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.

 

 

 

Analysis: The Sun debate in context

Image credits: The Sun

The vote on whether or not to ban The Sun from Guild retail outlets comes amidst a national movement in universities against Page 3. Ten other universities’ guilds have moved to ban the sale of The Sun from their outlets, including Cambridge, Durham and the London School of Economics.

The No More Page 3 petition has instigated action within university guilds against the sale of Page 3 publications, citing the images as demeaning to women. The movement told Exeposé “We’re delighted that so many student bodies have decided to support the campaign; by supporting No More Page 3, many Student Unions have sent a powerful message to the students they represent that respect towards women is an absolute priority. This isn’t about censorship, this is about students declaring that sexism has no place on campus.”

Cambridge University students voted in council, with representatives from colleges supporting the movement unanimously. The No More Page 3 movement has also gained traction in Newcastle with 57 per cent of students of the Newcastle University Students’ Union voting to ban all Page 3 publications from being sold in the Students’ Union shop. Sheffield Students’ Union also moved to ban the sale of The Sun, without the vote of the student public however, passing the motion in committee behind closed doors.

There have been, however, some detractors from the movement, as the York University Students’ Union have denied the vote to ban The Sun. 70.8 per cent of 1402 students polled voted against the motion at the University which three weeks ago refused to ratify its Feminist Society for a second time.

Colleges at Oxford University have moved for a ban of the sale of The Sun also, as Brasenose College and St. Edmund Hall have both voted in favour of the No More Page 3 movement.

Leeds University also started a campaign against Page 3. Leeds University Union commented “the idea was proposed by a student and therefore scheduled to be taken to forum. Shortly after this, however, the student proposing the idea decided to discontinue. For this reason, the idea didn’t make it to forum and there was no subsequent referendum.“

The No More Page 3 group commented in light of the results, “We’re sorry to hear that Exeter University has not formally chosen to take this stance at this point. However, we’re aware that there are still a lot of students at Exeter who wholeheartedly wish to see their university cease to support sexist publications; we would like these students to know that we will still be on hand to offer them advice and support.”

Louis Dore, News Editor.

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

Students vote against banning The Sun

Image credit: Niklas Rahmel

62% of Exeter students have voted against banning sales of The Sun newspaper on University campus, in a record-breaking referendum.

This week’s motion to boycott the newspaper as part of a “No More Page 3” campaign saw thousands of students vote in what was the biggest student turnout in a referendum in recent years. 1504 voted against banning the paper, with 2441 students voting in total.

The campaign, which began in Summer 2012, argued that The Sun should be banned from all University outlets until the bare breasts that feature on Page 3 are removed. Originally a petition, “No More Page 3” now has over 10,000 likes on Facebook and has attracted attention from a number of universities.

The issue has sparked controversy across campus, with both yes and no campaigns being vocal in their support and condemnation. An Xpression FM debate yesterday evening provoked strong emotions and saw a large majority vote against banning The Sun.

Debate Show: The Sun/Page 3 Debate by Xpressionfm on Mixcloud

Virginia Walsh, a second year History student, raised the original complaint with the Students’ Guild. Walsh told Exeposé: “In my opinion this campaign is really important, because Page 3 perpetuates dangerous ideas about  women’s worth. It creates unattainable and unnatural images of women, which can have really negative effects on girls’ body image.”

Critics of the campaign raised concerns over the University’s necessity to protect students’ freedom of speech, arguing that banning a newspaper could be considered as censorship.

George Causer, a second year Politics student, said: “It’s not the job of the University to decide what is an approved publication. The University is meant to promote free speech, not repress it.”

The result goes against some student opinion around the country, with both the University of Cambridge and Durham University recently banning the publication alongside the likes of the LSE and Edinburgh University.

Extended coverage will follow in next week’s paper.

