Adelaide Student Politics

Posted: 26th of September

The first Clubs Association meeting of the new term was held on Tuesday the 15th of September.

Summary:

• AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey voiced concerns about the CA's new website.
• The AUES was taken off notice.
• After much brouhaha, the meeting decided that the Hawke Club Affiliation would be postponed to the next meeting.
• It was revealed that no progress had been made with the new CA constitution since the last meeting.

From the moment the meeting opened there were problems. All tabled documents for the meeting, including the agenda, minutes from the previous meeting and a draft CA constitution, had only been sent to clubs two days prior to the meeting*. As a result, few of the delegates present had read any of the material to be discussed at the meeting. CA President Matt Taylor and General Executive Member Ash Brook took responsibility for the documents not being sent out**, with Ash remarking: "The minutes [from the last meeting not being there] was us being slack."

The first point of contention in the meeting was the CA's new website. During his report, President Matt Taylor reported that the CA's new website, which had cost $2000 to set up, had been functional for one week before the servers went down and it was rendered nonoperational.

AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey voiced reservations about the CA's website, and the decision of the executive not to put in on the AUU's newly-upgraded one. Instead of spending $2000 on the current website (with further funds now required to fix it), Lavinia said that the CA could have a web presence on the AUU site, with the AUU footing the bill. Furthermore, Lavinia expressed concern at the way in which funding for the CA site was approved, describing as "dodgy" the fact that the $2000 dollars was spent by the executive without the approval of a CA meeting. While Matt Taylor claimed that the previous CA meeting (held on the 6th of May this year) had given the executive license to appropriate funds for the site, the minutes of that meeting contain nothing to suggest that was the case.

Next was the Vice President's Report. VP Peta Johannsen's report was concerned mainly with the ClubFest event that was held during the first week of semester. The meeting was provided with no written report, and nor was there any written summary of the financial details of the event. Peta, while claiming that on the whole ClubFest had been a success, conceded that there had been insufficient advertising for the event. "I think it only became clear on the day that it hadn't been advertised enough", she said.

The next item on the agenda was a motion to move the AUES (Engineering Society) off notice. They were originally put on notice following a series of incidents involving varying levels of harassment by some of their rank-and-file members. AUES Vice President Kevin Chan gave a rundown of the AUES's activities this year, as well as steps that have been taken to combat sexual harassment issues within the organization. The motion to take the AUES off notice was passed with no dissent.

The meeting now moved on to the headline issue of the evening. At the CA AGM of 30th of October 2008, the Bob Hawke Appreciation Society had its bid to be Provisionally Affiliated to the Clubs Association defeated in controversial circumstances, but was granted Provisional Associate Affiliation.

The next item written on the agenda was to grant the Hawke Club, previously the cause of much debate at the previous clubs AGM in 2008, Provisional Affiliation, but, after much confusion, Ash Brook corrected this, saying that the motion at was actually to make the Hawke Club Associate Affiliates.
With all these types of affiliates being described, Matt Taylor took a moment to explain:

• If a club wants to be affiliated to the CA, it must first apply for and receive Provisional Affiliation. This allows the club to receive grants, and get many of the other advantages of being an affiliated club.
• Once a club has been Provisionally Affiliated for 6 months, it can apply for Full Affiliation, which also comes with benefits from the CA.
• A club that is a Provisional Associate Affiliate or an Associate Affiliate is affiliated only in name, and receives no benefits from the CA.
Who knows which of the CAs many constitutions this is outlined in. More on that in a second.

Matt Taylor, noting the absence of anyone from the Hawke Club, specifically it's President Andrew Anson, proposed that the motion to make it an Associate Affiliate be postponed to the next CA meeting. This idea drew criticism from a number of delegates, especially Rhiannon Newman (Labor Club Delegate), Paris Dean (representing the Law Students Society) and Lavinia (AUU President), all of whom were instrumental in defeating the Provisional Affiliation of the Hawke Club last year (and are all part of the Labor Club executive). Paris put a motion stating that the Hawke Club may not apply for affiliation for six months, arguing in an impassioned speech that Anson (who was referred to as though he was synonymous with the Hawke Club) would simply not show up until the numbers would be more in his favour.

