A Students’ Guild vote has determined that ‘Blurred Lines’ shall be condemned but not banned, despite this specific outcome receiving the lowest number of votes from students.
A total of 752 students voted, a low number compared to the 2,441 votes cast upon whether to ban The Sun from Guild retail outlets in May, representing a 69 per cent decrease in student turnout. These 752 voters represent a mere four per cent of the University population, meaning that approximately only one per cent of students voted initially for the specific course of action that has been taken.
The song has received an outright majority for condemnation, a total of 488 voters, but no action has been taken to remove the song from Guild Outlets, despite the highest number of voters (286) requesting that specific course of action among the three offered.
The voting procedure in place was labelled as a “common sense approach” by the Students’ Guild, and required an outright majority (50 per cent plus one vote) to enact change around the notions of removal and condemnation. Exeposé has been informed that this voting system was agreed upon by the Democracy & Governance Committee in a meeting on 25 September.
The decision was made for three-stranded campaigns on 9 October on by the Democracy & Governance Committee, resulting in the ‘Condemn and Remove’, ‘No Change’ and ‘No Ban and Condemn’ options present in the vote. This was agreed upon by the leaders of the campaigns present at the time, with the hope that the decision would “inform better debate and prevent polarising debates”.
Carlus Hudson, leader of the ‘Condemn and Remove’ campaign, stated “It’s fantastic that Exeter students have voted to condemn the song. That said, I don’t think there’s much to be happy about in terms of voter turnout which sheds light on the degree to which there is apathy on the issue of trivialisation of rape in popular culture and the need for a broader campaign to energise students and raise awareness on this point.”
“Perhaps the turnout, as well as the way in which the voting system was arranged (meaning that the ‘Condemn and Don’t Ban’ campaign which got the least number of votes of the three campaigns was the motion which was ultimately carried), raises the further question of the way in which students can exercise democratic rights within the Guild, and look critically at how the vote has been put together in the past month.”
The ‘No Ban and Condemn’ campaign commented “We’re pleased that a majority of voters didn’t want the song banned and also wanted to condemn its misogynistic lyrics. At the same time, we’re disappointed at our own result, and it’s a real shame that an attempt to give students another option has turned out as a confusing, messy compromise”.
Dan Richards, President of Exeter Labour Students, has previously been critical of the presence of three separate campaigns in the vote. He told Exeposé: “The vote has been a complete farce and the result shows how empty the condemnation will be and how meaningless this whole week has been in terms of tackling the main issue. However, it does show that most students want further action taken to combat sexism on campus on top of the condemnation and we now need to look into what our options are!”
Lauren Swift, a second year English student commented, “It was a poorly designed vote in the sense that two of the campaigns had a mutual interest but also diverging actions. It should have been structured better and perhaps the Guild should have pre-empted a situation in which there was such close contention between the vote’s results”.
Hannah Barton, Students’ Guild President, has stated that “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome, I think the campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about the issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing”.
‘Blurred Lines’ will not be banned at Exeter despite students voting in favour of the Condemn and Remove option, in this week’s referendum.
38.1 per cent voted for the motion, with No Action winning 35 per cent of the vote. No Ban and Condemn came third, taking 26. 9 per cent, in a vote which had only 752 participants.
It means that the Guild will now condemn and not ban the song, despite that option coming last.
In a break with previous referendums, First Past the Post was not employed to decide the outcome. Even though the option to ban the song won the most votes, it did not win an absolute majority, meaning the ban was not imposed.
However, with the combination of the two ‘condemn’ options winning a huge majority, it has been decided that the song will be condemned.
Robin Thicke’s song has provoked huge controversy on campus and around the country, thanks to an explicit video and seemingly sexist lyrics which appear to refer to rape. The summer hit has already been banned at various universities, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds, and after an anonymous student suggested a motion, the Students’ Guild decided to hold a referendum at Exeter.
It follows a similar event last term which saw The Sun’s page three put under scrutiny. Though that vote had a far larger turnout, it too came out in favour of no ban and bucked the trend set by other universities.
This vote had three options, a change which split the ‘condemn’ vote in the eyes of some.
