Minutes for meeting 23/11/11

Present: Lyman, Gail, Frances, Katie, Sophia, Jennifer, Mel. Names and pronouns were shared for the benefit of newcomers.

Before the meeting began, there was a brief discussion of Lyman and Gail’s plans for running a lecture series on trans issues next term, and it was suggested this could be implemented into Queer History Month.

Though the agenda stated that this meeting would cover Uni wide issues, Katie reports that Seb from OUSU has not yet had time to obtain information regarding changing university policy on sub fusc, so discussion this week will have to once again focus on Common Room motions.

Common Room Motions:
The possibility of opening this blog up to all editors, and that editors would post ‘attractive’ stories on here, and propagate the links on facebook. This was agreed upon, and Gail added additional editors to the blog.

Sophia came to the meeting to discuss the version of the main motion passed by Merton college, and why Merton made the changes to the motion that it did. The campaign discussed the problems that gendered dress codes have to people beyond trans people, and agreed emphatically that this is an issue that affects all kinds of people, and that this can be used as a point to make in future versions of Common Room motions.

However, Frances did make a comparision to the Think Outside The Box (CUSU) campaign, pointing out that they have a very limited focus and we should not stray too far, else we lose focus.

Frances asked whether the campaign felt that the proposed changes from “Male Welfare” and “Female Welfare” to “Welfare (Male)” and “Welfare (Female)”, with a clause urging Common Rooms to open all welfare positions to access by all students needing welfare, were acceptable. The campaign felt that these changes were acceptable, and there was a brief discussion on whether the (Male) and (Female) markers were needed at all.

Frances suggested that there be two reps, “broadly female-identified welfare rep” and “broadly male-identified welfare rep”, referred both as just “welfare rep”. Further discussion on how this would be implemented as a constitutional change. Jennifer did not agree, felt that this constitutional change would be far too difficult to implement and would be resisted by colleges. Katie believed that, on the whole, elections would not change and thus these would not be a problem.

Frances urged those present to read other the new draft motions during the week, so that she may propose them at the last JCR meeting of her college, which is the only one where she can make a constitutional change.

The next meeting was agreed to be held in a pub, as ‘little would get done anyway’ as 8th week is very busy for all involved.

– Gail