In the event of a human tragedy where there is a significant loss of life and entire cities are reduced to ruins, how should one respond?
In the case of Haiti, where a 7.0-magnitude earthquake killed over 212,000 people and caused billions of dollars in damages, there has been no shortage of charitable benefits or people opening their wallets to help the devastated nation. At the University of Toronto, our student union has started a fundraiser with the goal of raising $50,000, hopefully to be matched by the administration. Also, UTSU’s Board of Directors unanimously approved donating between $500 and $1,000 of student levy money to Partners in Health, a charitable organization that works in Haiti.
However, it seems not all human tragedies are created equal.
Last year, UTSU’s Board of Directors decided that they would use money raised from UTSU-sponsored events in support of Palestine to send to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools in Gaza, after the Israel Defense Force launched a series of air strikes on the Gaza Strip, killing roughly 1,300 Palestinians and injuring 5,500 more. However, this past summer, UTSU decided not to send money to Sri Lanka after the deadly civil conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese. The conflict in Sri Lanka saw over 20,000 civilians killed between January and May of 2009, not including the casualties incurred in over 26 years of fighting between both groups. Moreover, no relief had been sent to Mumbai in the wake of the November 2008 terrorist attacks that killed 176 people. Four human tragedies, three of which are the result of conflict, the other caused by natural disaster.
Some would say that we should approach each disaster on a case-by-case basis. However, this principle is far too inconsistent. A consistent rule needs to be applied to each instance of human tragedy.
One principle that can be used as a guide is moral philosopher Peter Singer’s argument for the obligation to assist. The argument has the following principle as its foundation: if we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we ought to do it. This principle de-politicizes tragic events and forces us to recognize that no matter what the circumstances, if we can contribute something to alleviate suffering without causing ourselves to suffer, then we should do it.
If UTSU truly wants to be an organization that promotes social justice, then it should not take the myopic view that only some tragedies are significant while others are not. UTSU should be giving the same amount of support it’s giving to Haiti to Sri Lanka, Darfur, Palestine, Mumbai, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Burma, and other regions that have experienced natural or man-made disasters. If not, then it should drop its social justice role and just focus on being an administrative council. It could then empower clubs that focus on these issues by giving them more funds to raise awareness among U of T students. Either they treat each tragedy equally or they stop their social justice activities altogether.
Only by applying a consistent moral principle to each case would they be considered just.
Correction: this article originally read that the "Israel Defense Force launched a series of air strikes on the Gaza Strip, killing over 14,000 Palestinian civilians and injuring over 400,000 more." The true numbers are roughly 1,300 killed and 5,500 injured, and the article has been updated to reflect this. The Varsity regrets the error.
Comments
"Also, UTSU’s Board of Directors unanimously approved donating between $500 and $1,000 of student levy money to Partners in Health, a charitable organization that works in Haiti."
The vote was not unanimous. I voted against it since the motion did not specify a recipient and many, if not most, "human service" organizations engage in a great deal of non-human service political activism. The Canadian Red Cross is one of the worst offenders. Furthermore I do not support spending student money on something wholly outside UTSU's mandate. If students wish to donate they can do so. It isn't the place of the Board to determine precisely which causes are worthy of official support.
Bryce Kustra also voted against this motion, although I can't speak to his motivations.
One more reason I feel that non-procedural motions should have automatic roll-call.
Feb 8, 2010 at 01:22 PM
The problem I find with this argument is that the examples given are very different kind of disasters. The Haitian earthquake was a natural disaster and the assault on the Gaza Strip was a war that is, a human disaster.
Of course, delivering aid to the starving people of Gaza is important but I think it's false to equate it so simply with what's happened in Haiti these past few weeks.
Feb 8, 2010 at 08:04 PM
That's the point though. Some tragedies are redressed while others are left to the side, because they are deemed to be "political." While Haiti was a natural disaster it has its own divisive political history much of which made that 7.0 earthquake as devastating as it was. The point of the article is that UTSU needs to be consistent with its support as it justified not sending any money to an NGO in Sri Lanka based on the fact that it sent nothing to Mumbai. I mean really? It'll give money to Palestine, but not to other places that have political conflict. UTSU isn't consistent, so it can't be considered socially just. Why does it just focus on the conflict between Israel and Palestine when there are so many more? If it is willing to redress a situation in Gaza then it should do so for other centers of political conflict. If not, it should drop its social justice mandate and return to being just an administrative council. It's either/or for them, not both/and.
Feb 8, 2010 at 08:33 PM
Isn't the ideal situation to help everyone in need? We know its beyond UTSU's means to help EVERYONE. Why does it really matter that they're being selective? Isn't helping some better than helping none?
I don't know that this is really about the efficacy of UTSU as an administrative body...to me there appears to be a moral imperative. We want to help whoever is in need, don't we? Maybe targeting causes that are particularly important to the student body (i.e. Palestine) is as close as we can get?
