Tensions ran high at the U of T Students’ Union’s annual general meeting Thursday evening. College council representatives expressed dissatisfaction with UTSU, citing what they regard as inappropriate priorities, lack of transparency, and most importantly, lack of consultation and communication with the colleges. Several St. George students complained of preferential treatment to UTM.
So many students wanted to speak—and some spoke at length—that the chair finally motioned to cut the speakers list. It was put to a vote and passed.
The annual general meeting was scheduled for 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. It started at 6:45 p.m., because students from UTM were stuck in traffic, and ended around 11 p.m. Steve Masse, president of Woodsworth College Students’ Association, stayed until 9 p.m. “I was here on time and I have to leave when it was supposed to end. By delaying it, they’re disenfranchising me and all the students who came on time,” said Masse.
Gabe De Roche, a Trinity student, spoke about what he called a “special arrangement” between UTSU and UTMSU. The bulk of fees that UTM students pay to UTSU are returned to UTMSU. At St. George, students’ UTSU fees are not passed on to college councils. UTMSU is also allotted their own student commons and seat on the Canadian Federation of Students, a privilege that no college councils share in.
“Most of their campaigns come from the CFS, and not the other way. A lot of the campaigns do affect St. George. They are student concerns, but they’re being imposed on us, not coming from us,” Masse later told The Varsity, adding that many people on WCSA don’t support UTSU campaigns because they don’t feel connected to them.
Masse emphasized that he supports the content of some UTSU campaigns and recognizes that the executive works hard. But he took a step back from UTSU involvement after the Nov. 5 drop fees campaign last year. “I didn’t see the commitment to the St. George campus that I wanted,” he said.
UTSU president Sandy Hudson said UTSU’s relationship with CFS is just the opposite. She gave the drop fees campaign as an example. When U of T students wanted to call on the government to let students without immigration status stay in school, CFS liked the idea and included it in their campaign.
Francesca Imbrogno, president of the St. Michael’s College Student Union, said defederation is a possibility. “I really can’t speak officially on behalf of my council because we haven’t discussed it, but opinions around SMC are pretty serious because no one sees the cons of defederating,” she said.
“A lot of students have been asking me, ‘What does UTSU do for us—why do we even have to be attached to them?’ It’s really hard for me to come up with answers other than health benefits and Metropasses, because on this side of campus we don’t see any benefits coming from them, only detriments.”
“The process is very collaborative and from the grassroots,” Hudson told The Varsity in a later interview. She said UTSU has reached out to college councils, going to their meetings. “We’ve told them to come and air your grievances so we could have a working relationship, and they don’t come to any of the commission meetings,” Hudson said. “I don’t think it’s a priority for the folks at the colleges to mend these relationships.”
College council reps gave homecoming as an example, arguing that the event would have been far better if UTSU had included them in the planning. Danielle Sandu, VP campus life, responded that aside from a few exceptions, the heads of college councils did not respond to emails and text messages inviting them to get involved.
Catherine Brown, president of the Victoria College Student Administrative Council, pointed out that around $500,000 in student fees intended for health and dental care weren’t spent last year. UTSU’s budget auditor confirmed that that money went into UTSU’s general surplus. “I really question the fact that they are profiting off student health care plans,” said Brown. “This is a service they provide and it shouldn’t be surplus for them.”
Doly Begum, a St. George student, defended UTSU. Begum said she was disappointed with the divisiveness, saying, “I think we need unity across colleges—we all need to work with each other and the UTSU to make a difference.”
Comments
I find it funny that VP Campus life bitches at people for not responding to her TEXT messages!
Nov 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The important thing is that St. George students are absolutely not represented by UTSU. The way to fix this is for the colleges and faculty divisions to be more proactive and actually engage this campus... enough to win an election.
It's totally regressive to be fracturing the campus by having SMC spend the year threathening to split off (which will never happen because it'll get shut down by admin without utsu having to lift a finger).
Also for a slate that once ran on uniting the campus, Hudson is very quick to pass the blame onto college councils being unresponsive.
I don't see anyone on either side being proactive. Elections this year will probably be a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Nov 23, 2009 at 01:35 PM
College councils really only represent the students that live in residence and a few hardcore commuters that actually go place foozball in their stupid lounges. Most SMC students barely go east of Queen's Park except to use the registrar's office.
What's the voter turnout for SMCSU or VUSAC? Why are these people on a high horse claiming they are somehow more connected to the student body.
