Comment's Review of 2013 at Exeter

With 2013 coming to a close, Online Comment editors James Bennett and Dave Reynolds attempt to round up the major issues that have got us talking this year.We’ve even let you in on a secret about how we got our jobs in the first place.

SSB Cancelled.

Exeter was rocked by mass media attention surrounding the Safer Sex Ball and The Ram’s Not Safe For Work CCTV footage. This led to the cancellation of the iconic event for future years. The decision was met with a great deal of hostility, with people no longer having an acceptable excuse to dance around in their pants in public.  After winning the Sunday Times University of the Year award for 2012, this was not the start to 2013 we were really looking for.

Photo Credit: Exeposé

Cocaine on Campus.

We were in further trouble after it was discovered that students and faculty alike had been dabbling in the only kind of snow that ever comes through Exeter. Everyone was shocked that some young people with lots of disposable income and spare time engage in recreational drug use. What was more exciting was the fact that some of the areas that tested positive for the substance were faculty only.

So we’re paying through the nose just for our faculty to snort it back up theirs?
Photo Credit: Foxtongue via Compfight cc

Exeposé accidentally elects two simpletons.

On March 12th we wrote a manifesto for a role we possibly didn’t understand. A day later, we were giving a speech desperately trying to convince a room full of people we’d never met that we were a better option than re-opening nominations. Thankfully, we won. With as much jounalistic experience as the Chuckle Brothers (apologies to them if they have some!), we were unaware of quite how difficult and time-consuming the job would be. Regardless, we were thrown in at the deep end, with our first major job being to cover a national party conference.

Pictured: Less journalistic experience. Much better moustaches.
Photo Credit: BBC via The Daily Hawk

UKIP’s Spring Conference.

In what was a very busy and succesful year for UKIP, their Spring Conference at the Great Hall was an opportunity for them to prove themselves as a serious force in British politics. What entailed was a day of old white people laughing themselves silly at xenophobic humour, Bulgarian extremists and Nigel Farage’ boundless wit. By the afternoon, most of the audience had nodded off, and we’d gone home.

What unfortunate timing.
Photo Credit: dullhunk via Compfight cc

Are boobs news?

With people trying to their best to put off revision, an almighty ‘debate’ took place on Facebook surrounding whether or not The Sun should be removed from guild outlets. It all got a bit heated, with the arguments tailing away from substance to more personal and unnecessary attacks. When it came to the vote,  the turnout was very impressive for University election standards, pulling in well over 2000 votes.

“From now on, page 3 will consist entirely of stories about adorable rescued animals.”
Photo Credit: AndyRobertsPhotos via Compfight cc

Blurred Lines.

No. No more. This ends now.
Photo Credit: N3sta via Giphy

E-E-EDL

The run up to their national demonstration saw tensions rise in Exeter as counter demonstrations were organised and fears of a presence on campus drove many to exclaim, “Ooh-er!” and, “Blimey”. The day was largely made up of incoherent ranting and marching about the streets of Exeter with seemingly no real message or purpose. Quite frankly, we were all quite relieved when they all went back home. A shout out to the Exeter Together campaign, which celebrated all things good about Exeter throughout the morning.

 

We never met her, but apparently Sharon Lawes did something to piss these guys off.
Image Credits: Niklas Rahmel

 

So it’s been quite an eventful year. Here’s to next year. We hope you’ve enjoyed our coverage throughout the term on all of the major events. Sorry if you haven’t. You’ve only got to put up with us until March and then there will be some new people! Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

James Bennett and Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editors

Have we missed anything? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

 

 

 

Blurred Lines vote a "complete farce"

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”.

Louis Dore, News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Most votes for Condemn and Remove but 'Blurred Lines' still avoids ban

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

·         Condemn and Remove – 286

·         No Change – 263

·         No Ban and Condemn – 202

‘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.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

The Thicke of It: Only Option is No Change

Calum Humphreys argues that the whole student reaction has spiralled out of control and he is left with no choice but to vote for no change.

The current vote regarding the student body’s reaction to Robin Thicke’s magnus odious is a storm in a teacup, which has damaged the process of tackling sexism on campus. Now that we find ourselves in this horrendous mess, the only option is to vote no change. I appreciate this may seem a controversial stance to take, but a vote for no change is valid for two reasons.

