CW: This article includes mention of sexual violence. For help contact 1800 RESPECT, and for the SCO: +61 2 8627 6808, and [email protected]
On Friday November 8, the University of Sydney Union (USU) convened for a public meeting to address and debate the recent allegations of misogynistic conduct by affiliated students.
This comes after the Red Zone Report was torn up by members of the Conservative Club at RepsElect and 27 students were suspended or expelled from St Paul’s residential college.
The meeting was called and supported by members of the USU Board which was announced in a statement released November 8.
In the statement, endorsed by multiple student and executive members of the Board calling for the Friday meeting, the Union stated that they, “[…]recognise the need for action to challenge and dismantle this culture, and we commend the SRC Women’s Officers and Women’s Collective for their resolute response and ongoing campaigns against sexual violence.” Constable was not involved with the drafting of this statement due to “relevant conflicts of interest” but signed off on its publishing.
Prior to the meeting, Honi Soit was made aware that the agenda would address membership cancellation considerations for individuals involved, further investigation proposals, and a policy review.
The meeting was open to the public with some joining by zoom including members of the executive and the Board. At 1:07pm the meeting opened with an Acknowledgement of Country given by USU President Bryson Constable before moving Vice-President Ben Hines to be the chair for the rest of the meeting.
Constable has been criticised due to his long standing work with, and vice-presidency of, the Conservative Club. Both Constable’s and the Club’s lack of response to any of the recent incidents was likely to be interrogated today.
Hines started the meeting by addressing the sensitive nature of discussions and acknowledged the delay in the Union’s response.
First Hines turned to discussions of conflict of Interests to which the suggestion that Constable leaves the room was put forward. Hines outlined the regular customs of meetings and argued the meeting and proceedings should be public.
Onor Nottle stated that Constable should step out of the room and “that [it] would only make sense for Bryson not to be present” and cited similar issues when previous USU President, Naz Sharifi was handling conflicts with SULS presidency.
Constable was asked to leave the meeting for Item 5.1 at 1:25pm.
Next the meeting moved to item 5.1 — USU Membership cancellation considerations for individuals involved in the tearing of the Red Zone report.
Hines started by asking that the involved individuals not be named due to legal reasons and the public nature of the meeting. ”The USU can cancel their membership” Hines stated, highlighting considerations such as the length and permanency of the membership cancellation needed to be discussed.
Ethan Floyd, Board Director and holder of Disability, Queer and Ethnocultural portfolios, believed USU memberships of the involved individuals should be cancelled, stating that “this sort of pathetic behaviour and rape apologists, aren’t tied to individuals necessarily but endemic of a rape culture that exist on our campus, and that exists within the two implicated clubs.”
Grace Wallman, Board Director, asked the board to “avoid the two bad apples approach […] as the USU can’t pretend it doesn’t exist in our community, we really just need to frame out minds [that] this is part of a larger systemic issue”.
USU CEO, Michael Bromley, weighed in and posed being fully in support of revoking the memberships for those who are deemed to be involved.“My view is the USU stands for something […] the memberships and clubs we administer are offshoots of that […] anyone who is in serious breach of that should be [addressed accordingly],” Bromley stated.
Hines responded that, “Procedurally under the constitution, members [of the Club] need to be given an opportunity to respond, but the Board can expel people from membership” and also stated this “cannot be actioned today” as per constitutional requirements.
Sargun Saluja, Board Director and holder of Environmental portfolio, put forward the idea of sanctioning the club. Hines moved the discussion to imposing sanctions on the club as opposed to individuals.
Hines then disclosed that he was formerly on the executive of the Liberal Club.
Speaking about imposing sanctions on clubs, Floyd responded, “it’s the Board’s responsibility to hold the individuals and clubs to account.” Floyd condemned the Club’s continued lack of response and that he was “personally pretty disappointed and disgusted that the [USU] statement was delayed.”
James Dwyer, Honorary Treasurer, then said, “the club’s response has been very disappointing and then holding an event the night after requires a “need for collective investigation” and that “[it] can’t just be a University investigation”.
The meeting then moved to discussions of potential further investigations by the USU, and review of policies in place.
Grace Porter, Board Director, posed a question to Bromley and Samantha Trodden about what the investigation would look like. Dwyer weighed in and stated that those without a conflict of interest should lead communications with the University, given Constable’s affiliations made him ineligible for such a position.
Onor Nottle, past Board director, then spoke to the prevalence of sexual assault and violence on campus, citing “⅕ women sexually harassed on campus each year.” Nottle alleged there is “huge dissent across the University that the USU President sat there and did nothing.”
Nottle continued, stating that the response “should not just be lip service” and that the Board “needs to do better than putting out a statement that speaks about the conflicts of interest vaguely […] with everyone using their corporate language.”
Wallman stated that it is a “personal priority” to take action whilst Floyd argued that “Bryson will have to be subject to their investigations”.
Bromley responded in the Zoom chat, “All of this underpins the need for an investigation first; before we make assumptions and jump to conclusions.”
Hines stated that there is “no formal conclusion [the Board] have reached”, but there is “a lot of publicly available evidence”,citing Honi Soit’s coverage of the incidents. Hines also agreed that “greater transparency” is needed but stated it was raised by the Board that Constable “should not be the ongoing point of communication with the university due to the conflict of interest.”