The truth is some students get involved at U of T by having pub nights with their college council, some work on an undergrad journal with their course union, some run equity campaigns with UTSU and some just hang out with their campus club. It's really arrogant to suggest one mode of participation or activism is more relevant or meaningful.
Nov 23, 2009 at 02:26 PM
SMCSU has a higher voter turn than the UTSU. In terms of voter turnout commuters and residents vote in almost equal numbers.
I pay $14 a semester to SMCSU and get way more than that in services. Conversely I pay $70 a year to the UTSU and get nothing in return.
SMCSU is an apolitical body, each of the commissions provides a different service and SMCSU's events are well attended.
I'm a commuter and I spend time at SMC, Brennan Lounge is the place I go when I'm not at Kelly Library. I also study at Gerstein, in Robarts and spend time in Bahen.
A student union should unite students while providing services to make life a little bit easier. The UTSU does not efficiently provide services and spends the majority of its time, and our money, on divisive political campaigns that are esoteric and radical.
One final note: Kelly Library is the most visited college library at U of T and is almost always full of people.
UTSU's imprudent and divisive "participation" is arrogant.
Nov 23, 2009 at 03:17 PM
The voter turnout in the Spring 2009 UTSU elections was 13%.
The voter turnout in the Spring 2009 VUSAC elections was over 20%.
As a student highly involved in my college council, I agree completely with you EKS that no form of participation or activism is more relevant or meaningful than another. I do think, however, that college councils provide a lot more support to students than merely throwing pub nights. At Vic, we also ensure that student space needs for our 40 clubs and levy receivers are met; we organize social justice and equity events; we create community for many commuter students; we engage our administration in sustainability discussions; and, we promote opportunities for student engagement at Vic beyond VUSAC.
Nov 23, 2009 at 03:29 PM
Vusac is also is comprised of the largest clique on vic campus. 20% is nothing in a larger picture, especially when it's the same people who are constantly running for these positions on council. why not try and get people who are flies on the wall, the underdogs instead of bffs who kiss each other's asses
Nov 23, 2009 at 06:58 PM
Perhaps UTSU needs to be restructured in order to more fully and equally represent the colleges, commuter students, engineers, grad students, law, med, UTM/UTSC, and everyone else?
Why not have each college/faculty elect representatives to BE the UTSU. This will eliminate the current problem of a small group of socialists hijacking student government.
Nov 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Well honestly I lived at Vic for two years and I don't hate VUSAC. I also don't hate UTSU.
UTSU does good work and is one of the only organizations on campus that at least tries to offer some kind of critic view of the university.
My one bizarre concern is how the colleges I think do a lot of work to try to keep UTSU away from their members. Apparently they've kicked out UTSU from Winterfest, which I find odd from a bunch of people who want to UTSU to do more of that kinda non political work.
Lastly, I'm curious as to where Steve from WCSA is getting off on the whole "CFS campaigns" stuff. If he had read the "leaked" version of the agenda for the CFS meeting (or for that matter asked the exec at UTSU) he probably would have seen that that the three motions going are all those on either St George-specific issues like flat fees or TYP, or on issues that are mainly being organized by St George students (like the presidents' climate initiative) and not the other way around.
Though now that I've brought the big-bad CFS into this I've probably single handed tripled the number of comments on this article.
In conclusion, all these groups just need to stop spending my money to screw each other over. U of T student politics is nuts.
Nov 24, 2009 at 01:07 AM
AGM PROXY FORMS MISHANDLED AT UTM
http://mediumonline.ca/2009/11/23/agm-proxy-forms-mishandled-at-utm/
Nov 24, 2009 at 01:22 AM
Perhaps if UTSU had respected the choice students made last year in the election, we would not be facing this issue here today.
St. George voted in FAVOUR of a different set of executives.
Perhaps the discussion should be drawn to why this gross violation (with respect to the election) was allowed to take place.
An Innis College sponsored report exposed the election fraud that UTSU partook in. Despite the evidence adequately throwing the validity of the election into doubt, UTM students and UTSU Executives (who had ran in the election themselves) voted in favour to approve the results. The CRO (who obviously is implicated in this) didn't attend the meeting.
Not only that, evidence has surfaced regarding a UTM student partaking in proxy voting fraud. Want to know what a proxy vote is? When you go to the UTSU Annual General Meeting, you can go there with 1 vote for yourself and up to 10 votes for other students you get signature approval from.
This student, in an attempt to 'throw the vote' in favour of UTSU, has only added to a long list of UTSU sponsored fraud.
