Hold the UVSS to the standard you hold yourself
Kailer Mullet makes some points in an article that need to be addressed (Stick to running the UVSS, March 13).
When 500 students came out to overturn a decision made by our UVSS to ban the military from the SUB, they were representing a sphere of campus that felt strongly enough to vote on the issue and have their voices heard.
The same goes for the 600 students who voted pro-choice. If we’re so worried about having big decisions made by mass voting groups that represent such a small percentage of our student body, perhaps you should be preaching to the 85 per cent of UVic students who don’t give a shit at all, and don’t vote in our UVSS elections.
They’re the same students who don’t come out to AGMs and who don’t know about (or care about) these issues enough to change anything. If you don’t vote, you forfeit your voice in how things are going to be run. Meggs was only “endorsed” by 10 per cent of the student body, but was supported by a 65 per cent majority of those who made the effort to cast a ballot.
Those who didn’t vote at all are not by default pro-life, anti-war or anything at all for that matter. Through apathy, their opinions will be unknown. As for your student fees, are you also aware that you are supporting the Young Liberals of Canada, the Young Conservatives and the International Socialists with your UVSS dues, aside from the NDP and 70 other club and course unions? If you really wanted to avoid the “political” side of our campus you would have to opt out of endorsing many more than one advocacy group. Those who were voted in to run our student body are guided by the students they serve, and a student’s voice can only be heard if they speak up. As it is proven again and again, those who feel most strongly about these issues have come out and said so and influenced the board of directors’ decisions. Shame on those who think our board should sit on the fence. We voted them in to represent us, and by keeping policy that is exactly what they are doing. Just because you’re apathetic doesn’t mean our representatives should be.
12 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
Mike Boultbee March 20, 2008, 3:39 a.m.
First off, it's not enough to say that students are apathetic and we should therefore not care what they think. Perhaps we need to wonder WHY they don't care enough to participate in the democratic process. Most people I know stay as far away from the UVSS because they know it doesn't represent them, does nothing for them, and feel they can do nothing to change it. I may not agree with that defeatist attitude, but it is difficult trying to convince someone any differently.
Sorry, but when you pay $66.34 ($66.84 next year with an increase for course unions, but I digress) to an organization that has consistently given the average student little in return, you're not gonna feel compelled to support it. Let us look at the lovely gems of student representation we've had at least in my time here- little to no special events, ineffective tuition fee protests, a slew of unwarranted disqualifications in student elections and a military ban.
Also Brittany is misunderstood on the desire to avoid the political side of campus. As someone who is annoyed at the abundance of political positions the UVSS has, which, IMO, reflect the views of only a very vocal minority, I can say it's not that individual clubs being political is the problem- it's the UVSS taking political stances. I could care less if Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Socialists, whatever have clubs on campus. Hell, I encourage it- political discourse on national and international issues is always good. That said, do you really believe every student is anti-NATO? Anti-NAFTA?
There's also a difference between advocacy and political positions. Advocacy is an important part of the UVSS, one that should always exist; political positions are different. Ensuring students have, for example, better on-campus housing, or less debt- that's advocacy. Banning CF recruiters from the SUB- that's a political position.
You want more students to have a voice in the UVSS? Maybe the UVSS should give them a voice first. If students felt like they had a Students Society that represented their interests, and not just that of a vocal minority, they'd be more compelled to vote. And don't shame me for thinking this- the UVSS ought to focus on its job, like provide the best services possible, supervising and funding the clubs and course unions, etc. Last time I checked, prohibiting taxidermy from the SUB wasn't their job.
In reply to your final sentence, all I have to say is: just because only a vocal minority bother to vote each year doesn't mean they are the only ones on campus.
Mike Boultbee March 20, 2008, 3:39 a.m.
First off, it's not enough to say that students are apathetic and we should therefore not care what they think. Perhaps we need to wonder WHY they don't care enough to participate in the democratic process. Most people I know stay as far away from the UVSS because they know it doesn't represent them, does nothing for them, and feel they can do nothing to change it. I may not agree with that defeatist attitude, but it is difficult trying to convince someone any differently.
Sorry, but when you pay $66.34 ($66.84 next year with an increase for course unions, but I digress) to an organization that has consistently given the average student little in return, you're not gonna feel compelled to support it. Let us look at the lovely gems of student representation we've had at least in my time here- little to no special events, ineffective tuition fee protests, a slew of unwarranted disqualifications in student elections and a military ban.
