Magdalen College JCR has voted against a motion to create a ‘Brexit Rep’ role on their JCR committee.The proposed representative would have provided a voice for “the minority of students in the JCR who supported ‘Vote Leave’ in the EU Referendum Campaign.”The proposer of the motion, Harry Forbes, said in the JCR meeting where the motion was discussed: “We have in our college a minority community that is discriminated against, prosecuted, and violated on a daily basis.“The lived experience of this minority of Brexiteers cannot be deterred by those of Remainiac privilege, with microaggressions, such as bringing in European foodstuffs.“I would grant to you that ethnic minorities do have representation of their identity-specific interests within the college, and, being tenant of our identity, the Brexit community needs to be recognised and celebrated by this college, not only as some private, marginalised group as we currently are, but as a heart of the community.”The motion failed with five votes in favour, 43 votes against, and no abstentions.Ben Hopkinson, JCR freshers’ rep, was present at the meeting and told Cherwell: “I think it’s important that we recognise the many minorities that contribute to Magdalen life.“However, creating a Brexit rep is a mockery of the minorities in Magdalen that actually face discrimination on a daily basis.“I’m proud of Magdalen for quickly voting down this mocking motion.”Another first-year student present at the meeting said: “The main crux of the issue for me was the appropriation of terminology associated with the LGBTQIAP+ community, especially when spoken in such a comedic tone.“It undercuts the serious nature of queer rights by continuing a history of making them the punchline to a joke.“Naivety is a privilege and, as such, I feel the speaker does not understand oppression.“Of course, his argument was difficult to justify from the start as a majority of Brits chose to leave the EU.“Yes, an understanding of our Brexit predicament is vital, but anyone who has the audacity to consider themselves a minority because of it is clearly just delusional.”A speaker in opposition of the motion at the meeting, said: “I think if the person who proposed the motion would like to organise a group of people who support Brexit in Magdalen, then he should do so in his own time.“But I don’t think it’s the place of the college or the JCR to start taking sides.”Forbes told Cherwell: “The motion for Brexit rep highlighted the proliferation of gratuitous reps for every imaginable grouping of students, and the atmosphere of hostility towards views divergent from the left wing consensus within student politics.“Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the motion failed, demonstrating the dominance of the the elites that this motion was intended to reveal.”
Why isn’t something done about this flagrant and unfair practice? OT should be eliminated from the retirement benefit calculation.Who’s responsible for oversight, approval and management of the contracts for municipal employees? Is it the mayor, the City Council, the finance department, the police chief, the fire chief?They all need to do a much better job of managing these departments in an ethical and moral manner, including the compensation, overtime and retirement benefits. They owe it to be fair to all their employees, but also to the citizens/taxpayers that they represent. Hopefully, this practice of excessive overtime being manipulated by design to inflate retirement benefits will be looked at and corrected. Taxpayers deserve nothing less.Bernard BurnsRotterdamMore from The Daily Gazette:Rotterdam convenience store operator feels results of having Stewart’s as new neighborFoss: Should main downtown branch of the Schenectady County Public Library reopen?Car hits garage in Rotterdam Sunday morning; Garage, car burnEDITORIAL: Urgent: Today is the last day to complete the censusEDITORIAL: Find a way to get family members into nursing homes Categories: Letters to the Editor, OpinionEvery year, The Gazette reports on the highest-paid employees in the city. Every year it’s certain to be police officers and firefighters. It raises the same questions that never seem to be addressed:1) How many of these employees are within three years of retirement? Why, because this overtime is included in their retirement package and of course, it significantly inflates their retirement benefit. We the taxpayers have to pay for the inflated benefits over the next 20 to 30 years. This practice continues and it’s extremely unfair to taxpayers. The retirement benefits without overtime (OT) are already very generous.2) Police Chief Eric Clifford claims no one else wants to work OT? Hard to believe — out of 147 officers — only the officers that will significantly enhance their pensions are willing to work OT? The word on the street is that young officers that want to work OT to help with their finances and growing young families are told to wait their turn when they are close to retirement. Clearly that’s what happens by design every year — the evidence is in the paper for all to see.