I hope to put up the text asap, but here's the PDF version. Enjoy!
Issue 9 PDF (In .rar)
UPEISU: The Only Frat House In Town
I’m not really one for student politics. You, gentle readers, were probably wondering, with my charisma and social skills, why I’d opt to start a renegade newspaper rather than battling it out every second Sunday with those just as stoked about student reform as myself. Truth is, I’ve seen them as irrelevant and kind of a dog and pony show until, possibly, university. As opposed to my high school, and possibly my junior high school, student politics can do more than possibly donate a water fountain: they just don’t.
But before you read on, it’s not always their fault.
Our student union is fundamentally flawed in three important ways:
1. Student Union is the only group that cares about Student Union.
2. Student Union is mostly made up of friends. It’s not worth faulting them for this, friendships develop.
3. Student Union is changed every year. If they weren’t, then they would become stale.
Complaints of corruption within the union are rampant, and hey, they’re probably right. But what qualifies as corruption among friends is entirely different - if you asked any of them whether slight breaches of their constitution imply corruption, you’d be apt to get a shrug and a ‘C’mon! Not a big deal!’ reaction. Similarly, near the end of every year, many counsellors are up for impeachement for missing meetings. Miss three in a row or four in total, and there will be a motion for your impeachment. No counsellors are ever actually impeached though, regardless of whether it’s deserved. Why would you impeach your friends? The truth of the matter though, however bitchy I may sound, is that frankly, these meetings are biweekly. That does not change. There’s really no excuse for missing four meetings out of, what, twelve all year? The Semantic is biweekly and has missed but one, due to debilitating illness on behalf of virtually all the staff. It’s hard to get excited about student politics when the politicians themselves aren’t stoked to be there. How can they effectively bitch about voter apathy when half the union itself is apathetic? Hypocritical and corrupt, how charming.
Also, student union gets a hefty 20% of the university budget and at the end of every year, it seems like students ask where it goes. Obvious answers are obvious: paying staff, newspaper upkeep (though not this one!), keeping The Wave afloat, and various administrative details. Still, there are always complaints of nothing really being done. I question how anyone could expect things to get done. Most presidents have only a year term to create a magnum opus, something for which to be remembered: they just don’t have enough time before there’s a complete rehaul of the executive, typically on a campaign of change and innovation - none of which actually comes to fruitation.
On one hand, I’m an ass for being accusatory to people who work for nothing (save the exec) on behalf of students. On that same hand, there are lots of extremely talented, dedicated, and passionate people on counsel. To reiterate, it’s the system rather than the people that is fundamentally flawed. But on the other hand, there are people who sit around the table who really have no idea who they are or what they stand for - if, indeed, they stand for anything. They aren’t doing me a disservice, as I never put much stock in them anyhow. They’re disservicing their peers, who seek a less-shitty reputation. Hope you enjoy your banquet.
KM
But before you read on, it’s not always their fault.
Our student union is fundamentally flawed in three important ways:
1. Student Union is the only group that cares about Student Union.
2. Student Union is mostly made up of friends. It’s not worth faulting them for this, friendships develop.
3. Student Union is changed every year. If they weren’t, then they would become stale.
Complaints of corruption within the union are rampant, and hey, they’re probably right. But what qualifies as corruption among friends is entirely different - if you asked any of them whether slight breaches of their constitution imply corruption, you’d be apt to get a shrug and a ‘C’mon! Not a big deal!’ reaction. Similarly, near the end of every year, many counsellors are up for impeachement for missing meetings. Miss three in a row or four in total, and there will be a motion for your impeachment. No counsellors are ever actually impeached though, regardless of whether it’s deserved. Why would you impeach your friends? The truth of the matter though, however bitchy I may sound, is that frankly, these meetings are biweekly. That does not change. There’s really no excuse for missing four meetings out of, what, twelve all year? The Semantic is biweekly and has missed but one, due to debilitating illness on behalf of virtually all the staff. It’s hard to get excited about student politics when the politicians themselves aren’t stoked to be there. How can they effectively bitch about voter apathy when half the union itself is apathetic? Hypocritical and corrupt, how charming.
