Student Unions, Lecturers and Tolerance

Last night CUSU Council voted down a motion that resolved not to support the action of the AUT in taking action short of a strike. I argued against the motion, and was pleased to see the extent to which it was defeated. However, there is an argument that crops up time and time again around this debate which needs to be challenged, along with the analysis of society of which it forms a part.

The argument essentially goes:

1. The role of a student union is to protect Student Interests.
2. The action taken by the AUT harms Student Interests, therefore
3. Student Unions should oppose the action taken by the AUT.

Thus those who support their lecturers are shouted down as not acting in the interests of students, whilst those who denounce the AUT are the defenders of student rights. They are the ones acting in the tradition of Student Unionism, we are not.

Generally the way I've heard this position challenged is to deny Premise 2. It is contested that whilst exam boycotts harms students immediately, a victory for the AUT would ultimately benefit students in the long run, being better for the education system, a defeat for the government agenda, or whatever. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, but I think the argument would benefit from being criticised at a far more fundamental level. I want to challenge the first premise and the inference to the conclusion.

The claim that a role of a student union is to protect student interests is not enough to make this argument succeed. It is required that it is the sole role of a student union. The role of a student union is clearly a contested value, one for which different ideologies compete. The institution of a students union exists independent of ideologies, but every action taken by a union is the result of the victory of a certain ideological position, a certain interpretation of what its role is. It is not enough for either side to claim that 'this is what the union is for'. They must propose an argument and subject it to debate. Thus the belief that Students Unions ought to fight for a better society is firstly a legitimate one, and secondly one that must be fought for by those who believe it. It is important that we not allow debate to be closed down by accepting any prior definitions of what our unions are there for. This not to say that certain ideologies are more legitimate than others. There clearly is a way of arguing over the role of a union based on common ground of what is important, valued etc. In my experience arguments over the role of a union tend to come down to the right citing the law versus the left citing history. Both these are cases to be made, and if you value self-definition and history more than legal constraints you will come down on a specific side. However, no interpretation of the union's role ought to be dogma, and we ought not to concede premises like 1.

More broadly, however, this argument is based on a specific conception of society as divided into competing 'interest groups' which struggle to ensure their own interests are served. This is more than merely an account of society as it is, it is an ideologically driven account of the only way society can be. It is based on an assumption that grand projects are impossible, that human beings are all essentially very different and all want very different things, and that the best we can do is to balance everyone out and hope no-one treads on anyone elses toes too much. This Pluralism is something we absolutely have to reject. For Robert Wolff :

Pluralist democracy, with its virtue, tolerance, constitutes the highest stage in the political development of industrial capitalism. It transcends the crude 'limitations' of early individualistic liberalism and makes a place for the communitarian features of social life, as well as for the interest-group politics which emerged as a domesticated version of the class struggle. Pluralism is humane, benevolent, accomodating, and far more responsive to the evils of social injustice than either the egoistic liberalism or the traditionalistic conservatism from which it grew. But Pluralism is fatally blind to the evils which afflict the ebtire body politic, and as a theory of society it obstructs consideration of precisely the sorts of thoroughgoing social revisions which may be needed to remedy those evils. (Beyond Tolerance 1965)

The idea, then, that student unions ought simply to look after their members immediate interests, is based on a conception of society that is impotent to enact radical change. It is thus one which must be rejected. It is the expression of a particular nuance of essentially conservative ideology, which seeks to accommodate the discontents of capitalism essentially by playing them off against one another. It is a conception that must be challenged if we are to develop a radical critique, and ultimately radical change.