Policy

Campus Policy

Contents

Please click the links below to read more.

• Calling the Union to take action against climate change!

Passed by Referendum: March 2007
Expires: 9th March 2010

This Union Notes

1. Students and society as a whole are becoming increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate change and their contributions towards it.
2. Scientific evidence now states that climate change will have severe environmental, social and economic impacts, both locally and worldwide.
3. The effects of climate change are already evident, as demonstrated by extreme weather conditions, drought, flooding and desertification.
4. LUU is a diverse community with members from a variety of nationalities, countries and economic backgrounds who are affected by climate change to varying degrees. The Union has a responsibility to represent and value the lives of every student in our community.
5. In a recent Unite survey, students rated global warming as their secondary major concern in life.

This Union Believes

1. LUU is at the forefront of students’ Unions, therefore its environmental and Corporate Social Responsibility commitments must reflect this; it should be a model of best practice.
2. Students should have more information about the global impacts of their movements and purchases.
3. If action is not taken, both individually and collectively, we will be compromising the ability of future generations to survive.

This Union resolves

1. To strive to reduce its carbon emissions by as much as possible, but by at least 3% per year. Union Council may increase this figure following the results of an audit.
2. To develop an effective Corporate Social Responsibility strategy that seeks to proactively reduce environmental impact, focusing on waste minimization, ethical banking and green energy use.
3. To display the global impact of products sold in the Union, specifically detailing their original source, travel miles, and ethical credentials where possible.
4. To work with NUSSL and other suppliers to investigate and provide local and ethical alternative products where possible for the Unions’ retail use, with reduced travel miles and packaging.
5. To mandate next year’s Student Executive to continue the green campaign as a key objective and work with green groups and local organizations to encourage the formation of common, overarching goals, aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of all students.
6. To conduct an environmental audit as soon as possible and produce an annual sustainability report that should be easily available to members.
7. To get external input on the audit by working with Environment students and/or external bodies such as the Carbon Trust.

Motion Proposed by: Rachel Hubbard
Motion Seconded by: Lizzie Fellows

• Top up fees motion

Passed by Union Council: 22/01/07
Expires: 22nd January 2010

This Union Notes:

1. Effective as of this year, the government has introduced a legislation allowing Universities to charge up to £3,000 per student, per year.
2. The government provides, assistance for students from low income backgrounds, or who have dependent status.
3. The government provides a loan to cover the tuition fee for the duration of the students course.
4. The cap of £3000 per student, per year is due to be reviewed in the 2009/2010 session.

This Union believes:

1. Whilst top up fees are not proven to be the answer for university funding they represent an effort by the government to ensure the financial stability of universities
2. Campaigning to revoke the legislation has failed to make a noticeable impact to policy and is unlikely to do so.
3. The review of the cap may lead to higher student fees which will damage the faith of prospective students in universities and deter an enormous number from applying for university places.

This Union resolves:

1. Cease campaigning for the repeal of the top up fees legislation and act independently.
2. Encourage bodies of which LUU is a constituent part (e.g. NUS) to lobby the government and the opposition parties with a view to securing a promise that the cap will not be reviewed in 2009/2010, that a review of the new system will be conducted in that session to see if it is sustainable and that whilst the review is being conducted, the cap will not be raised.
3. Provide a balanced argument regarding fees to new students and continuing support for those entering and studying in higher and further education.

Motion proposed by: Michael Moncrieff, 200-175-678
Motion seconded by: Beth Forrester, 200-040-778

• Lobby for Activity Groups’ to have access to the refectory

Passed by Referendum: February 2008
Expires: 21st February 2011

This Union Notes

1. LUU has over 260 activities groups.
2. LUU is not able, at present, to provide space for all activities to meet regularly in rooms that adequately fulfil their requirements.
3. Numerous activities had regular block bookings, free of charge, in The Refectory up until its £4.5 million refurbishment at the end of the academic year 2005/2006.
4. These activities now have to compete for the limited space within the union.
5. The Refectory is hired out on a regular basis to the Union Events department for concerts.
6. It sits empty from 7.30 p.m. all other nights of the week when not hired by the union Events department.
7. Dance and Martial Arts societies specifically are struggling to find adequate space within the university campus as their limited funds prevents them from affording the hiring of rooms on or off campus. Having asked the Vice Chancellor personally about this problem at a Q&A session in November, we are still waiting for a response.

This Union Believes

1. The use of The Refectory would benefit a number of activities, allowing LUU’s members to fulfil their interests and passions.
2. The university should aim to work closely with its Union’s members and support its active membership.
3. The use of The Refectory is being distributed to other departments of the union, who deal with events that do not directly benefit LUU’s members.
4. The reasons stated by the University for the refusal of access to The Refectory was inconsistent and did not take into consideration the best interests of the activities applying for permission.
5. Opening booking of The Refectory to activities would greatly improve the problems of space shortage in the union building.