The ‘Condemn and Remove’ lobby argued that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture,’ arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. Campaigners suggested that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘I know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive by the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.
Their angle will sit well with campaigners on a national level, who have criticised the song’s potential as a ‘trigger’ for rape victims. The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous. The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognises “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”
Organisers of the ‘no ban and condemn’ case agreed that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but felt it should not be banned. The campaign was also concerned with censorship, saying that students should have the freedom to listen to the song if they wished. Their case stated “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”
Meanwhile students in favour of ‘No change,’ who didn’t manage to muster a widespread campaign, felt that the song should not be banned or condemned by a Guild statement.
Hannah Barton, the Students’ Guild President, said: “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome I think this campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing.”
But whilst the Guild will now make a statement condemning the song, it will continue to be played through University outlets around campus.
More coverage will follow in Tuesday’s edition of the paper.
Blurred Lines has caused a great deal of controversy in the months since its release, and a ban has been proposed on University premises. Misogyny in media is not a new invention, and Fran Lowe takes us through the ins and outs…
The Students’ Guild has announced that in response to a student request, it plans to hold a student vote on the potential banning of Robin Thicke’s song “Blurred Lines” from all Guild premises and events. That includes the Lemmy, the Ram, and things like the Freshers’ Ball.
According to those who support the ban, the song is openly misogynistic and encourages rape culture. The opposition argue that we should be allowed to decide what we listen to for ourselves rather than be bound by a vote based on the request of one student, on how our social lives should be run.
The whole topic opens up a huge debating can of worms: feminism, sexism, censorship, democracy, to name just a few; speaking as someone who usually has a ready-made opinion on just about everything, it’s difficult to know where to begin when trying to decide what to think about this one.
Therefore it is perhaps easiest to begin with the bare facts of the matter, and look at Thicke’s song itself. Surely we all remember the scandal when the music video was removed from YouTube: the original featured a lot of topless models and not a lot else, and had to be heavily and carefully edited before it was deemed suitable. That kicked off enough feminist outrage at the time, with huge numbers of people complaining that it objectified women, considering them to be nothing more than sexual objects used for decoration, rather than talented individuals in their own right.
At the time, the banning of “Blurred Lines” from YouTube was juxtaposed with the removal and later reinstating of Justin Timberlake’s video for “Tunnel Vision”, which similarly is rather heavy on the topless women, but was considered to be “art”, and therefore permissible. Thicke’s video, however, was not deemed arty enough, and instead ticked more of the boxes to have it described as soft porn. It is perfectly understandable where the feminists are coming from here, as it is hard to justify a video with mostly naked women dancing around fully-clothed men as anything other than viewing males as the dominant sex. It seems inappropriate, and even unfair, that this should be allowed on a website that has a strict no-nudity policy.
But in just a few short months, we have moved from the banning of a raunchy video to the suggestion that the song itself should be removed from university premises. The lyrics themselves do, admittedly, seem to be condoning misogyny and rape culture; arguably there is little more to the song than describing a hunger for sex. Encouraging the male population of the university that “no” doesn’t necessarily mean “no” is the last thing we should be doing, and perhaps banning a song that suggests there are “blurred lines” when it comes to sexual consent is the logical way to demonstrate that. Lyrics in the song such as “I know you want it” and “You’re an animal, it’s in your nature” are difficult to explain in any other context, thereby giving meat to the bones of the argument to remove the song from Guild premises.
What’s more, we are by no means the first university in the country to be considering this ban. A ban has been in place at many universities, such as Edinburgh, for weeks; others are discussing it alongside us. In order for the message that rape is not okay to reach out to wider society as a whole, it might be an idea for universities, as centres of learning within our communities, to show solidarity in the face of such misogyny by banning the song together.
However, it must be remembered that we are a university without a Feminism Society; instead we have Gender Equality Society, a name that takes any hint of positive discrimination out of the equation, suggesting that the university doesn’t want special treatment for women, just equal treatment. Gender Equality applies to both genders, promoting fairness and equal opportunities, instead of being a man-hating tribe of Feminists declaring anything where woman isn’t the powerful Amazon to be sexism.