The debate primarily consisted of a back and forth between the Labor Club trio and the CA executive. Rhiannon pointed out that there was a precedent for discussing the affiliation of clubs without a representative present, citing the Provisional Affiliation of the Humanities Society at the last CA meeting. General Executive Member James Moffatt responded that, since this was not Provisional Affiliation, there was no precedent for this case. Furthermore, he pointed out, the Hawke club's affiliation was significantly more controversial than that of the Humanities Society, and as such it should be treated differently.

Lavinia then had some questions for Matt Taylor. As part of the conditions of the Hawke Club's Provisional Associate Affiliation, she pointed out, they were required to give reports on their activities and events every two months. Lavinia asked Matt why none of these reports had been made available. Matt, rather sheepishly, revealed that he had indeed received these reports, but they had been kept confidential at Andrew Anson's request.

The argument continued for about 15 minutes before Ash pointed out that, since the agenda had only been sent out two days before the meeting, it was possible that Anson (his name again used in lieu of the name of the club he heads) had not received official notification that the Affiliation would be considered at this meeting. While Lavinia, Paris and Rhiannon all declared that Andrew had known, and that his absence was a deliberate ploy, they conceded that the Hawke club had probably not received official notification, and, after a quarter of and hour of sound and fury, Paris' motion was withdrawn. Matt Taylor was asked by council to table all of the Hawke Club's bi-monthly reports at the next council meeting, and to ensure that they are officially notified that their affiliation will be on the agenda at that meeting.

Having spent a large amount of time dealing with the Hawke Club issue, the meeting demonstrated a surprising amount of efficiency and dealt with the next eight agenda items without any ado. The Spanish and Game Development clubs received provisional affiliation, and the Fringe, Role Playing and Games clubs were all made full affiliates. Three grants were quickly approved, including $494 for the EVAC (Video Games and Anime) Club to purchase a Playstation 3, which, according to the grant application, would be available for members to borrow.

Once all the grant applications had been dispensed with, AUES representatives inquired as to the progress of an application they had made earlier in the year for a $1000 grant to cover some of the cost of a lost cash box. The executive revealed that the application had been lost, and council gave them the authority to give the money in the break before the next meeting.

At this point, President Matt Taylor left the meeting, citing a need to study for an honours presentation. Soon after his exit, a number of delegates also left, meaning the meeting no longer had quorum.

The final issue of the evening came with the proposed new CA Constitution. Originally drafted by and presented to the previous Clubs Council two months ago by James Moffatt, it was presented almost unchanged to the Council a second time. James apologized, became the latest executive member to "take full responsibility" for not getting something done and outlined a plan to draft and pass a new constitution by mid October.

Without quorum and rapidly losing delegates, the meeting moved on to any other business. The final motion of the evening was to order pizza from a different place for the next meeting. With that pivotal issue dispensed with, the meeting was closed.

Posted 16th July

Early last year brought a funding agreement with the university. Set at $1.2 million in the first year, it is to continue for ten years, with a new amount being decided every year in negotiations between the university and the union. Threatened with financial meltdown in late 2007, it was hoped this funding agreement, the details of which are not avaliable to the public, would ensure the long-term viability of the AUU.

These weeks see the end of the first financial year of said agreement. A new budget is being prepared to present to the university, which in all likelyhood will only agree to fund part of it. The disaffiliation of the Sports Association from the union may have an effect on the final amount, as the university may demand a reduction in the cash given to the AUU if it has one less expense. Amid these fears of a fall in revenue, the AUU Board also discovered (at the May meeting) that, due to an accounting error, its projected income for the coming year is in actuality $168,000 less than expected, due to a complex system where the AUU pays the wages of SA employees, with the SA then paying the AUU back (one would assume only the incoming money appeared on the budget).

This comes at a bad time for some Board directors looking to rebuild after the VSU cut-backs, particularly AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey. She has long pushed at Board meetings for a Clubs Administration officer, believing this will be very benificial for the effectiveness of the services provided by the CA. Others, while acknowledging that there is a need, are pushing for the outsourcing of these services, which they argue will be cheaper and more effective (both claims are disputed). Also discussed, though I believe at this stage shelved, was honoraria for On Dit editors, who currently work full-time hours on a volunteer basis.

