TAGS
ON CAMPUS
STUDENT LIFE
OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT
MONEY
COOL
VARSITY BLUES
UTSU
ADMINISTRATION
BIOLOGY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD & DRINK
ELECTIONS
IN THE LAB
FACULTY
TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH
FILM
PROFILE
NUMBERS
INTERVIEW
LITERATURE
PSYCH
BRIEFS
THEATRE
LOVE & SEX
DESIGN
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
LONG FORM
POP CULTURE
THE VARSITY
PRO SPORTS
SPACE
LAW
SIMCOE HALL
TORONTO
HUMAN RIGHTS
MISSISSAUGA
UTSU DEFEDERATION
FROSH
SCARBOROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHY
INFOGRAPHICS
FAITH
BEST OF 2012
GUIDES
LGBTQ
FASHION
RACE
DRUGS
ALUMNI
EUREKA
EDITORIAL
DANCE
SGRT
RELIGION
JOURNALISM
INTRAMURALS
JOB MARKET
COMMUTE
INVESTIGATIVE
PODCAST
University of Toronto's Student Newspaper Since 1880

Shepherd a sure bet

In this UTSU election editorial, The Varsity endorses Shaun Shepherd for UTSU president

By The Varsity Editorial Board
Published: 1:40 am, 5 March 2012
Modified: 4 am, 6 March 2012
Vol CXXXII, No. 20 under
UPDATED

This week, we witnessed the lead up to another UTSU election with its requisite campaigning, mudslinging, and debate drama. The Varsity took some time to sit down with each of the three candidates running for UTSU president. From their responses to our questions (which you can read and listen to here), we arrived at a conclusion — Shaun Shepherd is the candidate most suited to the task of leading the UTSU next year.

The decision to endorse Shepherd was the result of hours of discussion between members of the editorial board — three members of The Varsity staff elected by the masthead to choose amongst the candidates on behalf of the paper. Shepherd’s experience, professionalism, and well-grounded, concrete platform make him the most qualified candidate seeking the office of President of the University of Toronto Students’ Union.

Both Brent Schimdt of StudentsFirst and Rohail Tanoli, the independent candidate in the election, have one specific idea on which they have based their campaigns. Sadly, the rest of their platforms don’t offer much to U of T students.

Schimdt‘s most touted promise is the construction of a U of T campus bar; numerous financial, legal, and equity concerns call into question the feasibility of this promise. The Hangar, a student-run pub underneath Sid Smith, was shutdown by the administration in 2001 because of its failure to prevent underage drinking. Further, the Blind Duck Pub at U of T Mississauga has continually proven itself a difficult financial and managerial problem for the UTMSU. A St. George campus bar would almost certainly encounter similar issues. Without the promise of a campus bar, StudentsFirst is left with a campaign lacking substance or concrete plans. Moreover, the behaviour displayed by StudentsFirst supporters — characterized by the aggressive Facebook pages, debate heckling, and personal attacks — reflects poorly on the slate.

Tanoli wants to negotiate a discount on textbooks through the U of T bookstore. We do not foresee this happening. The margin of return on textbook sales is already low, and it’s highly unlikely that the bookstore would willingly offer permanent discounts on its flagship products to U of T students, its only clientele. While it is clear that Tanoli has charisma, his campaign lacks substance; he hasn’t published a comprehensive platform yet, and though his rhetoric concerning the need for compromise is heartening, he has yet to describe the concrete steps he would take to achieve this.

Both candidates have also failed to show as much initiative as Shepherd in campaigning, postering, and reaching out to students in a timely manner. For days, Schmidt’s StudentsFirst lacked a website with a platform document; similarly, posters for Tanoli’s campaign are conspicuously absent across campus. These oversights demonstrate Schmidt and Tanoli are not yet prepared to lead. The highest student-elected office at U of T demands logistical and practical political prowess, and Schmidt and Tanoli’s campaigns betray their inexperience in management and leadership positions.