Moreover, we are a university that not so long ago voted to keep The Sun in our campus shops following a campaign to have it banned until the end of traditional page 3. In the light of this, it is arguable that the referendum about “Blurred Lines” is just a waste of Guild time, effort and money, as the arguments then were similar to those under discussion now: some students making the point that the objectification of women is unacceptable, versus claims that we should be allowed to choose what we read, and are all supposedly intelligent enough to make decisions about the ways in which we lead our lives for ourselves, without the influence of such media.
Obviously, the Guild does need to support students making the point that treating women as sexual objects, who secretly don’t mean it when they say no, is obviously completely unacceptable. It is often difficult enough as it is to convince a drunk man on a night out that this is the case, and there is still a long way to go before the matter is cleared up. But is the banning of one song really the right way to achieve this?
Firstly, “Blurred Lines” is far from being the only song in the English language that could be considered misogynistic. For example, Lemmy favourite “N****s in Paris” includes the lyrics “Bitch behave” and “Come and meet me in the bathroom stall/And show me why you deserve to have it all”. In short, if the Guild were to hold a student vote to ban any song that contained any lyrics vaguely sexual or demeaning to one gender or the other, nights in the Lemmy would mean listening to even more S Club 7 and One Direction. It is a sad but true state of affairs that misogyny in the media is unavoidable. Until the long-distant day that women are treated with respect in the media comes, there will always be music like this; banning one song from a university is never going to change this.
Secondly, it is hugely important to remember that we live in a democracy. One would hope that the democracy of the country as a whole extends to the universities within it. If the Guild were to start deciding what we should and should not be listening to, even on the basis of a democratic vote requested by students, that is nothing short of censorship. Anyone who has ever studied history, or even watches the news, will know that it has long been a favourite ploy of dictators the world over to control what their subjects listen to or watch, for example the Nazi regime burning the books of those it did not want its people to read. Although obviously the Guild banning one song from its premises is by no means on the scale of Nazi censorship, it can plausibly be argued that it is the principle that is at stake here: that of personal choice and freedom.
Robin Thicke Image credits: Kia Clay
As a university, surely it is our role within society to promote democracy and freedom, and educate the world in how best to go about achieving this? Surely, therefore, it would be hugely hypocritical for the Guild itself to start dictating to its students what they should be listening to, and how they should be enjoying their spare time? This enormous contradiction, of a centre of education and supposedly eighth best university in the country, as somewhere that wants to decide the social lives of its own students for them, is a hugely strong argument for the No campaign in the referendum. Choosing our music is part of our personal freedom, and it seems painfully oxymoronic that a university, supposedly giving us freedom through education and knowledge, is in otherareas trying to pin us down and control us.
That said, the Guild is not attempting to stop the rest of our social haunts from playing “Blurred Lines”. No one is forcing our students to stay in the Lemmy and listen to its carefully selected playlist. If they were, that really would be an infringement of our freedom. However, as it is nothing is stopping us from heading down the road into town and going elsewhere. It would be interesting to see what the result of a ban might be, if it goes ahead: might people start boycotting Guild events, as a protest against such censorship? For an answer to this one, we’ve just got to wait and see.
Many people believe that the Guild should stand for democracy: after all, we vote for who runs it, what goes on with it, and it supposedly represents the voices of all students. Therefore, shouldn’t it stand up against dictatorship of what we can and can’t listen to, and instead allow us personal freedom?
Indeed, Guild President Hannah Barton said that the university is very definitely pro-democracy, as is shown by the fact that we are having a referendum on this matter, rather than having the answer dictated to us. She went on to say that, “The Guild exists to represent its members and to allow them to have their say on matters that impact on them. All-student votes are an essential element of being a democratic organisation. Some students will inevitably be dissatisfied with the outcome of each student vote as only one campaign can win, but this is the nature of democracy and, I hope, an acceptable trade-off for having the chance to shape the student experience.”
Clearly for our President, this level of democracy is what the university experience is all about, and we should perhaps be proud to be so open in discussing issues such as these with our students and allowing them to make the adult decisions for themselves.
