Massey University made a boob of itself last week when it posted an illustration on its website that bore a striking resemblance to a large breast.

The picture, which appeared in the banner on the top of the University’s website, depicted a young girl reading with her legs crossed. Due to the phenomenon of forced perspective and some awkward cropping however, her knee, which is a lot closer to the viewer than the rest of her body, looked a lot more like her breast.

The University was first alerted to the problem when Massey’s student association president Ben Thorpe posted a screenshot and the message “Uhhhh… boob?” on the university’s Facebook page. The post had received 126 likes when Salient went to print, and led to an entertaining interaction between Thorpe and the university.

From initially protesting “No! Leg!”, the university eventually conceded that they had lost on this issue.

“Right. We’re not saying anything further, other than this: it in no way looks like any boob, breast, etc. that ever existed… because IT IS A LEG however, the masses have spoken.”

The controversial advertisement has since been removed.

Questions–sourced from young people through social media–were put to the panel made up of Chester Borrows (National), Charles Chauvel (Labour), Metiria Turei (Green), Hone Harawira (Mana), and Asenati Lole-Taylor (New Zealand First).

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei prompted one of the most enthusiastic responses from the audience when suggesting that society takes too narrow of a view of what a ‘justice’ system includes.

“We don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system which picks up the pieces after we fail to put what is just first,” she told the crowd.

An issue of concern which emerged in the questions was whether MPs preferred to target spending on incarceration or rehabilitation of offenders.

Panelists agreed that more focus was needed on rehabilitation, however Burrows said that in some cases it was necessary to close and replace older prisons where conditions were no longer habitable.

The audience expressed sympathy for Chauvel’s warning that by next year 25 per cent of the country’s prison system will be privately-owned.

Students generally said they were impressed with how engaged the politicians were. Some, however, were skeptical.

“I just wish the policies matched the korero,” one reflected.

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira concluded his remarks with a challenge to students.

“Do [politicians] have the courage to do anything intelligent about this? Nah we don’t! So don’t look to us, look to yourselves to force us,” he said.

More information on JustSpeak can be found at facebook.com/justspeaknz

Returns to party-hack roots, forgets to consult anyone. Except Grey Power.

The New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations has thrown their support behind the citizens initiated referendum campaign against state asset sales without consulting or informing members. Confusion has arisen after the national union presented justifications for the decisions in private correspondence that markedly differed to those aired in public.

Last Thursday NZUSA Vice-President, and Auckland University Students’ Association President Arena Williams, spoke on behalf of NZUSA at the official launch of the campaign. Along with representatives from several political parties, unions and Grey Power.

However an invitation to the event—sent out just days prior—was the first both VUWSA and Massey Wellington Students’ Association (MAWSA) had heard of NZUSA’s involvement with the campaign.

Williams was adamant that the issue had been discussed with the University Sector Council of students’ association presidents—of which she is the chair, and subsequently a member of NZUSA’s governing board. She said that involvement with the campaign was NZUSA policy, and had “been through the NZUSA policy processes.”

“We have talked about it at a Board level and at a sector council level. And it’s been NZUSA policy last year, and this year,” she said.

But neither VUWSA President Bridie Hood, or MAWSA President Ben Thorpe, who both sit on that Council, could recall the issue of state asset sales ever being discussed at a meeting. Both said that had they been asked whether NZUSA should support the referendum, they would have said no, unless students had directed them to do so. Neither thought it was justifiable for their respective associations to get involved as it was outside their scope, and that they had no stance on the matter.

“We have not received a mandate from students to support or oppose the sale of state assets, therefore VUWSA has no stance on the issue,” Hood said.

“However, VUWSA will always support students having a say in issues that affect them.”

Thorpe said they were taking a non-partisan approach to state asset sales, as he didn’t think it was appropriate for them to get involved.

“[MAWSA] tend to take a take a fairly apolitical stance on most matters, unless they do directly relate to students. So, if I was to speak on behalf of MAWSA, then I’d say that I don’t think that it is our position to take a stance on these matters at all,” Thorpe said.

Despite NZUSA’s claim it is not about outcome rather than debate and promoting student involvement in the political process, Thorpe considered supporting the referendum amounted to taking a political stance.

“It certainly expresses that NZUSA are not for these changes.”

NZUSA claimed the justification for supporting the campaign was because they saw it as a way of re-connecting young people with political processes, as they were concerned with falling levels of political participation by young people, particularly in the 2011 election.