Tom Elliott and Harrison Jones, Online News Editors

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

Jon Gaunt and the Page 3 Debate

James Roberts, Features Editor, spoke to radio presenter and former Sun journalist Jon Gaunt for his thoughts on banning The Sun on campus as the voting comes to a close.

Jon Gaunt is livid, and predictably so. After a lifetime dabbling in tabloid journalism, Gaunt has built a reputation as the lion-hearted defender of even the most controversial actions of the British red-tops.

With his cutting, ruthlessly effective, Midlands-man-on-the-street approach to political debate, Gaunt has utilised the right to speak freely as often as he has battled in television studios to defend it. And, as he explains, nothing angers him more than “banning a newspaper because feminist militants don’t like it.”

Image Credits- The Guardian

Gaunt is adamant that the desire to ban Page 3 is exclusively driven by hatred and ignorance.

Despite his bull-in-a-china-shop approach to defending a free press, he seems to genuinely soften when defending the girls printed on the page. “I’ve met Page 3 girls”, he remarks, “and these feminists would be surprised to find that they are more intelligent and assertive than these Exeter militants”.

To him, as an industry insider, Page 3 is “quite different to the pornography” with which it is often equated. It represents a good career for women; as he puts it, an aspiration “as healthy as a working class lad wanting to become a footballer”.

An interesting comparison, perhaps, but not one which is relevant in the Gaunt family home. “I wouldn’t want my daughters becoming Page 3 girls”, he authoritatively avows. One cannot help but wonder if he would note his son aspiring to become a footballer with the same prudence.

Regardless, for him, Page 3 is not the exercise in female exploitation that its opponents would have us believe. He is adamant that “it’s more like a saucy seaside postcard” than a reflection of some sort of feminist patriarchy.

As he puts it in his own unrepentant style, “it’s an institution, and nothing to get your knickers in a twist about”. Perhaps it reflects a deeper problem in society? “No one buys The Sun for Page 3”, Gaunt reminds me, “it’s just part of the menu”.

For Jon Gaunt, Page 3 is just part and parcel of a free press; an innocent, slap-and-tickle reflection of British culture fuelled by a wealth of gifted and ambitious young women. For him, to criticise Page 3 is “to do a disservice to intelligent young women by labelling them as thick and helpless”.

Whether many students would agree with that might be questionable, but he certainly believes whole-heartedly in crusading for free speech, no matter where it calls him. And, at the end of the day, it will be for Exeter students to decide whether they join in that crusade, or do not agree that Page 3 is as harmless as Gaunt would have us believe. His unapologetically defiant message to those that don’t? “Calm down, dears”.

Read more of the interview with Jon Gaunt in the next issue of Exeposé.

James Roberts, Features Editor

Banning The Sun: Twisted Feminism

Jasmine Moores looks at this week’s referendum to remove The Sun from Guild outlets and criticises the culture of shaming Page 3 models and other adult workers as unfeminist.

For years now I have witnessed the term “feminism” being abused.  Through my own experiences I began to build my own concept of feminism and what it meant to me, as all around me the notion of a “feminist woman” became distorted and twisted beyond recognition.  The debate over whether or not we should ban The Sun from Guild outlets brought these feelings to a boil.  This is what I felt was being overlooked in the dismissal of Page 3 modelling as nothing more than a derogatory example of sexism.

“These feelings are based on first hand experiences combined with those of many close friends who have worked as strippers, lapdancers, promo girls and, shock horror, Page 3 girls.”
Photo Credit: Amy Henry

My initial reaction to the banning of the paper was this; if you don’t want to see tits, don’t buy the paper.  If you buy the paper and moan because there are tits, you need to get a grip.  I don’t believe that students are really being presented with the facts.  Do the leaders of this boycott have a direct interview from a page 3 model documenting the hardships and oppression of her career?  Have they worked as a glamour model, experiencing first-hand the humiliating and derogatory nature of the job?  The answer is no.

