This year’s National Union of Students (NUS) conference on 24-27
March marked a change in the politics of the students movement, with
student politics continuing to be churned up by the looming threat of
the replacement of grants by a graduate tax as well as tuition fees.
A new alliance based on black-Jewish unity against racism began to emerge.
This breakthrough creates the potential to link NUS with the most progressive
developments in society. The second main debate at the conference — on
education funding — showed that the impending massive economic
attacks on students are churning up the entire political framework of
NUS. The combination of the breakthrough on the anti-racist issue — via
a new alliance of black and Jewish students — and the pressure
to develop a strategy to defend students against unprecedented attacks
on their living standards are two manifestations of a gigantic process
which is starting to transform student politics.
The significance of the development of an alliance between black and
Jewish students to fight racism, anti-semitism and the extreme right
and increase black representation cannot be over stated. Previously differences
on Israel/Palestine had prevented those most threatened by racism and
the fascists from allying as the core of the movement necessary to defeat
them.
Conference voted, virtually unanimously, for motions which stated ‘that
defeating racism and the extreme right will require the broadest possible
unity of the student movement: black communities, Jewish groups, trade
unions, religious groups and all other anti-racists, as advocated by
the 1995 and 1996 Student Assembly Against Racism conferences.’
A further motion, described as dealing with ‘black-Jewish unity’,
welcomed the Student Assembly Against Racism (SAAR) and agreed to work
with ‘genuine anti-fascist and anti-racist organisations .. such
as the National Assembly Against Racism’. It asserted that those
who suffer racism — the black and Jewish communities — ‘ought
to be at the forefront of the struggle’, stressing the need to
strengthen dialogue between religious groups and others. It outlined
a strategy for fighting all forms of racism, not choosing just one aspect.
It also stressed the need to bring ‘together minority communities
on a basis of tolerance, understanding and mutual respect’.
The debate committed NUS to campaign for a comprehensive set of measures:
repeal of the Asylum and Immigration Act, for a public inquiry into black
deaths in custody, making racial violence a specific criminal offence,
outlawing religious discrimination and for the cancellation of the third
world debt. It agreed to wage a strong campaign against the BNP in the
general election, calling for a ban on the BNP election broadcast and
supporting NAAR’s Vote Against Racism campaign. Delegates agreed
to an NUS Week of Action against racism.
The principle that the movement against racism and the extreme right
should be led by those who experience racism, incorporating an alliance
of the black and Jewish communities, in alliance with the labour movement
and the widest anti-racist sections of society had been promoted by the
National Assembly Against Racism, and spelt out in its Anti-racist Charter
for the New Millennium and more recently the National Black Alliance’s
Black Manifesto.
This outcome to the debate was a change in NUS’ approach to anti-racist
policy. Previously instead of taking part in the broad anti-racist movement
against the Asylum and Immigration act, racist murders and the activities
of the BNP, NUS’ emphasis was concentrated on tiny Islamic fundamentalist
groups, specifically Hizb-ut Tahrir. As a result NUS had placed itself
outside the rise of mass opposition to racism which has developed in
the last few years. Even the Executive Committee’s 1997 report,
in the section on anti-racism, opened with the statement that: ‘Islamic
extremism continues to be a problem on our campuses. Various incidents
occurred at freshers’ fayres which demonstrated the remaining prevalence
of such groups at Hizb ut-Tahrir. Our work has been dominated by the
education of sabbatical officers in combating these threats whilst maintaining
the status quo with the majority of Muslim students’ [our italics].
Hizb-ut Tahrir’s politics are reactionary and must be opposed.
But by far the most dangerous manifestations of racism have been racist
attacks by whites on blacks, racist government legislation and fascist
groups like the BNP. This conference represented NUS re-gaining a sense
of proportion on these issues.
NUS’ failure to participate in the broad anti-racist movement
had also been accompanied by the marginalisation of black students — the
most under-represented group within NUS, despite the massive growth of
black student numbers in further and higher education. Black students’ demand
for an elected black officer on the national executive was previously
defeated by the right wing of Labour Students and economistic groups
like Workers’ Liberty, which operates under the name of Left Unity
in NUS. Therefore perhaps the most significant decision in this years
conference was to: ‘create a part-time position of Black Students’ officer
on the NEC’. Support for this proposal was moved by a member of
the Union of Jewish Students on the NUS national executive and represents
a serious step forward for black representation.
Labour Students put out a leaflet calling for support for the main motion
and first two amendments, including support for SAAR.
The only current to oppose key parts of these motions was Workers Liberty/Left
Unity.
Left Unity opposed calling for NUS to ‘lobby the government to
remove the right of the BNP to free party political broadcasts and election
literature’.
Left Unity also opposed support for SAAR, but they could not even persuade
50 delegates to support them on this.
The turn around in the anti-racist debate and the strength of the black-Jewish
alliance was further underlined by the fringe meetings. The Union of
Jewish Students (UJS) had a record attendance of over 600 people to their
meeting where Lee Jasper, representing the National Black Caucus, was
a speaker. The Student Assembly Against Racism fringe meeting the following
lunchtime was the next biggest with more than 200 attending.
