Debate Soc Asks: SHOULD SUSU BE ABOLISHED?

At the end of last week, Southampton University’s Debating Society hosted Sam Ling (SUSU President), Sasha Watson (VP Academic Affairs), Jade Head (Societies Officer) and Shane Murphy (VP Student Engagement) […]


At the end of last week, Southampton University’s Debating Society hosted Sam Ling (SUSU President), Sasha Watson (VP Academic Affairs), Jade Head (Societies Officer) and Shane Murphy (VP Student Engagement) to oppose the motion “This house would abolish SUSU” The debate was well attended and passionate that brought some of the criticisms and debates about SUSU’s relevance – partially initiated by The Tab after it’s inception in 2010 – to a wider and more serious forum.

David Humphreys, Debating Society president and member of the societies committee, was the first to speak in favour of the motion to abolish SUSU, citing the Union’s hinderance of student unity as the primary reason why, as a body failing its duties and betraying the title of ‘union’, it should be abolished. David proposed an alternative University experience where students are more autonomous, freed from a pointless mediator that unneccesarily complicates students’ activities. The essence of this argument was that SUSU’s bureaucracy is ineffective, opaque and thus at odds with students’ interests.

Other proposition speakers included Andrzej Szczepaniak, Adam Scott and Stephen Anderson. Considerable emphasis was placed on the benefits of privatising union utilities and although arguments in this vein did raise the interesting possibility of SUSU utilities such as the Stags Head being owned by Jesters, the notion of a privatised union considerably alienated audience members – one of whom gave a shout out for socialism towards the end of the debate – who unanimously voted in oppostiton of the motion.

A more impressionable point raised was that SUSU is no greater than the sum of its members and their initiative. It was argued that without the union infrastructure, students could still have the same University experience, or better: societies could still be formed and may benefit from having to ‘network’ with businesses and non-profit organisations in the wider community; political and awareness campaigns could still be run with just as much enthusiasm and impact; personality politics, cliqueyness and silly campaigns would give way to a fairer and more genuine competition for positions of student leadership.

SUSU President Sam Ling headed the opposition of the motion. Image by Robert Hayes.

Opposition frontman, Sam Ling, began his speech proudly clutching the minutes of the first societies committee meeting, the ‘cornerstone’ of SUSU. This seemingly put forth a conservative argument, that the union’s heritage necessitated its continuity. Sam followed this up with regular presidential spiel about unity, calling SUSU the “heart and soul” of the University and arguing that without it, students could not hold the Vice Chancellor or the University to account. Sam’s strongest point was his authoritative citing of last year’s leavers satisfaction survey, which concluded 77% of leavers were satisfied with SUSU, but this didn’t really penetrate any of the subtler criticisms put forth by the proposition.

Jade Head, Societies Officer, confidently delivered an endearing case for the union by elucidating an earlier point from Sam about its invaluable role in facilitating personal development. She pointed to breadth and depth of society activities as evidence of SUSU’s enriching potential and also argued that it’s the necessary framework which allows student activities to be student led.

Shane’s strongest point was that SUSU is a social good by means of its charitable achievements, ethical campaigns and support for student enterprise and how far these achievements have gone and how they compare to those of other student unions remained unchallenged by the proposition team. Sasha’s speech cited the superior financial performance of SUSU catering compared to the performance of Southampton University catering and, overall, showed how SUSU can help people develop as public speakers, but – and this couldn’t be avoided really – the Sabbs’ speeches came across more as carefully managed PR than something that engaged with a debate, per se; Wouldn’t it be infinitely more interesting if they were asked to argue in favour of abolishing SUSU? Arguments oozed over the parapet can be found in some form or another on their blogs.

Nonetheless, the proposition was an excellent call by Debating Society, engaging with some students’ apathy with SUSU in a constructive way, giving scope for students to question the President and Sabbatical Officers whilst offering the latter an opportunity to present their case. As it’s illegal for a University not to have a students union, SUSU won’t be going away any time soon, but events like these will ensure that it’s relevance will always be debated. An evening well spent.

The author would like to thank Debating Society for their hospitality and Robert Hayes for allowing the use of his image.