When movements like this create a buzz even though it is allegedly started to support women, in fact it does the opposite.  The assumption that every woman at university believes that Page 3 modelling/lapdancing, is derogatory, unrealistic and insulting.

It seems no one has considered that maybe, just maybe, someone who attends university and has half a brain could be involved with such “demeaning” work.  In fact there is a completely opposing view based on personal experience, not constructed ideas of what feminism should apparently be.   The reality is, you may see it as an insult that papers with topless women are being sold on campus, but others may find it an insult that you condemn their line of work as inappropriate, making assumptions based on your own opinions and moral compass instead of considering women as a whole.

You may feel you are liberating your gender by taking a dim view on modelling, but that is one opinion among many, and removing the paper deprives others of the opportunity to make up their own mind.  If the intention is to give women a voice should this not also apply to the lapdancers and models of the world?  Does feminism exclude women who don’t have “worthy” jobs?   The voices of women in these careers are stifled beneath the overbearing and angry cries of the anti-Page 3 feminists.  That, my friends, is girl on girl sexism right there, and that is not cool.

If you believe human beings are all equal, and that women are human beings, you are a feminist.  There should be no ifs or buts about appearance or career choice, it should be based on feelings of equality.  The aversion to Page 3 suggests that if a woman chooses to wear revealing clothes or work as a model she is less of a women – that if you do the following things (wear short skirts/show off your body etc.) you are a wrong, you are not a feminist and you are setting women back hundreds of years.  Your opinion doesn’t count for anything because your outward appearance is not that of a “feminist” and even if you think you’re not being oppressed, you are, you just don’t realise it.

Am I missing something here?  The liberation of women allowed them to show flesh and be proud of their bodies and yet people are still under the outdated illusion that a desire to reveal flesh makes you a “victim of social construction” and that your behaviour is only to please men.  Well that’s bollocks.  Western society is the first to criticise the burka and hail it as a single emblem that encompasses the oppression of women within the Muslim faith, yet it seems that in order to embody this distorted idea of feminism we too should cover ourselves as this is the only way we can demonstrate self-respect.

These feelings are based on first hand experiences combined with those of many close friends who have worked as strippers, lapdancers, promo girls and, shock horror, Page 3 girls.  I have nothing but praise for the industry and even though I know everyone’s experiences differ, women who work in this industry are not degraded if they have chosen this as their line of work.  A lapdancer who doesn’t enjoy her job is no more oppressed than a receptionist who doesn’t enjoy her job.

The point is we should have the choice to do what we want, be it take our clothes off, drive a bus or work in Hooters.  If a girl wants to pose wearing nothing but a G-string made of jelly babies, not because she wants to pull, not because she’s being forced to, but because she wants to, then right on sister, pose away and good on you.  The amount of times I have heard, “look at that topless model/girl wearing a short skirt etc.  What a slut, she makes women everywhere look bad”.  We should be showing female solidarity and supporting our fellow woman who is proud of her body not attempting to degrade her.

Feminism is not a one size fits all concept.  I realise for every girl that recognises the importance of empowerment and self-respect there will be one who doesn’t have a clue.  But that is life.   Generalisations and assumptions made by women and about women are detrimental, regardless of whether or not they are based on the shaky and ambiguous grounds of feminism.  Instead of trying to make other women feel less feminist because they do not fit with preconceived ideas, we should be supporting one another regardless of occupation/clothing/ability to catch £10 notes in their cleavage.  F**k labels.  Clothed or unclothed – be proud to be a woman.

Jasmine Moores

For more from Jamine, visit her blog. Are there factions of feminism that do more harm than good to equality between the sexes? Is Page 3 work a responsible decision for those who could arguably be seen as role models for young women?Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Banning The Sun: A Certain Kind of Man

After this week’s heated debate concerning the fate of  The Sun at our University,  this piece of ‘new journalism’ written by former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society Rachel Brown gives a narrative which explores what stereotypes exist concerning The Sun’s male readership due to the presence of Page 3.