These expansions are now the last thing on the minds of some, intent on coming up with a budget acceptable to the university. Board Director Mark Joyce, in a failed bid to minimize expenditures, made the novel suggestion of scrapping the snacks provided prior to AUU meetings. Given that the AUU is largely believed to be working on a bare minimum, finding things to cut is going to be no easy task.

Chairing the Finance and Development Standing Comittee, which is responsible for producing the budget, is AUU VP Jainbin Jiang. Other sources of revenue for the AUU include it's $20 membership package, which has sold well this year. Financial concerns were a key argument in the decision regarding whether or not to sell Unibooks, which was voted on at the June meeting.

Posted 6th July

Tuesday the 2nd of June (yea, I know, a while back…bear with me) saw the last Clubs Council meeting. Regular readers might be aware of the complaints lodged against the Labor club in response to their AGM, when some members were not informed it was occurring, and thus were unable to attend and vote on office bearers. After the Labor Club was placed on notice, ASP reported that they was going to abide by the CA’s demands and do their utmost to rectify what they’ve always claimed was an administrative error. The June Council Meeting saw Rhiannon Newman (Labor Club Clubs Association Delegate, and Incoming Labor Club President) report to Council about what has been done. The Labor Club had held an SGM (special general meeting) earlier that same day when they asked those present to vote to confirm the executive who had been elected at the earlier meeting. They were indeed confirmed, with nine people attending the meeting (the same as the first AGM), and an apology sent in from one of the people who lodged a complaint but were unable to attend due to university assessments held at the same time.
This was of doing things is a compromise, but one which the CA was willing to accept. The Labor Club constitution binds them to hold their AGM in the first term of the year. If the old AGM was simply declared invalid, the constitution would then have to be changed in order to allow them to hold another AGM in term two. Thus, an SGM was required before the proposed alternate AGM. By merely asking all members to confirm the candidates, the Labor Club saved itself some hassle. Clubs Representative Ash Brook, who attended the SGM on the 2nd of June, said at Council that he was satisfied with the actions of the Labor Club. The issue was closed, and the Labor Club was taken off notice.

Posted 6th July

On the day of the last Council Meeting, a draft of the proposed new Clubs Association Constitution was mailed out to all clubs. This Constitution has been many months in the making, with input being given from both the former and current CA executive, and most of the actual drafting completed by CA General Executive Member James Moffatt.
It was made clear at the June Council that Clubs Delegates were in no way expected to vote, or even to discuss, the proposed constitution in a formal capacity at that meeting. Instead, it had been mailed out in order to facilitate input and discussion regarding what the final Constitution would contain. James said he would make himself available to hearing the thoughts of all Clubs prior to writing the final draft.

For the past two years, the Clubs Association has effectively been operating under two different constitutions (see here for an example of how). Of course, this is a breach of the Corporations Act, and so isn’t officially the case. Nonetheless, the 1985 Constitution which executive members have cited as being what they are operating under does not grant them some of the powers given in the later 1995 Contitution, which they have borrowed from when they deemed it suitable. This situation is far from ideal, and to their credit the CA have finally produced a document which they propose be officially adopted as their new constitution.

Interesting in the new document is the removal of the position of ‘Women’s Officer’. This will undoubtedly draw out dissent among many left-wing clubs, who see the position as being necessary to ensure that women are not marginalized within the Clubs hierarchy, and by having a female office bearer to whom they may go to in cases of sexual harassment. However, the position which appears to have been taken by the Clubs Executive is in favour of an ‘Equity Officer’ instead, who would work to ensure the safety and fair treatment of club members regardless of gender. Recent years have also seen it being difficult to attract Women’s Officers, with the Clubs Executive having to seek out candidates. Aside from the practical considerations however, this issue tends to break down fairly quickly into your basic pro and anti positive discrimination arguments. Given that not all clubs have overt political positions it could eventually go either way depending on who argues their case better.

Also worth noting is that the new draft document gives the CA Executive no provision to place a club on notice. This power has been used twice so far this year, against the AUES and Labor Clubs. It’s absence raises questions of how the Clubs Executive wants to deal with clubs whom it feels have broken their own Constitutions or the bounds of reasonable behaviour, aside from straight-out disaffiliation.