Feb 8, 2010 at 08:53 PM
I find the references to Mumbai to be a little (scratch that, a lot) of a stretch. It was, quite literally, several orders of magnitude smaller than the other humanitarian disasters mentioned in the same sentence, and it barely lasted long enough for international relief to be necessary or even helpful. Are we supposed to be lining up to send aid to Israel every time a terrorist blows up a bus there, too? I heard there was a big car accident in Germany last week, where do I send money?
Also, thanks for not addressing the factual error in your article, Alex. Assuming that a vote was unanimous just because the meeting minutes show that it was carried is highly disingenuous and deliberately misleading. A quick email to any of the board members would have settled the issue but I guess it's easier to just invent the facts.
Feb 8, 2010 at 09:41 PM
First of all, I'm surprised I didn't catch this, but in the original draft of this article Semra and I mentioned Mumbai mostly in connection with Sri Lanka, because it was decided not to send money to Sri Lanka by UTSU's board of directors at a meeting last year, because none was sent to Mumbai. This is completely my fault for not clearing up the matter when I got sent an edited version.
I can see your point Rishi, but I think you're going down a slippery slope with that argument. That's not the point of the article though.
Second of all, Semra and I wrote that it passed unanimously, because we were told by A BOARD MEMBER that it was unanimous. Once again, we were told BY A BOARD MEMBER that the board had voted unanimously. We didn't just e-mail, we phoned.
A quick e-mail to Semra or myself would have settled the issue, but I guess it's easier to accuse the authors of inventing the facts.
Feb 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM
What a great op-ed!
Totally agree with the conclusion: UTSU should "empower clubs that focus on these issues by giving them more funds to raise awareness among U of T students". Couldn't agree more.
It's easy to navigate the competing interests of various humanitarian crisis' if we allow that power to rest with the affected communities themselves. If the TSA is motivated to assist the situation in Sri Lanka, just give them the tools (read: funds) to do it. Repeat ad nauseum for all subsequent causes. In this way, the students who work the hardest will have the most success. Meritocracy at its finest.
The only exception to this clubs approach might be for issues that specifically affect education or students. That is something sacrosanct that we all share in common, and so it should fall within UTSU's purview to assist.
As far as the current Haiti fundraising effort, I think UTSU should just match whatever funds students put in from the millions upon millions of dollars in their bank account, instead of yelling at Simcoe Hall to do it.
Long story short, and in more ways than one, UTSU needs start funding clubs, instead hoarding our money and then taking the credit for what we could have done better ourselves.
Feb 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Alex, it appears I assumed too much in thinking my fellow board members would be honest about the situation. Based on that false assumption I placed the blame on you when you did in fact do your due diligence here. For that, I apologize. My temper is decidedly shorter on the Internet than in real life...
Of course, your job would be a lot easier if those minutes (or rather preliminary minutes as they have not yet been approved by the board) were actually posted online pursuant to the statements made by executives at the last two AGMs, but that seems like it isn't going to happen any time soon.
Since Mr. Kustra specifically said in the debate preceding the vote that he would be voting against the motion, anyone who was there and wide awake should know that it was not unanimous. Thus I doubt it is a mere oversight on the part of whoever misled you.
Feb 8, 2010 at 11:05 PM
"killing over 14,000 Palestinian civilians"
Your numbers are COMPLETELY made up, this is the number of killed during the Gaza offensive dubbed, operation: "Cast Lead".
There were only 1,370 fatalities, of which more than 600 were members of Hamas.
I suspect this may have been a simple typo, but I hear these false talking points thrown around campus far too much.
Feb 10, 2010 at 05:23 PM
Thanks for catching that, Mark. The article has been amended.
Feb 10, 2010 at 07:27 PM
The article is still incorrect as it still states
"killing roughly 1,400 Palestinian civilians"
Again the number of civilians killed was roughly half this number (a median estimate from both sides). As it is posted now, there were no Hamas casualties in this offensive just "civilians" died.
This is in direct contrast with the Palestinian's own sources that last 500 Hamas dead and Israel's claim of 709 Hamas dead.
Honestly if you just took out the word "civilian" it would be correct as no one is debating the number of dead, but as it is written now it's quite misleading and appears to be biased.
Feb 10, 2010 at 07:48 PM
I don't think it's necessarily the fault of UTSU over say general opinion. We have telethons, charity concerts, bands (read Metric) creating t-shirts and ads left & right telling us to save Haiti. It's expected for UTSU to just jump on the bandwagon that society has created. I don't think attacking the UTSU for following societal norms will get to the real issue of the politics of disaster relief and how the West cherry picks their charities as they see fit. I'm curious to know how much did UTSU (not Chinese Association of X) donated to the relief fund for the Sichuan earthquake or the Boxing Day Tsunami that hit South Asia, both of which got far less press than Haiti. I'm not in any way belittling Haiti's need for aid, the figures are devastating, but there is obviously something here that we're overlooking because of all the chaos.
Feb 14, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Post a Comment