“We want to give students a chance to get politically involved in an issue where a decision is being made now, but the consequences of which it is our generation who [are] going to have to live with,” Williams said.

However when the VUWSA and MAWSA presidents queried the justification, NZUSA informed them that the decision to support the campaign was based on the union’s longstanding policy against “privatisation”.

This is the first year of NZUSA’s new governance structure—which moved from a federation of executive members made up of all member students’ association presidents to a board which includes a couple of presidents and other sector representatives

Though the presidents Salient spoke to expressed concern at the internal process taken for NZUSA to support the referendum campaign, they both conceded it was the first year with the new structure, so may have been just an issue with untested processes.

“I think it’s quite early days in regard to this new structure, and again we’re all going through some pretty big changes… so it’s going to need to be fleshed out… it just needs more time,” Thorpe said.

“We would be concerned if it were to happen again, and have expressed concern to the board and the sector council.”

The referendum launch follows a hikoi in Wellington last Friday, which went through the CBD before descending on Parliament with a crowd of around 5,000 people. About 150 of which were part of a protest organised by We Are the University, who left Kelburn and marched down to join the hikoi.

One student who saw the merge said it was reminiscent of the momentous entrance of Gandalf and Eomer’s forces into war at the Battle of Helm’s Deep in Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, an entrance that lead to the eventual defeat of Saruman’s 10,000 strong army.

This University’s response to the VSM legislation is a discredit to the institution. Be alert and alarmed.

The University “middle management” is set on a path of systematically undermining VUWSA, a democratic student-led organisation, while imposing their own bureaucratic tragedy of a “consultative body” onto an unsuspecting student population. Sadly, it’s not at all clear whether they are doing this on purpose.

Victoria has decided that because VUWSA is no longer a universal association, they are going to set-up their own “consultative” body—the “Student Forum”. Again we will be compelled to be represented but this time by an organisation we haven’t mandated and we have no right to opt-out of. University bureaucrats have decided the membership of this body (class representatives and faculty delegates largely) and its brazenly toothless accountabilities to the student body.

The irony of setting up an organisation that no one has consented to because VUWSA (an association that 70 per cent of students have joined) is supposedly not representative enough is lost somewhere. The proposal that students should decide upon their representative structure in a referendum was proposed by VUWSA in 2010 and has been ignored.

Universities around the world have students’ associations, governments or unions. They are democratically controlled organisations, organised and designed by students. They have proven themselves to be a powerful force in improving decision-making, academic success and the development of leadership. They reinforce the concept of the university—as a critic and conscience of society—a place for discussion and dissent. They are a part of the university identity and help define its experience for many students.

A university has lost its way when it tries to impose a system of representation onto the student body. This is the sign of a university that does not trust its students and is determined to control dissent. It is part of a wider picture. The management of Victoria has been hostile to dissent from staff for years and now they sense an opportunity to turn their control fixation against students.

Good universities should value student leadership and trust that students can organise themselves. They need not be concerned with controlling this process. When they do, their designs are likely to fundamentally flawed. The Student Forum does not represent a system that would be designed by students, for students. It is out of touch.

The underlying proposition of the VSM legislation, for better or worse, was that students’ associations should continue strongly but that their influence would be dependent on their ability to attract members and represent students well. That the “Student Forum” would be the result of that legislation is bitterly ironic. The Forum creates the fiction of universality and we are compelled to be represented by it; yet sadly it is likely to be entirely detached from the wider student body.

If we must have the Student Forum then so be it—it could have a role to play. However, the wider part of the story is the undermining of VUWSA. Most associations internationally cannot levy students directly—they rely on “block grants” (common in the UK) or contracts for services from a university. VUWSA requires funding from VUW in order to continue to provide the services that are properly provided by the student body (orientation, clubs, advocacy, certain support services etc.)

Victoria has expressed its commitment to VUWSA and student-led services, but the actions of middle-management do not match this rhetoric. Starting with the Orientation fiasco it seems the University is intent on hacking VUWSA up, piece by piece. Contracts for services will be available, but on an ad hoc basis and with no long-term assurances. There does not appear to be recognition that it is valuable to have students serving students as part of a community. Instead, there is danger that we will see students relinquishing control of these services to middle management. Again, sadly, this seems to be all about control.