What I found most confusing however was the clause making all Club Members individual members of the CA, as opposed to having Clubs be the only members. This gives rise to a convoluted clause giving the CA the power to disaffiliate an individual member, as opposed to dealing with that member through their club.

It is expected that the final document will differ from the draft, once individual clubs have had their input. Nonetheless, the draft gives some guide as to what the CA Executive wish to see in the final. The battle over the Women’s Officer is likely to be fierce, but in the humble opinion of yours truly, the suggestion regarding the making of individuals members of the CA is far more crucial, as it has the potential in many ways to alter the operation and purpose of the CA in all its operations.

Last Wednesday, the Labor Club executive met to decide how to deal with the Clubs Association’s (CA) demand that it rehold its Annual General Meeting (AGM, due to several members not receiving notice). This is a difficult request to meet. The Labor Club Constitution specifies that the AGM has to occur in the first term of the year. In order to hold another one, a Special General Meeting (SGM) has to be called to alter the constitution, after which the AGM can (re)occur.

I spoke to Paris Dean, the Labor Club Secretary, last Wednesday. I was somewhat suprised to discover that the Labor Club had decided to comply with the wishes of the CA. ‘The Labor Club’s had a look, it’s discovered an administrative error, and it wants to rectify it in the most inclusive manner possible. We just hope the CA will be a partner in this’, Paris said.
I asked if it was suitable to talk of partnership when the CA was holding a gun to their head. He didn’t rise to the bait. ‘That’s a thuggish way to describe the CA. I’d hope the CA doesn’t hold guns to anyone’s heads.’

The complaint against the Labor Club was made at the end of last term. It was passed from the Women’s Officer Ursula Menz (who deals with all grievances, not just those relating to women), to the CA President Matt Taylor. When Matt went on leave around two weeks ago, the issue was passed to CA Secretary Adam Rehn, briefly to Ash Brook (General Executive Member) before being thrown (I assume) back to Adam. None of this was the result of wrongdoing; I just wanted to point out how convoluted the process has been. The issue was further complicated by the fact that the Clubs Association operates under a copy of its 1985 Constitution, which does not give the CA the ability to place a club on notice. This ability is offered by a later constitution, under which the CA is not officially operating. The CA is working on a new constitution, a draft of which is to be presented at the next council meeting.

That said, Labor Club member Andrew Anson has few critiques of the way the CA has handled the matter. ‘I’m pleased the CA acted with complete autonomy and in accordance with the expectations of the clubs council’, he said. Andrew was one of several Labor Club members not notified of the AGM.

Council hasn’t met yet since Matt’s last ambiguous report on the matter. Given that I’m not (quite) narcissistic enough to believe the delegates read this blog, this (now resolved) issue will be news to most of them come Tuesday the 2nd.

*Correction: The Labor Club has called a meeting to ratify it's original AGM, and is not holding a new one unless the original fails to be ratified. My bad*

Did I say next CA council meeting wouldn't be worth reporting on? I take that back.

The CA recieved a complaint about the Labor Club AGM a few weeks ago. At their last executive meeting, they came to a decision on the matter. Their investigation has led them to conclude that at least two members were not informed of the AGM. This is in breach of the Labor Clubs Constitution section 22.a and the CA (1985) Constitution section. As such, Labor Club has been put on notice on the condition that they rehold their AGM (this time with all members being notified) before the next council meeting (which is in approximately two and a half weeks).

Labor Club executives claim the omissions were an administrative error. That is possible, but it isn't the only strange thing about the AGM.

Posted 10th May

Clubs Council for May took place on the 5th. Enthusiasm for bureaucracy never running high, it took about twenty minutes and several phone calls to achieve the twenty member quorum. Taking notes stopped me falling asleep.

The AGM minutes (for October the previous year) were finally provided and passed by Council. Council corrected a spelling error, but otherwise had no comments on the document. It was so long ago I doubt anyone remembered what happened anyway.

The April minutes were then passed (by far some of the most comprehensive detailed minutes I’ve seen for a clubs council meeting yet- kudos to Secretary Adam Rehn).

