Students’ Union Votes to Keep Craig Cox

The Students’ Union Council has voted down the motion of no confidence levelled at Craig Cox, who will now remain in his job as Education Officer on the SU Exec. At an Extraordinary Meeting of Council, which lasted over two hours, a majority of over 60% voted in favour of Cox remaining in his job.

Cox welcomed the result, and said: “I now intend to get on with the job that I was elected to do, and to represent each and every student at the University to the best of my ability.”

Bayo Randle, President of the Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Committee (BME), raised questions about the democracy of the event, and said: “I felt the chair lacked impartiality. I myself was not allowed to speak even though I put my hand up to speak at the same time as everyone else.” While there were around fifty protesters outside Council, no non-Council members were allowed inside the chamber.

The motion of no confidence follows allegations that Craig Cox held up a sign bearing the message ‘Bring Back Slavery’ at an NUS training course in August. While Cox does not deny these allegations, he claims that his actions were unintentional. An internal investigation by the NUS did not comment directly on this point, although it acknowledged that Cox did not write the sign himself.

The BME will continue to oppose the decision. Bayo Randle said, “If the students want Craig Cox gone, then we’re going to fight to remove him – regardless of whether he actually gets removed, the principle still remains.” There is still the possibility that a referendum could be called, were around 6,000 signatures in favour to be collected. While the BME have over 2,000 signed letters in favour of Cox being removed, there are concerns that these may be invalidated by a lack of printed names and student ID numbers on some of the letters, and multiple letters being signed by the same individuals.

The move was divisive within the SU Exec – especially since the President, Nsikan Edung, was the person to propose the motion. Edung said, “As I proposed the motion and it fell, obviously I am very disappointed with the outcome.” He said he had “no regrets” about his decision, and that he felt there “was a very strong case for Craig’s removal”; however, he added that “things will have to move forward and we shall see how the rest of the year pans out.”

Though Cox won the motion of no confidence, Council did vote in favour of a motion of censure against him.

James Sanderson

23 Comments on this post.
  • Katherine
    15 October 2008 at 21:03
    Leave a Reply

    Typical of this university.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    18 October 2008 at 18:20
    Leave a Reply

    Does the Student Executive not feel that the Student Body has the right to know what their decision to vote, either in favour of or against Mr. Cox, was based on? We are simply given a generic statement with a general conclusion. I feel that, not only are the Student Body’s requests being ignored, we are not told why our requests are rejected.

    From what I have read it appears that only ethnic minority members voted against Mr. Cox (although I may be wrong). Another quite significant point is that the President of the Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Committee (BME) was not given the opportunity to speak. This is quite interesting as surely he would have one of the most detailed accounts of the level of offence black students felt from Mr. Cox’s actions; although, the signatures from students opposing Mr. Cox remaining Education Officer have come from students of all races. I am aware of this because whilst signing up myself I saw males and females from all ethnic groups sign up as well.

    I am further humoured by the fact that Mr. Cox can continue to claim the incident to be either a joke or a mistake; despite the President of the SU being at the meeting with him and actually being the one to propose the Vote of No Confidence. I find quite ridiculous the fact that TWO THOUSAND signatures are not enough to remove ONE individual from office. How important is a student, in comparison to a member of the Exec, if it takes SIX THOUSAND to remove ONE. Let me not forget that due to the fact that I wrote my name in my own personalised handwriting and did not ‘print’ it, my opinion is in valid; as my student ID number may not have been on the said letter, my opinion is invalid and because I may have signed a petition (rather than typing an original letter), my opinion is once more invalid.

    It appears that to have an opinion within The University of Nottingham’s Student Union one must ‘validate’ is several times by jumping through loopholes. The fact that the general message remains that at least 2,000 students want Mr. Cox removed from office is quite ignored!

    Did we really expect better? I think on this occasion we did, but it seems once again that racism against blacks is never taken as seriously as racism against other ethnic minorities for example, the Jewish. If the sign had contained an anti-Semitic statement (for example, not that it would have been relevant,) I’m sure more would have been done.
    I hope you will put up and/or print my comment. I never meant for it to be so long but I found I had more to say that I thought I did and at least this way we students have one outlet that we know GUARANTEES to voice our opinions.

