It was standing room only in the Main Common Room (MCR) last Thursday as a large group of students met to vote on a motion on whether OUSA should re-adopt their Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) posture. The student general meeting (SGM) was called by Political Representative Jett Groshinski and Luca Schulz, a member of Otago Students for Justice in Palestine (OSJP). TL;DR: the motion passed.
Quorum was easily met at the meeting, surpassing the 100-person minimum by an estimated further 100. The lead-up to the SGM seemed to be extremely well-publicised, with story posts, fliers, emails, and even lecturers mentioning the SGM to students. The OUSA Secretary told Critic that it was the biggest SGM she’s witnessed in her time over thirty years with the association, and President Liam joked, “This is the best engagement we’ve seen without a barbecue”.
On the agenda for the SGM was the motion “That Otago University Students Association, in a binding vote, adopt the attached BDS Movement and Procurement Policy”. The motion was moved by Jett Groshinski, and seconded by Luca Schulz, who is affiliated with OSJP. Within this motion were four resolutions (summarised):
1. “OUSA formally endorses the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a legitimate and necessary form of non-violent resistance to the occupation of Palestine and systematic violations of Palestinian rights”
2. “OUSA commits to a BDS-aligned approach to procurement and investment within its own operations”
3. “OUSA acknowledges in certain areas – such as the purchase of essential operational equipment (e.g. software) – limited supplier options may exist”
4. “This policy applies solely to OUSA operations and finances, and does not extend to independent student clubs, the University of Otago, or individuals"
About half an hour before the event, Critic surveyed students in Auahi Ora to gauge how aware the general student body was about the SGM. Around the busy café, Critic spoke to thirteen students, of which 11 students were aware of the SGM being held on the BDS posture. The students that were aware of the SGM generally agreed it had been well publicised, with one student telling Critic that “someone spoke about it in class”. Six of those students told Critic they had planned to attend the SGM. Those who couldn’t make it told Critic it was due to “having to lock in” or they “had a test at 3pm”.
The SGM was chaired by Germain, Chair of Society of Otago University Law Students (SOULS). Also present was Abby Bowmar, OUSA’s Returning Officer in charge of the legal and constitutional aspect of the SGM. Earlier in the week at the OUSA Executive meeting, Abby noted that it was unclear whether the motion would be constitutionally binding (unlike the referendum), as had been assumed and circulated by many groups (including Critic).
OUSA sought legal advice in the lead-up to the SGM to clarify matters. Germain said that, based on advice, clause 7 of the OUSA constitution lays out students’ powers – in albeit a jargon-filled explanation that left some crowd members confused. This includes setting external policy (like endorsing a Parliament bill) but not internal policy, which includes anything to do with the operations of the association (like procurement procedure for OUSA). What this essentially means is that only the first resolution would be binding.
Jett was the first to speak to the crowd. Wearing a keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian identity and resistance against Israeli occupation, he began, “What we have seen with BDS is nothing short of a failure of student democracy.” He described that when OUSA adopted their BDS posture last year, the “excuse was rolled out” of not having a student mandate. To do so, OSJP submitted a question in the OUSA Referendum, and achieved 53% of the 1,766 votes in favour of BDS. “That is a mandate, that is democracy,” said Jett, “and yet the Executive threw it out anyway. They didn’t respect the vote, they didn’t respect the process, they didn’t respect you.”
Next he spoke about another “excuse” of the Exec that BDS would be too expensive to adopt, treating the referendum as an “advisory note”. Criticising his colleagues in the Exec, he said, “But let’s be honest, the Executive never even did a costing [...] They never asked what this policy would actually mean in numbers. They just assumed it was unaffordable, and used that as a shield.” Jett refers to the meeting when the Exec decided not to continue with BDS when reviewing the referendum results. In that meeting, the CEO was asked for a rough estimate of what BDS would cost, prior to which the Exec had not asked her for a business case to be made of the implications of the policy.
Next, the seconder of the motion, Luca Schulz, took to the stage to address the SGM. He identified himself as an organiser for OSJP, which warranted a few cheers from the crowd, especially the group of OSJP members sitting near the front – many also all adorned in keffiyeh. In his speech, he said, “Critic disappointingly accepted OUSA’s pricing of the BDS policy without checking it” (ahem, we did) and that “[there is a] moral obligation to see a sooner end to genocide.” When speaking about OUSA, he said, “It is such an insult for the Exec to reject BDS twice now [...] this is not solidarity, the Exec has abandoned the one material action.”
Third up was President Liam. He began by saying that as the official OUSA spokesperson, it hadn’t been easy to draft a speech representing the Exec’s position as a whole since they had been so torn on the issue (to put it lightly). “First and foremost, the Executive does support the people of Palestine,” he said, describing quiet ways the Exec have shown their support, such as recently backing Chlöe Swarbrick’s Sanctions Bill. “For some, that hasn’t felt like enough. I understand that. But I reject the idea that OUSA has been absent.”