Also, student union gets a hefty 20% of the university budget and at the end of every year, it seems like students ask where it goes. Obvious answers are obvious: paying staff, newspaper upkeep (though not this one!), keeping The Wave afloat, and various administrative details. Still, there are always complaints of nothing really being done. I question how anyone could expect things to get done. Most presidents have only a year term to create a magnum opus, something for which to be remembered: they just don’t have enough time before there’s a complete rehaul of the executive, typically on a campaign of change and innovation - none of which actually comes to fruitation.
On one hand, I’m an ass for being accusatory to people who work for nothing (save the exec) on behalf of students. On that same hand, there are lots of extremely talented, dedicated, and passionate people on counsel. To reiterate, it’s the system rather than the people that is fundamentally flawed. But on the other hand, there are people who sit around the table who really have no idea who they are or what they stand for - if, indeed, they stand for anything. They aren’t doing me a disservice, as I never put much stock in them anyhow. They’re disservicing their peers, who seek a less-shitty reputation. Hope you enjoy your banquet.
KM
5 comments:
That's quite a bit of accusatory remarks for someone who obviously has not actually done any research into what the Student Union does. If you would like a short clinic on the work of the UPEI SU, or even some information to correct your inaccuracies that your have published as fact, let me know.
Hi Ryan!
I've absolutely done research on the SU, including going to all the meetings (save two - not up for impeachment yet!), reading a lot of miserable bylaws and pieces of the constitution, interviewing counselors, interviewing students, and checking the one (1) 'fact' in the editorial. The rest is pretty much opinion - I hope I made that clear in my editorial.
Oh, heaven knows I don't have a problem with opinions, in fact, I've been known to have a few of my own. It's the passing off of opinion as fact that I find somewhat problematic, coupled with the use of faulty information. Your assertion that "the student union gets a hefty 20% of the university budget", for example, is so bafflingly untrue, that I have no idea how you somehow came to believe it as truth.
I guess my other main problem with your editorial is the suggestion that the SU is 'fatally flawed' because of short terms of office. Amazingly, student associations across the country and around the world have functioned for years in such a manner without somehow collapsing upon themselves. And yet, you blame the system for being the downfall of the UPEI SU.
I know for a fact that this system can work, and that the UPEI SU has had good people who have done good work for the students of UPEI, and your editorial seems to trivialise the organization itself and the work it does, and not just the broken aspects of it.
It is such a superficial perspective that I thought I was reading The Cadre for a second.
Sorry for taking months to get back to you, school is kicking my ass lately.
I retract - and I will in the next issue - the 20% of university budget remark. I'm sincerely sorry and duly embarrassed. The actual fact is 20% of student fees, but you probably knew that already.
I guess you're kind of insinuating that I argued that the SU falls in on itself. I didn't say that. I said the one year terms really diminish the capacity for presidents, or unions, to do big things. And I stand by that. I vaguely remember people having the same problem at my old university, University of Ottawa, except there the SU was much, much bigger and had more resources.
Sure, I suppose this year could be a huge anomaly in which nothing huge happened, but I stand by what I said. Did people get impeached your years? They didn't last year. Was voter apathy still rampant years ago? Did all counselors show to every meeting?
I don't think it's superficial, but I realize I'm biased. I'm as close to being in the SU without actually being in the SU as anyone could be (except possibly Kathryn or Heather Love or something).
There certainly can be issues of consistency and institutional memory within student associations , but construing as a 'fatal flaw' is a mistake. It is an issue to be overcome, in the same way that stagnant bureaucracy would be an issue to overcome in a form of government with excessively long terms.
There are issues that affect the Student Union each year, and some years will experiences success in some areas and failures in others. My point is that it would be a mistake to assume that these same issues affect the SU every year and that the SU has not been and will never again be successful in such areas.
I can't speak to the success or failures of this year's Executive and Council, but I know through experience that this is an organization that can accomplish a lot of good work for the University... yes, in one-year terms.
My criticism is not a grave one. I just take issue with the rampant assumptions about the UPEI SU like this that come up every year at election time. A year ago Justin's supporters said the same about Willy. The year before that someone suggested that I had been being primed to become President since 1998 (When I was in Grade 8). The further removed and the less informed the opinions, the more ridiculous they sound.
If you want to publish opinions about your first-hand observations about this years Council and Executive, go for it. You're certainly in a better position than I am to do so.
If you want to form opinions on the successes and failures of the organization from 1969 to 2007 however, I would suggest seeking more reliable information than that which you make up in your head.
Post a Comment