There is hope. The issues discussed here are not an official policy of the University; they may not be entirely intentional. This has all happened quickly and there might be an opportunity to take a step back and revaluate. The university can still and should recognise the importance of having an independent democratic student-led representative organisation and student-led services. VUWSA is currently the body for that job and it should be nurtured as part of a vibrant and positive university identity.

The author of this article has chosen to remain anonymous. They are not a member of the VUWSA Execuctive.

In the latest chapter of Victoria University’s Kelburn stand-off, We Are the University (WATU) have accused Campus Operations of removing their posters from noticeboards around campus.

WATU were contacted early this month by a student who had seen a security guard taking down a WATU asset sales hikoi poster from a Cotton building noticeboard at 9.30pm. The student said he already had a number of the posters in his hand.

According to Campus Operations policy, students are able to put up posters on notice and poster-boards provided around campus.

When questioned by Salient, Associate Director of Campus Operations Rainsforth Dix said she was unaware of why the posters had been taken down.

“Yes we are aware of the allegations. We have looked into it, and there was no directive issued to remove any particular posters off noticeboards.”

A WATU representative told Salient that when approached, Campus Operations said that it was a night staff issue, however the WATU member spotted one of the hikoi posters stuck to the wall of the Campus Operations office.
The plot thickens…

 Free Media at Peril! Salient censored!

Salient was subject to the strong arm of Facebook’s censorship law last week, following its use of the gender issue’s peen-tastic cover as a profile picture.

The magazine was informed on Tuesday that the picture had been removed because it violated the website’s content policy.

Under Facebook’s content policy relating to pornography, the website wishes to protect users’ right to share images, by allowing certain types of content.

“Whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.”

Certain Salient staffers were surprised that the cover, which features a close up of male genitalia, was not considered analogous to David.

The profile picture has since been changed to focus on the less pornographic elements of the cover.

University Looks to Nuclear Warfare as an Answer to Tertiary Funding Woes

Victoria University recently shifted its coffers into the hands of a bank known for investing funds in nuclear weapons.

Victoria University’s charitable trust, the VUW Foundation, recently appointed the National Bank, owned by Australian ANZ Bank, to take care of the trust’s $14 million funds.

In a report released by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), ANZ was listed as one of a number of banks known to invest in nuclear weapons, either directly or through subsidiaries.

Also on the list was Westpac, who are responsible for the Government’s banking.

A list of all the other baddies can be found in the ‘Don’t Bank on the Bomb’ report at dontbankonthebomb.com

Social conservative Randy Cocks has labelled Prime Minister John Key as the world’s most promiscuous world leader.

“I’m sure there’s some research that backs up my assumptions somewhere” Cocks said in an interview with Salient. “Why don’t you google it or something?”

Key has rebutted, saying there’s no way he can be the world’s lewdest world leader as he has been in monogamous marriage with his wife Bronagh for 28 years.

But according to Cocks “that’s exactly the kind of belief system that is getting a lot of young prime ministers unnecessarily pregnant. They think they’re immune but they’re not.”.

Key said he is male and biologically unable to become pregnant but that he does have two children.

BREAKING: John Key unable to give birth?

Salient asked Professor of Biology Frank Lee Bawd whether Keys’ claim that he is male has any element of truth.

“Yes.”

“Well that might be true,” said Cocks “But you know what they say about people with two children? They’ve had sex at least twice. That’s one more time than someone who only has one child. It’s disgusting if you think about it.”

But Parliament is not taking risks and on Friday rushed through the emergency SNEANS Bill 2012. The bill, drafted by the Labour Party, will provide Key with a lifetime supply of sneakers and jeans.

It is hoped the unappealing combination will decrease Key’s attractiveness to such a level that his promiscuity would be reduced if he actually had any. He would also be unable to become promiscuous even if he wanted to—which he doesn’t.

“Another day of reason and good-lawmaking”.

“A victory for New Zealand!”

The bill generated some controversy over whether it infringed upon on Key’s rights. A spokesperson for the Labour Party assured Salient that it was not compulsory for Key to wear the sneakers and jeans and that it was up to him as to whether he would volunteer to wear them.

“God, I hope he does” said an unnamed MP for the Labour Party “he’s already the stay-at-home solo Prime Minister of one country, the last thing we need is for him to have another”.

Te Puni Village residents have made it clear that it will take more than a recent directive from management to kill their buzz.