Shepherd presents a platform that is both concrete and attainable. An accessibility audit will provide real, hard numbers reflecting which spaces at U of T could be made more accessible. The creation of a U of T box office is a viable idea; it would provide a central location for clubs to sell tickets, reducing both planning and financial burdens. The box office would also expose more students to the services offered by the union. Shepherd has promised to make the board of directors a more salient part of the UTSU, so that students have access to them for basic information and for further promotion of the UTSU elections and other important events.

Our endorsement of Shepherd is not without caveats. The pedestrianization of St. George Street, while certainly one of the most ambitious and creative goals put forward by Shaun Shepherd, may be the least achievable. Two years ago, the Stronger Together slate made a similar promise, and the closure of St. George did not materialize.

Shepherd’s promise to make the board of directors more accessible is also a concern, as it remains unclear what exactly that would entail. This is not the first time that an incumbent executive running for the presidential seat has talked about electoral and managerial reform. But as the opposition have so vocally made clear, little has been done to address real issues such as proxy use at board of directors meetings or the continual election of incumbents. Shepherd deserves the benefit of the doubt — perhaps his plans to make the UTSU more accessible are indeed sincere. UTSU history, though, suggests that students would be wise to ensure that the pressure to follow through on this particular promise is maintained.

However, his strengths outweigh these particular weaknesses. Shepherd represents the continual evolution of the UTSU. There’s been a gradual shift in the student union’s culture over the past few years that has seen it focus on striking a balance between services and political rhetoric. Shaun Shepherd is perhaps the most candid and open UTSU presidential candidate in recent years, and we hope that trend continues.

The great communications theorist James Carey once summed up democracy in a single phrase: “We’ll have that conversation.” This is the attitude that we want to see from the UTSU in the coming year. Democracy is not about division, as some StudentsFirst supporters’ actions might suggest, nor is it only about the conversations our community has today. Democracy is about conversations that carry it into the future. It is this spirit that we hope to see at the U of T: the spirit of dialogue and conversation that enlightens, emboldens, and embraces a better future. The Varsity hopes that Shaun Shepherd brings this same spirit with him to the office of UTSU president.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scollon Taylor Scollon

    You’re right. A few signs are more undemocratic and wrong than appointing a biased CRO, appointing your friends to the ERC, and bringing in CFS-paid volunteers from other campuses to campaign for you. 

    Good call, Varsity. 

    • Kat B.

      It wasn’t a few signs Taylor, it was shouting and harrasing students in a debate with a ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’ mentality. If you want to criticize Shaun you better be ready to take that criticism yourself and the company you keep. The pocket of opposition support at that debate (and at the UTSU AGM earlier this year) was exuding the same behaviour that anti-CFSers on this campus accusing CFS of using outside/inside Simcoe Hall, with administration and with the provincial and federal government. If I looked at this debate and these candidates without knowledge of the re occuring CFS issues Shaun is only one with concrete, feasible ideas: and that is the problem. No one since Change in 2010 has been able to run a better campaign than the incumbants.

  • Students First

    While we respect the opinions of the Varsity Editorial Board, Students First has a comprehensive platform which can be viewed here: 
    http://studentsfirstuoft.com/platform/ We encourage all students to read it and evaluate our ideas for themselves.

  • David K.

    Dear varsity, allow me to paraphrase the great Barney Frank and ask, on what planet do you spend most of your time?

  • Katherine

    Was supporting any particular candidate really necessary? All you’ve done here is make me think less of this newspaper. 

    In terms of campaigning and postering, I argue that the other candidates don’t have the same resources that the Unity (incumbent) slate has. Not to mention, all their posters and them badgering me outside of Sid Smith makes me want to vote for them even less. 

  • Jocelyn Mann

    Very odd that the Varsity made this decision based on the bar considering two separate candidates from Unity conceded at the debate they would also be open to building a campus bar. But I`m sure since the Varsity claimed that other candidates didn`t have platforms (contrary to clear evidence) and were responsible for the poor atmosphere of the election (ignoring the fact that unity supporters have called Students First the modern representation of white supremacy) that it wasn`t much of a stretch for them to ignore that fact.