For the first time in the meeting, Constable was called back in to speak to the University’s investigation, stating that on the day of the meeting he had discussed matters with Joanne Wright, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education). According to Constable, “from their perspective it’s underway [and] they want us to offer full cooperation.”
Constable then claimed “they would like to conduct the investigation themselves […] they are moving towards the finalisation of their initial inquiries […] If you want my perspective they are the most appropriate body to be conducting this”, he continued.
In response to discussions of the efficacy of the Union and University’s policies in place, David Wright, Senate Appointed Director, stated, “the universities policies are in fact the strength of NSW Legislation […] they are not simply corporate policies.”
Referencing the University of Sydney Act 1989 (NSW), Bromley then said, “the University has an obligation to the NSW Government to investigate breaches […] as a result the Uni will be treating this quite seriously.”
Whilst the University published its response following the ripping of the Red Zone Report, Vice-Chancellor Mark Scott did not release a formal statement on either the Representatives Elect or the St Paul’s incidents until November 6 when he spoke at the Domestic and Family Violence Conference at the University.
Returning to the proposal of a USU investigation, Nottle claimed “an investigation by the clubs and societies board [sic] is not mutually exclusive with a university investigation […] and at the end of the day, it is clear there is a conflict here.”
“Obviously Bryson is going to want as little investigation as possible […] clubs and societies board [sic] have always investigated the conduct of their members.” Nottle continued. “This is minimisation […] entrenching that rape culture.”
Wallman agreed that “Bryson does have a conflict here” and claimed “he has privately expressed to Ethan and other members of the board that he does not believe there should be a USU investigation.”
Bromley responded to Nottle and Wallman, stating “we have an obligation to look into the activity of our clubs.” Bromley then clarified this position: “we let the University do their investigation [and] use the information we find from their investigation.”
Arguing against a USU investigation separate from the University’s, Bromley claimed that “the risk is that we come to a conclusion and make some decisions, and then the University makes decisions that are more severe. We’ve then underdone the penalties […] it looks like we haven’t done our job.”
Returning to Constable’s conflict of interest as a member of the Conservative Club’s executive, Nottle asked if Constable disclosed his position. Constable responded that “it was disclosed over a week ago in an email to the University.” Constable then stepped out of the meeting before discussion began on the next item.
Wallman then asked the meeting “Has the Uni provided any timeline? […] We need to know how much transparency with the USU there will be.”
Wright responded that “There is a great deal of passion being expressed […] that can lead to bias. My view would be that we as a Board should be seen as to be making sure we are as independent and unbiased as possible.”
Floyd then stated that Bromley or Hines should be heading the communication with the University during the investigation.
Floyd argued that “It is an absolute dereliction of duty for us to wait …The greater reputational risk is to sit on our ass waiting over the break waiting for the University to conduct […] an incredibly opaque investigation.”
Eliza Crossley, outgoing SRC Women’s Officer, commented in the Zoom chat, “Sexual violence is not a PR problem. It is not a reputation problem. It is a student safety issue, and I hope that the USU board treats it as such.”
Floyd agreed, “Every day we wait is another day we are leaving our members at risk.”
More members of the Board questioned the University’s reputational agenda. Porter stated that, “we’re meant to put the students’ interests first. We need to do everything we can to respond to this.”
Dwyer agreed, “We definitely cannot wait for the University to conduct their own investigation.”
Wallman stated that, “we have a separate duty to our membership … their [unis] investigations are notoriously opaque … I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be passionate about preventing sexual violence.”
Hines agreed there should be passion and to keep these voices in the conversation during inquiries into club cultures and stated, “I think it is generally the appetite of the board that we conduct our own investigation.”
The meeting then moved forward to discuss the scope and terms of the investigation.
The consequences for individual members of the USU were described by Hines as “quite simple”. Floyd re-established “the general idea to be we don’t name names in this discussion. It’s been widely reported in the media, we have very close coverage from Honi Soit with photos and videos.”
For investigations into groups and clubs, Wallman stated “I would like to know about the internal response these clubs have had that would indicate if there are broader cultural issues. Is this particular incident reflective of a broader cultural attitudes towards women [and] sexual violence.”
Floyd weighed in again, alleging that Bryson Constable had expressed to him that there should be no investigation “owing to the fact that they were not there in a clubs capacity”.
Hines responded that, “it’s an aggravating factor if clubs were involved” and spoke to Conservative Club using USU resources to foster their space and members. Hines concluded, “we will be doing our own investigation”.
Agreeing that Constable should be excluded from investigations, Wallman told the meeting that “Bryson has expressed quite strong opinions about whether we should investigate. Politics entirely aside, his membership in these clubs means he as the president should be [excluding himself from these meetings […] I think we have to lay down those boundaries now”
Bromley concluded the meeting by stating “It’s important for me to remind everyone participating today that I work for the board […] it’s my obligation, my responsibility to report to the board of the USU not any individual”.
After being opened to questions, the meeting concluded.
Amendment: this article was amended according to clarifications provided by the USU Board Meeting minutes (12/11/24, 2:55pm)