Residents at the student accommodation complex were advised by email last month that management had decided to enforce quiet hours from 10pm throughout the week, effective immediately. This change modified the rules set out in the 2012 Te Puni Village Resident Handbook, which set a later time of 11.30pm on Friday and Saturday nights.

Once quiet hours start, no noise must be heard from residents’ rooms or common areas, effectively forcing students to either leave the Village if they wish to continue partying, or go to bed. Residential Assistants (RAs) employed by the Village are required to monitor residents’ noise levels and behaviour during quiet hours.

Students spoken to by Salient said they had been told that the changes were made in response to two major concerns, relating to noise complaints from residential neighbours of the Village, and the health and safety of RAs who had to work much later hours on the weekend.

Resident Andrew Burns said that, while many residents recognised the importance of these issues, the changes had not been received positively.

“Whilst the majority of residents understand the reasons for the change, very few are happy about it and, in fact, many are angry. Residents are particularly disappointed by the distinct lack of due progress and consultation on the issue.”

Residents were not consulted at all, nor forewarned that the consideration of such changes was taking place.

This lack of consultation is of particular concern to VUWSA, who were approached by residents unhappy about the sudden change.

“Te Puni Village is their home and they pay for it. There is no question that they deserve a say in the way their community operates,” explained VUWSA Executive member Reed Fleming.

VUWSA held a consultation for residents last Friday, which was open to both those in support and opposition of the developments. There were 80 guests listed as attending on the event Facebook page when Salient went to print.

“We want to talk to students so we can then feedback to Village management and negotiate on their behalf. We want to help students get a better deal,” said Fleming, prior to the meeting.

Salient approached Village Manager Liz Iversen for comment, but had not heard from her by the time the magazine went to print.

Burns said that in addition to frustration at a lack of consultation, the changes were already having negative effects on the livers and social lives of residents.

“Since the change, some students have been drinking more, faster, in an attempt to get ‘drunk enough.’

“Many students would argue that this is “too early” to head to town and that they miss out on the Capital’s busy nightlife.”

Salient will cover any developments in this saga in coming weeks.

GRADUATES: living under the loan 

Increasing the repayment threshold from 10 to 12 per cent, kicking in after a loan holder earns over $19,084. Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce said “changing the repayment amount will not only encourage students to pay back their loans faster, but will allow the Government to invest money back into the tertiary sector.”

Comparatively, the Australian scheme is more progressive—with minimum repayments of only 4 per cent of income over $48,000, rising to 8 per cent with income levels.

Issues have been raised about how this will disproportionally affect some gradates. Green Party student spokeswoman Holly Walker said young families would be most hurt by the Government’s attempt to balance its books.

“About 40 per cent of couples with children aged between 18 and 24 have student loan debt and about 30 per cent of those aged 25 to 34 are also paying off student loans,” Walker said.

Child Poverty Action Group said the changes would hit young struggling
young families.

Spokeswoman Susan St John said the threshold for repayment was already far too low, at an annual income of $19,080, and the 10 per cent repayment rate on income above that threshold is far too high.

New Zealand University Students’ Association president Pete Hodkinson said the issue didn’t lie with the amount of the increase, it is at what point it comes into effect.

“We have a system where the repayment threshold is at $19,084, which is below the poverty line for a lot of students,” he said.

“It’s not the students earning between $40,000 and $80,000 a year we are worried about, it’s the students that are between $19,000 and $30,000 for who that is a significant issue.”

Labour’s Tertiary Education spokesperson Grant Robertson said it could further the New Zealand’s brain drain problem.

“You’re sending a message to graduates— we want more cast members for the GC —because that’s gong to be the impact
of this, sending people off to Australia,” he said.

STUDENTS: building the debt-palace

Changes to student allowances will further restrict those who can qualify for student allowances, and will see students taking on personal debt as the Government tries to cut down on its own borrowing levels.

Up to 5000 students will be affected, with a 4-year freeze on the parental income threshold and a stop to allowances after 200 weeks or 4-years of study.

Previously there had been concessions for students in certain long-term degrees or postgraduate courses, to apply for student allowance, but these have been scrapped.

VUWSA President Bridie Hood said the proposed changes don’t do anything to help students under pressure as they try to support themselves through university as many of them continue to struggle to make ends meet.

“Even with the support that is currently available to them, sixty per cent of students have to work while they study, and as figures released last month show that fifteen per cent of students are living in absolute poverty, unable to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing, and accommodation.”