Also Brittany is misunderstood on the desire to avoid the political side of campus. As someone who is annoyed at the abundance of political positions the UVSS has, which, IMO, reflect the views of only a very vocal minority, I can say it's not that individual clubs being political is the problem- it's the UVSS taking political stances. I could care less if Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Socialists, whatever have clubs on campus. Hell, I encourage it- political discourse on national and international issues is always good. That said, do you really believe every student is anti-NATO? Anti-NAFTA?
There's also a difference between advocacy and political positions. Advocacy is an important part of the UVSS, one that should always exist; political positions are different. Ensuring students have, for example, better on-campus housing, or less debt- that's advocacy. Banning CF recruiters from the SUB- that's a political position.
You want more students to have a voice in the UVSS? Maybe the UVSS should give them a voice first. If students felt like they had a Students Society that represented their interests, and not just that of a vocal minority, they'd be more compelled to vote. And don't shame me for thinking this- the UVSS ought to focus on its job, like provide the best services possible, supervising and funding the clubs and course unions, etc. Last time I checked, prohibiting taxidermy from the SUB wasn't their job.
In reply to your final sentence, all I have to say is: just because only a vocal minority bother to vote each year doesn't mean they are the only ones on campus.
Claire March 22, 2008, 3:59 a.m.
I have to disagree with this statement
Ensuring students have, for example, better on-campus housing, or less debt- that's advocacy. Banning CF recruiters from the SUB- that's a political positionThere is no difference between taking a stance that housing should be more affordable or that the military has no place in SUB in terms of advocacy or political positions. Both are a form of advocacy, that require a political stance. One could have opposite political stance: that housing should be more expensive and advocate for that. Taking on roles of advocacy requires a political stance.
The distinction you seem to be making is that if you agree with it, you call it advocacy, and if you disagree with the stance you call it political.
Claire March 22, 2008, 3:59 a.m.
I have to disagree with this statement
Ensuring students have, for example, better on-campus housing, or less debt- that's advocacy. Banning CF recruiters from the SUB- that's a political positionThere is no difference between taking a stance that housing should be more affordable or that the military has no place in SUB in terms of advocacy or political positions. Both are a form of advocacy, that require a political stance. One could have opposite political stance: that housing should be more expensive and advocate for that. Taking on roles of advocacy requires a political stance.
The distinction you seem to be making is that if you agree with it, you call it advocacy, and if you disagree with the stance you call it political.
Mike Boultbee March 23, 2008, 1:07 a.m.
Actually, the difference is quite simple: advocacy has the intent of having some sort of benefit for students. More on-campus housing, for example, means students have more places to live- quite simple. On the other hand, I fail to see how exactly banning the military helps students at all. Ditto taking a stance against NAFTA or NATO, etc etc.
Mike Boultbee March 23, 2008, 1:07 a.m.
Actually, the difference is quite simple: advocacy has the intent of having some sort of benefit for students. More on-campus housing, for example, means students have more places to live- quite simple. On the other hand, I fail to see how exactly banning the military helps students at all. Ditto taking a stance against NAFTA or NATO, etc etc.
Claire March 24, 2008, 6:13 p.m.
Is advocating for better bus service a political stance? I would say so. It requires policies that invest in more public services as opposed to something else. Yet, it is also advocating with the intent to make things better for students. Every type of advocacy is also political. However political stances do not by definition include advocacy, advocacy by definition is going to be in some way or another political. Many people would argue that things like NAFTA makes things worse for students, and thus would advocate against it. Others disagree and think it makes things better for student, and would advocate in favour of it. Others still can see that it disadvantages many people who are not students, and would still advocate against it, not just in their own interest but because they care about the greater good. I believe that is where most of the 'political' stuff you take issue with in the UVSS comes from.
Even having more parties has a political effect: you will have to redirect resources from somewhere else. The idea is that hopefully these parties benefit students more then whatever else you might have spent the money on. You also have to be aware of how inclusive etc. parties are.
Anyways, I thought it must be pointed out that 'political' does not mean 'bad', and you can't just paint everything you disagree with with the 'political' brush, while saying that the issues you are agree with are 'advocacy'.
Claire March 24, 2008, 6:13 p.m.