“Does the Exeter student body really have the appetite to do this? We already seem weary after one and a half votes, what will we be like after ten, twenty, thirty more?”
Photo Credit: MC =) via Compfight cc

The first is theoretical. The debate surrounding the vote has succeeded in conflating huge issues including artistic expression, freedom of speech, ‘rape culture’, feminism, and responsible censorship much to the weariness of the majority of students. Flapping about in the muddied puddle of the debate, it is easy to forget what it is actually about; sexism, censorship, or whether or not you like Blurred Lines.

By framing the issue as a ban, a blacklisting and condemnation of a single flash in the pan pop song has stoked up conflict where there fundamentally is none as all camps think that the song displays misogynistic elements which must be challenged. The way in the which the debate has been presented has been detrimental to our confrontation of sexism and is the product of adversarial, petty student politics which disenchant the masses. And it is these masses that we must engage if we have any hope of challenging sexism and misogyny both on campus and in the wider society.

It is not those who vote this week that we need to reach, it is those who do not even know it is taking place. How have we allowed an ageing Californian pop star to dictate our discourse on gender, sexuality and equality within the University of Exeter? It illustrates the reactive, short-term nature of the campaigns’ and the Guild’s outlook instead of kick starting a long term, proactive stance to tackle sexism on campus.

The second is practical, concerning the limited scope of the vote. We must put this vote in context, look beyond this week and ask ourselves where do we go from here? If the ‘Condemn and Remove’ campaign wins what does that mean? What if ‘Don’t Censor Exeter’ prevails? What are the next steps? I’m not about to dive down the slippery censorship slope, instead I will remain on the level plane.

Both campaigns pride themselves on democratic legitimacy, therefore subsequent debates surrounding yet-to-be-released misogynistic mashups will have to be voted upon. Likewise, the debate will also need to take retrospective turn, analysing, voting upon and condemning the whole back catalogue of popular music in order to remain consistent. This would potentially mean hundreds of votes taking place to condemn (and/or remove) popular songs.

Does the Exeter student body really have the appetite to do this? We already seem weary after one and a half votes, what will we be like after ten, twenty, thirty more? “Disengaged, disillusioned and disheartened” is the answer. Attacking individual songs in this way is an exercise in perpetual pointlessness, that only serves to numb students to the problem of sexism in our community. It will only increase the exasperated cries of “What’s all the fuss about?”, “Why does this matter?”, and, “typical busy-bodies” already commonplace throughout campus.

Votes should only be considered in extreme circumstances when gridlock has been reached on a student specific issue, so that their power and legitimacy are not diluted or trivialised. There is no deadlock on this issue, there is actually consensus. It is easy to disagree, to argue, to criticise as the respective campaigns have proved, what is difficult is to move beyond the and grandstanding to tangible, inclusive action.

A vote for no change (when validated in this way), is not a vote to do nothing, nor is it rejecting the importance of the issues at hand. It is vote to stop this ridiculous process of framing an issue in terms of ban. This vote will be worthless, regardless of the outcome, if the protagonists involved on all sides do not come together to promote a broad-based, awareness driven campaign to tackle sexism. Enough with the point scoring, vote counting and banner-waving. This approach does not stop sexual abuse, the sexualisation of society, or objectification of women.

Just look at The Tab Exeter’s Finest Fresher 2013 competition, which has run parallel to the Robin Thicke motion, and in which a tenth of the university voted in. Students were judged like vegetables at a country fair, and the Thicke campaigns, who have been too caught up in the minutia of their own vote, have failed to comment or condemn. It is shocking that these two events can occur in such exclusive terms.

Calum Humphreys

[poll id=”51″]

Do you agree with Calum? Are we having too many student votes? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

5 Things Comment Learned From the Blurred Lines Debate

Exeposé Comment went to the Blurred Lines debate on Wednesday in an attempt to figure out why it was actually being held. Here are the five things we took from the experience:

1. Blurred Lines is Not the Issue.

During the course of the debate, nobody mentioned Blurred Lines apart from when it was unanimously agreed that the song was misogynistic and sexist. For all intents and purposes it may as well have been the case that nobody had actually heard the song in full, or seen the video. The arguments put forward were the same that were rolled out during the referendum on The Sun and the debate was once again focused on what is or is not censorship and what, exactly, constitutes a ban.

