There’s a big difference between practicality and indifference. Reading an opinion on the 3^rd December edition of SD about how the University Union is not serving the interests of their students and focusing instead on ‘irrelevant’ issues that do not directly serve the interests of ‘average students who do not really care that much’.

How do you judge whether an issue is (morally) relevant or not? Immanuel Kant’s rule on the categorical imperative theorized that a ‘rule’ is acceptable if it can be practiced by everyone, on a universal basis. For instance, the world will be a better place if everyone do not steal, hence stealing is morally wrong. Is putting our needs first before others something that is universally applicable in all situations? Nevertheless, putting everyone else’s needs before us is not that practical either. Hence, a middle ground ought to be found without resorting to either extremes.

Student activism, while ‘politically amateur’, and have to submit to various labellings and stereotypes, are indelible players in the balance of causes throughout the world. Armed with passion, knowledge, and (a lot of ) free time compared to their grown-up counterparts, students with idealism and activism play important roles in voicing concerns about worldwide (as well as local) issues, especially in terms of waking their ‘average students who do not really care that much’ colleagues.

And we’re not simply talking present time here. When we’re discussing students, we’re referring to budding ‘leaders of the future’ who will ‘inherit the earth’.  Cheesy though those statements may be, they bear a significant amount of realism. All the guys who are currently running the country will pass on the helm to the present-day students, one day. And what better way to build strong leadership, general knowledge, and down-to-earth realism in combination with skyhigh idealism other than getting involved in student activism?

People might say that activism can be carried on by focusing on local issues first and worldwide issues next. Fair enough. People, the level of activism fighting against Magic Bus price hikes is less significant compared to the fight for world peace! (REAL world peace, with justice and freedom in the package, not the beauty-queen type.) Now I’m proffering myself on the altar of sacrifice for snobs. But am I?

Let’s look at the degree of problems involved. Are people starving because of the increasing bus price? Well, apparently the cost of those pub crawls must be less than the few pennies forcefully taken for Magic Bus or Finglands. Are people getting killed in Manchester, or in the UK, because they are not getting free education? While I’m at it, let me reiterate here that free education for UK students are ‘balanced’ by the more than tripled university fees for international students (like me). But I’m not talking conflicts of interest here. My point here is to put things into perspective. People in Palestine are getting killed and suffer injustice. People in Iraq are having gunpowder for breakfast. Forgetting these causes in favour of more trivial, day-to-day causes is not practicality, it’s indifference at the most loathsome level! International activism is not political per se, it’s humanitarian. Labelling it as political is unfair and misleading.

I agree that the powers-that-be are not going to wake up in the morning, suddenly swarmed over by guilty conscience and decided to save the world from their own hands. So is that the excuse to ignore these causes – or to do not what little that we can, but as little as we can get away with? If everyone goes by that standards – i.e. leaving things as they are, succumbing to status quo, because we’re not going to change anything anyway – then God knows what atrocities would be around in the world. Women may not have been able to vote or to attend university. Racism would be rampant and apartheid regimes like the one in South Africa would reign supreme. These are humanitarian issues, not political per se, I repeat.

A drop of water will not make an ocean. Yet without it, an ocean would be a drop of water less. And drops of water combined CAN and DOES make an ocean. Showing concern about issues, raising awareness, organizing rallies and demonstrations may not bring immediate tangible change. But history has shown, patience, perseverance and unity does work miracles.

However, what keeps people fighting for big and difficult causes is more than optimism. It’s the concept, perhaps alien to some of us, called responsibility. They do it, we do it, because it ought to be done. Somebody has to do it, and it better be us, for if everyone keep pointing fingers at each other nothing will come out of it but empty air. We are lucky enough to be students in the UK, one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a very strong currency, where the socioeconomic environment is stable, freedom of speech is respected and human rights revered. Viewed in contrast to the rest of the world, we are almost shamefully privileged. It’s a responsibility to pay this ‘debt’ to the world, at least by showing that we are concerned. It is not a choice to care however much, it is wrong to not care.

The question of the students being denied choice because of a small portion of students who went to vote and made their voice louder than the rest is not an issue. For God’s sake, they know what is important for them, they stuck together and fought for it. I wonder why the rest of the students who are so keen on free education do not launch campaigns and gather 1000+ supporters to go and complete the quorum during the General Meeting? Is it because it’s natural that matters of humanitarian importance generally bring about a greater response from students, at least those who do care?

On a more democratic note, of course, day-to-day issues had to be taken care of as well. The union – as is any union – is supposed to be by its members, for its members. If there is indeed a problem, international activism need not and must not suffer the blame. One can improve on one side of the garden without having to neglect or overlook the other, right?

A healthy balance must be achieved between the local and international concerns, so that the union’s presence maintains its relevance in university life while making a point in social obligations. Balance here does not mean equal airtime for both types of concern, rather, it refers to the amount of attention and energy that is directly proportional to the level of importance and urgency of the issue at hand. The matter of which, can only be determined through sound, altruistic, responsible minds and hearts.

This article is written for publication in The University of Manchester’s Student Direct newspaper, in response to criticisms from students who are dissatisfied with our  Union’s inclination towards international activism e.g. the Palestine cause, Stop The War Foundation, and Anti-Racism policies. They claimed that these causes are sidestepping the bigger priority of student welfare that should be the focus of the Student’s Union. While I agree that student welfare ought to be given a significant priority in the Union’s agendas, I couldn’t help to notice that these complainers seem to demand that international humanitarian activism be pushed aside on the grounds of being the sole province of the ‘political hardcore’ and ‘unrepresentative of students in general’, which I think is unfair. The more conspiratorial part of my brain seem to perceive this as a smoke-screen, some sort of covert missions by the dissatisfied pro-Israelis who had lost in their appeal to cancel our twinning with the An-Najah University in Palestine earlier on. 

Popularity: 16%