News of the OUSA Exec abandoning their Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) posture has triggered an outpouring of criticism from the student community and beyond. The decision went against the 53% of 1,766 students (8.83% of 20,000 students) who voted “yes” to maintaining the policy in the OUSA referendum – a non-binding poll. Democracy manifest.
There’s a backstory to the pickle that the Exec are currently in. Late last year, OUSA adopted a BDS “posture” after then-President Keegan Wells and Political Representative Liam White (now OUSA President) instructed the OUSA CEO to deny BDS-listed businesses space at Ori’ events. “We [felt] like we [had] the support of the Executive,” President Liam explained in an interview on Wednesday. Whether or not it was discussed in a meeting, however, wasn’t something he could recall. And since it would have been in a confidential committee, there are no minutes that Critic could refer to.
BDS is a tool that aims to pressure institutions with ties to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Palestine, particularly those supporting the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). “In the face of the occupation, ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass starvation of the Palestinian people, it can be difficult to know how we can help from the other side of the world,” explained Otago Staff for Palestine (OSP), Otago Students for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) and the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) in a joint statement. “Palestinian civil society have joined together and asked ‘international civil society organisations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era,’” referencing a statement from Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
The first tangible sign of this posture came when OUSA barred the alleged BDS-listed Domino’s from Tent City earlier this year, forcing them to tout on the street. It was a direct hit to OUSA’s already struggling bank account. Tent City is one of the key ways the organisation bumps up their income at the beginning of the year. Every dollar counts, though Critic has been unable to confirm exactly how much foregone revenue was lost. OUSA’s financial records from last year, however, are publicly available on their website; in 2024, they had a net loss of $680,073. In layman's terms: they’re broke.
The decision to ban Domino’s proved to be controversial on more than one count. Two formal complaints were laid against the Exec by students. One felt that the Exec were “pushing [their] own political agenda without consultation with students” – prompting an Exec meeting in March where the group decided to endeavour to “canvas student opinion”. There was also confusion over whether the North Dunedin Domino’s was financially tied to Israel in any way. The franchise owner told Critic at the time, “I can confirm I, and NZ Domino’s, have no connection to Israel Domino’s.”
Following the Domino’s fallout, the Exec had agreed that they would seek student consultation through the annual referendum. Just over half of 1,766 students voted “yes” to the policy in May – albeit without all the facts and figures attached. The Exec had agreed not to provide estimated costs of fully adopting BDS to students, saying that it would be “reckless” to do so without a formal business case. No member of the Exec has ever asked OUSA for one.
The Exec eventually reviewed the referendum results at their meeting on July 31st, where they were torn between obligations to the student body and their responsibility as governors of OUSA. During the meeting they asked the CEO for a rough estimate of what it would cost – that’s where the $500k price tag (stretched over three years) came from. In a memo to the Exec, under the BDS question Liam had added the option of developing a policy to bring to the Finance, Expenditure and Strategy Committee (FESC), which may have provided some more concrete numbers. However, with such a big estimate on the table, the Exec decided to abandon BDS. Politics Rep Jett and Postgrad Rep Josh voted against.
In a statement clarifying their decision, the Exec wrote, “This decision does not represent an abandonment of the underpinning principles of BDS. The OUSA Executive remains committed to pursuing alternative actions that reflect solidarity and support in a more sustainable manner [...] While the Executive continues to express deep concern over the ongoing and distressing situation in the region, its foremost responsibility is to ensure the continuity and stability of essential student services by OUSA to benefit all students at the University of Otago.”
A joint statement from Otago Staff for Palestine (OSP), Otago Students for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) and the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) penned in response to the Exec’s decision is titled, “OUSA is going against a democratic mandate in order to maintain ties with companies that are actively supporting genocide.” While the Exec worried students were “uninformed” in their referendum vote for BDS, and would instead pursue “alternative action” to support the people of Gaza, the authors of the statement say, “This claim is arrogant [...] We should not put a price tag on Palestinian lives.”
Upon seeking clarification behind the price tag attached to the policy, it was explained to Critic that this would involve, with costs such as hiring a Procurement Officer with an estimated salary of $70k-90k. If OUSA were to adopt BDS, considerations go beyond where to buy their pizza. Every element of the organisation would need to be evaluated, each with a chain of international companies behind them. For instance, their current IT providers are OneCall, who are licensed to sell BDS-listed Dell Technologies laptops, all with BDS-listed intel processors, using BDS-listed Microsoft software. Any new computer (because they would eventually need to be replaced) has a litany of parts that could be in the BDS-red. As Liam explained to Critic, “We are gonna be very transparent that for OUSA is a not-for-profit organization, we do have to sometimes take the cheapest option.” And none of the above comes cheap.
OSJP thought it was more simple. They described the half million figure as being made up of “fabrications and misunderstandings of the demands of the BDS movement.” For one, Domino’s was not a priority target of BDS, though OSJP felt OUSA refusing their business was a “clear statement” in solidarity with Palestine. In their opinion, the ongoing narrative from OUSA of how “tricky” BDS is isn’t justified. PSNA states, “To adopt BDS means to refuse to give another dollar, wherever practical, to BDS priority targets.” It’s a “disingenuous claim” that it needs to be “perfect and requires minute and onerous analysis of procurement decisions and avoidance of hundreds of brands,” according to authors of the joint statement.
In the interest of transparency, they wrote that it was “incumbent” that OUSA published a complete breakdown of the financial burden BDS would cause. “The challenges the Exec have presented to BDS are not new, but we have mechanisms to navigate them,” the letter continues. Specific and targeted boycotts “need not bankrupt OUSA,” and OSJP suggested that the Exec’s “overzealous” approach to operationalising BDS alluded to them failing to consult with relevant bodies such as Dunedin Palestine or Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa.
Francisco Hernandez (ex-OUSA President and Green MP based in Ōtepoti) and Jomana Moharram (an Ōtepoti Youth MP) have also co-authored an open letter to OUSA offering their opinion, posted to their respective socials and sent to both the Exec and media outlets. “While there may be sponsorship and funding opportunities that OUSA will lose as a result of taking this stance – there is no immediate expectation that OUSA seamlessly shift from 0-100 on the Boycott, Divest, Sanction campaign,” the letter reads. The pair argued that the immediate impacts and costs of BDS were not as “dramatic as you may have been advised.” Liam expressed to Critic that he was grateful for the offer from a Member of Parliament.
At an emergency meeting on Tuesday, Liam admitted to the Exec that he “couldn’t shake the anti-democratic nature” of their decision. “We failed to supply students with accurate knowledge and information,” he said. A steady stream of backlash against the OUSA Exec – puke emojis and quotes like “spineless behaviour” included – were seen in the comments of an OSJP post made the previous day. Weighing over their heads were questions such as this one posed by OSP, OSJP and MSA: “Is ‘pizza not politics’ the slogan the students of the University of Otago want to be remembered by when it comes to their response to a livestreamed genocide?”
Following the onslaught of feedback (to put it nicely) from student groups, Members of Parliament, OUSA life members, and Otago Staff for Palestine, Critic asked Liam what the next steps for the Exec looked like. Leaning back in his seat with a sigh he replied, "Honestly, I would describe this as a make or break issue for the Executive. Either we figure out some sort of moderate solution to make it work that is acceptable to all parties, or the Executive decides that it wants to remain steadfast and it has to accept whatever abuse it gets." Torn between representing the student body and upholding their obligations as governors of OUSA, it’s doubtful anyone would be envious of their position.