Contrary to the claims of the widely touted Varsity Centre proposal, the needs of all students will not be served. We are being asked to pay for bricks and mortar as we continue to face increasing fees. Let’s call the proposed levy what it really is: a tuition increase by another name.
Many of us will probably never use the new facilities, so we must ask ourselves whether the needs of future students can be served before we know what their needs are.
You are being asked to consider a proposal that has not even gone through architects. Everything is an educated guess with this plan. I am asking you to consider a few points as you make a decision.
How does housing fit into the Varsity Centre plans?
The issue of housing in relation to the levy continues to be misunderstood. The levy will not pay for the residences. All campus housing is self-financed, which means the rent paid by the residents will pay for the buildings.
The university has publicly stated that housing will be built regardless of whether the levy passes or fails. The Faculty of Physical Health and Education (FPEH) have assembled an ambitious proposal that the university does not want to pay for, so they are expecting students to pay for it instead.
What are our fees currently being used for?
The proposal for the new Varsity Centre calls for increased space for intramural activities. The FPEH states that intramural activities are a high priority. However, the 2001/02 budget does not demonstrate this. For example, students fund intercollegiate athletics at $1,501,261 per year, while intramural activities account for a paltry $132,547.
I absolutely support high-performance athletics, but not at the cost of the inclusiveness of intramural activities.
Since the FPEH does not commit enough funds for intramural activities now, why should we believe that will change with this levy?
Why should graduate students care?
Some argue that the graduate students’ funding packages will absorb the levy.
In some cases that is true, but for thousands of graduate students that will not be the case, since they are not eligible for the new funding or their funding does not pay for the fees. Therefore, thousands of graduate students will be paying the same levy as the undergraduates.
Furthermore, the funding packages are a groundbreaking commitment from the university. Do we want to dilute their significance for a project that is not in our best interest?
Why is there a campaign against the proposed levy?
Let me make one thing very clear: the campaign is not opposing the development per se. In fact, there would probably be overarching support for the Varsity Centre if the university did not expect students to pay for the project.
The anti-levy campaign represents the call by many students and student groups to let the university know we are tired of increases to our tuition and ancillary fees. Most of all, students are tired of not being respected as key stakeholders in the running of this university.
At the end of this process, we should not let the results divide the campus.
There is much to be learned here. For instance, in the future, students should be asked if we are prepared to pay a levy before consultations begin on any development. The needs of students change every year. Should we bind future students to paying for a development they may not need?
The Varsity Centre proposal represents a lost opportunity to engage students and the wider community in a real discussion to develop something innovative.
In the future, I urge the university to treat students as partners in this university and not as money bags. When you receive your ballot, I urge you to send a message to the university by voting NO.
If the university isn’t committed to completely paying for the Varsity Centre, why should we be? If the Faculty of Physical Health and Education wants to build an empire, it should not be on the backs of students.