The CFS isn't the issue, the colleges being detrimental to campus isn't the issue. UTSU's blatant violation of union rules and regulations is what the problem is.
I'm not going to waste my breath chastising the executive. I'm going to continue calling them out on the fact that they were not legally voted in.
For those people who regard UTSU as being an accountable organization - take the above facts into consideration. If you believe in honesty and accountability, you'll join in this call for change. We don't have to see eye to eye politically, but I'm sure we see eye to eye in recognizing the need for a legitimate union.
It's more than clear that this executive is past their expiry date - this campus needs new life. We owe it to the students to make this happen.
Nov 24, 2009 at 01:44 AM
I think the colleges saw an opportunity to maintain an important U of T tradition that would have otherwise failed because of St. George students' alienation. Do you honestly think given their experiences with Homecoming that ANY college would participate in a UTSU-led collaborative project? It is HIGHLY unlikely.
Whoever is right/wrong in this entire debacle, I am happy that at the end of the day Winterfest is a collaborative project between so many of our campus student societies (contrary to Doug's belief, UTSU included!). I think that this is something that has been severely lacking in the past few years. Too often we are divided because of the collegiate system at St. George and I think it is about time somebody is doing something to help fix that.
UTSU, the colleges, whoever, AT LEAST it's finally happening.
Nov 24, 2009 at 02:09 AM
Re: Doug, regarding winterfest
as I understand it, the colleges don't like UTSU getting involved sometimes for various events as the colleges do the majority of the groundwork, but then the UTSU hijacks the events at the end to give the illusion that they did the bulk of the work. This has happened before, but I guess the colleges were tired of being unequal partners in the venture and took steps this year to change the relationship for winterfest.
I'm pretty sure that the average student at u of t would love for their student union to do more non-political work,let alone the colleges and pro-facs, as I feel that's what drives students away in the first place. The thing is, you can't just barge in and take credit for the work that the colleges do, as they're in my opinion the only places were real community building and engagement takes place at U of T.
Also, I must say, kudos to the Varsity for this article, as well as the UTM Medium for their very interesting articles. Makes me wish campus politics and campus life was covered on a more frequent basis.
Nov 24, 2009 at 02:56 AM
Here's Varsity coverage of the UTSU election irregularities James mentioned: http://thevarsity.ca/articles/19040
"Of note were more Trinity College students voting at the Leslie L. Dan Pharmacy Building than the much closer Gerald Larkin Building, as well as more UTM students voting at St. George than their own campus."
This is explained away by Dave Scrivener in the comments of the same article as resulting from an "Excel document formula typo." That's not enough to restore confidence to the process. No, these revelations—especially in conjunction with everything else that went on in an election where most seats were won by a thin margin—should have resulted in a proper inquest, perhaps by the provost's office.
Nov 24, 2009 at 09:01 AM
If I understand correctly, the College Councils are accusing the Students' Union of suffering from a lack of participatory democracy.
Can we now expect College Councils to demand, of the university administration, more democratic and participatory processes/governance?
My point: It is imperative that we resist bureaucratic trends among our unions. It is even more important, however, that we resist the hijacking of our education by the University's administration for interests far removed from those of the students and faculty.
ps. At the risk of unintentionally taking away from our criticisms of union bureaucracy, I'll mention that our college councils lack 'democratic and participatory processes' to a far greater degree than our Students' Union.
Nov 24, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Fez,
Distracting the issue - how original of you.
Vindicating UTSU because they're "not as bad" as the College Councils makes no sense. In general, most colleges meet the demands of the students that elected them and they don't even get paid.
I guess in UTSU's case, the students that elected them are in UTM. Students who have a very representative student union, who have their own vote at the CFS, their own clubs. They even have their own Student Commons.
I'm sure someone is hijacking something from your education. The system and the man are pretty powerful like that.
But, if UTMSU can fight the good fight and be really good to their campus at the same time, what's stopping UTSU?
Nov 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM
'At the risk of unintentionally taking away from our criticisms of union [and administrative] bureaucracy.'
I think I made it clear that I had no intention of 'detracting from the issue,' nor did I aim to 'vindicate [unions].'
Hope that clears things up.
I'll reiterate my question, though:
'Can we now expect College Councils to demand, of the university administration, more democratic and participatory processes/governance?'
