Ed Rugg, a third-year History student, replied to York Vision’s Instagram story asking for “hot takes” on the York SU elections, commenting: “I’d like to see a candidate who has an opinion about something.” This weekend, we sat down to discuss what they meant by this and their wider views about how York’s Student Union could improve.
Ed is officially President of the Quaker Society, but they denounce the title: “I don’t believe in hierarchy; it is a Quaker belief that it is immoral to exercise power over others.” Instead, they view themselves as more of a “convener” or a representative of Quakers at York.
“Being a Quaker is about controversy, but it’s also very still. We are driven by doing the right thing, people don’t always see that.”
I could see how this translated to the Quakers’ presence in York now, there was a clear sense of fairness in what Ed spoke about. This was evident in our conversation about York SU, which they believe is “unfit for purpose.”
“A Students’ Union should represent its students, but York SU is designed so that it cannot be in opposition to anything. It cannot be a force for real change unless the change is in the interests of its funders, namely the University.”
They pointed out that even though York SU is legally separate from the University, a significant portion of its funding comes from the University.
I researched this more, and there does seem to be a contradiction between York SU’s declaration that it is “a separate and independent organisation” and the financial reality.
York SU’s 2023 Annual report reads: “We continue to benefit from strong and steadfast support from the University in growing our block grant year-on-year, providing a 2022/23 block grant of £1,783,108.” The SU acknowledges that the University is its “primary funder”, as the grant made up a huge proportion of their £5,770,802 total income. It is clear that York SU’s “partnership with the University adds huge value and protects the Union’s core services” so, as Ed argues, how can the SU truly represent the interests of the students?
“The SU is tied up by financial relationships that we can’t change. Honestly, I think it’s intentional, the University can lean on you and exert financial-based power. The financial data makes it clear who has the whip hand.”
Whilst the financial arrangement could be seen as a less-than-ideal, but ultimately necessary structure, Edward argues the University of York could have chosen to break the traditional SU structure.
“The University is not bound to follow the national model: the real problems are about money, the money comes from the University, but that doesn’t mean students have to be boxed in the way they are.”
Edward is clear that the blame is not with the Sabbatical Officers (Sabbs) though. “They are trying their best. They do often manage to achieve beneficial things for students but it is only two or three things a year, and it takes months to achieve each one. At the end of the day, they are on rollerskates pushing against a brick wall.
“I work two jobs and I can’t afford my rent, but we pay the York SU CEO £70,000 a year to manage a pub and do a few bits on the side.” This is hyperbolic, but Ed makes the point that in a time when so many students are struggling to make ends meet, investing so much in a non-representative SU can seem “a sickening waste of money.
“It feels wrong. It’s not the fault of student leaders or staff, it’s on the University.”
Union Affairs Officer, Lewis Parrey, responded to the article: “Funding from the University doesn’t mean we can’t still be independent, and doesn’t stop us from challenging the University on the big issues. In previous years, Sabbs have run huge campaigns against the University on things like self-certification while at the same time seeing an increase in the block grant. Both things are possible at the same time, and actually I think deep down University staff know they need to be challenged in this way.
Without funding for York SU, the University would be free to make any decisions they wanted without any student input or representation, departments would not have channels for feedback, there would be no sports, societies, volunteering groups, student events or bars, fewer student jobs, less student support. That’s not a University I would want to be a part of.”
Moving onto the elections, Ed admitted they nearly ran for a Sabbatical Officer role last year, as a joke candidate. They had drawn up a manifesto inspired by the donkey statue in the Student Support Centre, joking that “if I went in there when I was struggling, the donkey always made me happy.”
“I would like to see more joke candidates, I think the current lack of them is a sign that people have surrendered, but it is important to take the piss out of the people with power. I’d like to see someone who’s a bit bizarre. Bring back Mad Cap’n Tom!”
Tom Scott, who now has over 6.5 million YouTube subscribers, won the 2008 then YUSU Presidency vote as a joke candidate. ‘Mad Cap’n Tom’, inspired by Scott’s International Talk Like a Pirate Day, embodied the mockery that Ed believes is now missing in the elections.
“Joke candidates can make serious points, but we also need serious candidates. They should be fighting the scourge of poverty that affects students, but it must be a personal conviction not just a policy position.”
“I want to see a candidate who has an opinion about something, who shows themself around campus, who is really angry about the issues that face students.”
Responding to Ed’s call for more passionate candidates, Lewis wrote: “Sabbs are there to represent all students, not just the ones who voted for us. And that’s how it should be, the SU shouldn’t be run by potentially controversial personal ideologies. We need Sabbs to leave personal politics at home and focus on improving the student experience for everyone. That doesn’t mean we aren’t passionate or angry about the problems facing students, we are, but we have to channel that passion and anger in a way that makes change achievable.
The SU isn’t afraid to publicly challenge and fight the University when necessary. But we also need to work with the University, in the rooms where decisions are made, so that we can stop mistakes before they happen. This is what students don’t see, but this is where we often have the most impact.”
Although you might not agree with what Ed says, they embody the at times outspoken, but always necessary, voice against power which is crucial in any democratic system.
Not everybody engages with the York SU Elections, or really with York SU at all, but Ed clearly does. I enjoyed interviewing them, but also hearing about the value of the SU’s work from someone on the inside.
Ed concluded our interview, “I wish candidates the very best. With my Quaker hat on, I hope they are guided by empathy and the crucial quality of listening.”