    Vanessa Brown.

  • Jessica
    19 October 2008 at 00:04
    Leave a Reply

    I don’t think it necessarily helps matters by claiming that racism against black people is taken less seriously than against Jews. Let’s not try and pit different ethnic minorities against each other. We all need to work together, majorities and minorities, to get Cox out.

  • John Amble
    19 October 2008 at 14:57
    Leave a Reply

    Vanessa, i agree with Jessica, making statements like that is not conducive to a resolution of this matter. I was over the moon to hear that Craig Cox was going to stay. Putting aside the NUS findings and the fact that he has a very important sabbatical position (which couldn’t be filled easily)- the whole episode is trivial. It is my understanding that Craig categorically denies any intent to cause offense.

    The other thing you should take into account is the nature of the Survey- those 2000 signatures are by no means divisive. The 2000 signatures make up about 6% of the student population whereas 6000 would be a fairer representation of the student population (18%).

    To take unreasonable offense over an act which was clearly non-deliberate is senseless, this is just another example of the student liberal population wanting to cause a scene as EVERYTHING is just soooooo unjust.

    To say that anti-semitism would be taken more seriously is appalling, what you say is completely unfounded. Furthermore, do you think it is a coincidence that the SU Pres is black and that he proposed the motion. Not forgetting that he is also a member of the BME and finds the fact that we aren’t being served bacon in the mornings offensive. He was also partially obliged to propose the motion under SU non-discriminatory practice. Considering this, it can’t be unreasonable to suggest that he could blow the incident out of proportion.

    Craig Cox is here to stay, get over it, and get on with your lives- whoever sent the death threat to Cox is the person who should be expelled from this institution.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    20 October 2008 at 18:08
    Leave a Reply

    I think you are taking my comment in a way other then I intended. I think its a good thing that people stand up against anti-semitism, its a GREAT thing in fact! And I’m not in any way trying to put ethnic minorites against each other, I would’nt dream of doing so. My point is quite the opposite, in that people react differently to racism towards different ethinc minority groups, even though ALL racism should be treated as appalling. At the end of the day I’m entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours. And that is what I believe. Whether you think it is ‘unfounded’ or not I have seen it happen on many occasions and I did not specify within the University, I meant generally in our society. Whether you agree ot not that is what I have seen and feel. And as I said anti-semitism was an example!! Chosen purely because it is the most well known.

    John you are evidently a Mr. Cox ‘fan’ and that is your right to have made that choice. But whether or not Mr. Cox meant harm, harm was still done as far as I am concerned. In addition, one minutes he denies wrongdoing, then he apologises for a joke/mistake, is that honest admittance?

    You state statistics to try and prove your point. But what you miss is the fact that even if only 6% want Mr. Cox removed as the student body I feel their requests should be taken seriously. In percentage format 2,000 signatures may seem quite small but thats 2,000 opinions brushed under the carpet because there not quite big enough! As I said 6,000 for ONE person – how imporant are we in comparison?

    Mr. Cox may be very good at his job, that as far as I am concerned is only one relevant factor, there are many more. One that strikes me is why Mr. Cox has not relaseed a statement explaining EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, i.e. WHO wrote the sign and WHY he chose to hold it up? I think the answers to those questions are very important. I was not at this meeting and would be happy to withdraw my feelings of complaint if given satisfactory answers to these questions that showed either innocence or plain ignorance but not harmful intent. But, Mr. Cox has not done this.

    I am extremely humoured by the fact that you think it is a ‘coincidence’ that as the SU President is black he set in motion the Vote of No Confidence. Perhaps as a black individual who saw Mr. Cox’s actions firsthand he was offended?! Is that hard to comprehend? Not for me, especially considering Mr. Cox’s unapologetic press statement (which I am aware he has since apologised for) and the fact that he was removed from the NUS event because others were also offended.

    In addition, that you feel that you have enough evidence to suggest the SU president would ‘blow the incident of out proportion’, is quite a suggestion to make. And the fact he is offended that no bacon is served…. How is that in any way relevant!

