Following the recent election, Dr Frank Armstrong will hold the mantle of Senior Lay Member of the University Court — the governing body directing and regulating the business decisions of the university. He will begin the position on 1 August under his campaign agenda of ‘Rebalance’, a proposed adjustment of court proceedings to prioritise an analysis of student and staff voices; the real results of this, however, will take time to anticipate.
It is undeniable that Dr Armstrong remained the best candidate. In the election, Armstrong ran against two other men, Benny Higgins and Hugh Mitchell. Higgins has a past deeply rooted within banking and finances, notably as chief executive of RBS and NatWest, HBOS (a disastrous period), CEO of Tesco Bank and chairman of the Duke of Buccleuch’s estate, among a dozen similar positions; he has too many fingers in too many pies. Despite the LGBTQ+ award he boasts, as well as his help with the government and charitable positions, Higgins’ interests and experience were clearly disparate from those of the general populace.
Hugh Mitchell is not much better, reflected in his poor election score of 555 votes. I’m certain a large contributor to this was his leading HR position at Shell, totalling 37 years at the company — I know it put me off him. No squeaky-clean manifesto or role as a “globally recognised HR leader” can redeem his devotion to that distinctly inhuman business. Although both Mitchell and Armstrong are graduates of the University of Edinburgh, an unknown future for current students and staff will certainly be more tolerable than an onslaught of sanitised corporate jargon.
Armstrong certainly proposes a lot under the ‘Rebalance’ agenda, to an uncertain end. His dedication to include ‘People’ as a cornerstone to the university’s success is an (almost unbelievably) radical step. However, the ideals to ‘(re)build meaningful relations’ may be much harder in practice, under the court’s current decision to actively oppose divestment from companies entangled with a country committing UN-recognised genocide. As the new leading Lay Member, Armstrong will have a responsibility to recognise this issue, lest he renege on his promise to consider the “big issues that matter to students and staff.” If he fails to do so, we must question whether Dr Armstrong considers “promot[ing] the success of the university” an educational or financial issue.
Ultimately, this recent vote (despite a 6 per cent turnout) is a key reminder of the importance of being involved with democratic processes for this university, country or any governing body. We can decide who creates the future of this school, and if Dr Armstrong fails to stick to his manifesto (please do!), then we can also decide to change that future.
“Old College, University of Edinburgh” by Su Hongjia is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Our University’s New Senior Lay Member: A Reminder of the Importance of Voting
Following the recent election, Dr Frank Armstrong will hold the mantle of Senior Lay Member of the University Court — the governing body directing and regulating the business decisions of the university. He will begin the position on 1 August under his campaign agenda of ‘Rebalance’, a proposed adjustment of court proceedings to prioritise an analysis of student and staff voices; the real results of this, however, will take time to anticipate.
It is undeniable that Dr Armstrong remained the best candidate. In the election, Armstrong ran against two other men, Benny Higgins and Hugh Mitchell. Higgins has a past deeply rooted within banking and finances, notably as chief executive of RBS and NatWest, HBOS (a disastrous period), CEO of Tesco Bank and chairman of the Duke of Buccleuch’s estate, among a dozen similar positions; he has too many fingers in too many pies. Despite the LGBTQ+ award he boasts, as well as his help with the government and charitable positions, Higgins’ interests and experience were clearly disparate from those of the general populace.
Hugh Mitchell is not much better, reflected in his poor election score of 555 votes. I’m certain a large contributor to this was his leading HR position at Shell, totalling 37 years at the company — I know it put me off him. No squeaky-clean manifesto or role as a “globally recognised HR leader” can redeem his devotion to that distinctly inhuman business. Although both Mitchell and Armstrong are graduates of the University of Edinburgh, an unknown future for current students and staff will certainly be more tolerable than an onslaught of sanitised corporate jargon.
Armstrong certainly proposes a lot under the ‘Rebalance’ agenda, to an uncertain end. His dedication to include ‘People’ as a cornerstone to the university’s success is an (almost unbelievably) radical step. However, the ideals to ‘(re)build meaningful relations’ may be much harder in practice, under the court’s current decision to actively oppose divestment from companies entangled with a country committing UN-recognised genocide. As the new leading Lay Member, Armstrong will have a responsibility to recognise this issue, lest he renege on his promise to consider the “big issues that matter to students and staff.” If he fails to do so, we must question whether Dr Armstrong considers “promot[ing] the success of the university” an educational or financial issue.
Ultimately, this recent vote (despite a 6 per cent turnout) is a key reminder of the importance of being involved with democratic processes for this university, country or any governing body. We can decide who creates the future of this school, and if Dr Armstrong fails to stick to his manifesto (please do!), then we can also decide to change that future.
“Old College, University of Edinburgh” by Su Hongjia is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related