    And also great that they claim that `the ideas are all that matter` and then attack the opposition for not having the campaign resources of unity.

    Bravo!

  • Ian

    Way to back the winner Varsity! Any half interested U of T student would understand there is something wrong with a system where the incumbents have never lost since affiliating with the CFS. 

    I would like to say your opinion matters, but we all know the CRO would just disqualify all opposition if this even was a contest. 

  • http://twitter.com/SteveMasse Steve Masse

    Tom, Alex – Really?!

    Have we seriously forgotten this team’s history? Are you seriously endorsing a team you know to be anti-democratic and inaccessible to students and campus media? A team that for the last 3+ years has labelled gay opposition candidates ‘homophobes’ and visible minority opposition candidates ‘racists’ and ‘tokens’? And please, save me the argument that this team represents a break from the past and a new approach to UTSU. They’ve recycled many of their ideas, website, and campaign materials from the past and I bet they’ll even reuse their CFS allies from other university campuses during voting (Hi Rodney!).

    In all seriousness though, I understand that StudentsFirst candidates leave a lot to be desired, but why was it so imperative that an endorsement be given to Shepherd? Based on the statement above, it seems you were convinced by his promise to build a UofT Box Office (a fancy name for a service already provided by the UTSU front desk), an accessibility audit, and the fact that they are not supported by Brett Chang and Taylor Scollon. Is this any way to go about making an endorsement?

    As one of the most reputable campus newspapers in the country with arguably some of the most talented staff, I expected more..

    • http://www.facebook.com/scollon Taylor Scollon

      Amen.

    • James Finlay

      Definitely Surprised.

      This endorsement and any others that endorse the UTSU slate, are endorsing an institution that survives in its present form only through an active effort by its members to subvert democracy, endorsing executives who have abandoned the student body in favour of pursuing their own political agenda, past and present executives who hide under the pretense of being equitable but show no apprehension about marginalizing, racializing and discriminating against those who do not share their opinions. You have endorsed a pathetic, recycled PR campaign. 4 years ago it came in red, then it came in green now it comes in blue, but as they say, it’s still a shit knock off. 

      The University of Toronto’s student experience has been in a steady and accelerating decline. Making the correlation between a dysfunctional / corrupt Union and a worsening student experience at U of T should not be difficult. Yet each year the same succession of voices sing praise to UTSU, blessing it for leading the “successful” charge against the powers that be, loving it for fighting the good fight and speaking for those whose voice is too silent. Yet what do we have to show for it? Besides token initiatives. Nothing. 

      Student apathy is at an all-time high. UTSU has ever diminishing clout with respect to advocating on behalf of students. If this trend continues, UTSU will be wholly unequipped to deal with unexpected issues stemming from the administration / government. Advocacy has essentially become a joke. Issues that matter to most students are totally ignored in favour of concentrating resources and energy on initiatives who’s impact on the general campus body is tenuous at best. 

      Time and time again we’ve watched the Union shield itself from criticism, reform and renewal. We’ve seen no major institutional over hauls, incumbency has become such a joke its a wonder why elections are still held, the promise of looking legitimate evaporated a long time ago folks. 

      Any shred of hope that I had that former UTSU execs actually stood by the equity rhetoric they’re most known for spouting flew out the door when I feel victim to the tactics, aggression and discrimination they claimed to abhor. The lesson I learned was they would be willing to do anything to protect their jobs, defend their political beliefs and prevent actual democracy from taking place. 

      So to the Varsity staff that decided this year that the sparkle and glitz sprinkled on this farce looked good enough to get their vote of confidence, Shame! Shame! Shame! 

  • Stefanie

    I’m just curious to know why The Varsity decided to endorse anyone at all

  • Yusuf Khan

    The sheer amount of things you seemed to ignore in choosing who to endorse are baffling. If there really were problems with all slates, why not endorse NO slate.