“Does The Sun rhyme with, “hug me”? We’ve lost track.
Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel

2. Nobody Really Cares.

As shown by the low turnout and significantly less enthusiastic debate on online forums such as Facebook, this campaign has failed to capture the University’s interest this time round. At least this time, there’s been no mention of, “political lesbians”. Even the key members of the campaigns didn’t want to speak at the debate and there’s a definite feeling that everyone is just going through the motions and campaigning out of some sense of duty rather than real conviction.

“Degree deadlines? But people have opinions contrary to my own!”
Photo Credit: Libby via Compfight cc

 3. Freshers Can Steal The Show.

In an otherwise predictable and dreary debate Cal Barcivic, who made a last minute showing for the opposition, stole the show with an energetic, passionate and engaging performance. Although at times he wasn’t very well informed on the campaign’s manifesto, we were impressed to learn that he is only in his first year. At the very least, events like this debate give a great platform for new students to make their mark on campus politics and the wider student community.

If it takes our campus politicians this long to decide whether we should “remove” some Californian pop, what hope is there for tomorrow’s Britain?
Photo Credit: opensourceway via Compfight cc

4. Nobody’s Changing Their Mind.

There was not even a mention of a vote of conscience, nor a concluding one. Nobody came to this debate because they didn’t feel like they had enough information, or because they were on the fence and needed convincing. What transpired was an hour of back-and-forth between the main members of the campaigns asking both the proposition and opposition formulaic and lazy questions, picking them up on irrelevant or petty details.

How long until this political Cold War spills over into a punch-up outside The Ram?
Photo Credit: SteveD via Flickr cc

5. There Will Inevitably Be Another Issue.

This is not the end of activism vs. censorship in Exeter. We’ve had The Sun, we’ve had Blurred Lines and a vote on renewing our boycott of Nestlé products on campus is extremely likely in the coming months. We’re going to go out on a limb and predict that we’ll have two groups: “Vote to renew the ban on Nestle products” and “End the tyranny of choco-censorship on campus”. One side will insist that to continue the ban is to deprive students of their democratic right to a Kit-Kat and the other will say that if you really need one that badly you can run off to Saunder’s for your mysoginistic Yorkie fix. We’ll be there to capture every crucial debate.

“It sends a message!” “It’s censorship!” “ACTIVISM!” “FREEEEDOOOOOM!”
Photo Credit: bucaorg via Compfight cc

James Bennett and Dave Reynolds

[poll id=”53″]

Could you be bothered to turn up to the debate or are you fed up to the back teeth with all things Thicke? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

The Thicke of It: Condemn and Remove Blurred Lines

Maria Finnerty of the Condemn and Remove group explains why removing Blurred Lines from Guild playlists and condemning its message is necessary to safeguard against, “trivialisation and victim-blaming” in modern rape culture.

We are all aware of the controversy over Robin Thicke’s infectiously catchy summer hit Blurred Lines and there is little debate between the two sides of the on-campus campaign over the sexist nature of the song. While both concede that it does, in some capacity, promote misogyny and back the Guild to release a statement condemning it, the question dividing the two campaigns is what further action, if any, ought to be taken? Should the Guild condemn the song by popular demand?

“We only bid they steer away from hypocrisy. If we condemn it then why should we play it?”
Photo Credit: Law Revue via Huffington Post

The demeaning nature of both the lyrics and video is difficult to deny. The very title of the song draws from the rhetoric of rape apologists who present sexual assault as a ‘grey area’. The video depicts barely-clothed models with vacant expressions being touched and gawked at by fully-clothed men in a way that suspiciously resembles harassment. Women are required to wear next to nothing while men have the privilege of remaining fully-clothed and still earn at least the same degree of attention.

This is an image that is all too familiar across our media landscape. Emily Ratajkowski, the brown-haired model in the video (who for some reason I have a feeling you’ll remember) has claimed that the video celebrates women. She is right, the women in the video are celebrated. Unfortunately, however, they are not celebrated for their wit, intelligence or talent. They are not even celebrated for their individual beauty. They are celebrated as sexual objects.