    I would also like to comment that I (and I think others would agree) as a black/mixed-race person myself, I have no problem with Mr. Cox as an individual. I do not wish him any harm and the individual that sent hima death threat should be expelled. Nonetheless Mr. Cox made a grave mistake and must at least take full and honest responsilbity and leave with honour by resigning if he wants to be forgiven for his behaviour. Or else there are many that are willing to campaign until he is removed or at least continue to show their dissatifcation to the SU and the University. Personally, I really would like to know EXACLTY what happened that gives Mr. Cox the ability to claim the sign was a mistake/joke.

    Vanessa Brown.

  • AD
    22 October 2008 at 01:30
    Leave a Reply

    I think the major problem is the fact that our Student Exec is failing to give us a detailed account of what happened. Any information that is released is either brief, unclear or biased. I think its about time that the University clarified the events. I heard the news during the summer from a London paper. Obviously I wholeheartedly condemn racism. I found out what happened at the meeting from a friend and up until then, I supported the removal of Craig Cox. My opinion however has changed and it appears to me that Craig Cox has been humiliated enough and I’m sure if he could turn back time he would. I don’t believe a member of our SU Exec would knowingly support slavery, not in our University’s name anyway.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    22 October 2008 at 14:08
    Leave a Reply

    AD: I am in full agreement with you.

    If things were clarified and, as I said, showed genuine innocence or stupidity but not harmful intent then I would be happy to withdraw my statements. I think the fact that this hasn’t been done coupled with the seriousness of the issue is what has lead to the issue escalating. No decent explanation has been offered as yet, only that it was a joke/mistake!

    However, the fact the Pres of the SU who was at the event and saw 1st hand what happened and also is black proposed the motion of no confidence does indicate the severity of the event. I also assume that to propose such a motion one must have someone who seconded or perhaps thirded (is that a word?! lol) the motion. And in all honesty 60/40 is quite a close call. Considering the fact that these people are collegues of Mr. Cox and work quite closely with him that are/were probably friends but 40% still felt that he should leave.

    I would love it if Mr. Cox would write something on here or hold a Q & A meeting or something. Then we could finally get the answers we require and perhaps THEN we could let it go.


  • Rob
    22 October 2008 at 20:58
    Leave a Reply

    Are you all anti-intellectual hacks?
    This is not a race issue, the racial element was entirely created by peoples conception of race. Slavery is a universal concept, it has been around for thousands of years, it has existed in all cultures around the globe and with different justifications for the enslavement or other people, sometimes on gender lines, class, race, different tribe, beleifs or simply those weaker. Slavery has not, sadly been defeated as sex traffiking exists even here in the UK, that is the most prevailent form of slavery in the world today. Therefore ‘Slavery’ is not a race loaded word, well unless you want it to.

    Craig accidently raised a sign that he didn’t write, a sign he himself found disgusting and never even entertained the thought of raising it. Therefore there was no intent to offend, and it certainly did not target black or minority students. It was some members of the BME, (one in particular who i will not name) that handed out leaflets at freshers fair slurring Craig as a racist, and claiming he was targeting black students. It is a simple case of racialling stereotyping crraig as he is, if you don’t already know or happen to guess, white and British. We all know of the shameful history and exploitation Britian imposed on the world by enegaing in the slave trade. However because Craig is white and british, people assumed that even while slavery was not just a white enslaving black issue, thats is what he meant. Those people who claimed to know what he meant were engaging in horrible ideas of inherited guilt, that because he shares the same ‘race’ and nationality as the biggest slave traders, he must share their sentiments.
    Which of course he doesn’t and didn’t when that unfortunate incident happened. I can’t stress enough that whatever your view on his conduct around the event, and wether you wnat/wanted him out of office, this is not a race issue. If you think it is, then you are gravely wrong and certainly not part of the enlightenment or the effort to move to a post-race society.

  • Phil
    22 October 2008 at 22:30
    Leave a Reply

    Thank goodness SU Council have managed to make the right decision for once! One would have hoped that removing competent people from office after they made an ill-judged joke was something that had gone out with Stalin.