This Union Resolves

1. To mandate the Student Executive to lobby the University to open up the Refectory for the use of LUU’s Activity Groups.

Proposer: Zoe Roberts
Seconder: Guppi Bola

• Should this Union support a re-evaluation of the decision to close Boddington Hall?

Passed by Referendum: February 2008
Expires: 21st February 2011

This Union notes

1. Bodington hall is the home to approximately 1/3 of the first year undergraduate population each academic year and provides undergraduates from unprivileged backgrounds cost effective housing.
2. The hall is noted for its links to Bradford international, proximity to University sports fields and as host to many participants of the Medieval Congress.
3. The closure of Bodington Hall has been met with confusion with residents and staff who have had little input into the process. Which can be seen in the membership of the ‘Keep Bodington Open group’.

This Union Believes

1. That any decision that impact on so many of its members must be accompanied with a full and published consultation.
2. That closure of Bodington will deprive the University of cheap accommodation for those prospective students that are in need.

This Union Resolves

1. To mandate the exec to lobby for a full consultation with stakeholders of Bodington Hall and for the findings to be made public.
2. For the reasons of any closure to be made explicitly clear to union membership

Proposer: Joshua Jones
Seconder: Sean McCormack

• Should LUU lobby the University for Home Fees to apply to refugees?

Passed by Referendum: February 2008
Expires: 21st February 2011

This Union Notes:

1. There are around 100,000 young refugees and asylum seekers in education in the UK (The Guardian, ‘Fees Rules Hurt Refugees’, 19/6/2007).
2. There are currently no statistics held by UCAS on the number of refugees who apply for university.
3. By law asylum seekers who are granted a “settled” immigration status – that is, they are given ‘refugee status’ and have leave to remain for 5 years – must be treated as UK students for fee purposes. However, those who are not given full refugee status, but are given another form of leave to remain, such as Discretionary Leave (DL) or Humanitarian Protection (HP), must have lived in the UK for 3 years before they can access student support from their local authority.
4. Many refugees have discretionary leave to remain until they are 18. This means they often have to apply for renewals to their immigration status at a time when they are applying to university.
5. It is left to the discretion of the university to decide whether to charge home fees or overseas fees to refugees awaiting the settlement of their immigration case.

This Union Believes:

1. Refugees and asylum seekers have experienced unimaginable and terrifying experiences in the countries they have fled. To be denied an education and a chance to rebuild their lives is a travesty and creates an additional barrier to their integration and full development.
2. Universities should provide clear, accessible information on the fee status and support available for refugees and asylum seekers who are applying to university, thereby enabling refugees to access their entitlements.

This Union Resolves:

1. This Union resolves to support the NUS, STAR and other organizations that are campaigning to ensure refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to the support mechanisms currently granted to UK students, to enable refugees and asylum seekers to rebuild their lives and ultimately contribute to UK society and economy.
2. This Union resolves to mandate the Student Executive to lobby the University of Leeds for explicit information detailing the fees status of refugees and asylum seekers who apply to the University of Leeds.
3. This Union resolves to lobby the University of Leeds to consider refugees with settled status, DLR or HP as home students
4. This Union also resolves to lobby the University of Leeds to apply home fees to asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their asylum application from the Home Office.

Proposer: Kathryn Elizabeth Bird
Seconder: Susan Nash

• Student Parent Motion

Passed by Union Council: 3rd December 2007
Expires: 3rd December 2010

We, the Student Parent Assembly (SPA), wish to request the support of the Union Council to have students with dependents fully recognised as a group that qualifies for special support & consideration by Leeds University. We envision a family-friendly and inclusive future for Leeds University through the support of the University and Union.

This Union Notes:

A report written on students' experiences of combining higher education with caring responsibilities (Cappleman-Morgan, 2005) argued that "Firm policies supporting student-carers’ needs are vital if widening participation, retention and positive academic outcomes are to be realistically achieved" and that "Multiple demands and the resulting emotional impact on student retention and educational outcomes must be recognised at managerial level if universities are to adapt to the needs of the changing student demographic".

1. That students with dependants have a moral and legal commitment to their children that often conflicts with their commitments as a student.

2. Many student parents (especially groups such as lone parents) are disadvantaged in terms of money and time.

3. Current university policies and practices are often a barrier to education for students with dependents.

4. University policy and procedure does not currently reflect the special challenges of students with dependents. For example:

• Short notice of changes in schedules
• Timing of lectures often clashes with the sessions in bright beginnings and the start and end of school.
• Lack of recognition of family responsibilities reported in some departments (in evaluating entitlement to extensions, for instance).
• Lack of targeted support, information and access to support systems.
• The timing of the university year often conflicts with school holidays & busy times for parents. For example, exams after Christmas, deadlines & exams post-Easter. The assumption seems to be that everyone has "time off" over the holidays, but parents have even more to do than usual!

