With UTSU election season underway, the atmosphere on campus stands in marked contrast with that of last year. This round of elections has seen the formation of two opposing slates: Demand Access and Change. While the much-needed debate is welcome, something is becoming increasingly clear about the “Change” mandate proposed by presidential candidate Jason Marin: it is not a change that students—particularly poor and racialized students—can afford.
During a recent debate hosted by The Varsity on CIUT radio, Marin presented the three focal points of his platform: school spirit, student space, and bridging the disconnect between students and their union. On the surface, these points may appear reasonable, but upon closer examination their substance is highly problematic.
Marin suggested that parties, or a “homecoming,” would build community. However, there is no lack of activities for students on campus: there is a lack of active students. If a slate is sincerely committed to building community, as opposed to catering to the already hyper-engaged core of students most likely to vote, financial barriers and systemic racism need to be met head-on. During last week’s Task Force on Campus Racism hearing, student after student discussed feelings of alienation—exclusion from the campus community—as a result of Eurocentric curricula, poor representation of marginalized groups in faculty, and numerous incidences of prejudice. Also mentioned many times were financial barriers that prevent marginalized students from properly accessing their education. These financial barriers range from the lack of affordable student housing to rising tuition fees—issues that have been sidelined by the Change slate. If Marin believes that the main issue is “not enough parties,” he is dangerously mistaken.
Secondly, we can all agree that student space is crucial. Indeed, students have been active in pushing for greater and more accessible spaces—opposing the expansion of the Second Cup in Sid Smith, or the eviction of the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students. However, Jason Marin’s model, based on his elaborations during the debate and more importantly his track record, differs significantly in substance from what students have demanded. The issue isn’t whether student space is needed, but rather who should pay for it. Problematic for both slates is their support for a Student Commons to be constructed with student fees. Marin cites the New College Student Lounge’s renovation as one of his achievements. As he explains, this was achieved through a $50,000 donation from the New College Student Council. Why are students, already burdened with tuition fees and living expenses, expected to carry further financial burdens to fund basic public services like physical infrastructure? Bricks and mortar should be funded by the government and the university, not by students already struggling to stay in school.
Lastly, Marin discussed the disconnect between the student union and its membership, a valid point. Marin claimed that campaigns should start from the grassroots. However, what is Marin’s track record? Where was Marin when campaigns were brought up by such rank-and-file students?
Marin himself has been disconnected, if not openly hostile, to such campaigns at his own college—let alone at the university level. Marin was absent when students organized against the 20 per cent New College residence fee increase and condemned their activities afterwards. He also failed to participate in the work to address the underfunding and underdevelopment of Area Studies programs, most of which fall under New College. Unsurprisingly, Marin was also absent from organizing against U of T President David Naylor’s plans for deregulating tuition.
Marin was asked whether he supported positions taken on broader issues of social justice, or on precarious campus food workers, and his answer was an unequivocal “no.” At the same time, his answer on whether he saw David Naylor as an ally—a man who advocates for tuition fee deregulation—was an unequivocal “yes.” The clear message to marginalized students on campus is that the Change ticket will ignore their needs at a time when we need stronger representation.
An open letter by Lucho Granados Ceja stated the following: “Good leaders must champion our issues to the powerful by taking direction from our communities. Jason, sadly, only takes direction from the administration. Racialized people and their allies need to support leaders that support us, and they will not find such leadership in Jason Marin and his Change ticket.” Marginalized students on campus and their allies would have to agree.
Gabi Rodriguez, Edward Wong, and Shannon Ashman are volunteers at the Ontario Public Interest Research Group—Toronto