The second key issue at conference was education funding where the impact
of the attacks on students’ living standards and the threat to
impose tuition fees continues to present the challenge of developing
a strategy to resist this attack.
While the Blairite Labour Students leadership of NUS succeeded in winning
a policy against free education they were under considerable pressure
to make a strong stand against tuition fees — which is likely to
place them in conflict with the new Labour government. Labour Students
will, in any case, meet serious problems when a Labour government begins
to enact its manifesto pledge that ‘the costs of student maintenance
should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career
success to which higher education has contributed’.
As at previous conferences, the right’s success was aided by the
tactics imposed by Workers’ Liberty on the Campaign for Free Education.
Their substitution of ultra-left rhetoric for serious proposals on how
to pay for free education has weakened the CFE. Left wing opposition
to this fact among the CFE’s own ranks was reflected in the visible
decline in the CFE at the conference. The CFE fringe meeting — which
had around 200 people last year with Ken Livingstone — had about
35 people present and was one of the smallest at conference.
This decline of the CFE does not reflect a fall in opposition to tuition
fees and loans. This was clear in the executive elections. Declining
support for the CFE reflected discontent with the campaign’s tactics,
particularly its failure to adopt arguments which could demonstrate how
education could be funded without attacking the working class or students
themselves. The CFE had the potential to become a broad, mass campaign.
Its failure to do so is a result of the fact that the campaign was controlled
by Workers’ Liberty who refused on principle to take up a serious
economic argument on how to pay for free education or to involve students
who had different views on such matters to their own. This failure to
present a serious and coherent funding strategy allowed Labour Students
to get away with arguing that grants and fees were pitted against child
benefit and other forms of welfare spending.
Secondly, the CFE failed to take up the issue of fees centrally or rapidly
enough and as a result initiatives, such as the Huddersfield No to Fees
conference and various press conferences with Campaign Group MPs were
organised outside of the CFE by independent left forces. Other colleges
such as Kent waged their own campaigns against fees clauses being included
in prospectuses.
Thirdly, through Workers’ Liberty’s leadership the CFE failed
to grasp the significance of Dearing, again necessitating other initiatives
such as Dearing Watch and by individual colleges outside of the CFE.
Had the CFE led the fight on these key issues and made the link with
colleges under attack it would have been strengthened. Instead, incorporating
all views and building the most representative and powerful campaign
was seen by Workers’ Liberty as a threat to their political dominance
of the CFE. Officers and members of the CFE Steering Committee who expressed
opposition to the tactics used by the campaign were not informed of meetings
and decisions were taken outside of the elected steering committee.
Many key left independents, who were central to the CFE a year ago have
since left. This was evident at conference: the Workers’ Liberty
leadership of the CFE presented what had been a significant defeat as
a victory. Many were put off by the purely negative rhetoric against
Labour Students during the debate, which was not balanced with any positive
statement about how to pay for free education, other than ‘make
the rich pay’ declarations. A group of students organised as an
independents caucus in the CFE distributed their own alternative leaflet
advancing serious economic arguments on how to pay for free education
as the central theme, alongside the fight against fees.
A third example of the beginnings of a change in the politics in NUS
was provided by the outcome of the executive elections. The elections
represented a shift to the left.
The ‘block of 12’ part-time places on the NUS executive committee
indicated firstly, significant support for left wing candidates, and
secondly that new political currents were emerging outside of the existing
blocks.
Labour Students were only able to get two of their three candidates elected. This is significant because it is a taste of the kind of opposition Labour Student will encounter when the Labour government attacks students.
Left Unity candidates also declined from 3 to 2 on the block of 12,
with those elected scraping on at the bottom of the poll. They prioritised
an unknown, white, Left Unity candidate over a better known black woman
Left Unity candidate. Carolyne Culver, a left independent CFE candidate
who stood on a platform which made the economic case for fully state-funded
education and which supported the Student Assembly Against Racism, came
high in the poll, gaining significantly more votes than the Left Unity
candidates.
In addition a number of ‘centre’ independent candidates
were elected, plus a member of the Socialist Worker Student Society.
The breakthrough at conference to place racism centrally on the student
movement’s agenda would not have been possible without the involvement
of the wider anti-racist movement outside NUS, which shone the light
of reality onto NUS’ distorted agenda. The campaign which SAAR
and the National Assembly Against Racism (NAAR) had waged had begun to
organise students against racism, in particular through the two Student
Assembly Against Racism conferences in 1995 and 1996.
Following conference the need to bring together a new left political current to consolidate these progressive changes in NUS is even clearer. The debates on racism and on student funding and the executive elections all show the potential for a class struggle left in NUS which can give leadership to the vast numbers of students with progressive views who don’t fit into Workers’ Liberty’s pro-imperialist and sectarian politics, nor the right-wing politics of Labour Students. Developing such a current is vital because students have to play a part in the most important struggles in society, not abstain from them. Over the last decade NUS has been a training ground for Blairite cadre rather than providing new activists for the political vanguard of the left. Changing this situation would not just help students — it would be a contribution to every progressive struggle in society.
By Kim Wood