In hindsight, he said that the call to step back from an “all-out” boycott was made “quickly, narrowly on numbers, without much exploration of what a more moderate ‘where we can’ approach could look like.” The Exec were open to a more moderate approach, such as the one presented by Jett at the SGM. “So, while the Exec rejected a version of BDS that we believed would have jeopardised our stability, I don’t believe the Executive is opposed to BDS in every form,” he concluded.
Then Liam went a bit rogue. The speech he had prepared for the SGM as the spokesperson for OUSA had been run by the Exec, who told Critic that they had been under the impression that they would appear as a team. In the middle of Liam’s speech, however, he deviated from the script to speak as a student, and not as the President. He agreed with Jett’s position that the Exec’s decision had been “undemocratic” and the referendum was the “clearest expression of student voice [they] had on the issue”. Liam thanked Jett and Luca for calling the meeting (despite it having been behind his Exec’s back) and holding the Exec to account, who he said had been “governed under a thin veil of assumed trust”. Liam said, “So let me be clear, I support this motion. It balances solidarity and feasibility, it makes BDS workable within OUSA without jeopardising the services that students rely on.”
After the first three speakers, the mic was then opened to the floor for any students to comment. Before the vote, a total of six students spoke. A PhD student and former OUSA employee compared the BDS movement to past student-protest movements with the Vietnam War and the Springboks tour. He also posed the question, “What is our democracy of students if not this?” Afterwards, Gemella, former Tumuaki of Te Rōpū Māori called BDS “an important kaupapa for indigenous people”. She explained, “We as Māori can’t comprehend what they’re going through, but know what it’s like to be colonised and [experience] intergenerational trauma.” After her impromptu speech, she invited the crowd to sing the waiata ‘Te Aroha’.
The only speaker against the motion of the SGM was Finance and Strategy Officer Daniel Leamy. As the one student most (painfully) aware of OUSA’s financial position, he took to the stage (visibly nervous) to explain his hesitancy to adopt the motion. He began by acknowledging that everyone agrees that it has been “mishandled” and that the Exec were, of course, supportive of BDS in principle: “No one disagrees it isn’t a great movement.” But he stressed just how crippling it could be for the association, who lost $680k last year. He urged students to consider what may happen to OUSA’s services if a hardline BDS posture were to be re-adopted, meaning departments that “hugely support students in a way they might not realise” like Student Support or Clubs and Socs (home of the free brekky and $4 lunch) could be at risk. Daniel’s speech received less applause than most other speakers of the day, with a few, somewhat unsympathetic hecklers saying “shame” as he walked back to his seat.
Aaron Hawkins, former Dunedin Mayor and OUSA life member, took to the stage next. In a powerful one-liner that drew whoops and cheers from the crowd, he said, “[OUSA] can’t afford to determine our sense of moral clarity by working backwards from our balance sheet.” Jomana Moharram, a Dunedin Youth MP who previously had spoken to the Exec to urge them to adopt BDS, said that abandoning the posture “tells people like me that we aren’t worth it” and throwing away BDS-listed products you have already purchased is irresponsible. “No one wants to see their laptop thrown in a bonfire,” she said, referencing OUSA potentially needing to stay away from BDS-listed Dell laptops in the future.
Just under an hour into the SGM, it was time to vote on the binding-part of the motion. Due to the sheer number of attendees, a verbal ‘aye’ or ‘nay’ vote was taken. With a clear and loud ‘aye’, the motion was passed with overwhelming support. Only a couple, much quieter, ‘nays’ were heard scattered across the crowd.
After the SGM had wrapped up, Executive members Daniel, Stella, and Amy M. gave their reactions to Liam’s altered speech to Critic (after having a second to calm down). “I have nothing nice to say,” said Stella. Amy told Critic that she wasn’t mad about the result – she was in support of taking a moderate approach to BDS – but she was upset about being “lied to” by her president. Liam, however, stood by his choice. It had been made after consultation with around 20 people and a lot of to and fro all week. “I took advice from politicians about it,” he explained, who had given him a “mixture of opinions”.
While acknowledging the frustration from his team, who some might say were thrown under the bus by their leader, he said he didn’t feel that he needed to run his personal opinion by them and had clearly signposted that he was speaking as an individual student “as every student has a right to”. He explained that “my personal thoughts were open; if any Executive member wanted to debate them on the floor, they could have.”
As for what’s next, Liam had promised the crowd that if the motion passed, he would move the motion (the non-binding part) at the Exec’s next meeting alongside Jett. He intends to set up a working group between the Exec and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa to help shape the BDS policy, learning from other organisations of a similar size such as the Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association (who have informally adopted BDS).