The Sinister Side of Paper Aeroplanes

When I went to the UGM the first couple of times, my opinion on paper throwing was that it was on the whole a good thing. It added atmosphere, and like the questions from the floor, it seemed as though there was a mixture of people who cared about the issues trying to make a serious point with it and people who just saw the whole thing as good entertainment (questions have included, for example, a request to give a report on what's going on in Neighbours during questions to the General Secretary after his weekly report, and asking each candidate to tell a joke when the chair was being elected at the beginning of the first meeting). I'm now no longer so convinced that any of the paper-throwers are interested in the actual business of the meeting- and it's very one-sided as well, because they all seem to have pretty much the same views, and the same people are unpopular with them, so that only some people get bombarded- but that was my impression at the time. I think that if the UGM can combine important decisions with having a laugh, then that's absolutely wonderfull. So I enjoy the time wasting questions (so long as they are funny)- but that doesn't mean I don't want fewer of them. Because in an ideal world, the meeting would be two hours long, and there would be time to get through everything on the agenda whilst making jokes at every turn- but in reality, we just have the one hour and even without irrelevant questions we wouldn't get through everything. And it's all important.

In a similar way, in an ideal world paper-throwing could be a part of the proceedings- but in reality there are problems with it. I hadn't realise that it is, or potentially could be, preventing disabled students from participating (I imagine because wheelchair users wouldn't have the manoevrability to dodge the missiles- the able-bodies speakers don't just move their upper bodies but often actually have to step out of the way- and blind students wouldn't be able to see them coming which would be pretty scary I should think). For this reason, the Union executive (the officers elected each year from the student body) have decided to ban it. And that's reason enough. But for me, that's not even the most serious negative aspect. I also hadn't realised that the people throwing paper don't clear it up afterwards. Let me clarify a little here. In spite of the title of my post 'Politics and Paper Aeroplanes', it's not really paper aeroplanes. That was just poetic license. (well, there were one or two the first time). It's actually quite bulky projectiles- the paper-throwers scrunch up some paper and wrap it in another sheet, twisting it up to keep the first lot in and producing something somewhere between an onion with all its leaves and a bomb in shape. And the volume is staggering. They bring in enormous stacks of free student newspapers- London Student as well as LSE's Beaver, I think- and keep up a thick stream of fire throughout any speech that's unpopular with them occasionally throwing down virgin sheets when they run out of the stocks they've been preparing during the bits of the meeting they don't have a problem with. Yesterday, the whole of the stage at the front of the lecture theatre was ten or twenty cm deep in newspaper balls. I'm not exaggerating. And that's just the stuff that landed on target. There was another ten cm drift in the centre of each of the first few rows. So we're not talking one or two stray scraps of paper. We're talking something like eight binbags of material. I was just absolutely shocked when I heard that the people causing all this mess don't stay around to tidy it up. I suppose they think that's the cleaners' job- which I'm pretty sure it isn't as they have enough to get through as it is, and in any case wouldn't be cleaning the theatre before the next lecture- but in practice, it's the students with more of a conscience (most of whom are actually against paper-throwing) who stay behind and deal with it. I'm completely staggered by such irresponsibility and such an immature attitude by students at any university let alone somewhere like LSE, which, let's face it, teaches pretty well exclusively subjects that are about power and taking control of the world (such as politics, law, and economics) and could be said to be in the business of turning out future leaders.

Of course, that doesn't even touch on the environmental aspect. I also think wasting paper on such a grand scale is, given the reality of climate change, extraordinarily reckless, but I don't believe that would weigh much with those concerned*. It could be argued that, given the lateness in the week of the UGM, if the newspapers weren't used for paper throwing they'd just go to waste. But maybe if they weren't scooped up in such numbers every Thursday the editors wouldn't produce so large a print run (though I'm not quite sure about the logistics and details of the printing process so maybe I'm wrong about that). In any case, it would be a lot simpler, and a lot more economical in terms of space to simply recycle them as intact newspapers than as bulky balls- and it's lucky if they are recycled after being thrown as the throwers obviously aren't going to see to it so it depends on the students clearing it up- and on whether they have time to take it all to the recycling bins (though admittedly a lot of them are doing it precisely to make sure it is recycled).