    As for the two thousand signatures – without student ID numbers there is absolutely no way to prove that these are real people’s opinions – and said opinions are basically worthless anyway. I stopped by the petition stand in Portland and was (to put it kindly) misinformed about the nature of the case by the students manning the stall. After then going away and finding out the true nature of the events, I can say that the picture presented to me by those manning the stalls was wildly inaccurate and completely blew the whole thing out of proportion – I was told that Criag Cox genuinely wanted all black people re-enslaved and/or deported. Anyone would sign a petition when told things like that. So as far as I am concerned the two thousand signatures were obtained dishonestly and are of no relevance whatsoever – except to illustrate the completely ridiculous lengths to which the anti-Cox campaign were willing to go to give vent to their so-called offence.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    25 October 2008 at 00:53
    Leave a Reply

    Thank you for your comments Phil and Rob its interesting to hear others opinions especially as you both seem to know what actually happened! As is evident by the fact that Rob states Mr. Cox’s feelings on the incident and Rob says he went and found out about the ‘true nature of the events’. Im glad someone is telling YOU what ACTUALLY happened. Would you like to share the details?!! As it seemes that a lot of us are being missed out and therefore we form our opinions based on what we are told….

    As a result, I still do not understand how Mr.Cox ACCIDENTLY raised the sign! :s

    Nonetheless it seems we may never get a true account. The NUS investigated and sanctioned Mr. Cox to the highest of their ability yet others claim we are being told lies about what happened…. Members of the SU that were present at the event propose a motion on no confidence and yet we are told he just made an ill-judged remark/joke….. It’s all quite contradictory and hopeless.

    But One final thing: it became a race issue (I believe) as one of the topics the conference was dealing with was claims that the increased migration of ethnic minorities to certain areas/universities was being blamed for/correlated with crime rises in those areas/universities. (Don’t quote me on that but I’m SURE thats what the papers said was the issue being dealt with). That’s way race became a factor.


  • Rob
    25 October 2008 at 15:34
    Leave a Reply

    Well, i was at the SU council meeting, and read several letters sent to the NUS by two people sitting by Craig that explained the situation, that he didn’t raise the sign intentionally. I also saw at SU council the NUS letter that gave concessions to Craig that he didn’t write the sign or intend to hold it up, although the NUS still punished him for other reasons. Also the papers mixed up the chronology of the events, the issue of knife crime at university was according to craig 20 minutes afterwards. The press, so eager to label racist on someone, wrote pieces implying that the sign was in response. The BME leaflet at freshers fair also stated the the sign was ‘presumably’ refering to that statement. There has been alot of mixing up events to create this as a race issue.
    So in response i know what i am on about because i have had access to source material concerning the events, i understand not every student has had the same access i had, hey i was under the impression to that he held it up as a joke, until i got access to the evidence. Oh it was an accident because his friend wrote the sign and urged craig to raise it up, craig refused and explaned it was going too far and was distasteful. So then he put it on the floor, and later he reached down for another sign and accidently picked up the sign, it was in the air for 2/3 seconds before he realised it was the slavery one and immediately put it down, feeling regret. It is up to you what you believe, but it is an issue where the truth is that. The only issue up for debate is wether you think the media statements craig made are enough to remove him from office. That is the only thing up for credible debate.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    25 October 2008 at 17:45
    Leave a Reply

    Wow! Finally! What actually happened! I see so that’s how he ACCIDENTLY raised the sign. See that actually makes sense…..and the sign was not even held up a the same times as the crime debate. Hmmmm….very interesting.

    See now the problem appears to be a lack of communication. I can now see that Mr. Cox is evidently NOT a racist individual but I think he has dealt with the situation very poorly. Why did he not explain himself properly to the media and/or issue an statement to the student body? Personally I now take back my comments that he meant to offend black students (I can now see that he did not mean to do so) but why has he not spoken up publicly but only in the privacy of Student Exec meetings.

    Ironically the fact that he did not really speak up for himself caused his friends/supporters to create more problems whislt trying to defend his actions. They have labelled his actions as a joke, mistake (with no explanation) or his right to freedom of speech. These explanations serve only to incese studens further. For a summary of such an argument see the new features article:

    The writer claims that Mr. Cox’s actions were just an example of ‘traditional english satire’ and that ‘the executioners’ are trying to get rid of his/our right to ‘freedom of speech’. I’m sorry what a load of s***!!! Its people like that that have actually hindered NOT helped Mr. Cox’s defence.