According to Thicke, the song does “everything that is completely derogatory towards women”. “What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman,” he declared in an interview with GQ. It’s this light-hearted indifference to sexism that makes it so insidious. Studies have shown time and time again that exposure to images of objectified women gives men a ‘greater tolerance of sexual harassment’ and leads to an increased view of women as ‘less competent’ and ‘less human’.

Campaigns against the song have been criticised for focusing on only one of many popular chauvinistic chart-toppers. However, it is precisely the fact that this brand of blatant sexism is such a media norm that makes it so damaging, and renders any claim that the video is ‘ironic’, or ‘makes fun of’ misogyny invalid. Thicke cannot mock a culture that’s still hugely prevalent by becoming an extension of it. Sexism, in the form that is inherent in the images associated with the lyrics and video, is still absolutely widespread; it doesn’t parody itself.

The most damning criticism of Burred Lines can come only from the women for whom those ‘blurred lines’ were used as real excuses or justifications by the men who abused them. One in five women in England and Wales experiences some form of sexual violence before the age of 60, and the majority of these abuses are carried out by an aggressor already known to the victim.

The concept that there is anything ‘blurry’ about consent is deeply ingrained in the way sexual assault is represented in the media, our culture and, dangerously, our judicial system. Trivialisation and victim-blaming, as alluded to in lyrics such as ‘I know you want it’, contribute to a society in which only 15 per cent of rape victims will report the offense, while 97 per cent of sex offenders never see a day behind bars.

Though the unsavoury nature of the song has been widely recognised, the action to be taken if the student body condemn the song continues to divide opinion. While Condemn and Remove request that the Guild remove the song from its playlists should an official statement of condemnation be decided by popular vote, their opposition argue that this infringes on students’ rights.

Aside from my serious doubt over any student having been deprived of the opportunity to hear the song that has been relentlessly blasted out of bars, clubs, shops and radios across the country for an entire summer, removing the song from Guild playlists would impose no infringement on students’ listening rights. The two drinking outlets of the Guild, the Ram and the Lemmy, hardly hold a monopoly over Exeter’s nightlife… And students would, of course, remain perfectly at liberty to listen to the song from any other source.

Far from dictating over anyone’s individual freedom to get a wiggle on to Thicke’s musical epitome of misogyny, we suggest simply that the Guild, given a vote of popular condemnation, do not actively play the very song they condemn. Quite simply, the use of the term ‘censorship’ to describe this action is pure hyperbole. We only bid they steer away from hypocrisy. If we condemn it then why should we play it?

It is encouraging that both sides of the on-campus campaign are putting forward motions recognising the damaging nature of the lyrics. However, having considered the seriousness of the points highlighted above, and should the student body democratically denounce the song, I fail to recognise why follow up action should be opposed. It seems nonsensical that the Guild should continue to actively play and promote a song it has officially condemned on its own premises. Taking the track off Guild playlists would simply be in-keeping with its official stance and, crucially, would send out the message that as a student body we recognise the seriousness of issues surrounding consent and objectification.

Maria Finnerty

[poll id=”51″]

For the views of Comment’s Online Editors on the Blurred Lines referendum as a whole, read The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines. Is condemning and removing Blurred Lines the right way to go? Is the term “censorship” hyperbole or technically accurate? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

You can read Robin Thicke’s defence and explanation of the Blurred Lines video in full, in his interview with GQ, which Maria quotes from above.

The Thicke of It: Don't Censor Exeter

With voting now open, Harry Chamberlain argues that “the Guild should not ban the Robin Thicke song ‘Blurred Lines’ from Guild premises or student media, because we do not believe in censoring Exeter students.”

Banning ‘Blurred Lines’ from being played in Guild outlets is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. Free speech is a prerequisite of a democracy rather than a subject to be voted on and such a motion ignores the very reason we need this freedom; in order to be able to discuss the key issues at the heart of the debate, sexism in the music industry.

Image credits: Don’t Censor Exeter

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend Robin Thicke or his song. There are numerous good reasons that the Ban campaign raises as to why the portrayal of women should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a the music industry correctly; instead it unacceptably infringes on students’ rights.

