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