So, though I can still see the positive points, I am now against paper-throwing. As I said, it's now been banned. But of course, it's not going to be that simple, due to the kind of people involved. At yesterday's meeting, the proceedings started with two minutes silence for the Honorary Vice President of the Union**, a Burmese activist who was imprisoned and tortured for forming a students' union, and who died in prison on Monday, and with the sombre mood I hoped that maybe people would feel less like throwing paper and the ban would thus gain some weight by its observation to a large extent this week. But then there were speeches by candidates standing in the Michaelmas elections before the ban could be announced. The General Secretary then said that it would come into effect at the end of the reports by the executives***, to give the throwers a last chance to get it out of their system, so of course there was a complete deluge while they were on stage. Which would have been fine if they'd stopped when that was over, but they didn't. As well as trying to fight the ban (which of course they have every right to attempt even if I didn't want them to succeed), they continued throwing paper, which is not on. They tried to bring a motion of no confidence in the executive, but a motion of no confidence needs a two thirds majority which they fortunately didn't get. Then they tried to bring a motion of no confidence in the chair (for not doing a recount, even though the vote was something like 90-60 so it wasn't all that close), but they didn't get it in before the meeting was adjourned because one of them, having been warned twice, had now been asked to leave in accordance with the protocol set out in the ban and was refusing to go. CMCC had predicted the day before, when he was telling me about the ban, that this would happen and they would have to stop the meeting, and he was right, though at least it was quite near the end by that point (only because the speeches by candidates and the executive reports had taken so long that the ban wasn't in operation for most of the meeting). He'd also told me that he'd spoken to a guy who is in some ways the leader of the paper throwers and has a lot of influence with them, and that that guy had said he'd try to get them to respect the ban, though he didn't know how successfull he'd be. Guess which guy that was. Yes, that's right, it was the one that stopped the meeting by refusing to leave after being given two warnings for paper throwing. Well, CMCC did say he wasn't that sure he believed him.

*Yesterday, the Environment and Ethics officer (CMCC) shouted out to them at the end when everyone was leaving- the meeting having been stopped due to their activities- 'Aren't you going to at least tidy it up?' and one of them called back 'Saving the planet is your job, that's what we elected you for' or words to that effect which I think demonstrates their attitude pretty effectively

**The Honorary President and Vice President of the Union have no actual duties or responsbilities and I'm not sure they even know that they have been chosen- past candidates have included Nelson, and this year Jed Bartlett from the West Wing, neither of whom has been informed I would imagine...- but are elected each year to provide a kind of symbolic function. They can be real and alive though- the other candidate this year is 'Richard the cleaner' who was sacked from his position at LSE after more than twenty years' service not because of incompetence or not turning up to work or any reason like that but because he spoke up for cleaners whose English was not so good when they were being badly treated. This was possible because LSE uses contractors for cleaning. The contractors couldn't sack him without a reason, but LSE could say they didn't want him any more and that permitted the contractors to get rid of him- a terrible case of collusion. He can't sue the contractors or LSE which is terrible. So the people proposing him as President hope this will send out a message to LSE about how students feel about it.

**Who were all fasting, having taken up the Islamic Society's challenge "Can YOU last a muslim fast?", and had dressed in Islamic dress, to raise money for orphans. The challenge was open to any non-muslims, and I actually did it as well, though I didn't realise till the end of the day when I was looking at the posters again that you were actually supposed to sign up for it (which would presumably enable you to raise money through it) so I'm not sure it was a particularly usefull gesture; I was doing it largely because I wanted to show solidarity with muslims, since it seems to me that the view of muslims in the media has changed over the past six years or maybe even less than that (I'm not quite sure if it dates from 11th September or only from 7th July) from being just another ethnic group (or rather several) who like any other are happily becoming gradually more accepted and integrated as the majority population becomes gradually less racist, and more used to having them around (maybe that's too optimistic but that's how it seemed to me), to being a group viewed as at worst producers of terrorists and at best as whingers who aren't happy with living here. I wanted to try and say 'To me, muslims are just normal people like the rest of us'. But it probably would have been more effective if I'd actually mentioned to anyone I was doing it... I'm also not sure I finished it properly- I seemed to remember a muslim saying it would last till 5.30, and the event to finish it off, with free food, was at 5.30, though I wasn't sure whether the food was at that point or if the fast finished later and the food therefore was also later- I couldn't go to the event because People and Planet had their meeting at 6. So I broke my fast at 5.30, with water and chocolate, but it was still light so I'm not convinced that was correct...