The underlying message that the anti-censorship campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a song and its message, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their ability to hear it played in the Ram or the Lemmy. Some Lemmy DJs would not like to see the song forcibly removed from their repertoire as its catchy tune which encourages many people to dance, and ultimately enjoy themselves.What message does it send as a university, an institution that thrives on disagreement and dissensus, if we do not confront and debate questionable media but just deny others access to it?

I am not denying that the lyrics to ‘Blurred Lines’ may be interpreted as misogynistic, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women, especially in the music industry, but banning it is simply not the way to go about it.That is why we are supporting a third option, for The Guild to condemn the lyrics of the song through a press release, but still allow it to be played by Guild run outlets, such as The Lemmy and The Ram. This provides all students with a clear choice, and prevents the polarisation of the issue, as happened in The Sun debate last year.

Exeposé’s most recent print issue saw a page dedicated to imploring its readers to vote for a ban, providing little or no balance to the debate. The Students’ Guild prides themselves on being neutral on all student votes, however in this recent campaign this has not been the case in print. The original motion, to ban the song, has been lost. The campaign to ban the song has now been renamed ‘Condemn and Remove’, and despite all the SABBs agreeing that the phrase ‘Ban’ should be used, so far this has not been enforced. Let’s not forget that it is the Guild themselves who fund Exeposé’s £16,000/year printing costs. Perhaps the Guild should reconsider their funding for printing a newspaper that fails to inform its readers effectively, and fails to echo their balanced view on contentious topics such as this one.

Harry Chamberlain

[poll id=”51″]

For the views of Comment’s Online Editors on the Blurred Lines referendum as a whole, read The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines. Do you agree with Harry? Can censorship ever be justified? Can we afford to leave sexist attitudes unchallenged?  Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

'Blurred Lines' student vote begins

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

The vote deciding whether Robin Thicke’s summer hit ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus has started today.

The lyrics, which can easily be perceived as sexist, explicit nature of the video and apparent references to rape, have caused significant controversy since its release earlier this year. After a complaint from an anonymous source, The Students’ Guild launched a vote to allow students to have their say.

It was reported in the latest print edition of Exeposé that the format of the vote was to change. In previous votes such as the campaign to ban The Sun, students could vote Yes or No. However, the ‘Blurred Lines’ referendum will give students the chance to select one of three options.

The ‘Condemn and Remove‘ case strongly believes that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture’, arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. It argues that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘you know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive towards the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Alternatively, students have the option to vote for the ‘No ban and Condemn’ case, which firmly agrees that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but does not believe that the song should be banned. This campaign is also concerned with the issues of censorship, saying that students should be able to listen and enjoy the song if they want to. The case states “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Finally students can vote for ‘No change’, for those who feel that the song should not be banned and do not wish the Guild to make a statement condemning the lyrics.

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 recognizes “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

President of the Students’ Guild, Hannah Barton said: “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.”

The song has been banned by other student unions, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds; but Exeter has a history of voting differently to other student unions, with many expecting the split ‘condemn’ options to mean the song is not banned.

The vote has been open since 9am this morning and finishes at 4pm on Friday. Students can vote via the Guild website here and read Exeposé coverage throughout the week.

Rachel Gelormini, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines

It’s going to be a busy week for Exeposé Comment Online with the arguments for and against Blurred Lines gathering momentum. Before that, here’s what Online Editors Dave Reynolds and James Bennett make of the situation at large.

Across the University, the debate concerning what to do about Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines is set to kick off with the recently amended three-way vote due in the coming weeks. Shouldn’t we all keep in mind though, that at the end of the day it is just a crappy pop song that no one will even have an interest in putting on a Lemmy playlist six months from now anyway?

“Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full.”
Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

Some lines have been drawn between this referendum and the one concerning the distribution of The Sun in Guild outlets. While the Anti-Ban campaigners seem to be citing issues of censorship on both accounts, their argument may not stack up as well here as it did concerning The Sun. Reading The Sun and enjoying Page 3 is a relatively private experience wherein you buy the paper and you read it and nobody else needs to get involved, not that it stops some from trying.

