November 23, 2008 - Control

My last post ended in a naive, yet important question: why would some people in the student movement weaken their own credibility by putting themselves in overt conflict of interest situations?

Let's continue with the CFS referendum example. If you had asked a well-trained Yes campaigner, you would have received the standard justifications for the referendum process, such as:

Q: Why is the CFS part of the committee overseeing the referendum on CFS membership.
A: Something about a contract between the SFUO and CFS, makes sense that both organizations have an equal say in the referendum process, etc.

Q: Why bring outside CFS campaigners? Can't we get enough uOttawa students to campaign?
A: Something about how these people have more knowledge of the organization, can talk about their experience of membership, etc.

We'll call this the "media-friendly answer". It has the qualities of appearing neutral, rational, with some legalistic overtones. It defends the system without really getting into why the system was created in the first place.

If you're an "insider", though, you might get a more direct answer to these questions. If you have any trusted friends in that circle, I suggest you try it. Ask them why the CFS doesn't let individual students' unions organize their own referenda.

The usual response will almost inevitably mention the enemy. There are people who are organizing against the CFS. They're not playing fair. They're spreading lies and they're getting funded by outside groups - the Conservatives, the Liberals, whatever.

You don't even have to be an insider to see this logic in action. Just consider this Facebook reaction from a CFS staffer to the 51.8% YES vote that was announced on November 23:

"solidarity prevailed of a smear campaign of fear and misinformation"

Or if you know any of the 1030 Facebook friends of Seamus Wolfe, just check his current status:

"http://ryersonfreepress.ca/site/archives/745 ... might have something to do with what is going on here, eh?" (the article cited is about the Ontario Conservative Party holding workshops to help push their ideology on campus and through student organizations)

And here's the toughest part: if we start with this mindset, every "backlash" (i.e. students opposing one of our decisions), every "betrayal" (i.e. one of our allies getting fed up and siding with "the enemy") confirms what we already postulated - that there is some organized movement against "us", and by extension, against a progressive student movement, because that's what we're fighting for, right?

And if we believe it sufficiently, we might think we need complete allegiance from everyone who has influence in the organization: we can't afford a BOA Chair who is conservative, we can't afford a SAC which might side with the other side. Note: This is not about neutrality. We might use that word in public, but when we say the SAC or the media is biased, we really mean: they don't agree with us enough.

If there's one thing I learned this year, it's that there is such a thing as "over-controlling". It's extremely important to build up support and voting blocks when it matters, when your big campaign has to pass at the BOA, etc. But don't be Stephen Harper. Don't make everything (like e-voting) into a vote of confidence. If we get too cocky about our majority on the Board, it won't last for long. And your attempts to prevent the backlash will only accelerate it.