Don't diss-repute me

Once more I find myself writing this right at the last minute. Standard spelling error warning. Maybe this is good as it lets me just be completely honest.

This week, my hands were tied (metaphorically, not some kind of thing I’m in to) and I had to put a Union story right up there on the front page. For those of you who don’t care about the Union at all, and don’t register it as existing: I’m sorry. For those who find it really interesting: Huh? Really? You do? Oh, okay. I joke, of course.

The Constitution has changed. Sort of. It needs to go to the Trustee Board and is then sent off to College Council. Obviously the Trustees are going to pass it, and then College probably will too. Contentious points? Well, the one that catches the eye is the disrepute one. It is actually already in the College documents that bringing the name of Imperial into disrepute can mean you are disciplined, and the President can, and does, intervene in such disciplinary matters. I would like the meaning of ‘disrepute’ to be clarified, so that people are protected if they want to speak out and give an opinion on the Union with no fear. It’s possible, in my view, that people could be deterred from speaking out if they know they can be disciplined. Although it wouldn’t make good publicity for the Union when it gets out. It is just worrying that it could be used in a twisted way years on down the line. Although it is unlikely to occur, it should be protected against. I’m glad that there is protection for those reporting things, but it should also be cleared up that it does not curtail someone’s free speech; it should be made apparent that people are still allowed to criticise the Union. Obviously any organisation needs to protect itself from lying, and it’s good to have less formal measures than being taken to court for libel, but it doesn’t hurt to have extra protection in place to stop abuse of rules. This could be in the form of an extra line or two, much like has been done to protect people reporting on matters to do with the Union.

It is important to note that, as with other rules, I would assume that if you say “the Union are xyz-ist” you are allowed your opinion, and it would be the people doing the xyz-ism, if they were, who would be disciplined (rightly so) for bringing the Union into “disrepute” (legal chat for “making them look like a bunch of wankers”). Crucially, I ASSUME this. I like to think I’m a reasonable person, but what if the people in charge were not so easy going? That’s why you need to make sure assumptions are incredibly hard, nigh on impossible, to make.

I should mention that you can always, if wrongly accused, say “nah, fuck this I’m opting out”. Although you won’t be allowed in the Union (they don’t ID everyone at all times, as it’s hard to, and so you can probably get in pretty easily), and wouldn’t be allowed in any Clubs or Societies (who would tell on you turning up to an event though? Again, in practice easy to get around). I only mention this to show how, in real terms, while important, these are all so minor in the grand scheme of things. When you’re worrying about your next lab report at 1am, tell me how much you care about point 2.342321235. ab. iii. Not saying that priorities coming up means that you don’t care, or aren’t allowed to forget it, I’m just reminding you that, after however many years, you leave this place and the Union behind.

In an out-of-character move I’m going to say that the only good thing about the whole disrepute stuff is that the Union can protect you from College by disciplining you for them. This is what the Union should always do: protect you from College, and stand up for you and your rights to make everything better. Now back to frantically pulling out my hair while I attempt to finish the paper. Also, I left my glasses at home today. That was really annoying. Not newsworthy, but just really irritating.