The little door opens, delinquent winds seize chance, throwing upon the innocent café entrance handfuls of rain and dust made fugitive from the cobbled square outside. As the remaining gusts quarrel with the tinny jingle of the doorbell, the discordant orchestration compels my gaze above the top of my book and toward the source where I observe your final wrestles against the wind.

As you triumphantly close the door, raindrops cling stubbornly to your coat and pull neglectfully at your hair. Sweeping the weather-beaten strands from your cheeks, your face is revealed like clouds parting for the sun.

“…I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.”
Photo Credit: An Untrained Eye via Flickr cc

I barter with luck while you survey the low-ceilinged café. Composed of typical West Country furniture, their blockish framework is so enduring that your grandchildren, buttery-faced, will probably swing their chubby legs from the same chairs as they gleefully tuck into their scones.

Fortune is mine, you sit at the neighbouring table and ask the waiter for a pot of Darjeeling tea. I inhale, and, trying not to disclose smiling joy at your choice, I briefly close my eyes to recall the virtues of your chosen tea:  “Its leaves decorate only rare heights and just one clime. Its texture rich, notes delicate and swansong sweet…”

I open my eyes. You have settled into your seat and assumed sovereign poise. Turned so slightly facing towards me, I bask in nature’s sweet coincidence — our equal purview of one another. Your posture is elegant, your plaid scarf wrapped as though arranged by birds in flight, your woollen coat sharp as a cliff’s edge and brogues that cannot silence unfailing taste. The waiter returns and you meet his face to thank him with kind eyes and a smile.

Any attempt of return to my book, without mere affectation, would be unthinkable! All I can do is give definition to the flowering picture of you. You exhale, perhaps signalling relief at your escape from the torments of the raging weather now behind us.

You draw down into your bag to produce some reading material. “What tales of you might this speak?” I ask myself hopefully. Its scarlet topped paper remains obscure to my vision. The article rises in your hand toward the table you rest upon. You open to its pages, now unveiling to me its cover from which I read: “The Sun”

Images of male “Sun readers” paraded in my mind — Misogynist. Chauvinist. Sexist. These words hurled themselves at me with a greater violence than the marauding winds outside. Arrows began to cast themselves into the picture of you. Your defence attorney pointed and quibbled: “But he will, of course, take no interest in passé page three. He is interested, I am sure, in only the sport and actual news.” But you did not hasten past page three to the later sports pages.

And it would always be: You had purchased The Sun, a newspaper that still makes boobs news. My vision of you punctured, I picked up my book, my bag and my disappointment, and there I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.

Rachel Brown

Is somebody’s choice of newspaper an accurate way to judge their personality? Is it fair to label readers of The Sun as misogynistic and sexist? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

 

Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship

Harry Chamberlain argues why you should vote NO to banning The Sun from Guild Shops in this week’s Guild referendum.

Banning The Sun from being sold in the Guild Shop, and campaigning for its ban in the Marketplace – regardless of however many students vote for it – is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. A free press 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: to act as a counterweight to the majority, and protect the rights of the few.

“The motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.”
Photo Credit: the|G|™ via Compfight cc

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend The Sun. I do not buy the paper, nor do I believe that bare-breasted women should be blazoned across a national newspaper.

There are numerous good reasons that the YES campaign raises as to why this issue should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.

Many have suggested that this motion is a boycott. This is misleading; a boycott involves freely deciding not to buy The Sun on moral grounds. This motion advocates a ban, and would mean nobody could buy The Sun on campus, whether they bought it to read Redknapp’s punditry, look at Page 3 – or just to catch up on the news.

Similarly, they argue it is not censorship because it is still available elsewhere. It is not a total censorship, but it is censorship nonetheless, just as a library censors books by refusing to stock them, even if they’re available at a bookstore down the road.

