These days, life is full of irony. Dropping food alongside bombs on Afghanistan. Protesting against sweatshops while wearing Nike and drinking Coke. Supporting a tuition freeze versus paying a levy for the Varsity Centre. Make no mistake, tuition deregulation is only one feature of neo-liberal reform that increasingly shapes state policies in ways that articulate education in terms of market ideology, which contradicts the very principles of a public education system constructed through imperatives of equity and social justice.
As a graduate student and a member of the bargaining team for CUPE 3907, I devoted countless hours to student issues. And…I fully support paying the levy! The No side would have you believe that you can’t support the levy and fight for student funding. But life is not that simple. Teachers, for example, live with similar contradictions. Search for a teacher who has not used personal funds in the process of delivering curricula. Politics takes time and the current needs of students take priority.
Faced with the alternative, the answer, for me, is…pay the levy. Not because I am compromising the fight against neo-liberalism, but because it is clear that on this issue we have already made great gains within current funding realities.
The university, given six other capital projects, has committed $14.6 million towards this project, the largest single contribution to a capital project in recent years.
What is needed now is our commitment to the project. Why? Just take a look at the plans for Varsity Centre. Need a reason to believe in those plans?
Look no further than the Faculty of Physical and Health Education. It is the hallmark for recreation and athletics in any educational setting, and the single largest employer of students on campus. It is also one of the most progressive spaces around, faced with the incredible task of balancing the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. While not perfect, I can certainly point to supposedly “progressive” spaces which fail to meet their billing.
So what about GSU president Sousa’ s concern in last week’s Varsity: “Should we bind future students to paying for a development they may not need?” This type of question plays tricks on the minds of the very student population we are hoping will shed their apathetic voting behaviour. As if one sleight of hand was not enough, he goes on to say that the “Varsity Centre proposal represents a lost opportunity to engage students and the wider community in a real discussion to develop something innovative.”
This is simply not the case. Planning has taken several years and included an extensive consultation process with students, alumni, potential users, the community and government. His commentary is misleading and serves to not only divide the campus but to undermine the individuals and groups which participated in this process.
We students have a unique opportunity to create something for our city and for generations of future students who will themselves make similar choices about what legacy they will leave.
The Varsity Centre is not intended to be a panacea for all student needs.
It does, however, address many beyond its responsibility to do so. It is not even going to be a state-of-the-art athletic facility among the likes of other North American institutions of similar standing. The Varsity Centre is a modest yet innovative and well-articulated solution that does address the needs of our community.
Each of us, by virtue of our attendance, intentionally invests in our future and indirectly in the future of a greater community. We have a unique opportunity to create history, not just deal with the one created for us. At the end of the day, the solution is problematic but simple.
We can either spend our energies coping with what we get or creating what we want. Ten years from now, what will the No campaign and its rallying spokespeople have created as their legacy for our institution? I shudder to think the answer to that is nothing at all. My vote is Varsity Centre all the way.