Nov 24, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Faraz does raise an interesting point. And I'm thinking yes, maybe they will. If I remember correctly, most if not all of the college councils have parity or close to parity between faculty, admin and staff on the college governing bodies, so they'd probably be keen to have the wider university governing bodies have or approach parity between the different stakeholder groups.
I'm more interested by another one of your comments though, the bit about college councils lacking 'democratic and participatory processes.' To be honest I was labouring under the impression that they weren't as bad as you make them out to be, but could you perhaps explain that point a bit more, and clear up my confusion?- thanks
Nov 25, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I believe that U.T.S.U. was fully aware it was breaking by-laws and policies. Obviously they were banking on the average student not knowing that they were doing something wrong. The fact that U.T.S.U. has no shame about it all (e.g. waiting for their UTMSU allies to fortify their votes) is particularly alarming.
I don't really want to address anything that happened during the meeting itself. I found the entire AGM a bit ridiculous. Instead of individual VPs commenting on what they had done, they decided to invite speakers to give talks about the state of education? Seemed a tad irrelevant.
I was particularly unimpressed with the lack of notice people received regarding the AGM. I received notice by Facebook invite TWO days prior to the actual event. I had heard absolutely nothing about it prior. Did UTSU not want their membership to come?
Proxy forms was also a bit hidden. Why were people not allowed to print proxy forms off from the website? Why are people always expected to sign them out from the UTSU office? Also, it almost seemed as if UTSU was assigning their friends and allies arbitrary proxy votes.
Nov 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM
"'Can we now expect College Councils to demand, of the university administration, more democratic and participatory processes/governance?'"
The very language of this question offends me, "can we now expect...". Perhaps the colleges should stage a sit in to really demonstrate their intent or perhaps shout out profanities at AGM's to get their message across.
Another important fact to remember is that UTSU sets the agenda with respect to what 'student priorities and concerns' should be. This is done without consultation, without correspondence and discussion with the colleges / faculties. President Sandy Hudson believes, if the colleges don't approach her, than we have missed our opportunity to participate in policy discussion. Shit just doesn't work like that.
Just because UTSU is an advocate of a certain issue, does not mean that I or the colleges are entitled to agree or support that.
The current UTSU regime is largely considered to be illegitimate. I have no interest in working with an illegitimate body on matters that are sensitive to students. Even more so with a regime that has demonstrated that they do not believe in a "bottom up" approach to policy decision making.
Simply saying that the colleges are more than welcome to attend their meetings is hollow rhetoric. No one here has any misconceptions surrounding the fact that we do not and cannot set the agenda.
Opponents of progress, change and accountability need to remember this simple truth; The college councils across campus are made up of dozens of elected, unpaid student leaders. That's hundreds of directly elected individuals who sit on councils that are calling for an end to this corrupt behavior.
Who has the legitimate right to speak for the student interest? The plethora of councils out there who are active within their communities, or this UTSU regime which was illegitimately brought to office.
Another question as was mentioned in a UTSU article in The Mike (came out yesterday); Who has been doing a better job for the vast majority of students? The unpaid student councils or these 6 paid executives?
Enough is enough. The fact that these UTSU executives and their close (and small) group of supporters are fighting so very hard against progress is evidence of their corruption.
To say that this ship has sunk is an understatement.
Nov 25, 2009 at 02:41 PM
Re: Adam Smith
The fallacy that SMC leaving the UTSU would be "fracturing" to the campus is as dangerous as it is wrong.
The campus would not be fractured as the UTSU does not represent the campus and it is the UTSU that is divisive.
For some reason students tacitly concede this falsehood. If you look at Winterfest, which is being organized and executed by the colleges and faculties working together without UTSU, you will see a united U of T.
The UTSU itself acknowledges that they do not speak for all students:
“It isn't completely realistic for any single body to represent all 41,000 undergraduates,” said Daniella Kyei, VP Equity.
St. Michael's College can and should withdraw from the University of Toronto Students' Union as St. Mike's gets nothing in return for the $70 (per student for each of SMC's 4500 undergrads) in fees the UTSU extracts each year and the UTSU has disenfranchised SMC in the past.
If St. Mike's wasn't part of the UTSU they would still interact with the other faculties/colleges in the same positive way they always have.
In conclusion I reject your premise: that the UTSU unites the university/speaks for all 41000 U of T's students and the very notion that the campus would be divided if a college that has been systemically marginalize, disenfranchised and had its money squandered were to withdraw after years of respectful criticism, calls for transparency and intelligent debate.