    More than ever if it was ever needed the varsity is just a club of self righteous hipsters with highly inflated conceptions of self worth

    • Ruta

      “The Varsity is just a club of self righteous hipsters with highly inflated conceptions of self worth”. I love this. SO TRUE.

  • Jdw Scott

    The notion that StudentsFirst is divisive because they call out the perpetual UTSU incumbents for their cheap tricks, rigged elections, biased CRO, obscene protests, exaggerated claims and feigned accusations of racism is incredibly backwards. I’m surprised The Varsity ignored all these shameful actions of the perpetual incumbents and then had the audacity to criticise the challengers for not being as organised as the Unity when we all know Unity has the machine of the CFS behind their efforts and have perfected their campaigning through years of incumbency. (And, for the record, I’m undecided who to vote for.)

    • Kat B.

      Agreed, things need to change on those fronts and students should let that be known. But I am also surprised The Varsity ignored the shameful behaviour and senseless harrasment of students with, I am saying it again, a ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’ attitude by the opposition supports at that debate. I’ve said it more than once and I will say it again, you can’t emulate the behaviour you accuse CFS/incumbants of, especially emulating it at an open debate, and expect people on this campus to see it as something they can get behind. For all the advantages that the incumbants have the reality is students see what they stand for, their behaviour (most of the time) at events like this and make a decision, regardless of their CFS affliation and their messy past due to their incumbancy. You can’t change the UTSU or this campus by running a poorly thought out, lack-luster platform and cite the reason you aren’t going to win by pointing fingers at the CFS incumbancy every year. Someone has to be the bigger person in this and I haven’t seen that since Steve Masse and the Change slate ran in 2010.

  • Molly Mccaughan

    Thanks for writing what I was thinking, Varsity! And kudos for doing it knowing the kind of back lash you would get.

  • Fuuuuuuuuuck

    So the decision is between a scumbag who doesn’t like the rules but has a plan, and a couple of optimists who might be a bit naive.

  • Hardy Weinberg

    I have been on this campus for about 3 years and with all due respect to Brent, Rohail and Shaun but they are no Steve Masse and Adam Awad. Ignoring last years acclaimed election, this years election has been by far the most intense because of lower expectations politics and hasnt been the battle of the titans i saw with Masse vs Awad. 

    Awad and Masse were smart, they ran organized campaigns, they discussed ideas and issues that really mattered to students and more importantly they listened to students. I feel Schmidt, Tanoli and Shepherd tell students what they want, while Awad & Masse took information students and used their big brains to synthesize some brilliant platform points.

    Although Adam Awad is gone, if Steve Masse was running this year he would probably win. 

    • Hardy Weinberg

      Also Students First do have platform points beyond the bar. But since they focus on the bar and their campaign speeches revolved around it students were’nt able to access those points.

      • Kat B.

        I agree 100 and 10 percent. Well said Sir!

        • Kat H.

          You are entirely missing the point. In a race where you’re predisposed to losing, the only way to get ahead is to focus on a topic the majority of the student electoral body cares about.   

  • Jake

    This is the worst endorsement rationale I have ever read in my time at UofT. What’s wrong with The Varsity? You should have endorsed no candidate at all rather than this.

  • Students First

    Please take the time to read our official response to this article here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/students-first/students-firsts-response-to-the-varsity/342297249146675

  • Concerned Denizen

    Nice to know our student funded newspaper has taken a partisan position on student politics. I’m sure that’s its purpose.

  • am

    I have lost my faith in this newspaper.

  • anon.

    Varsity Editors, why do you need to endorse any candidates or slate?  I was generally pleased with the balanced and fair article you published presented as an interview with all three candidates running for President.  I though it was great that you were taking a fair approach- something we have yet to see with UTSU.  However, any respect I gained for you on the merits of your interview has been lost entirely due to your endorsement.  As a student run news paper, The Varsity should be doing everything they can to call for a fair, democratic election.  I expected more.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andreas.korfmann Andreas Korfmann

    WOAH WOAH WOAH, is this for real?!?!?