After that, the interesting stuff. Marginally. I’m sorry, but clubs council meetings are rarely overly interesting, barring some scandal. The Presidents Report included notice of ‘a formal written complaint regarding the AGM of a club’. No difficulty guessing which. In response to my question as to whether any progress had been made on this issue since the report was written, President Matt Taylor ambiguously answered ‘there is some time left until this issue is resolved’. Hmm. Labor delegate Rhiannon Newman then asks about the CA website, and whether there was any progress on that. There isn’t. Hannah Mattner asks about the CAs planned constitutional reform (it's been a long-time coming). Apparently it’s been delegated to James Moffat, who is proofing a document which will be ready for the next meeting.

Vice President Peta Johannson then delivers a verbal report. The National Wine Centre is interested in sponsoring the Clubs Association, but has several requirements relating to branding and advertising. After some discussion, council isn’t entirely happy with the offer, and Peta is sent back to renegotiate with the NWC.

Then the Women’s Officer reports. Well, strictly speaking. ‘There’s nothing to report’, says Ursula Menz. This prompts Adam to break in saying ‘you should report what you said at executive, as council is our higher body’. Ursula can’t remember what was said at executive, and her verbal report is moved.

Next on the agenda are preparations regarding Clubsfest, which last year was held late in semester two. This year sees it moved to Re-Orientation (Week 1 Semester 2). The Thursday of the week includes a scavenger hunt, which prompts a concern regarding as what sort of items will be included (another reference to the AUES business). CA Executive Ashleigh Brook’s reply is ‘we’re not arseholes’. A motion is passed directing Peta and Ursula to organize clubs fest. More discussion then follows regarding the annual clubs dinner, which will be held this year on the 23rd of October.

‘Any Other Business’ is dealt with before the meeting is wrapped up. In the last meeting, the AUES was directed to report to council its progress in dealing with its issues every month for the next three. This report has not been included in the agenda. Poor form. Thankfully, Alex Egan, who’s been sent by the AUES to report, asks council if they wish him to report. Following an answer in the affirmative, he says there have been no new incidents, and that the article to On Dit regarding how the AUES is going about ‘changing its image’ is going ahead. The ABSS poster isn't mentioned.

And that’s all folks.

You know what? Despite my desire to keep the CA accountable, and my being there anyway as a delegate, I doubt I shall ever report on a CA council ever again. The CA contains some hard-working individuals who put in a huge amount of work planning thinks like O'Week, Clubs Cup and Clubs Fest. That said, it's just all so boring to write (and no doubt read) about...

In other affiliate news, the PGSA (Post-Grad Students Association) AGM is coming up. May 26th.

All from memory, hence dodgy

I'm reminded, I never did post saying what happened with the AUES (Adelaide University Engineering Society) in the end. The last clubs council saw the issue settled, for now.

Clubs Association (CA) Womens Officer Ursula Menz opened the issue, very vaguely. She referred to my article, which had been published in On Dit the day before. I was very annoyed that 'Tits out for the Boys' got dragged into it, as the CA was meant to conduct its own investigation. Matt Taylor (Clubs Association President) quickly cut Ursula off and said the issue before council was only the giving away of free t-shirts in O'Week to girls who changed in front of AUES members, and the poster which had been recently put up. He outlined three courses of action which he wanted Council to decide between, being namely disaffiliation, downgrading the AUES to associate affiliation, or putting the club on notice. Fourth (not doing anything about it) and fifth (passing the issue on to the higher body, namely the AUU) options were also possible, but not explicitly stated by Matt.

A long, convoluted discussion followed. Charges that CA Executive members had chanted 'tits out for the boys' at O'Week muddied the whole thing, as did persistent though refuted attempts to lessen the gravity of the behaviour of the AUES. Perhaps this was unavoidable, as asking council to only focus on the two incidents outlined by Matt was never going to work in such a charged atmosphere (the council was very well attended by AUES members).

Eventually, Kevin Chan (AUES Exec member, I'm not sure what his exact position is) takes the floor. He begins his talk by appologising for all actions done by the AUES, which he unequivocally describes as unacceptable. He says they have taken a number of steps to address the issue, including the institution of Tim Hickson into the newly created position of Grievance Officer.

Lavinia Emmett-Grey (AUU President) thanks Kevin for his appology, saying that in all her years of dealing with the AUES she has never heard anyone say sorry, and that this means something. Council decides to put the AUES on notice, and requires monthly updates on their progress in tackling the issue.

