$1,480. That’s how much SAC contributed to a band of protesters, to venture to New York to oppose the recent meeting of neo-conservative minds at the Republican National Convention. To some, this constitutes a gross misallocation of student resources, and calls into question the ostensibly non-partisan nature of SAC.
The discord is warranted, up to a point. Afterall, why should student dollars have subsidized this controversial sojourn to New York, in order that a few campus politicos join the critical dissenting mass? Just how does an elected body of student officials justify this apparent display of political favouritism? And, most pressing, what does the U of T student community derive from having representatives at the RNC protests?
These are rather banal questions that have and will continue to be posed with vitriol by a jilted campus right-wing. And, no doubt, even the odd Mao-bag will object on principle. But before students start greasing the guillotines, it might be worth considering the wisdom, albeit latent, in SAC’s decision to march against Bush and the Republicans.
At a glance, student governments should uphold a mandate geared primarily to its own campus. So perhaps the US elections might traditionally fall outside the scope of SACs tightly circumscribed affairs-even those deemed external, even way external. This line of reasoning does not, however, adequately account for the myriad ways that the US presidential election affects Canadians, Torontonians, and yes, even U of T students, on this very campus. One really needn’t mention that US policy with George Bush et al. at the helm-policy that is often inscribed boldly on the side of bombs, or in the timely uttering of the word “genocide,” or in the fine print surrounding beef bans-has impacts deeply felt around the globe. SACs decision to aid students in getting to New York shows that this point has not gone unnoticed, and that a student’s voice, like American influence, can extend beyond the boundaries of a single nation-state. And for making this happen, SAC deserves a nod.
The case for the RNCs relevance on campus can be made, perhaps more easily than a the case for demonstrating against it. But even on this point, objections should be carefully formed if they are to avoid logical fallacies. It isn’t a matter of SAC favouring one ideological stance to the exclusion of any other; nor does this left-leaning decision suggest any future intent to do so. Had SAC denied campus Republicans the chance to cheerlead at the convention, while endorsing its opponents, then we might speak of SACs inherent bias. And that would certainly be a criticism worth levying. But they didn’t say no to anyone; they said yes to 26 students-students whose desire to say no to Bush was strong enough to kindle a request to join the some half a million demonstrators who felt the same way.