The myth of "the UTSU as a uniting force" is dangerous as it justifies the fact that the UTSU is not accountable or transparent, how all 41000's fees are wasted on the UTSU Execs' lavish salaries, the Canadian federation of Students and ineffective pet projects like the 5 failed drop fees protests. No one cares because it is all "for the greater good" or "to hold the administration accountable."
Nov 26, 2009 at 01:17 PM
Re: Joseph
"lavish salaries" - $25,000 is not lavish, even by SMC standards.
My premise is not that UTSU speaks for 41,000 students. I absolutely agree that the current UTSU executive is not working for students on this campus. I agree that college and faculty councils are far more engaged and representative of students.
This is why we have elections.
UTSU as an institution has the resources and capacity to be an extremely vital and unifying force on this campus. Currently, it simply does not have that goal as their priority. They haven't for a really long time.
I believe that changing this is possible. SMC is the only college that views desertion as viable option and I'm pretty sure that animosity arose out of a club night being stolen by UTSU, exacerbated by the Change slate's loss.
If you left, it would fracture the campus. Would you have a separate voice from the rest of the undergrads on various committees that UTSU sits on? What would happen to part-time SMC students? Would you be members of the CFS with your own vote? If you weren't, your health insurance levy would either have to triple or the services it comes with would have to go way down. UTSU gets revenue from Orientation, long-term investements, Health&Dental that goes into their operating budget which allows the levy to stay relatively low - with such a small membership, wouldn't SMCSU have to have a much higher levy to provide even remotely the same level of services UTSU does? Do you think admin will let you split off without having the same capacities?? I obviously could go on.
It's an empty threat and making it sends a disingenuous message to students.
Like I said, lesser of two evils.
Nov 26, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Re: Adam (sans Smith)
I apologize for the point form but it is the end of the term:
I want to debate you more and I do understand and respect your position but I don’t see us coming to any form of compromise.
As I am an un-elected official the fact I have started a conversation on whether St. Mike’s should leave the UTSU is not a threat. I am a student of John Locke (the philosopher and the Terry O'quinn character.) Therefore I believe that after expressing our grievances, attempting to change the system and being repeatedly rebuffed and maltreated St. Michael’s College has no other recourse.
My largest complaint against the UTSU is that they have lowered the level of civil discourse at this university. That is why I have not and will not take to the streets with signs and protest them. I seek only to convince my feel SMCers that action must be taken. I believe that action should be a plebiscite, referendum or petition. If other people disagree and can convince me otherwise I will yield.
If you ever want to talk in person that would be cool.
Nov 26, 2009 at 10:20 PM
RE: Joseph's comment I'm curious to know what Health Insurance policies you have uncovered that might give you a better, if not equivalent, deal to what the UTSU currently offers?
Nov 27, 2009 at 02:36 AM
Re: Joseph - "My largest complaint against the UTSU is that they have lowered the level of civil discourse at this university. That is why I have not and will not take to the streets with signs and protest them."
Historically speaking, 'civil discourse' has not led to any gains.
We're shut out of meetings and governing bodies on campus. Corporate CEO's make up the large majority of our highest decision-making body on campus! Furthermore, even in the face of unanimous opposition from the student body, the University continues to pass regressive policies (such as Flat Fees) year after year.
Given the University's blatant disregard for the interests of students, faculty and the community-at-large, the question is not whether we should remain 'civil' and keep our gloves on. Rather, the question is, how could we possibly hesitate to take them off?
In simple terms, the administration has taken this university away from us. Privatization, corporatization, tuition de-regulation and the gradual elimination of undergraduate presence on campus are real and ongoing problems facing the university community. We - students and faculty - are the foundation of this university. It's time for us to take the university back.
Childcare on campus.
No-Sweatshop policies for University clothing.
Undergraduate access to Robarts Library.
Women's access to Hart House.
Divestment from South African Apartheid.
An end to military recruitment on campus.
These are the results of civil disobedience on campus, and not 'discourse,' nor debate. The fact that policies like Flat Fees are even up for debate is an affront on the so-called democratic nature of the University. History does not lie. History also, as we all know, tends to repeat itself.
I'm not sure what bubble you're living in, Joseph, but those of us at the forefront of progressive struggles on campus are tired of such illusory notions as 'civil discourse.'
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We know this, because we were there. The question is, 'Where were you?'
Anyone who has anything to do with such progressive struggles knows, without a doubt, that 'civil discourse' has failed us, time and time again.