    Another question I now have is that are the campaigners and namely the Pres/BME Pres aware of these circumstances? Do they know that he had not intention of causing offence. Or are they now campaigning for his removal based on the after-effect of his actions, i.e that some students (of not just ethnic minorities) fel that Mr. Cox has made himself ‘unapproachable’ and has ‘strained community relations’ (see the article above).

    Personally I think that Mr. Cox’s ‘friend’ that did write the sign and then urged him to hold it up (what kind of friends does he have?!) that should be sanctioned as it seems that this may all be a result of his actions.

    However, although Mr. Cox (if what you say is the truth,) appears to be innocent, he handled the situation VERY badly. Understandably it was/is a very difficult situation to find oneself in but he should simply have explained things clearly to the papers instead of getting angry and should have made more of an effort to be present in his defence to students.


  • Rob
    27 October 2008 at 20:01
    Leave a Reply

    Indeed, it was a catalogue of really bad mistakes. Even now the information hasn’t been dispersed into the student psyche, as now i suppose most students feel that ‘justice’ wasn’t done at SU council by removing Craig, because they don’t know the full story. Although people are still justified in wanting him removed, but only on incompetance grounds, but that was dismissed by the vote at SU council.
    Bayo Randell (Black and Minorities officer) was at SU council, so i assume he heard and accepted the evidence, but still wanted craig out, for other reasons.

  • Luke Place
    28 October 2008 at 11:10
    Leave a Reply

    I find it hugely ironic that as part of a defence which frequently cites Craig Cox as being the victim of personal attacks, those supporting him are choosing to single out Bayo Randle as some sort of crazed vigilante.

    In actual fact, as President of the BME he is duty bound to represent thousands of students and takes this responsibility very seriously. This isn’t about his personal opinions, this is about carrying out the manifesto upon which he was elected, which like the manifestos of most members of the SU council, promises he will represent the views of all students rather than merely his own.

    Rob, given that you’re so interested in a correct representation of the facts, why have you allowed inaccuracies within this article and it’s subsequent comments to continue unopposed? Perhaps because you’re more interested in supporting Craig Cox than dispersing knowledge into the student psyche.

    Given that a manifesto can be called when 5% of the 33,000 or so students support it, that would mean that less than 1700 signatures are required, rather than the 6000 quoted above. Surely you think it’s important that anyone who feels like their views have been ignored at council knows they have a viable alternative? Perhaps not.

    Surely the belief stated in the second comment that only ethnic minority students voted against Cox ought to be immediately dispelled? It’s people in the know like you Rob who can explain that there are a small number of ethnic minority students at council and that as such, even if they were among the 19 votes in favour of the vote of no confidence they would still be a minority within that 19?

    Rob, I find it strange that you’ve allowed the view that our SU President blew the thing out of all proportion to go unopposed. Surely a man in the know like yourself heard and accepted his evidence? You wouldn’t disregard it without giving us an insight first surely?

  • Emily
    28 October 2008 at 11:42
    Leave a Reply

    I would like to further the comments of Luke, above.
    Rob, you claim that you are informing the students of this situation. However, you are also only reporting one side of this story. It is very important to state that this issue would have been largely buried, by Craig Cox and the SU were it not for individuals like Bayo Randle, members of the BME and the other students who realise the importance of having an open Student Union and one that correctly represents us.

    You, as one of the people handing out leaflets on behalf of Craig Cox, only did so once it was clear that students knew about the incident and wanted an explanation. And even then, this explanation was not forthcoming, as Vanessa’s orginal statements show. Instead, many of the comments made in defence of cox, and in his leaflet, attacked what is a justified concern and subsequent alliance of students.

    Some students have even been told that they might face legal action if they dare to show an interest in this issues, be offended by the issue or take action which is their right as a student at this university. This is not a conducive approach and environment within which to be a student, especially one that is actually concerned with how they are being represented.