The underlying message that the NO campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a publication’s contents, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their access to it. How is Britain meant to set an example for developing democracies in terms of ensuring important minority rights are maintained, if we reject freedom of speech and freedom of press?

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? We are not denying that Page 3 may be questionable, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women – and I would happily support a voluntary boycott of Page 3 in order to raise awareness of the issue and affect change.

I do not believe that the aim of this motion was to infringe upon freedom of speech, but rather to raise awareness for their worthy cause. Nonetheless, it has been found wanting. A poorly-worded motion has led to a profound disagreement over what there could otherwise be near-unanimous agreement on. Therefore, I call on Virginia Walsh and the organisers of the YES campaign to withdraw their motion to try and ban The Sun from being sold on campus.

In its place, I would like to propose the following motion: “Should the Student’s Guild condemn The Sun for its attitudes towards women, publicly come out in support of the No More Page 3 campaign, and call for a voluntary boycott of the newspaper until the editors remove the bare boobs from Page 3?”

All of us at the NO campaign would have no qualms about supporting such a motion.

Harry Chamberlain

Click here to vote NO in the Guild Referendum. For the view from the opposition, read Virginia Walsh’s Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren’t News. Did you vote? If so, which way? If not, why not? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren't News

Leader of the, “Vote YES to boycotting The Sun on campus!” campaign Virginia Walsh makes the case for banning The Sun from Guild outlets until the bare breasts are removed from Page 3 in the Guild referendum because, “It is 2013… Boobs aren’t news.”

We are asking you to vote YES to the boycott of The Sun because, frankly, someone needs to tell them. As the online petition says, “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”. It is ridiculous that such images are accepted alongside the news, in a family paper, stored at child height. The problem with Page 3 is that it affects more than just those who choose to buy it. It impacts men’s perceptions of women in a very dangerous way, as well as women’s perceptions of themselves. Rupert Murdoch has hinted that he is considering removing the bare boobs already for a dubious, “glamorous” replacement, so hopefully with more pressure he will get rid of them altogether.

“The problem with Page 3 is that it affects more than just those who choose to buy it. It impacts men’s perceptions of women in a very dangerous way, as well as women’s perceptions of themselves.”
Photo Credit: No More Page 3

I raised the idea of a vote with the Guild because I felt that a strong response from students to boycott The Sun until the removal of boobs in the paper would be an effective way of supporting the national campaign. It will show that students are not willing to ignore the irresponsible journalism of Murdoch’s paper. There are over 100,000 signatures on the petition, and for those in doubt the comments section testifies that these images really do negatively affect men, women and children.

I disagree with our opposition, who believe that the ban removes their freedoms to information, given that the paper can be bought five minutes from campus and brought to campus, whilst The Sun will continue to be accessible online. The ban can’t be deemed censorship when people have had the chance to vote in the referendum, which has been actively defended on both sides.

At the end of the day, democratic policy-making is majoritarian, it has to be or nothing would get done in Parliament. We have the chance to tell the powerful media giants in this country that we believe Page 3 is outdated and harmful, while realistically only imposing a five minute walk on a small minority of consumers.

At the core of their argument, the ‘no’ campaign believe that the issue is not something that students should be able to vote on at all. To quote Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility”. It is clear The Sun is not a responsible publication, and we are in a position where we can use our powers of protest to challenge this.

This vote is our chance to decide whether we want to support No More Page Three, or create a very loud silence within the ranks of top universities who are pledging their support to such a positive campaign.  These include Cambridge, St Edmunds Hall and Brasenose College, Oxford, Durham University, London School of Economics, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Newcastle, Dundee and Manchester Metropolitan.

Lego have also expressed their support by cancelling their advertising in the newspaper, whilst Girlguiding UK are also supporting the campaign. A ‘no’ vote would send out the message that University of Exeter students are in support of Page 3, which is extremely damaging to both our credibility as a university and to the campaign.