Doing what we want with our time is certainly part of human freedom. In his seminal essay On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill claims that “liberty of tastes and pursuits” and “doing as we like […] without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong” is necessary for a society to be considered truly free, and goes on to explain that such liberties are necessary for our mental wellbeing. Put simply, he believed that as long as what we are doing does not actually hurt other people, we should be free to do as we like; it is a crucial part of our humanity to be so free. Surely this can be applied to the Guild banning “Blurred Lines”? My listening to the song on campus is not actually going to hurt anyone, so therefore why should I not be allowed to do it? Mill’s claims that censorship of any kind is actually damaging to us as people certainly make a lot of sense; it worries me that if we ban one song, it may lead to others, until all we listen to on campus is mind-numbing happy music.
However, while the university may want to be seen to stand on the side of freedom of opinion, against censorship, it is also true that it needs to show that misogyny is just unacceptable, and it seems that the common way to do that at the moment is to ban “Blurred Lines”. Perhaps the Guild fears that we might end up being one of the last universities in the country not to ban the song, which would lead to us being branded sexist, old-fashioned, and patriarchal.
That said, the fact that we are voting at all demonstrates that the Guild cares about the way we treat our women. Hannah Barton believes that “regardless of how our members vote, raising awareness of issues such as sexism and misogyny can only be a good thing in my opinion. Without awareness we are unable to tackle such problems, so this is certainly a positive first step.” Indeed, all that is necessary to help put a stop to the objectification of women could simply be raising awareness of the situation, rather than consistently brushing the problems under the carpet; the vote itself will do that.
Removing the song from Guild events would, however, be a strong, straightforward way of demonstrating to the world that Exeter University will not stand for mistreatment of women, and it’s probably safe to say that there will be plenty of support for this once this comes to the vote: I saw a girl in the Forum today with a T-shirt that said ‘No means no’, so I doubt it’s too hard to imagine which way she will be voting. However, you might expect that people who stand up for equality for the sexes and liberty for women would stand up for liberty for all, and the freedom for all to choose what they listen to.
Keeping the song, on the other hand, would be a way to demonstrate that the Guild stands for liberty and freedom of choice, fundamental human rights and, I imagine, hugely important principles for many of our students.
All told, it seems likely that the vote will come down to a simple question of whether the student body wants the Guild to try and show, through the banning of one, some could say picked-on, song, that we will not condone the objectification of women, or whether it wants to continue to fight for freedoms and democracy, rather than all-encompassing censorship and control. Perhaps the fact that this is going to a referendum, rather than the decision being made for us, is a clue as to what the university finds more important? A referendum itself is a form of democracy: it could be said that this is a referendum about democracy itself.
Fran Lowe
You can find Deputy Editor Emily Tanner’s take on rape culture here.
Exeter students will vote on whether to ban Robin Thicke’s controversial hit song, Blurred Lines, on Students’ Guild premises and in student media.
In a Democracy Committeemeeting this morning, it was decided that the Guild would be creating a student vote on the topic. The minutes of the meeting explain that:
“…the ban is not because of the sexual nature of the lyrics, but because of their intensely triggering and rape-related content…”
The ban was proposed through the Have Your Say hub by an anonymous student. The Students’ Guild is now in the process of setting up Yes and No campaigns. If there is insufficient appetite on either side of the campaign, the vote will not go ahead.
Following the training and preparation of both campaigns, voting is set to open in late October.
Five university student unions have so far banned the song: Kingston, Derby, Leeds, Edinburgh and West Scotland.
Critics have denounced the lyrics and accompanying music video as sexist and promoting the objectification of women. Some have also criticised the ‘blurred lines’ referenced in the song, claiming that they blur the lines surrounding sexual assault and rape. One notable parody of the song pointed out that: “You can’t just grab me./That’s a sex crime!”.
Thicke has dismissed this, explaining on BBC Radio 1 that, “for me it’s about blurring the lines between men and women and how much we’re the same”. In the same interview, Thicke responded to accusations of misogyny with, “I can’t even dignify that with a response, that’s ridiculous”.
