As I am graduating, this will likely be my final say in any matter of U of T student politics. It is only fitting that it is on the question of systematized identity based-representation, as this has often been the cornerstone of the debate between the UTSU and their opposition, though it has taken many different forms until now.
At the final meeting of this past year’s UTSU Board of Directors, a motion was passed to amend the current board structure to eliminate college-based representation, and instead to replace it with “constituency” directors. These include an Arts & Science director, a professional faculty’s director, as well as identity-based directorships, including a women’s director, LGBTQ director, racialized peoples director, international student director, and a students with disabilities director. These last five have received a great deal of criticism on and off campus, and while the desire to ensure marginalized students’ representation in the union is commendable, the process could not have been implemented in a worse way.
It is hard to deny that Canadian society is dogged by systems of oppression that target those identity groups that are reflected in the proposed board structure. It is thus entirely sensible then to give these groups systematic overrepresentation in order to correct these imbalances. In a union that has an obligation to fight for equal access and higher education, those groups who have historically had their access to higher education limited should be given an amplified voice.
It befuddles me nonetheless that the authors of this plan would choose to add these positions at the expense of college representation, especially following a year of discussions at the Student Societies Summit wherein the college council’s lack of a vote on the UTSU board was noted multiple times as one of the major causes for dissatisfaction and alienation from the UTSU. Indeed, many students identify with their college and would like to see that association represented at the union level. Even as a summit participant, I was never notified of any public discussion or consultation on a new board structure.
These issues are, however, undercut by the changes to the Canada Corporations Act. The UTSU originally began looking at its board structure because the current one will soon be illegal under the Act.
According to new amendments to the Act, members of a non-profit board of directors can still be compartmentalized into different divisions, but it will require an extra layer of legal structuring that may prove difficult to adopt. In light of these changes, members of the UTSU should have a serious conversation about how to eliminate, or at least lessen, the number of different compartmentalized divisions. This is by no means to say that college representation should be eliminated, but it may be too difficult to keep as it currently stands.
The question remains whether the representation of marginalized identities on a democratically elected board of directors is the most sensible structure for our union. Given that the UTSU will never be in the business of determining who belongs to a given identity category, all students will be able to vote in every category. This leaves two possibilities. First, it would be possible for a student to run in an identity category to which they do not belong. Two, given that all students will be able to vote for every position, it may render the representation of marginalized identities moot. For any given elected representative, we would only say that that person is truly representative of his/her/their community if there were no outside influences determining the outcome of the election. The proposed board structure would institutionalize this fallacy of representation, rendering the structure useless.
Liberal democratic theory holds that constitutions and systems of governance should be flexible in order to accommodate changing government priorities. One might see how this board structure would be unnecessarily deterministic for future priorities as it concentrates on identity based marginalization. Indeed, in the coming years, it is possible that U of T students will find other social ills more pressing and will want union priorities to change. This critique makes a lot of sense. The UTSU may have identity-focused priorities now, but in five to 10 years, who is to say? Should we not pass down a structure to our successors that allow them to set their own priorities?
On the other hand, one might see student politics as a space where new systems of governance can be tested. If student politics is relevant for any greater reason, it is that our organizations can serve as a lab for democracy. In inherently progressive organizations, such as a students’ union, positions inspired by the anti-oppression critiques of traditional democratic theory are worth entertaining.
All this being said, the new proposed structure is condemnable. Above all, it is patronizing to students to assume that they need to have a designated LGBTQ director in order to ensure that LGBTQ students will be elected to the board and their priorities represented. Preferably, the union will create a board composed exclusively of at-large positions elected by a runoff system. In this, any union member will be able to put forward their name and will not be limited by category. Because we are U of T, because we are intelligent, caring, and diverse, I am confident that among a 30-40 member board, all priorities — from greater college authority to international student issues — will be represented and respected.
Those who choose to see the union’s proposed board structure as an insidious plot by certain UTSU members to enshrine their control of the union will not be proven correct. Though the union has always classified me as part of the opposition, I do believe that the members of the UTSU who put this proposal forward believe that they are doing the best thing for the union, and they are not necessarily wrong. I can only hope that those involved in this conversation recognize the legitimacy of both claims to the correct form of democratic representation. If so, we will all be made better by the outcome.
Zack Medow is last year’s Vice-President External of the Victoria University Students’ Administrative Council (VUSAC). He was one of VUSAC’s two representatives to the Student Societies Summit.
Correction (May 19, 2014): An earlier version of this article excluded information about the Canada Corporations Act.