    The campaign which you describe Rob, has very readily been scap-goated simply for bringing an important issue to the students attention. Furthermore, do you really believe that 2,400 signed letters represent an easily led and coerced student body? An intelligent student body at one of the top universities in the UK? I think that is highly patronising to the students at this university, and a claim which risks Craig Cox being percieved as a representative who has not only offended and kept those he represents in the dark but also one who is out of touch with how we, his constituents feel.

  • Luke Place
    28 October 2008 at 12:34
    Leave a Reply

    In the UK 99% of discussion of slavery is about the transatlantic slave trade, especially when talking about bringing slavery back. To suggest otherwise is preposterous and massively weakens your argument Rob.

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    29 October 2008 at 03:35
    Leave a Reply

    Luke and Emily your comments are excellent!

    It seems No-One is giving us a true and accurate picture. Admittedly I myself failed to point out that, as you said, it is the BME President’s DUTY to forward on complaints from those he represents rather than it being simply his own personal opinion; i think sometimes we forget that officers REPRESENT STUDENTS because it is made to seem that they are acting of their own accord.

    Personally……I now believe that Mr. Cox is not racist but just a complete and utter fool! Accidently holding up a racist sign and then being completely arrogant about his error to the papers, later apologising for this and then hiding in the shadows! At least the politicians we all dislike face the music when they F-Up!

    HOWEVER, i recently spoke to a friend at The School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London and he said there the campaigns as SOAS have been manic. There have been MASSIVE groups of campaigners who REFUSED to let the President of the NUS Head Office speak at an event in their school as they feel he has not handled the incident correctly and are calling for his resignation.
    In addition I have heard that Mr. Cox apparently KNOWS the President from King’s College, London (KCL) who was reported as having said black people are ‘undesirable’ (although he DENIES saying this and says that he said ‘those that increase rates of knife crime’ are the ones who are undesirable. ‘ Apparently- and I say APPARENTLY!!!-they know each other somehow, so the fact that Mr. Cox just happened to accidently hold up the sign whilst his ‘mate’ was APPARENTLY making the above racist coments seem even more fishy.

    As I said I cannot guarantee these things are true but this is what I’m told and is the reason why those at SOAS want both Mr. Cox and the President from KCL removed. The Black Students’ Officer from the NUS Head Office is also calling for their removal.
    Interestingly, the Pres from KCL was found not guilty by the NUS but has still been temporarily suspeneded by KCL reportedly because of the pressure on them by their students and other Uni’s in the University of London group i.e SOAS, UCL, LSE.

    Just though I’d share that info!


  • Jessica
    29 October 2008 at 16:48
    Leave a Reply

    Look the bloke’s obviously just been a complete and utter fool, and he’s quite clear not a racist and made a quite serious error of judgement, and christ, he is paying for it. I’m happy the Student’s Union aren’t reacting to the cries of the hysterics. But, despite all that, do you want a complete and utter fool with some fishy connections being Education Officer? He should have resigned with some dignity intact.

  • Rob Barham
    31 October 2008 at 01:33
    Leave a Reply

    Just to respond to Luke Place’s comment here:

    “Rob, given that you’re so interested in a correct representation of the facts, why have you allowed inaccuracies within this article and it’s subsequent comments to continue unopposed? Perhaps because you’re more interested in supporting Craig Cox than dispersing knowledge into the student psyche.”

    I would just like to clarify that the Rob commenting in this debate is NOT the one who uploaded this article (which was indeed me). I realise there’s been a bit of misunderstanding here, but we’re different people. I don’t see it as part of my role to weigh in on one side or the other in this. I just want to report what happened.

    Hopefully that clears up most of your problem here, but in response to your particular comments:

    1. What inaccuracies in the article are you referring to exactly? Everything in this article is properly sourced, and nobody else (from either side of the debate) has suggested otherwise.

    2. I don’t really share your objection that we’re allowing “innacuracies in the comments” to go unopposed. Comments are comments, nothing more. It’s not the job of this website to vet the opinions of people who want to post them. By all means disagree with what people say, shout at them, or turn on the CAPS lock and go mental, but don’t expect us to intervene in the matter.

