about a protest than a meeting with ACS.
One Sabbatical Officer cried through the megaphone: “Congratulations, we’re making history!” It was unclear how. The demonstration was small, with no more than 60 students present. The usual faces, in the form of Union Councillors and political activists, made up the vast majority of protestors. Not even all the Sabbatical Officers were present.
Judging from the turnout, the demonstration failed in provoking a massive response from the wider student body.
Even the most enthused of protestors were distracted by the chip pan demonstration, an event perhaps more likely to set the University world ablaze.
There is a risk, though, that the University may be less inclined to agree with Union proposals and demands once they see the President waving a placard around rather than sat on the other side of the table.
Relations between the Union and the University could, potentially, take a significant dive.
One can’t imagine staff feeling warm towards the Union after being shouted at.
In addition, don’t we pay the President and the Union officers to lobby on our behalf so we don’t have to bother?
Many students don’t have time to meet with University staff and discuss the finer point of rent prices and contract lengths. Therefore we elect, and pay, individuals to be at those meetings and speak to the right people because we can’t.
An additional problem with campaigning on the cost of University accommodation is that most of those paying are rarely involved in the sphere of the Union: first years and international students.
In addition, many of those in University accommodation now will have no intention of being so next year and understandably care more about finding a house than protesting on behalf of those following them.
However, the demonstration is clear evidence that some action is being taken by the Union to address the unacceptable cost of living in University flats or halls.
Nevertheless, the issue of accommodation costs could have simply been an excuse to have a protest. It’s a legitimate tactic, but surely we would prefer our Officers to have hit a brick wall in negotiations before they spend time and money on a protest?
It’s up to the University now to decide how to react. If the words of a friendly porter I know who passed the protest: “You students have plenty of money,” are anything to go by, it may not be that positive. But the unusual tactic might just shock them into a policy shift.
Hurst is living up to what his manifesto promised in using these kind of tactics against the University, though the protest was well short of the 3,000 he said he was hoping for in an interview after his election.
As one woman said as she passed the demonstration: “It’s good to see the youth today taking some action.” What is lacking is any reassurance or expectation that it will work.