Erm... well. OK, I was being stupid. But when you get a news story like that (and the ICU President is desperate for you to publish it) you tend to be, umm, less thorough, in checking the facts.
Justine Stephens, the President of the University of London Union (ULU) did not actually say that they "do not represent Imperial students". What she actually said was that ULU represents University of London students (and as such represents Imperial) in many issues, and that some of these campaigns end up being national. However, ULU does not, in Ms Stephens' opinion form a substitute for the national representation provided by the NUS.
Ms Stephens also clarified that the objection was not to the use of the picture, but that it was next to a quote about the NUS, which she did not wish to be associated with (as the quote was not anything that had come out of ULU).
While the (ULU) President was explaining all this, it turned out that what she was most upset about was the use of the word "ginger". Ms Stephens suggested that describing her as "the ginger one" was as offensive as describing someone as "the black one" - but that being racist is more of a taboo. Now this does raise an interesting (if you are that way inclined) philosophical question. When does a description of someone become racist? Why is it not offensive for a Pakistanis to call each other "Pakis" (or for blacks to call each other "niggers") when the moment a white person says it they are racist? Is it racist to say that black people are better boxers? Or to say that Chinese people are good at gymnastics? I don't know. Answers in the discussion please!
Incidentally, it was observed by several hacks that Ms Stephens had died her hair and was decidedly less "ginger" than usual when she appeared at today's NUS affiliation debate.
Email this Article
This discussion is 