Many would also argue that if we don’t like to see boobs with our news, then we shouldn’t buy it! Unfortunately Page 3 affects many more people than just those who choose to read the paper. Presenting women in this way for the last forty three years is obviously outdated, and actually harmful in shaping attitudes towards women, as objects to be readily available for male sexual gratification. Most people would agree that newspapers should not be allowed to print, for example, racist comments, and while Page 3 does not explicitly demand men to view women negatively, there is much evidence to suggest how damaging such images reinforcing women’s sexual availability can be when placed alongside the news.

The most important reason for you to vote YES this week is to support the No More Page 3 campaign nationally, adding vital pressure to the editors of the paper and maintaining the national media’s interest in the campaign. While the news consistently reflects that women still aren’t being taken as seriously as men in our developed world, it is more relevant than ever for university students to put their name to such a positive campaign. It is central to the campaign to create news and inspire debate, bringing the issue to a huge range of people.

That The Sun is not currently stocked in the Guild shop reflects just how overly dramatic it is to use arguments of ‘censorship’- if the paper is not sold for economic reasons, it can hardly be called censorship, in the same way that if the student body consent to remove the paper from its shops, it can hardly be called ‘tyranny’. I would call it democracy and protest at its finest, because there is no tangible loss but a very tangible gain.

Virginia Walsh, Leader of the “Vote YES to boycotting The Sun on campus!” campaign.

Click here to vote YES on the Guild referendum. For the view from the opposition, read Harry Chamberlain’s Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship. Did you vote? If so, which way? If not, why not? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Banning The Sun: Comment on the Referendum

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

For further argument from both sides read Virginia Walsh’s Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren’t News and Harry Chamberlain’s Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship.  Do you find The Sun’s depiction of women sexist or misogynistic? Is banning the paper the appropriate way of protesting their content? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Sunblock: Student vote launched to ban The Sun from campus

Image credits: The Sun

Sales of The Sun newspaper could get banned from campus if enough students vote in favour of a controversial motion to boycott the title as part of a ‘No More Page 3’ campaign.

Supporters of the campaign, which started in summer 2012, say that bare breasts featured in The Sun objectify women and encourage readers to view women as sex objects.

The Students’ Guild has confirmed that a vote is to be held in week three of the current term after they received a complaint from a student.

If the motion is passed, The Sun will be removed from The Students’ Shop and the Guild may lobby the University, who control the Market Place, to do the same.

Virginia Walsh, a second year History student, raised the complaint with the Students’ Guild. Walsh told Exeposé: “In my opinion this campaign is really important, because Page 3 perpetuates dangerous ideas about a women’s worth. It creates unattainable and unnatural images of women, which can have really negative effects on girls’ body image.

“The boycott is only until the editors remove the bare boobs from the newspaper, since this is the central aim of the wider campaign.”

Deanna Quirke, the Guild’s Gender Equality Representative, added: “Us making a stance as a University to support this vote will not turn Exeter in an overseas North Korean colony. However, it might just a part in granting little girls a society where they aren’t seen as decorate objects to be leered at”.

The motion has provoked a strong reaction from some students. George Causer, a second year Politics student, said: “If you don’t like The Sun newspaper, don’t buy The Sun newspaper.

“It’s not the job of the University to decide what is an approved publication. The University is meant to promote free speech, not repress it.”

Nick Davies, Guild President, said it was “fantastic to see students taking the lead”, adding: “This campaign is sure to stir up involvement across campus and spark debate amongst the student body. Whichever way the vote falls, it will all be down to the student vote, which is exactly how changes should be made within the Guild.”

In December 2012, the London School of Economics (LSE) controversially banned the title from its shops. Since then, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Manchester Metropolitan, Dundee and Teddy Hall Oxford have also joined the boycott.

Follow the development of the campaigns via the official Guild website, or via www.exepose.ex.ac.uk

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

Tom Payne, News Team