Snow elephants versus democracy
On Tuesday it was announced on Twitter and via the Jewish Chronicle, before it was announced on the organisation’s own website, that the National Union of Students’ President, Shaima Dallali, who had been accused of antisemitism and who was the subject of an ‘independent’ panel inquiry led by a King’s Counsel, had been sacked because “significant breaches of NUS’ policies have taken place”. Dallali’s solicitors Carter-Ruck issued a press release (PDF) stating that the news of her dismissal had been briefed to two national news websites before she had been told of it herself. It remains unclear what exactly she is accused of that constitutes gross misconduct; they include a remark made on Twitter in 2012 when she was 17, ten years before she became NUS president. The organisation itself claims that “in strict accordance with rules around employees and confidentiality, we will not be sharing any further details on the investigation into the President”. This is not a satisfactory explanation.
The NUS presidency is an elected position. It’s not an employee role where someone is selected following interview. I’ve been involved in a student union in the past and there was no board that could dismiss an elected officer (possibly, the college could in certain circumstances, as the union’s funding came partly out of the college budget). The officer had to be subject to a no-confidence motion which had to be passed with a two-thirds majority by either two general meetings or a GM and the executive (which consisted of all the elected officers). Staff members were employed using similar procedures to other organisations and could be disciplined or dismissed in the same way, and there was a barrier of confidentiality such that general meetings could not interfere with staffing matters and the staffing committee minutes were kept private. The NUS’s policy is set by conference, which is its main democratic decision-making body, and officers are elected at the annual conference by student union delegates. It’s not in keeping with a democratic organisation that an elected president be dismissed by a board like a employee (other than for misconduct so extreme that it’s not safe to have them in the building, or for having been ineligible to stand for the position) and the reasons kept secret on the pretext of ‘confidentiality’. These are the things that would normally be featured in the text of a confidence motion and discussed in an open forum.
Another extraordinary thing about Ms Dallali’s sacking was the turn of events over this past weekend. As late as 30th October (last Sunday), the story was that Rebecca Tuck KC had “been unexpectedly delayed due to factors outside of the NUS investigation and has revised her timeline”, and expected to complete “all investigatory interviews” by the 4th of November (the end of this week) and would provide her report by the end of the year. The report had been due by 28th October. So, how did the “independent panel” decide that Dallali was guilty just a day later, before the interviews had been completed, let alone the report presented?
The things she is accused of all seem to have taken place years before she was elected, and as with Jeremy Corbyn, some of it could have been discussed prior to her election as it would have taken only a few minutes for someone to trawl her social media, and I do not doubt that people would have done. None of them seem to relate to her conduct while NUS president, or to suggest that she has actually done anything that would make Jewish students feel unsafe (especially given that the safety of students in college is the responsibility of the colleges where they are studying, or their unions, rather than the NUS which provides the student ID card, facilitates discount purchasing for union shops and bars and runs national campaigns; few students ever set foot inside an actual NUS building). It does not appear that she is in any way responsible for Jews on campus or anywhere else feeling physically threatened or being assaulted, or at least nobody is saying so publicly; rather, the ‘unsafety’ comes from, as with most of the cases alleged of Corbyn, hearing negative things said about Israel. This sort of thing would be dismissed as immature snowflakery if it centred on any other identity, but Jews, as ever, are to be treated as delicate flowers and protected from any harsh words that might be said about their violent, racist cousins.
Some years ago the term ‘mimophant’ was coined about the chess player, Bobby Fischer. It means someone who is as fragile as a mimosa (the plant) where his own feelings are concerned, but who tramples like an elephant over other people’s. In this day and age, a more apt term to describe this kind of behaviour would be snow elephant: a snowflake who tramples like an elephant over the rights and feelings of others. While mainstream Jewish organisations continue to cry foul when any vocal Muslim is selected as a candidate or, God forbid, actually gets elected to the leadership of other than a Muslim organisation, they also champion Israel, condemning calls for boycotts and praising politicians who ‘engage’, including militarily, even when its people elect extremists, racists and thugs and when their settlers terrorise native people in the occupied territories and latter-day Bantustans as police and soldiers look on, or assist. These organisations and these newspapers cynically use appeals to anti-racism in the service of Apartheid, racism and oppression and are seeking to export that discrimination to countries like the UK where they are a powerful minority. This racist cabal should not be allowed to override the results of democratic elections or conferences of any membership run organisation through cry-bully tactics.