5. The presence of families on campus brings extra health and safety concerns.

• It is not uncommon for Student Parents to bring their children with them to do work on campus, in the libraries, union, IT suites. There's often no choice.
• These areas are usually designed with little thought to the fact that children may be using the spaces.
• To risk a child being harmed on campus is unacceptable.

6. Extra money is available to support mature students, many of whom have dependants.

• According to John Battle, Leeds University receives 'a funding premium for all students aged 25 and over in recognition of the additional cost of supporting such students'.

7. The extent to which student parents feel supported & included varies widely across departments.

• Several students have reported "horror stories" about the way they have been treated by departments owing to a lack of understanding regarding their personal circumstances, whilst others have reported excellent support & understanding.

8. That current policy exists to standardise the way that other groups of students with special requirements are treated.

• Disabled students have a comprehensive policy covering their rights and what is reasonable for the university to expect of them.
• Religious students have the right to time off & extensions over religious festivals.

This Union Believes:

That Students with Dependents should be officially recognised as a minority group with specific needs by the university (in a similar way to disabled students).

1. That a policy on students with dependents would set a standard for departments to work from, reducing the "departmental lottery" currently in existence.
2. That student parents would benefit from the guidance such a policy would provide to individual departments.
3. That more needs to be done to evaluate the work-life balance of student parents and carers.
4. That a report on the effectiveness of the use of funding provided to support disadvantaged minority groups including students with dependents is essential to receiving and implementing future strategies for positive change.

This Union Resolves:

That the Union Council mandate the Exec to bring this to the attention of the university authorities with the aim of:

1. Creating a policy for students with dependents that reflects the impact of the moral and legal responsibilities of parents and carers on their studies.
2. Reviewing the universities current policies and practices in relation to the needs of student parents and carers.
3. Carrying out a risk assessment to assess the risks of children on campus and whether the current facilities are appropriate.
4. Reporting on how funding received by the University for widening participation is currently spent.

Proposed by:Siobhan Gallagher and Saskia Middleton

• More support for working students

Passed by Union Council: 11th February 2008
Expires: 11th February 2011

This union notes:

1. A 2000 TUC report found nearly 75% of students had to work to fund themselves through their college years.
2. A spokeswoman for NUS, said: "Up to 30% of students say they regularly miss lectures because they are working”.
3. HEFCE reports that working whilst studying adversely affects academic performance, particularly when students work over 15 hours per week
4. Student workers have benefited in recent years from changes to the minimum wage which currently stands at £4.60 per hr for 18-21 year olds, and £5.52 per hr for people aged 22 or over.
5. LUU’s annual research (2006) reports that 39% of students reported that the University of Leeds does nothing to support working students
6. Leeds University Union Joblink has 6,298 students registered as seeking work.

This union believes:

1. Students’ can benefit from part time work, gaining a range of skills for career advancement and personal development.
2. That the University should recognize the benefits part time employment can bring, and support working students as best they can.
3. That late changes to students’ timetables can cause significant problems for those in employment.

This union resolves:

1. Mandate the Education Officer to lobby the University to limit changes to students’ timetables.
2. To instruct the Education Assembly to conduct an investigation to be presented to the University which would identify where students are not currently being supported with the pressures of balancing work alongside study.
3. Encourage the University to expand on the current opportunities for part time jobs on campus; ensuring safer and better working environments for our members.
4. To lobby NUS to ensure part time student workers are exempt from income tax and national insurance up to a higher personal allowance.
5. To support the Fair Pay Network in campaigning for a living pay wage for all workers.

Proposer: Susan Nash
Seconder: Alex Rickard

• Should the University avoid academic teaching sessions on a Wednesday afternoon so that students are able to pursue extracurricular activities without jeopardising their academic success?

Passed by Referendum: 4th December 2008
Expires: 4th December 2011

This Union Notes:

1. That over 9,000 hours were scheduled into Wednesday afternoons during the 2007-08 academic year; an increase of over 500 hours from the previous academic year.
2. That the University of Leeds timetabling team was unaware of this.
3. That the University of Leeds Partnership Agreement states, “Wednesday afternoons will normally be kept free for extra curricular activities. The professional requirements for a significant number of vocational programmes and Masters level programmes may require students to attend timetabled commitments on a Wednesday afternoon”.
4. That both University statistics and a survey taken by over six hundred students, showed all faculties have scheduled teaching into Wednesday afternoons at an undergraduate and postgraduate level in the last two years.
5. That the same student survey also reported 52.5 per cent of students have had teaching scheduled into Wednesday afternoons during their time at the University of Leeds.
6. That the University of Leeds initiative, Leeds for Life, advocates the value of involvement in Student Activities as a means of cultivating skills and knowledge outside of teaching.
7. That academic study and sporting fixtures often clash on a Wednesday leaving many students with a difficult decision between high level sports and academic study.
8. That a wide range of activities, as well as sports, are pursued on a Wednesday afternoon.

