In defence of Max Crema

Tab writer Freddie Wild recently published his account of EUSA’s emergency special general meeting. Although he did a good job reporting about the evening, his frustration with the outcome was clear, and in my mind, mistaken.

The defeat of the vote of no-confidence in VPS Max Crema on Wednesday evening frustrated many. It’s easy to see why.

Ageist tweets and a blog post suggesting EUSA was run by “middle-aged women” were just two examples of the many accusations listed throughout the evening. But while these actions by Crema have understandably stirred emotions, it should be clear to everyone there were legitimate reasons for voting in his defence.

Max Crema…he’s not that bad

The argument I found most convincing was that, by supporting the motion, we would be choosing to leave Crema’s position empty for the final two and a half months of the semester.

People were disappointed with Crema’s actions, but a few petty examples of human error shouldn’t jeopardise all the work still to be done this year. After all, the Crema’s actions had already taken place. The damage was done. Did we really want to let them affect the future? I know I didn’t.

Crema’s missteps were taken at times of great frustration. Was it clever of him to lash out in a public forum? Probably not. Would I defend every mistake he made throughout the year? No. But I do think a lot of us have regretfully allowed frustration to get the better of us at one time or another.

Call it blind optimism, but Crema, like the rest of us, will learn from his mistakes.

It’s time to lay the result to rest. Focus should instead be shifted to the positives. Wednesday saw 1,528 votes cast for two motions and an amendment. To me that constitutes an impressive show of democratic activism, and what I took away from the experience was a newfound belief in the health of student politics at our university.

We would all do well to take pride in what we saw Wednesday evening, and let Crema continue his hard work.