Interfering admin
Re: ASSU finding Nimmo memo a little fishy, Mar. 18
Although the memo by the Academic Bridging Department distributed to professors may not have overtly stated that the student was endorsed, it was certainly implied. Clearly the administration should have known this would increase the chances they would vote for her. Yet no effort was made on the part of the administration to inform the other candidates that they had the same opportunity.
Holly Andrews-Taylor noted in the article that she did not know about the biased treatment. However, absence of knowledge does not take away from the impact. Clearly when an administrator puts pressure on their employees and teachers to advocate voting for one candidate, it is an abuse of power.
Interestingly, the administration themselves understand the implications of such interference. I also was a candidate in this year’s election. At one point I requested several administrators to forward election information to my graduate student constituency, thinking this was an option available to every candidate. My request was denied on the following basis:
“I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to help you out with your campaign by forwarding your message to campus organizations. To do so at this point in the campaign period could be interpreted as favoritism to one candidate by a part of the University administration. Given the timing, other candidates are not likely to get the same opportunity”-Jim Delaney, Assistant Director, Student Affairs
I strongly agree that on no occasion should favoritism be practiced by the administration. How is it that this logic did not extend to instances in which the administration had a preferred candidate? If information is to be distributed through official channels all candidates should be informed of such opportunities. Although the election rules may not explicitly state anything on this matter, it is important that elections follow the rules of consistency, fairness and independence. These are basic principles that should be self-evident. With a mere eight students on the fifty-member Governing Council, students should at least decide their own representation without administrative interference!
Oriel Varga
U of T Governor Elect 2004
Metropass charge not fare
Am I the only one who is (on principle) upset that SAC is charging us money for the privilege of purchasing metropasses?
I thought the whole purpose of SAC was to provide services to students. Why should I be expected to pay a service charge for a service provided by SAC to students? What the hell are my SAC fees going towards?
SAC should not be able to (in effect) charge a tax on the purchase of metropasses. I wonder if the TTC knows of or endorses this practice.
George Jones
Varsity abortion coverage missing
On March 17th, the Genocide Awareness Project attracted hundreds of students to the Sid Smith patio over the course of the day. Recognizing the significance of this event, representatives from campus media at other universities interviewed me.
However, The Varsity whose office is just steps away from the event, was nowhere to be found. Had it been a Sex Fest or Sex Toys event no doubt The Varsity would have been quick to respond and report. But this event, dealing with perhaps the most serious social justice issue of our time-the humanity of the unborn-was completely ignored.
Your staff may have their own opinions on the abortion issue, but for the main newspaper at a major university to fail so miserably in its reporting duties is a serious poverty that I hope will be rectified in the future.
Elaine Barber
President, U of T Students for Life