Nov 27, 2009 at 09:21 PM
Let me clarify --
I just wish folks would take the time to historically ground their positions, prior to sharing their thoughts on such matters.
Quite frankly...your, at best, naive, and at worst, conceited and belligerent comments, on the supposed need for 'civil discourse,' serve only to further mystify and obfuscate the task at hand: that of taking back our university.
History is your friend. Flirt with it; otherwise, you risk imagining, for yourself, a 'reality' far removed from the material world.
Nov 27, 2009 at 09:31 PM
Re: Faraz Vahid Shahidi
(I apologize again for the point form, inelegant I know but time is a scarce resource.)
“Historically speaking, 'civil discourse' has not led to any gains.” That statement is credulously immature. Some examples of civil discourse bring about change more effectively than yelling trivial slogans:
1.The Lincoln-Douglas debates. This was the campaign debate between Abraham Lincoln and his opponent Stephen A. Douglas in his senate race. They debated for hours on slavery and the purpose of government. This helped lay the groundwork for the abolition of slavery. As the civil war was about much more than abolition it was the discourse that brought about freedom.
2.The Patriation of the Canadian constitution. This happened because Of respectful conversation and the triumph of ideas.
3.The Famous Five: Nellie McClung and the other suffragettes did protest but Mrs. McClung wrote essays and works of non-fiction/fiction to ensure that women were no longer disenfranchised. They were especially good at using satire, which is more effective than the pandemonium that passes for “civil disobedience” on campus.
3.President Barack Obama: He was able to win the primaries and the presidency because of his ideas. He could have challenged then Senator now Secretary of State Clinton to a “Sit in” but he choose to have many debates with her, then John McCain and to have a lengthy and detailed platform.
4.Climate change: It was not people in polar-bear suits that convinced Presidents Obama and Hu Jintao, along with many other leaders and citizens of the world, that we must combat climate change but scientists. Al Gore didn’t lie spray-paint an oil tanker, he gave a lecture.
6.Mohandas Gandhi believed in non-violent protest. Before he started his movement he went to law school. Some pertinent quotes of his are:
“One thing we have endeavoured to observe most scrupulously, namely, never to depart from the strictest facts and, in dealing with the difficult questions that have arisen during the year, we hope that we have used the utmost moderation possible under the circumstances.” “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.” Gandhi believed in resisting yes, but he won because of his discourse.
This is in no way an exhaustive list. My final example is more of a correction:
I am a student of history. Not only do I flirt with history but we have made out on several occasions. Please do not call me naïve then give one-sentence examples to support yourself. We are at the best University in the country and should hold ourselves to higher standards. I do not claim I am better than anyone or that I have reached a higher standard, I am quite average but we should set the bar high
Civil discourse is only in an illusion insofar as students, who boisterously argue as you have on this comment section using shallow and specious arguments, have behaved like harlequins performing a play entitled “Civil Discourse” for many years without pause until, like the emperor without clothing or the number of lights in 1984, the average student mistakes the heinous doppelganger that was created for “Civil discourse.”
Nov 28, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I apologize for the mistakes with the numbering.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:01 AM
I'll agree with you on one thing:
American Presidents, wealthy white men, and a selection of straight, white, middle-class women have rarely been forced to resort to civil disobedience. Unfortunately, we're not talking about American Presidents, wealthy white men, and a selection of straight, white middle-class women. Indeed, historically speaking, civil disobedience has most often been deployed in direct opposition to such 'interest groups.'
On that note, we need to place such events as the Lincoln-Douglas debates in an historical context. Slavery would never have ended without the numerous and violent uprisings on various plantations. Again, anti-racism movements of the 20th century would not have proven as fruitful had direct-action bodies such as the Black Panthers not existed. The wealthy elite, did not, in their wondrous generosity, award slaves their 'freedom.' Material forces were at play; the hands of the elite were forced. Something they don't teach you in history classes: always look upstream.
We're not living in your ambiguous history texts (Gandhi took to his grave his support for Britain's initial 'domestication' of 'his' peoples).
I cited historical examples that relate to the University of Toronto.
The fact that you must fall back on such far removed examples as the 'Patriation of the Constitution' and 'Women's Suffrage,' speaks to how removed you are from reality on campus.
Nov 28, 2009 at 09:59 AM
My point in the first portion of my last post is as follows (I want to avoid a misreading):
The examples you cited were of historically privileged populations/individuals/communities etc. -- at least at the time of their 'civil' intervention.
