Motion on X for June 2026 NEC

By Matt Barnard

I have submitted a motion, in consultation with others, to the upcoming NEC on Friday June 19 asking for a report into the usage of X, formerly known as Twitter, by UCU and potential consequences should the union decide to leave the platform. This comes out of the context of a motion to Congress from University of Southampton calling for UCU to leave X due to the manifold ethical and political problems with the platform. This short post is to communicate the motion widely and explain the reasoning behind it, and why it isn't a motion calling for UCU to leave X now, even though I believe we should. First, I'll let you read the motion, before moving onto the wider context.

Motion to NEC

NEC Notes:

• X has failed to tackle racist, sexist, transphobic and other forms
  of discriminatory abuse on the platform
• X's AI tool has been used to create and publish harmful,
  non-consensual sexualised images of women and girls
• Elon Musk has amplified far-right voices and narratives on X,
  including in relation to the riots in Southampton on on 2 June and
  Belfast on 9 June 2026
• Congress 2026 Motion 78, "Exit X", remitted to NEC
• UCU Rules 2.4 'To promote equality for all [...]' and 2.5 'To
  oppose actively all forms of harassment [...]'

NEC Believes:

• UCU presence on X is worthy of critical consideration
• That social media communications are an operational matter and any
  decision must be informed by consultation with staff

NEC Resolves:

• To request that the General Secretary commission a report on the
  strategic and operational implications of UCU withdrawing from X for
  the next NEC

Background: UCU Congress 2026 and the Southampton Motion

University of Southampton submitted a motion, 'Exit X', to Congress and it was ordered onto the agenda. However, because of repeated challenges to that agenda, and the sheer amount of motions ordered, it was not heard. The motion can be read on the UCU Policy website. To be transparent, I would have voted for this motion and if it was passed, UCU would have to leave X and implement the other 'resolves'. My opinion, although it is just an opinion, is that this motion was likely to pass since other anti-racist and anti-fascist motions passed with substantial majorities. However, we fundamentally do not know what would have happened.

The motion has been 'Remitted to NEC', which is an ambiguous status. Myself and others who would like UCU to leave X are taking advice, but our current understanding is that we may not be able to pass such a motion at NEC. This is due to the difference in powers held by Congress vs the NEC. Put at its simplest, Congress sets policy and NEC makes decisions. Passing 'Exit X' as policy would be binding, but it is not clear to us at present whether NEC could do this for this policy or not. I'm inclined to be pessimistic, but as I said, we're taking advice.

Strategic vs operational matters: why NEC may be reluctant to pass a motion to leave X at this point

There are additional concerns about NEC being the instrument of an instruction to leave X. If a motion to leave X were in order for the NEC, there is an important reason why the Committee may chose not to pass it. NEC should really make strategic decisions, rather than operational ones. It's very important that NEC does not tell UCU staff how to do their jobs. Social media communications are an expert matter, and an operational one. We might have a strategy to use social media or not, but as soon as we start talking about which platforms and how, this does seem to encroach on operational matters. As such, although I can't speak for anyone else on NEC, there is likely to be significant concern about micro-managing staff in this way via NEC. I will say that I personally think there is nuanced way through this problem, but I would not want to micro-manage staff via a committee either, and so this is a challenge that needs to be taken very seriously.

Rationale for this motion: More information

The debate does need to move forward, however. The motion I've submitted asks for a report to NEC that explains how UCU uses X and what the strategic and operational implications might be for doing so. My hope is that by beginning in this way we can start to build a clearer picture of what's involved. For example, there may be specific circumstances where leaving X, however ethical, might significantly hamper UCU's operations. For example, more MPs are active on X than other platforms. There may be niche cases in particular branches as well.

I will freely admit I want to know more about our usage because I would like to find a mechanism for leaving X. However, there are other reasons that this report would be useful. X is doing nothing to allay the concerns raised in the Southampton motion. In fact, things are getting worse. The chances of another motion going to next years Congress on this issue, if UCU are still on X, are very high. And, if passed, we will need to deal with the consequences outlined above. Further, there is a small chance that X could be restricted or even banned at some point. I think this chance is low, but it is not zero. This report is a sensible step in preparation for such an eventuality where, regardless of what NEC do, UCU is no longer on X. As a final point, if the importance of X usage is so great that a convincing case can be made to tolerate the egregious nature of the platform, that case needs to be made to members.

Next steps

I hope this motion passes. If it does, the report should come to next NEC in November. I'll use the time between now and then to work with others to further develop the case and identify an appropriate mechanism by which we leave X.