Posted 2nd May

Remember that poster which got the AUES in trouble? Well, the Adelaide Business Students Society (ABSS) have released a poster advertising their latest pubcrawl. Which plays on exactly the same gag, only, I hope, with a bit more irony.



I don't think the ABSS have pissed off anywhere near enough people to get in trouble for this. Still, the precedent has been set.

Posted April 3rd

Since the On Dit article went to print, several errors within it have been bought to my attention. As such, I will use this forum to immediately point them out.

• The AUES is not supported by the engineering faculty. According to those within the AUES, the faculty was largely unaware of the types of events they put on prior to this year, and has only recently started keeping an eye on the club.
• The email was sent out to an internal mailing list, and not to all AUES members. My source on the issue was unaware of this, as she was only told that an email had been sent out to an AUES mailing list.
• The scavenger hunt incident was far more complex than I originally thought. The girl whose bra was named on the scavenger hunt first voluntarily took her bra off. She was then sexually assaulted in the Unibar, which is what prompted the comment ‘it happened in the blink of an eye’, and got an AUES member expelled from the club. Later in the evening, the girl was then held up against a wall and an AUES member tried to forcefully remove her bra. She chose not to report the second incident.

Furthermore, since the article went to print, several things have occured.

Firstly, on the 19th of March this year, posters advertising the AUES pub crawl went up around the uni. These depicted a naked female torso, her hands over her breasts, with 'girls will be there' written below (see picture in last article). There being an AUU Board meeting that night, Paris Dean raised the issue. Mark Joyce said he found the reaction to the posters funny. AUU General Manager David Coluccio commented that he was taking the issue 'very seriously'. Board soon began discussing what the Clubs Association can realistically do to address the issues within the AUES.

Needless to say, the posters provided the opening for the AUU to begin making its displeasure known. The AUES responded quickly, ditching their previous marketing strategy in favour of a series of posters which seemed to poke fun at themselves. However, it was too little too late to appease the Clubs Association, who's executive put the AUES on notice the following week.

As printed in On Dit Issue 3, 2009 (Elle Dit). Note: This article could not have appeared in On Dit were it not for two women who gave up their allocated space to make room for it. Thanks to Hannah Mattner and Lavinia Emmett-Grey

As much I wish it were otherwise, the fact remains that few Engineering students regularly read your student magazine. And perhaps it is understandable. Engineering isn’t the easiest student culture to break into. The hours tend to be intense, and offer relatively little chance for socializing. Most engies will graduate after four years having not involved themselves in student culture beyond what is absolutely necessary. There is simply so little time.
Yet, we have not forgotten the Engies. We keep a close watch. And what we see concerns us greatly.

Engineering at Adelaide: Long hours, few women, and the AUES

Engineering is not a traditional area of study for women. This is the case at most Australian universities. Female engineering students at Adelaide University are outnumbered four to one. However, this figure averages different degrees which often have much higher or lower numbers of female students. AUES President Kristina Noicos gave me the impression that the figure was often as low as one in twenty in some courses, a figure backed up by other Engineers I have spoken to. In 2008, there were 1776 women to 7910 men in the Faculty of Engineering, Maths and Computer Science (18% female).

The Engineering faculty-supported club is the AUES (Adelaide University Engineering Society). It provides many academic services specific to Engineering students (eg. First-year Statics tutes, mock interviews, Careers Night), but the society is most famous for its annual pub crawl (‘the largest in the southern hemisphere’), and its barbecues held on campus once a term. Alcohol is at the core of these events, which are attended by both Engineering students and those from other faculties (approximately 30% of the AUES’ membership are not Engineering students). The events which prompted this article either took place at AUES events, or involved AUES members.

Originally, I was under the illusion that most Engineers joined or were in some way involved with the AUES. In the course of my interviews with rank and file engineers this misapprehension was changed. ‘I would suggest that the AUES represents true Engineering student culture as much as a beer bong represents the full depth and breadth of classical fluid mechanics’, says an anonymous Engineering student. The same student explained to me that ‘the basic engineering social unit is the Study Collective. These are groups of 8-15 people who study, party and attend lectures together, living in each others pockets. These groups will form in first year, and will remain essentially unchanged throughout the degree program for most students…The gang of engineers you see in the Unibar, or roaming the town, will usually be one of these groups trying to find some sort of break in the tyrannical workload’. AUES barbecues tend to be run during class-time, meaning many of the more studious engineers simply do not attend, free food and booze notwithstanding. Nonetheless, the AUES is huge. At the end of O’Week 2009 it had 700 members, making it one of the largest clubs on campus.