    I have lost faith in UofT, and am not sure if I will ever get it back again…

    • chuck norris

      no it’s not real. you are in an alternate reality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/samgreene11 Sam Greene

    The fact that this endorsement had to be made with “reservations” about major aspects of Shepherd’s policy platform, despite the fact that the only apparent rationale for the endorsement seems to have been how much better thought out his policy platform was supposed to have been, makes me question the rationale behind offering an endorsement at all. For a campus paper that notionally strives to be objective, picking a time of such inflamed tension to make an endorsement with such flimsy rationale is highly suspect.

    To claim that “Shepherd represents the continual evolution of the UTSU” makes me think that the editorial board of the Varsity has at most feeble grip on reality. Indeed, to speak of any kind of “continual evolution” with respect to the UTSU is either intentionally misleading or deliberately obtuse. An organization with a 100% incumbency rate can only claim to be in “continual evolution” in the sense that the government of the DPRK is in “continual evolution” – change only ever happens as a result of the machinations of insiders jockeying for position.

  • Jonas Kemp

    So, seeing as how the student newspaper (funded by student fees) has decided to throw its journalistic integrity in the toilet and take a partisan position in student politics, when can I expect my refund cheque for the part of my fees that went towards funding this rag?

  • Paddy Treacy

    This. Is. Fucking. Retarded.

    All’s I’m saying is that the majority of the community at Trinity is entirely against this public support of any slate for UTSU elections. Especially given the revolting electoral practices at this university. This is a true shame.

    • Randal Flagg

      That ain’t new. If the Trinity community is on this train of publicly denouncing all slates could they also tell SPAC to kindly shut up and quit acting like they are the answer to this problem and inform them that are just adding to the problem in the worst ways possible? That’d be great.
      Sincerely,
      Everyone who isn’t a supporter of either slate or a part of SPAC

    • ashton

       hahahahahahaha

      the “majority” of trinity offers a glimpse into the thoughts of the entire campus. NOT.

  • DPRUT

    This boggles my otherwise apathetic mind.  Journalists are supposed to inform readers about the issues, not sway their votes.  There is obviously a place for editorials and opinionated reporters in the media, but why is the editorial board of The Varsity – as an institution with no political aspirations itself – endorsing a candidate?  Is this purely an exercise in being able to say, “I told you so”?

    This entire evaluation concludes by giving Shepherd “the benefit of the doubt”.  I fail to understand how the incumbent (whose predecessors made very similar promises) deserves this.  In fact, if an endorsement is going to hinge on such a benefit of the doubt, why make it at all?  If The Varsity wants to use its institutional credibility (though let’s be honest – I doubt all that many people care what you think) to back one candidate over another, then may we all remember these words if they lead us astray.  This time next year, let’s not forget what The Varsity said about the CFS-backed UTSU incumbent slate.  The “evolution” of UTSU is happening at a glacial pace, which may be fine for the UTSU lifers but not for those of us only here for 4 years.  When our worst fears are realized, perhaps The Varsity will realize its mistake.  It’s a shame we must keep burning ourselves to realize we should not play with fire.

    But let’s give UTSU credit where credit is due, the elections are marginally better than those in Russia, where legitimate opposition candidates are put under house arrest.  

    The Varsity has clearly accepted our autocratic incumbents know what is best for us, but I would challenge the students of this university to come to their own conclusions for the imminent election – if you can even call it that.  Do we want undergraduate students representing undergraduate students or career UTSU politicians doing it?  I think the answer is fairly obvious – it’s a shame the editorial board hasn’t clued into the issues real students care about.

    Someone get the message out of the Democratic People’s Republic of the University of Toronto, our state newspaper sure won’t do it.

    • SCB

      I felt compelled to respond to this. 