All you've shown is that privileged people don't need to make recourse to civil disobedience. You're right. It is the least privileged that, historically, have been left with no other option but to employ civil disobedience.
The dynamic between working students - burdened by $13 billion dollars' worth of debt - and the administration/the provincial government is not similar to the relationship between Lincoln and Douglas, nor that of Al Gore and the US Government.
Your examples are fallacious; they serve no purpose but to cloud the structurally violent relationship between students/faculty and those exploiting them.
Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Re: Faraz Vahid Shahidi de la Mancha
You fail to grasp the overarching theme of my critique. I use lofty examples, as it was you who brought up the South African Apartheid and therefore infused our debate with themes that extend beyond the university. Your arguments, here and outside of this forum fit like giants robes upon a hellion. What I attempted to do with my comments is show you that discourse and disobedience do not exist in separate arenas/vacuums. They must work together but in a situation where repression is not violent (like our University) and indeed many other circumstances in our modern world, discourse is superior to “civil disobedience.”
We are debating each other on the internets, while attending the best university in a first world country.
You are privileged.
I am privileged.
As you've shown: privileged people don't need to make recourse by engaging civil disobedience. Which is another point that must be spoken to. This is Toronto in the year 2009, not Reconstruction era USA, not Apartheid South Africa, not modern day Palestine. I reject the notion that there is a structurally violent relationship between students and the administration. Your definition of violence demeans and minimizes real civil disobedience confusing minuscule yet gaudy protests with the work of Martin Luther King Jr.
It is ignorant and disrespectful to dismiss those in the past who were in a better position to help others and did so just because they were in the so-called privileged majority while you (it bears repeating) attend the best university and debate with me using a computer.
The “historical” examples you cite were not victories based on yelling (which is what masquerades as “civil disobedience” on this campus.) Those achievements came about because we are at a university which should be (but in terms of students engaging the administration no longer is) the realm of discourse. Where each side has the right to put forward their position relishing the ability to persuade using intelligence and sound argument. I also disagree with the proposition that “An end to military recruitment on campus” was desirable.
In conclusion: - I agree with you that we have no need for civil disobedience as we are on a leveled playfield having gotten into the university.
I do not imply that U of T’s issues are parochial I just used larger historical examples because that is how you set the terms of this debate.
The idea that there is a “violent” system is quite adolescent. You live in a quixotic world President David Naylor is Lex Luthor, Simcoe hall is the Ministry of Love and the McGuinty government possess a money tree that would allow them to make university free without raising taxes but they deign not to prune it out of pure malice. At this university you are easy to see though but that does not make your premises a preposterous menace to other students.
Sincerely,
Joseph
Nov 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM
"It was you who brought up the South African Apartheid and therefore infused our debate with themes that extend beyond the university."
I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about the student disruptions of '89 at UofT that led to the University's divestment from South African Apartheid.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:07 PM
We're at a standstill.
You've no intention of engaging with the issue of structural violence as it exists today.
I am.
So be it.
I would suggest two readings:
Freire, Paulo - Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Farmer, Paul - Pathologies of Power
Two contemporary writers on matters of structural violence. The first in education, the second in social-health economics and policy.
Also - Re: "This is Toronto in the year 2009, not Reconstruction era USA, not Apartheid South Africa, not modern day Palestine."
Funny, because today's calls from both South Africa and Palestine demand, of us, civil disobedience, not 'discourse.' The point: Cultural distance is fallacy, in that, the more we critically engage with material relations, the more it becomes clear to us that there is no "them" without the "us.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:19 PM
I have read sections of both of those works and I would recommend both, on top of seminal essays on post-colonialism and power structures.
Your belief that you want to talk about University of Toronto while I do not is the antithesis of the truth.
What I seek to do is expose those who have turned debate at our university into a insular and substandard affair.
There are those who dominate student politics by defending the big lie and behaving like rowdy popinjays. The U of T they discuss is a fictional one, so far removed from the truth that they must work tirelessly for their acts of prestidigitation to continue.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:34 PM
"Those achievements came about because we are at a university which should be (but in terms of students engaging the administration no longer is) the realm of discourse. Where each side has the right to put forward their position relishing the ability to persuade using intelligence and sound argument."
This is untrue.
Since when does the right to put forward our position translate into the university paying it any heed? You're argument assumes a fabricated complicity between conflicting interest groups. I'm not surprised, given the fact that we're not exactly taught to think outside the box (critically).
We're denied agency over the most basic of processes at this University.