When the issue becomes the song being played in the Lemmy or the Ram it becomes a much more public experience and more difficult to avoid without totally removing yourself from a social situation on campus. It’s a bit like passive smoking but with a different kind of disease! In this case, somebody’s enjoyment of the medium can, arguably, be detrimental to others.

Is Blurred Lines any worse than the plethora of other not only sexist or misogynistic, but also violent, racially orientated or drug tolerant music available to people today? There are so many arguably outrageous music videos out there at the moment and Miley Cyrus licking a hammer and swinging about naked is not something we really have any interest in seeing while tucking into our chicken bites and curly fries at the Ram either. How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?

“How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?”
Photo Credit: Miley Cyrus via OnSecretHunt

In an interview with the BBC, Thicke explained the origins of his song, saying, “For me it was about blurring the lines between two things: Number one, men and women and how much we’re the same. My wife is as smart as I am, as strong if not stronger but she’s an animal too and she doesn’t need a man to define her or define her existence so the song was really about women [being] everything that a man is and [that they] can do anything a man can do. The other side of this is there are blurred lines between a good girl and a bad girl; even a good girl has a little bad side, you just need to know how to pull it out of them.”

Maybe the idea that it is a man’s responsibility to”pull out” the bad girl from within a good girl goes against what he’s saying, but should his speech not go at least some way towards discouraging the idea that the song has anything to do with rape or misogyny? Isn’t it all about interpretation? Sometimes, do people just want to be offended no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary?

Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full. Before finding out that there was going to be a Blurred Lines referendum, neither of us had ever heard it in its entirety or shown any interest in doing so. Regrettably, due to its infectious rhythm and our constant exposure to the tune, the pair of us have been incessantly humming, singing and whistling the song since the start of the year. Quite frankly we’ll be glad when it’s all over, but no doubt there’ll be a new motion to polarise the Exeter student population soon enough.

Dave Reynolds and James Bennett

Do you buy Robin Thicke’s tale of the origin of his song and video?  Has the University made too much of a big deal out of what is really a harmless pop tune? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Format of 'Blurred Lines' vote changed

Robin Thicke
Image credits: Kia Clay

On 21 October a vote will commence to determine whether Robin Thicke’s popular, though highly controversial hit, ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus. Recent changes passed by the Democracy Committee will change the way in which this vote will now operate and may ultimately alter the outcome.

In previous votes, such as last year’s vote on The Sun, students had the option to vote either YES or NO. In the upcoming vote on ‘Blurred Lines’ and those that follow in the future students will have the option to vote in three different ways. Firstly there will be the option to Ban ‘Blurred Lines’ from being played in all Guild outlets and across the official student media, an action will which also incorporate an official condemnation of the song. The next option will be to Condemn the song – the current NO campaign – which will result in the release of a press statement from the Guild condemning the objectionable lyrics but not an implementation of a ban. Finally students can vote for No Change leaving ‘Blurred Lines’ available to be played around campus and with no condemnation of the song’s content. There is currently no campaign group for this option.

President of Labour Students Daniel Richards commented that: “I am annoyed that such changes were rushed through without any consultation with students outside the Guild. These changes will have an impact on how campaigning societies run our campaigns on campus and we were only informed after they had gone through.”

Prior to the recent alterations, a single member of the student body was able to put forward a motion, but each proposal will now have to be followed by 25 signatures in support of the suggested motion. A third year English student commented: “I find the removal of anonymity problematic. This may result in students choosing not to act upon an issue important to them for fear of sharing their views openly”.

Conversely, Harry Chamberlain, President of Conservative Future has defended the changes: “I am happy that The Guild are offering a third voting option for students, primarily because, in past motions, the call to ban things polarised much of the support for the issues surrounding the vote. The Guild has enabled students to have a proper discussion about the more salient issue of sexism and the portrayal of women in both the media and music industry, rather than letting people get bogged down in an argument about censorship.” Chamberlain has also described the need for 25 signatures as a “vast improvement” on the previous system.

Next Wednesday the exact terms of the motion will be released before the commencement of the campaigns and vote in Week 5 of term. The vote will operate on a first past the post system, which means that the option with the most votes will be the motion that is ultimately passed.

Emily Tanner, Deputy Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.