      You say: “Journalists are supposed to inform readers about the issues, not sway their votes.” I agree. That is why, if you look around the website this morning or the print edition when it comes out this afternoon, you’ll find six pages of opinion, with op-eds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed) from each of the candidates, and even op-eds from FORMER candidates. That’s why we posted a transcript AND a recording of the interview between all three of the candidates. That’s why we have a 1,500 word article on the debate, and extensive and ongoing news coverage of election going-ons. The UTSU has taken down their recording of the debate; we have made ours publicly available. This newspaper does nothing BUT inform voters about the issues. In fact, it continues to be one of the only reliable and intelligent sources of information about the election during this campaign, when misinformation and hysteria is widespread indeed. 

      You say that because The Varsity is “an institution with no political aspirations itself”, it ought not to have run an endorsement. A newspaper is not a passive institution, relaying bare-bones facts and nothing else. We run an opinion section every week that proves we are anything but apolitical. An endorsement by an editorial board is only one article,  expressing the informed and rational opinion of a small group of editors. It should be a model for how others come to form their conclusions about who to vote for. It is NOT an abdication of our efforts to hold the system to account. 

      It could be that reading something in a newspaper that you disagree comes as a bit of a shock. By all means, take issue with the content of the endorsement. Post a comment telling us why we’re wrong. Discussion and debate is always a good thing. But check your impingements on The Varsity’s journalistic integrity at the door, because nothing was done here that is out of place for a newspaper during an election season. 

  • Paddy Treacy

    CENSORED

    • Johnny Goode

       Ahahaha, I see what you did there. I agree, the Vars

  • chuck norris

    drama drama drama drama

  • Tobias Mcvey

    To think
    that The Varsity is doing this after criticizing so many of the UTSU’s policies
    for years on end is very surprising.

    Why would
    you give Shaun the benefit of the doubt when you have made so many arguments
    against this year’s opposition based on who they associate with? Shaun is the
    incumbent’s pick after all, so if anybody is likely to continue supporting
    policies that you don’t agree with, this is that guy. Likewise, if someone will
    continue to fail the lower tuition fees campaign, this is that guy. So based on
    who he associates himself with and what he promises to achieve for students, he
    offers no change to the current policies of the UTSU. Why do you expect him to
    succeed this time when he’s just going to arrange yet another day of shouting
    at an important building? They need to change this tactic.
    I understand that you have a lot of reasons to not support the opposition, but
    that doesn’t translate into supporting business as usual.

    If you
    think the lack of a good alternative forces you to support the current
    regime, then you should take into consideration what this means for other
    issues. Do you support the Conservative government of Canada because there is a
    lack of a strong Liberal and NDP government alternative? 

    Just as
    with the national political level, the student political level needs to be
    mature. Don’t vote for someone you don’t agree with. The Varsity didn’t have to endorse a slate this year from what I could tell. It would have been useful if you did 2 years ago, but this year I’d rather wish you didn’t do it all.

  • Guest

    The pedestrianization of St. George St is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. On that alone, Shaun should be destined to lose. Isn’t there a major parking garage on St. George beside Robarts? Towards the other candidates – a campus bar? Just head down Maddison Ave. on a Thursday night… UTSU politics is a joke. Shut up and hand out the metro passes, will you…

  • snoop dogg

    People need to calm down, I don’t see why the Varsity shouldn’t be allowed to offer an opinion on who they think would make the best candidate. The information and coverage they have provided during the campaigning has been good, and is clearly reflected in their decision. ‘Damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ whatever choice you make is bound to take you into the intellectual cross-hairs of someone or other on this campus. So kudos to you guys for publishing this knowing the shitstorm that would follow.

  • Anonymous

    This endorsement earned Shaun Shepherd 5 demerit points. I’m cackling.

  • Chill Out

    Can we kick UTSU/CFS, Trinity College and all the prepschool hatemongerers in bowties and collered shirts (mostly SPAC-attack leftovers) off campus and then rest of us can live in peace and harmony and host drum circles, poetry readings and start an arts’ collective on back campus? Who is with me?! Let’s get lifted on good vibes and just come to terms with the fact that tempers are so high because the stakes are so low.