James Roberts is helping to set up the Anti-Ban campaign: “We don’t believe that students should be told what they can and can’t listen to. It should be our choice – we don’t need the Guild censoring us.”
Students’ Guild President, Hannah Barton told Exeposé: “I believe anything we can do to reduce sexism and sexual violence is paramount especially if concerns are raised by students. We are a student-led organisation here to represent student views.”
Let us know your thoughts on this story on Facebook and on twitter.
With The Sun’s availability on campus being threatened by the imminent Guild referendum, Exeposé Comment looks at the arguments made for and against removing The Sun from Guild outlets and leaning on other campus stockists until the pictures of topless women are removed from page 3.
Across UK universities, removing The Sun from sale seems to be becoming a popular method of protesting sexism and misogyny in the media. A ferocious campaign led by No More Page 3 has seen the paper removed in a number of universities including LSE, Edinburgh and Dundee. They have also secured over 100,000 signatures in a petition to Dominic Mohan, the editor of The Sun, to, “drop the bare boobs from the newspaper.” With the referendum by the Guild underway this week led by the Vote Yes to boycotting The Sun on campus! group, some have seen the vote as an inappropriate attempt to limit our freedom of speech, while others still regard the issue as one of the objectification of women as mere voiceless sex objects.
“At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in every issue of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality.” Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel
Rachel Brown, former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society argues that, “If you want to buy The Sun, you can go to another newsagents which is no hardship. The Guild ban is about effective campaigning and the referendum makes it a fair process. It sends a clear message that we expect The Sun to ditch their patronising, sexualised representation of women.” Those in favour of banning The Sun are keen to point out that the move is designed to withdraw support for the newspaper from the Guild, and not to dictate people’s reading habits. At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in many issues of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality. No More Page 3’s open letter petition highlights that, “George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?… No, they don’t. There would be an outcry.”
It makes sense to say that Page Three Girls are an outdated and misogynistic addition to our printed media, but does that really mean that we should remove the UK’s most widely read publication from campus?
Rob Price, one of those heading the “Vote No to banning The Sun from Guild Shops” group, comments that,” We are not defending Page 3, but rather the spirit of open debate in the student body. The YES campaign can achieve nothing, because The Guild has no jurisdiction over the marketplace, the only stockist of The Sun of campus – but a victory would nonetheless be an attempt to restrict access to material that you disagree with for others, and that is the essence of censorship. So whilst freedom of choice will not actually be infringed, the motion is nonetheless an attempt to do so, and it is on these grounds that we oppose it.”
Freedom of expression is obviously something that should protected, but to what extent and when does protecting one group’s right to expression results in the persecution of another? For many, it is the case that it is no one’s right to, and the media’s responsibility not to, objectify and over-sexualise a woman in any way. Christopher Fear wrote in the Vote No group, “[The Yes Campaign] is small-minded, parochial, embarrassing, practically ineffective and, as a purely symbolic act, a distraction from the concrete interests of gender equality.”
In Exeposé Comment‘s most responded to Facebook poll to date, 76% voted that The Sun should not be removed from all University campus outlets. Obviously this result comes from a significantly smaller sample size than the referendum being held by the Guild will be subject to, but it does perhaps give a feel for the sentiments of the student population in Exeter.
Of those who responded to the poll, it should come as no surprise that the majority of people who wished to see The Sun banned were women, while the overwhelming majority of those wishing to keep The Sun on our shelves were men. That is not to say that only a woman could have any interest in the promotion of gender equality, however it’s reasonable to suggest that in this situation the female population at the University of Exeter has a more tangible, immediate interest in the issue.
While we believe that The Sun promotes a view of women that is derogatory at best while being neither true or relevant in modern society, there is a fine line to tread between the noble pursuit of equality for all and falling into the trap of enveloping censorship. By no means do we think that this referendum will be the beginning of a slippery slope to overbearing Guild influence, but it does perhaps set a precedent for any and all matters of offence to result in campus-wide reform.
James Bennett and Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editors
A Students’ Guild vote has determined that ‘Blurred Lines’ shall be condemned but not banned, despite this specific outcome receiving the lowest number of votes from students.
exeposedev 