THE STUDENTS’ Union has temporarily suspended the sale of Zoo and Nuts magazines from their shops after a senior academic has complained they “objectify women.”
Professor Mark Blagrove, head of the Psychology Department, has in a series of emails to the SU tried to permanently stop the sales of the two magazines due to fears about the negative influence nudity and phone line advertisements could have on students.
The SU has taken a cautious approach to the complaints and requested information from the University to clarify their position on the issue, saying they have employed a “better safe than sorry” policy by putting the sales on hold. However, Blagrove claims the SU is left without choice as the magazines represent ‘sexually explicit’ material which breaks the University’s Dignity at Work and Study regulations.
“The bottom line is the objectification of women and it runs through the entire magazines,” he said. “At certain stages you get extreme points, for example having adverts for people in order to become prostitutes. Any sensible person would say that isn’t okay. “The University should have higher standards than the outside world. The University should be like BBC 4 and that’s it, and then you suddenly get the worst bits of cable televi
sion. “There are University regulations about sexually explicit imaging that you simply have to go by. It is the same category as selling cigarettes.”
The SU stopped the sales with immediate effect three weeks ago despite not having consulted students or the Executives, leaving questions over the democratic process of the decision. But SU President Luke Young has defended their actions, saying the removal is only temporary until the Executives have been consulted. A meeting will be held this week to make a final decision.
However, The Waterfront understands Blagrove will meet the University committee of equal opportunity around the same time in an attempt to force University Dignity at Work and Study regulations to permanently stop sales of the magazines regardless of the SU’s verdict.
Young is not convinced the appeal can justify a permanent ban, saying that “what we sell is a different argument to the protection of University staff. “Because it’s in a shop on sale, it’s not exactly in an office or some kind of workplace bullying. That is a distinction which has been held for quite a while in the Students’ Union. “We don’t have reason to believe that the dignity of work policy has been breached, but if that is the case then it has been breached for a long time.”
The SU is currently consulting the University about the dignity of work policies in order to inform the Executives as this week’s meeting. But while the SU will have the final say on commercial decisions, Young concedes there will be pressure on them to act if the University finds the magazines are related to issues of staff protection. “While we do operate at Campus, the things we do regarding staff will have an effect on the Students’ Union,” he said.
“I’m not sure if this is an issue where the University will do that. But if there would be a rule that had to be followed then we would just have to get on with it.”
Women’s Officer Raegan Healy believes Blagrove is right to have the magazines removed, saying a ban could raise new awareness of the issues regarding objectification of women. “The student environment, like the Pornstar Party and these magazines, makes it become acceptable among students. I don’t think it is right to have that in the Students’ Union,” she said. “It’s seen as something which is just there and that you can’t do anything about. But now that the issues have been raised I think people will start to question it more.”
General Secretary Luke James does not think one single lecturer should be able to decide the students’ choice of reading material. “It is not the place of a university professor to dictate to students which magazines should be sold in their Union’s shops,” he said. “If students want to see these magazines removed from the Students’ Union then that should go through the sovereign decision making body of students at this university that is the student general meeting.”
Students’ opinions are mixed on the issue, although the general view is assumed to disagree with the removal of the magazines. Third year history student Chris Williams believes the magazines do not contribute to any good among the students. “Publication of Nuts and Zoo should be banned. Without such action these forms of despicable filth will only continue to erode the decency of our great nation,” he said. Another history student, Sam Holliday, disagreed by arguing that students should be free to read whatever they want. He said: “I believe in freedom of choice, freedom of the press and freedom of speech. But then again if the SU voted to remove the magazines it would be within their rights to do so.”
What is your opinion in this story? The Waterfront wants to hear your voice and opinions; should lads mags be taken away from University shop shelves? Or should they continue to be sold?
Get in touch: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it