At the moment, an Academic Review of the Faculty of Arts & Science is taking place. This Academic Review is part and parcel of the university's efforts to implement the regressive policies outlined in the Towards 2030 documents. These are policies of privatization, corporatization, and tuition de-regulation; policies that fail to reflect the priorities of students, faculty and the community-at-large. In the most undemocratic way possible, the university is doing, right now, what it told us it would take until the year 2030 to accomplish: screw us over, hard.
Unfortunately, to make matters worse, our 18 interdisciplinary programs are on the chopping block. These are programs that - and this case has been made elsewhere - emphasize access, equity and critical thinking. Cuts to these programs take place because students are invisible in the university's governance and decision making processes. In fact, the review committee is composed entirely of Administrative staff, with no student representation whatsoever, in spite of the effect this will have on our education.
The point: If the relationship between administration and students/faculty were not structurally violent, I would not be getting e-mails from department and program heads, telling me they are too afraid (for their job security and for their program) to speak out against this Review (and other such trends). If the relationship between administration and students/faculty were not structurally violent, the university would not pass, in the face of unanimous opposition, policies like Flat Fees. In fact, if the relationship between administration and students/faculty were not structurally violent, these fundamentally harmful policies would not even be considered. It's the fact that such policies (flat fees, towards 2030, Pan-Am Games) are even considered that we know, without a doubt, there exists a vast differential in power between the administration and students/faculty.
This university is undemocratic; students are invisible in virtually every facet of the university's governance. It doesn't even bother masking its bureaucracy - their documents refer to us as 'basic income units,' and the university a 'publicly-assisted institution.' When did we go from being a public institution, in public hands, to a publicly-assisted institution in the hands of a select few.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:36 PM
"The U of T they discuss is a fictional one, so far removed from the truth that they must work tirelessly for their acts of prestidigitation to continue."
Joseph,
We are the ones on the ground doing the work - we are due far more credence than you're comfortable awarding us.
I've no doubt, however, that if you engaged with such campaigns - I use this term loosely, here - that you would come to the realization that consensus theories are of no use in such matters as University governance, tuition fee (de)regulation, and program cuts.
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Also! If anyone is interested in participating in discussions regarding this faculty review, I suggest your attendance at an upcoming Town Hall:
WHEN: This Monday, November 30th - 6pm WHERE: William Doo Auditorium, 45 Willcocks St
Hosted by Equity Studies Students' Union and Health Studies Students' Union
Nov 28, 2009 at 01:51 PM
Just skimmed over these comments...you're both stupid for carrying on such a lengthy debate about this. You both obviously have very little work to do.
That being said, Joseph, I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
And Faraz, it's people like you, with all these nonsensical arguments about power structures and oppression, that keep the current UTSU slate in power.
And as long as people like you think the relationship between students and administration is inherently negative, and as long people like you keep thinking that disobedience is the only way achieve results for students, you will not be taken seriously by the administration. They know very well that UTSU and the CFS are out to do politics rather than to serve students. Once UTSU starts serving students rather than playing political games with our money, the administration will listen to them.
SMCSU, which DOES focus on services, should most certainly leave UTSU. Every student at SMC would save themselves $70, and would stop contributing to all of UTSU's silly political causes.
There are 192 countries in the world. You, like me, are very privileged to live in this one. I'm in some challenging financial circumstances, as an immigrant, and more than 3/4s of my education is being paid for with a loan. And yet, I get to go to one of the best schools in the world. The "power structure" is working just fine for me. I'm getting a better deal from the government and the university than I am from UTSU.
If you are so incredibly against the power structures at this university and in this society, you are free to go somewhere else, along with the rest of your politicking UTSU supporters. That way, those of us who are at school to learn, rather than have fruitless abstract debates, can save ourselves $70/year along with the humiliation of being represented by idiots.
Nov 28, 2009 at 03:21 PM
"nonsensical arguments about power structures and oppression"
Dear Joseph,
It is absolutely invigorating to be reminded that those 'on your side,' are the same people that would deny such realities as 'power structures and oppression.'
It kind of makes my day.
Thanks for the honest engagement, yesterday/today. I'm sure we'll see each other around.
Nov 28, 2009 at 06:02 PM
Re: U of T Student
I do have work to do which is why I've been unresponsive.
Re: Faraz Vahid Shahidi
I don't know if I have a side. Great, you've made me introspective.
Nov 28, 2009 at 06:18 PM
Post a Comment