    – Rob Barham (the one from Impact)

  • Assan
    31 October 2008 at 03:37
    Leave a Reply

    Being a fresher and quite eager to enjoy my time here at Notts, I find this story quite appalling and frightening….not only because of what happened, but because of the reactions First, we have an Education Officer incapable of providing a proper explanation. Then we have the inevitable (and to some extent, justified) hysteria of the student body; then we get another wave of hysteria in response to the other, with people calling the signatures and the students’ feelings irrelevant and worst of all, Bayo Randle, the leader of anti-British witch-hunt.

    “Furthermore, do you think it is a coincidence that the SU Pres is black and that he proposed the motion.”

    WHAT THE HELL?! I am sorry, I am not from the Midlands, so I don’t know if that kind of talk is ok here but….what the heck?! Is it actually forbidden for a black person to feel offended in face of a racial insult (not saying that the sign necessarily was one)? What you are basically saying is that it WOULD make a difference if it were a black or white person proposing the motion, which is pretty much in consensus with all the racist drama.

    You see, what defines the severity of matters like these are the reactions. If this whole thing really was a horrible, horrible mistake, Cox should just have been honest; but because he proved too incompetent, too ignorant even, the student body reacted justly, though perhaps a bit too harshly (considering the fact that there was no clear cut evidence that Cox actually meant black slavery, however strongly implied it might have been). This is when people should have maintained their cool and told us to wait for the facts. No, instead we have a bunch of students claiming that the whole anti-Cox movement is just another racial drama a la American Civil Rights Movement…..I dare wonder if it isn’t a coincidence that probably all pro-Cox people are white, but I don’t say stuff like that because it’s not “fair” to grade the validity of someone’s answer according to their race….and I am Asian by the way, so don’t even try using the “you are probably black too” argument on me.

    Seriously guys, way for ruining my time here. If this doesn’t clear up soon, I’ll probably take a while to recover.

  • Luke Place
    31 October 2008 at 16:34
    Leave a Reply

    My comment wasn’t towards you, it was towards the Rob defending Craig Cox under the guise of informing the student body. I do believe there is an error in the number of people required to call a referendum, since i understand it to be nearer to 1700 than 6000, but I could be wrong and I won’t hold it against you ;D

    Your article is neutral and you certainly have no obligation to correct errors within subsequent comments. My complaint is towards those who claim to be educating the student body and eradicating errors while pushing their own agenda instead.

    I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. I blame the parents (for irresponible baby naming).

  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    4 November 2008 at 19:36
    Leave a Reply

    Assan I think that you are 100% right when you say, “what defines the severity of matters like these are the reactions. If this whole thing really was a horrible, horrible mistake, Cox should just have been honest; but because he proved too incompetent, too ignorant even, the student body reacted justly, though perhaps a bit too harshly (considering the fact that there was no clear cut evidence that Cox actually meant black slavery, however strongly implied it might have been). This is when people should have maintained their cool and told us to wait for the facts. No, instead we have a bunch of students claiming that the whole anti-Cox movement is just another racial drama a la American Civil Rights Movement…”

    My feeling in a nutshell!


  • Vanessa Anne Esi Brown
    4 November 2008 at 20:31
    Leave a Reply

    And another thing…. I e-mailed Mr. Cox asking him to give me all the information he possibly could so that I could form my own opinion (because according to a number of people this information is readily available but has only been shown/told to a select few i.e. those in the Vote of No Confidence).
    He e-mailed me back (the next day I think it was,) asking me for my school of study so that he could send me the information BUT a week later and I have received no follow-up email to let me know where to collect the info from!

    Subsequently, I am quite dissapointed because I have been basing my opinion on snippets of info and it was suggested to me by the writer of another article,

    ( Edward Cain),

    that I ask Mr. Cox directly and I was like hmm…what a simple but good idea! And at 1st things looked promising but alas no information has been given as yet 🙁

    Am I suprised?! No, I think that Mr. Cox just re-affirmed my opinion of him. Perhaps some would say that I should send him an e-mail reminding him or that maybe he has been busy; both of these things are credible suggestions but I just can’t be bothered anymore.
    I have concluded that if Mr. Cox actually cared that those he is supposed to be representing still question his position he would be doing everything he could to get the info out (that apparently proves his innocence). Evidently he’s satisified with being voted back in to his job by the SU council REGARDLESS of whether the STUDENTS actually want him back!


  • Leave a Reply