This Union Believes:

1. That it is important for Wednesday afternoons to be kept free from teaching and learning activities.
2. That students must have a time when they can collectively pursue their chosen activity.
3. That students should have the opportunity to become a well-rounded individual, and should be given the opportunity to become involved in both sport at a high level and achieve academic success and not have to choose between them.
4. That having over 9,000 hours scheduled into Wednesday afternoons is unacceptable.
5. That the University needs to more closely monitor how many hours are being scheduled into Wednesday afternoons.

This Union Resolves:

1. To oppose teaching and learning activities taking place after midday on a Wednesday afternoon.
2. To campaign against the use of Wednesday afternoons for teaching activities.
3. To mandate the Activities Officer to monitor teaching on a Wednesday afternoon for the next three years.
4. To mandate the Student Executive to lobby the University to keep Wednesday afternoons free of teaching and learning activities.
5. To mandate the Student Executive to submit this policy for renewal after 2.5 years.

Proposed by: Stephanie Lett
Seconded by: Jessica Parker

• Making more of this University’s medical research available to more people

Passed by Union Council: 26th January 2009
Expires: 26th January 2012

This union notes:

1. Ten million people, most of them in developing countries, die needlessly every year because they do not have access to existing medicines and vaccines (WHO, 2000)1
2. Millions of people in developing countries suffer from neglected diseases because these destitute sick do not constitute a sufficient market opportunity to attract research and development. Only 10% of research funding goes into diseases affecting 90% of the world’s population
3. The University of Leeds is committed to creating and disseminating knowledge, as well as enriching society on a local to global scale

This union believes:

1. As a major contributor to the development of medical technologies and other health innovations the University of Leeds is uniquely positioned to influence the way lifesaving health innovations are developed and deployed 2.
2. The University of Leeds has the power to make medical technologies and health innovations more accessible to most citizens of the developing world through improvements in its technology transfer policies.

This union resolves:

1. To adopt the Universities Allied for Essential Medicines’ statement of principles (The Philidelphia Consensus Statement) and publicise this on www.luuonline.com along with a link allowing individual students to sign.
2. To support (in particular via Communications and Internal Affairs Officer) the proposers of this motion in campaigning for the following:

   1. The University of Leeds should ensure low-cost access to its medicines and other health-related innovations in low-and middle income countries (through including licensing terms in technology transfer agreements that ensure low-cost access to health-related innovations).

   2. The University of Leeds should adopt policies which promote and increase research and development into neglected diseases.

   3. The University of Leeds should make global human welfare a primary goal of technology transfer and incorporate this into its strategies.

Proposed by: Harry Burn, 200027215
Seconded by: Sunil Bhopal, 200029347

1. Department for International Development (2004). Increasing access to essential medicines in the developing world: UK Government policy and plans. London: DFID. Available from: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/accessmedicines.pdf

2. A 2000 U.S. Senate report found that 15 of the 21 drugs with the greatest therapeutic impact were developed using federally funded research, most of which occurs at universities.

3 Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1984.

• For An Open Debate on Uni Funding Cuts

Passed by Union Council: 9th November 2009
Expires: 9th November 2012

This Union Notes:

1. That Leeds University has announced planned cuts of £35 million resulting in "significant" job cuts
2. That Leeds University Union issued a statement regarding these cuts stating that the union has asked 'for assurances that students and the student experience will not be negatively affected by spending cuts.'
3. That LUU has made a commitment to 'represent students and their concerns at highest levels in the University. The Union will ensure students are consulted by the University and their views taken into account.'

This Union Believes:

1. That it is difficult to see how funding cuts would not adversley affect students
2. That in other universities where cuts have been made it has resulted in courses being cut
3. That grassroots campaigns opposing these cuts have won for example in Tower Hamlets when cuts would have resulted in the loss of 1 000 places for ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages)
4. That one of the functions of Union Council is to hold the Executive to account and we should do so in ensuring the promise of student consultation is honoured

This Union Resolves:

1. To call a public meeting on the issue of cuts inviting speakers from both the university and the lecturers union (UCU) and people involved with other institutions involved in cuts such as Tower Hamlets College
2. To mandate the union to publicise the meeting through all available means (including emails and a banner link on the LUU homepage) and provide up to £50 to fund this
3. For the meeting to be arranged via the Education Assembly or a sub committee of union council decided at this meeting of Union Council
4. To produce feedback forms for students attending the meeting asking them their views on the cuts and how the union should respond
5. To hold this meeting before the winter holidays

Proposer: Hanif Leylabi
Seconder: Hannah Morgan