That gets the background out of the way.

The School of Engineering has received its fair share of complaints regarding harassment, especially that targeted by male engineering students towards their female colleagues, in recent months. These are some of the grievances.

The Megaphone

By far the most visible harassment perpetuated by engineering students involves their use of the megaphone, which is used at many AUES events to promote participation. The use of the megaphone is frequently abused. Typically, this involves an engie chanting into the megaphone for a passing female to ‘get your tits out for the boys’, or making disparaging comments on her appearance. Admittedly, it is only a small number of engineers who engage in this type of harassment. However, it is so public and persistent that its continued existence cannot be written off as the handiwork of a few bad eggs, but must be blamed on a student culture which finds such harassment acceptable. There is little response a girl can make to an engie with a megaphone, making these acts especially cowardly. Sarah Anderson, a student of the University who has witnessed the taunt, says that ‘using a megaphone to ask girls to ‘get their tits out for the boys’ constitutes a breach of the university’s Fair Treatment Policy which condemns sexual harassment. Such behaviours isolate and degrade female students and establish an environment in which women, particularly women in the engineering department, are isolated and thus are disempowered’. AUES Women’s Officer Peta Johannson took a stand when this occurred on the Monday of O’Week this year. ‘I actually spoke to the student who was doing it on Monday, because we had complaints, and I thought as the women’s officer it was my role. I’ve done the sexual harassment course, and I realize that that cannot go on. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, it was fine.’ It is worth noting that the Engineering megaphone was stolen early in this years O’Week.

The Email

In August of 2008, a female student at the University confronted some Engineering students about their behaviour. In response to this, an email was sent to an AUES mailing list, making disparaging reference about the female student’s appearance and sexuality. This action, at best a misuse of the mailing list and vile singling out of a student for speaking out, was only minimally punished. The student who had sent out the email was forced to write an apology.

The Scavenger Hunt

The AUES conducted a quiz night in October 2008 at the Unibar. One of the activities on this night was a scavenger hunt. One of the items on the list to be collected was the bra of a female student, who was named on the list. This list was widely distributed among those at the Unibar. This item of underwear was forcibly removed from the female student in question while she was wearing it. When I asked AUES President Kristina Noicos why no-one had stepped in to prevent it happening, she said ‘It was like, the blink of an eye. They were talking and then he just did it’. Kristina then went on to describe her shock at the incident. The student who committed the assault has since been expelled from the AUES.

The T-Shirts

All through 2009’s O’Week, the AUES sold T-Shirts to their annual pub crawl. On the Monday, some members of the society told some female students (drunk first-years from all accounts) that they could have free T-Shirts provided that they changed in front of them. Taken in conjunction with the other, more extreme, incidents, it is concerning. Undoubtedly, it puts the society in a very bad light, prompting Kristina Noicos to tell the students in question to stop on the Monday. They were threatened with removal from the lawns should their behaviour persist. There were no more reported incidents of this after that.

Why This Can Occur: The Culture

A female engineering student who is heavily involved within the AUES described it as ‘a real cultural problem. You have to be tough to survive. If you’re not, you probably don’t belong there…It’s not just within the society. This attitude is evident throughout all of engineering. It does, however, become more pronounced at AUES events where alcohol is involved’.

Other students I spoke to were very disparaging towards the AUES. One student wanted to make it clear that ‘what you see is not true engineering culture. it is merely a pimple of engineering counter-culture, comprised of the academic scum of the programme, and any response to these unacceptable acts sexual harassment must be directed at the AUES alone, not at engineers in general…most of us… understand what is and isn't appropriate behaviour for the 21st century’.

The student who was ridiculed in the email was similarly critical of the culture in the AUES. She described it as bullying, and said that it had always been thus. ‘They go through periods where they watch themselves, and then as soon as whatever got them in trouble blows over they go back to being the way they were’.