    • Hardy Weinberg1

      1000% agree…

  • http://thevarsity.ca/author/maayanadar/ Maayan Adar

    There seem to be a few people wondering why The Varsity decided to endorse a candidate at all. Maybe this comment will shed some light on that. Last week, we had our usual staff meeting where the proposal to do an endorsement, just like major publications do during federal elections, was presented to staff members. The members who were there subsequently voted on whether to write something to that end, and so there are maybe a dozen different reasons representing the dozen people who voted. I don’t pretend to know why other staff members voted the way they did, and seeing as the Varsity is a publication made up of individuals with different backgrounds, different views on campus politics, and different visions for the paper itself, a single reason for why we decided to go for an endorsement is impossible. Laying aside the fact that I believed an endorsement would be in the benefit of the paper itself, I voted “yes” because I felt that as a group that receives information about campus issues and reports on them relentlessly, we were well-informed and had every right to put forth an opinion (so long as it was presented as opinion, as this piece was). Criticisms of the opinion expressed herein are very welcome and duly acknowledged; criticisms of The Varsity’s “journalistic integrity” and its choice to do an endorsement are — I think — unfounded and perplexing.

    • Steve Masse

      Personally, I don’t take issue with the idea of The Varsity making an endorsement in elections. As you mentioned, many of the staff are among the most informed students on campus and I think their contribution to the dialogue is valuable.

      What I do take issue with, however, is the fact that it does not seem like the editorial board considered a “no endorsement” position as a legitimate option. Either that, or they simply did not justify their reason for supporting Shepherd sufficiently.

      I do want to be clear though that while I disagree with certain assessments within this statement, I respect the right of the editorial board to endorse the candidate(s) of their choosing.

  • Esther Mendelsohn

    i find the varsity’s endorsement of a cfs candidate most disturbing. we all know they’re going to win anyway, i think this endorsement is superfluous and dangerously misguided.

  • xO

    Like sheep, they follow the shepherd…

  • Yin

    My main issue with the Unity campaign is that there’re only 2 people on their executive slate that can claim that they did anything in the 2011-2012 year. 

    The whole notion of their entire team “successfully” doing anything is a bit of a sham, now isn’t it? And sometimes I like to go through and compare what the incumbent team promised for 2011-2012 (e.g. the stuff they outline in past campaign materials and in the student planner) with what they actually accomplished. Sometimes it’s shocking how little they’ve accomplished. If they say that they’ve been working for something (e.g. dropping the lowest mark on a transcript) without success for multiple years, then why keep promising it?

    I think students wanted more choice with regards to the people that they vote in, but it’s a bit sad that the other slate has relied on one main “election promise” – the campus bar, without advertising the rest of their merits or campaign with as much enthusiasm. The campus bar promise seems nice, certainly, but it alienates people who don’t go bars because they don’t drink alcohol for religious or personal reasons. 

    Also, I would have hoped that more members (or any members) of the Students First campaign would have shown up on my side of campus. 

    • Yin

      I’m also a bit confused why The Varsity endorsed a candidate in the first place, because I would have hoped a university newspaper funded by the student fees of all students, would have maintained some impartiality. 

      Just a thought. :)

  • Johnny Eagle

    I proudly voted for UNITY and I voted for Shaun Shepherd!

  • Seeke Luthe

    Tell me, where exactly would I be able to observe instances of systematic discrimination and oppression(?!?) here at U of T? The university itself provides funding for an enormous number of clubs which are promoting/celebrating specific ethnic, religious, or ideological outlooks. In addition, can someone please provide me some evidence of systematic discrimination within the student body or student/faculty relations? 

  • Seeke Luthe

    CENSORED

  • Guest

    is it really necessary to continually censor my text? I’m speaking about relevant issues in a respectful manner.