There have been rumblings recently surrounding the fate of funding for the Ontario Public Interest Research Group. This group collects a $5.00 levy from every U of T graduate student and $1.00 from every undergraduate student. The University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union was on the cusp of rescinding their levy agreement with the organization. This is not the first time students have voiced concerns about OPIRG’s funding.
The GSU cited OPIRG’s failure to adhere to their contractual obligation to properly advertise the “opt-out” window, during which students can reclaim the portion of their student fees taken by OPIRG.
OPIRG has claimed this breach was the result of a clerical error and has since rectified the situation by providing an opt-out window, during which appointments were not necessary. This should be commended, but even if one accepts this explanation at face value — I would argue in situations like these, such claims are to be viewed with a healthy dose of circumspection — there are still good reasons to de-fund OPIRG.
OPIRG supports the looming TA strike that could adversely affect all undergraduate students. It was also one of the organizations behind the hateful anti-Israel week in March — a campaign which creates a toxic atmosphere on campus and has been condemned across party lines in the Ontario Legislature. It is also involved in bringing in speakers like Ward Churchill who referred to the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” and preaches “direct” read violent action and supports working groups like the Communist Research Group.
OPIRG claims to be a public interest research group, yet it serves only a politically-radical fringe minority. Why should student money go towards campaigns and events which are offensive to many, and make some students feel as though they do not belong here? It shouldn’t.
While some of the issues OPIRG raises are valid and indeed, pressing the solutions and methods they suggest are simply too radical to be effective, and certainly do not reflect the opinions or values of the majority of the student body. To be sure, there are many laudable organizations and groups which receive a portion of our student fees, and this should certainly continue. However, OPIRG is not one of them. It has proven, through its sponsorship of misguided and divisive campaigns and events that it is not worthy of the limited resources students have at their disposal.
The opt-out window is small and hard to find. Most students are not aware that they are being charged additional fees which go to groups like OPIRG, that they can opt-out of or when and how they can do this, due to limited advertising. It is the blissful ignorance, not acquiescence, of students that ensures that OPIRG remains fiscally afloat.
If OPIRG is so adamant about its broad base of student support, it should have no problem offering an opt-in rather than an opt-out. In this manner, we can more accurately gauge student support. If students truly feel that OPIRG is an organization worthy of their money, OPIRG will have no problem meeting its funding needs. If, on the other hand, a sufficient number of students do not opt in, we can say, once and for all, that students do not want their money going to organizations whose work is not reflective of the values of the majority.
A nominal amount, you say; a matter of principle says I. When an organization does not reflect the values of the majority of students from whom they are collecting fees, those students should be given a more transparent choice. In the spirit of justice, social change, and popular participation, which OPIRG has so unabashedly misappropriated, I propose we all lobby our student government representatives to act in students’ best interest, and give us the choice in how our money is spent. De-fund OPIRG and give us the choice to opt in, if we are so inclined.