Peta Johannson is more optimistic. ‘I think slowly the culture is breaking. Now and again those boys club elements show up, which is, of course, when you get all the guys and they’re together with their megaphones’.

AUU President Lavinia Emmett-Grey described an anecdote to me that seems to sum up the culture: ‘Once when I confronted an engineering student about his [calling a girl a slut], his response was ‘I probably shouldn’t have said it, but it is still true’…All this is founded in the idea that you cannot have fun without giving people a hard time. It is often women who are victimised in this manner.’

In response to some of the incidents described in this article, Lavinia Emmett-Grey wrote a paper on the problems within Engineering at Adelaide University. This confidential report was sent to the Vice Chancellor, the Chair of the Gender, Equity and Diversity Committee, Birgit Lohmann, and the General Manager of Student Services, Judy Szekeres.

The Faculty Response

The Faculty of Engineering, Maths and Computer Science has been for more than a decade trying to increase the number of girls entering undergraduate Engineering programs. Last year, a ‘Women in Technology Challenge’ was held, which invited female students from years 10-12 to come to the University and try several practical Engineering projects, as well as receiving information about the Engineering degrees offered at the University of Adelaide. In the long-term, such strategies may do much to tone down the overt harassment that many female students receive. However, such courses of action have been pursued for years with little significant impact on the bullying and boys club mentality that pervades Engineering. As one male engineering student put it, ‘despite many efforts to increase the percentage of women in engineering throughout the last few decades, the proportions have barely changed, and the university ratios remain reflective of those in industry’. For girls who have been victimized, such long-term, measured responses add insult to injury, with many calling for a more proactive approach that directly addresses the problem to be taken.

The most damning thing regarding the university’s treatment of the situation however has been the breach of confidentiality that occurred when Ms Emmett-Grey’s confidential report was leaked first to the Dean of Engineering, which the Dean then read out at least some parts of to the committee of the AUES. ‘The response to the confidential paper fulfilled the worst fears of any victim of sexual assault about reporting, says Ms Emmett-Grey. ‘The first thing with such cases is to respect the confidentiality of the victim, and the second is not to take further action without their consent. I consulted with those on whose behalf I wrote the paper every step of the way. The Dean of Engineering’s actions violated both these rules.’ According to Ms Emmett-Grey, when she queried the General Manager of Student Services, Judy Szekeres, about the Dean’s action, Dr Szekeres did not seem to acknowledge a problem with the breach of confidentiality.

The AUES Response

Peta Johannson, the AUES’ women’s officer, when asked about the scavenger hunt incident, agreed with my assessment of it being ‘shocking. She also pointed out that ‘that’s just what some guys are like when they’re drunk,’ suggesting that while it was unfortunate there was relatively little the AUES can do but respond after the event. However, the question must be raised why the AUES allowed the Scavenger’s Hunt list to be distributed to every table with the item of clothing listed. The female student made a complaint, which Peta says was the right thing to do. ‘I know it’s been a bit of a bitch, it’s screwed us up for the year…but because it’s gotten the Dean [of Engineering] involved. Suddenly he’s become interested in the society and aware of what we’re doing, it’s toned down some things. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because we’ve started thinking of ways we can get rid of these kinds of issues within the club’. As stated before, the student involved in the complaint was kicked out of the society.

Ms Emmett-Grey thinks the problem lies not with the club, but with the School. ‘It is unfair to demand a standard of behaviour of the AUES when the Dean and General Manager of Student Services are not modelling appropriate behaviour’.

In her report, Ms Emmett-Grey called for widespread sexual harassment training as a way to educate the Engineering community as to what is and isn’t acceptable: ‘The University has recently placed an online Occupational Health and Safety Training module on My Uni. Why not do the same for harassment? Harassment requires empathy to identify it. Some engineers have a problem with this. I recommended that there be an educational approach to explain what is appropriate and what isn’t. Perhaps this is required for the staff as well as the students.’ This approach is also preferred by the AUES’ Treasurer Yasmin Freschi.

One male student I spoke to was much less willing to give the perpetrators the benefit of the doubt. ‘I don't buy all that 'sexual harassment training'. Most males don't need to be educated to know it’s disgusting behaviour. In many cases, those who do it just don't care’.