Is advocating for better bus service a political stance? I would say so. It requires policies that invest in more public services as opposed to something else. Yet, it is also advocating with the intent to make things better for students. Every type of advocacy is also political. However political stances do not by definition include advocacy, advocacy by definition is going to be in some way or another political. Many people would argue that things like NAFTA makes things worse for students, and thus would advocate against it. Others disagree and think it makes things better for student, and would advocate in favour of it. Others still can see that it disadvantages many people who are not students, and would still advocate against it, not just in their own interest but because they care about the greater good. I believe that is where most of the 'political' stuff you take issue with in the UVSS comes from.
Even having more parties has a political effect: you will have to redirect resources from somewhere else. The idea is that hopefully these parties benefit students more then whatever else you might have spent the money on. You also have to be aware of how inclusive etc. parties are.
Anyways, I thought it must be pointed out that 'political' does not mean 'bad', and you can't just paint everything you disagree with with the 'political' brush, while saying that the issues you are agree with are 'advocacy'.
Tim Ell March 24, 2008, 8 p.m.
Please enlighten me, I'm dying to see how you're going to make a direct connection between the average student and NAFTA.
Go on. I'm waiting!
Tim Ell March 24, 2008, 8 p.m.
Please enlighten me, I'm dying to see how you're going to make a direct connection between the average student and NAFTA.
Go on. I'm waiting!
Mike March 24, 2008, 8:12 p.m.
Anyways, I thought it must be pointed out that 'political' does not mean 'bad', and you can't just paint everything you disagree with with the 'political' brush, while saying that the issues you are agree with are 'advocacy'.I'm not doing that, Claire. No matter how many times you accuse me of it, I'm not doing that. I'll give you an example: I AM pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I endorse the UVSS taking a stance on abortion. It's not a matter of what I like and what I don't.
I guess your idea of what is advocacy and what is political is different than mine. Again, I will contend that I am referring to advocacy that has DIRECT BENEFIT TO STUDENTS. If you can tell me quite clearly how being against NAFTA, NATO, banning the military, etc benefit students directly, I'd love to hear it. Bus services, on-campus housing, special events on the other hand, are a whole different ball game because they are issues that do directly affect students and the outcomes of that advocacy is beneficial to students.
Maybe some students feel that more macro political issues affect students, but there are avenues for that. Don't like NATO, or the war in Afghanistan? Join SAW or MAWO. Don't like NAFTA? Join the Council of Canadians. If you want to make an even bigger difference on these issues, work and campaign for a political party so like-minded MPs who actually have influence over these decisions get elected.
The scope of UVSS advocacy should be what is of direct interest of students. Going beyond that in ways such as banning the military does not do this; in fact, it just alienates the members of the student body that do not agree with that stance (ask the 500 people who voted said ban down at last October's AGM).
The UVSS should advocate for the issues important (read: of direct benefit) to the students, but if you broaden that scope to include things like being anti-NAFTA, anti-NATO, etc, then you really are not creating an inclusive environment for the students that pay fees to the UVSS that don't support that stance.
Mike March 24, 2008, 8:12 p.m.
Anyways, I thought it must be pointed out that 'political' does not mean 'bad', and you can't just paint everything you disagree with with the 'political' brush, while saying that the issues you are agree with are 'advocacy'.I'm not doing that, Claire. No matter how many times you accuse me of it, I'm not doing that. I'll give you an example: I AM pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I endorse the UVSS taking a stance on abortion. It's not a matter of what I like and what I don't.
I guess your idea of what is advocacy and what is political is different than mine. Again, I will contend that I am referring to advocacy that has DIRECT BENEFIT TO STUDENTS. If you can tell me quite clearly how being against NAFTA, NATO, banning the military, etc benefit students directly, I'd love to hear it. Bus services, on-campus housing, special events on the other hand, are a whole different ball game because they are issues that do directly affect students and the outcomes of that advocacy is beneficial to students.
Maybe some students feel that more macro political issues affect students, but there are avenues for that. Don't like NATO, or the war in Afghanistan? Join SAW or MAWO. Don't like NAFTA? Join the Council of Canadians. If you want to make an even bigger difference on these issues, work and campaign for a political party so like-minded MPs who actually have influence over these decisions get elected.
The scope of UVSS advocacy should be what is of direct interest of students. Going beyond that in ways such as banning the military does not do this; in fact, it just alienates the members of the student body that do not agree with that stance (ask the 500 people who voted said ban down at last October's AGM).
The UVSS should advocate for the issues important (read: of direct benefit) to the students, but if you broaden that scope to include things like being anti-NAFTA, anti-NATO, etc, then you really are not creating an inclusive environment for the students that pay fees to the UVSS that don't support that stance.