March 22, 2009 - Choices

No political group has a monopoly on ideas. Sometimes, getting out of our crowed can help us deal with a difficult problem. Far from being a socialist myself, I was definitely impressed by the October 5 issue of The Agitator, entitled Building a united student movement.

Here are some excerpts most relevant to our current situation:

Student union leaders who embark on a radical course with no meaningful base of support from the membership will ensure a backlash, such as electoral defeat to the right, and possibly a defederation campaign from CFS. This top-down "left-wing" strategy has to be discarded.

(...)

On every campus there are right-wing and left-wing students, but the vast majority fall somewhere in the middle, carrying a mix of both progressive and conservative ideas. Radicals need to focus on winning this middle majority away from the right and towards the left. This can't be done through denouncing, bullying and intimidating them, only through patiently winning them to effective action and coherent politics.


Unfortunately, patience is scarce when turnover occurs every one or two years and when every student politician wants his or her "legacy". In the recent past, "left-wing" student union executives across Ontario have promoted the complete opposite of the movement-building attitude presented above.

We've all heard it happen elsewhere. In a few words, here's the recipe for disaster: Adopt some controversial motion at the local, provincial or national student organization. Don't take the time to consult your membership before, or even discuss it with them after. When asked about it by the media, make some inflammatory remarks that convince no one but those already convinced, and manage to infuriate basically everyone else. Then blame the media for being biased or sensationalist. At the end of the year, bring some new recruits to your electoral slate. If official slates are allowed, choose a name like "students united" or "students first", no matter how ironic it now sounds. Win the elections. Repeat.

So many times, I wanted to say that we should stop embracing all these causes at once. But when the motion is already on the table, who can vote against women's rights? Who can vote against an anti-racism campaign? It was just easier to support it all to show that "we care", even if most of these bold motions and bold statements don't lead to concrete actions, or concrete results.

So many times, I wanted to extend a hand to people "somewhere in the middle", only to find out that they were already labelled as "anti-student" or "reactionary" by the activist leadership, and their ideas had to be discarded, lest we "weaken the movement". And if anyone dare suggest that the leadership's attitude is weakening the movement, they will be immediately required to apologize for insulting those who are so dedicated to "the cause".


I wanted to conclude this post with predictions for the future - from the March 22 BOA onwards. I have no doubts that Seamus, Julie and Roxanne will get out of this impasse and keep their jobs in May. After all, their strategy is working in the short term. In the long term, it could be the first step into the trap described above. The choices ahead of us, when (if?) we get out of the current storm, are becoming increasingly clear.


Here's the grand question: How can we, as students, as activists and as friends, help the executive of the SFUO develop a philosophy of sustainable, inclusive movement-building?

The answer, of course, is well beyond the scope of this modest blog.

January 29, 2007 - Crossing The Line

Latest news in the Rancourt saga: Despite an offer of settlement in which he completely gave up his "no grades" policy, it looks like Denis Rancourt will be dismissed by the Board of Governors on March 31. Understandably, after going that far and enduring all the negative media reports, the university can't just back down now. And Rancourt knows it. He would have never written this offer if he thought for one second they would accept it. Because, as anyone who attended his movie series or activism course knows, Rancourt does not compromise. In 2006, the university reluctantly accepted his "activism course". But when the university cancelled the enrollment of two 10-year-olds in the class, the professor encouraged them to file a human rights complaint. The story broke out on January 29, 2007 in newspapers across the world and uOttawa was ridiculed for having admitted children in the first place. The activism course was never offered again.

Activists need to cross the line sometimes, and when we go public and embarrass the institution, it's gonna make some people mad. We can't know for sure if the Foster twins story was really the "turning point" for the activism course... Still we can ask: for its possible consequences, was it worth creating a stir? In other words: don't only "pick your battles", but be wise in how you fight them.

Consider this: we protested the SAC. With placards, chants, the whole deal. (I don't even want to get in the racism question. Just read Amy's post.) Honestly, I enjoy sign painting and theatrical protests as much as any hippie out there, but I also know what they're good for: to get attention. To get "the cause" on the front page. And we got the front page alright. Only this time, it wasn't the uOttawa admin that got embarrassed.

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.

November 2, 2008 - The Rules

At first sight, "rules" are a major theme, if not the main theme, of the current SFUO crisis. Debate has been raging on, in this order:
- the rules governing elections and slates;
- the rules governing the Student Appeal Committee (SAC);
- the rules governing the Board of Administration (BOA).

The first debate, i.e. whether four candidates have broken the election rules or not, has been halted during the SAC "shitshow" of March 6. Following the refusal of the defendents to participate in the SAC hearing, two things happened: (1) the SAC published a decision to justify the pursuit of the current process, (2) 1/3 of the BOA directors filed a request for a special BOA meeting. The rationale for this double response, we presume, was to force a timely resolution of the debate over the SAC process, since the defendents would have to appeal the SAC decision and the Board would have the opportunity to overturn the SAC by a 2/3 vote.

In the days preceding the BOA meeting, one motion was brought forward by Dean Haldenby and subsequently replaced. Both motions had the essential effect of replacing the current four arbitrators of the SAC with people appointed by the BOA; in the case of the new motion, the appointees would be pre-selected by Dean, BOA Chair Federico Carvajal, and SAC chief arbitrator Caroline Poisson.

From a strategic point of view, it was obvious that both motions would effectively overturn the SAC decision - by dismissing the authors of the decision - with a 50%+1 majority, rather than the 2/3 majority needed to formally appeal a SAC decision. At the meeting, directors raised a number of objections on the constitutionality of the motion, including the fact that the new motion was brought after the deadline, and would require a 2/3 majority for this reason. All of these objections were dismissed by the Chair.

This is the background for the last and most controversial part of the meeting, when 12 directors decided to make their own strategic use of the Constitution, more precisely article 3.1.10.8.8, through which any vote can be voided by abstention of 1/3 of the directors present. Through this tactic, you can make any vote require a 2/3 majority. Then the Chair pulled out a legal opinion and decided to rule the vote in favour, disregarding the clause of the Constitution.

The funny thing is, in any other circumstances, the Chair's decision might have been much less controversial. After all, I doubt that the authors of the Constitution wanted 3.1.10.8.8 to be used to turn any simple majority vote in a 2/3 one. Federico's decision, taken in isolation, is quite logical.

However, in the spirit of Federico's call that we must interpret the Constitution in its entirety, I would encourage people to interpret this situation in its entirety. This might be what Amy Kishek considered when she said:

But my biggest issue was the fact that the three individuals who are named, out of four people named, as defendants in the case we were discussing at length and in detail, and deciding on specific actions to take on, decided it would be fitting to vote on how they would be tried- because that's justified! I think it's disgusting that they behaved that way...

So why would the defendents put themselves in such a conflict of interest? Why would the Executive and BOA appoint a member of the CFS-Ontario executive as Chairperson of the BOA just before a crucial vote on CFS prospective membership last summer?

I am not mentioning the Canadian Federation of Students innocently here. The present question is incredibly similar to the referendum we had in November. Students are asking why defendents are making up the rules for their own trial, just as they were asking, on November 2, why CFS representatives made the rules for the referendum on CFS membership.

I assume most of you would not be actively seeking to place yourself in conflicts of interest. At least, not in such an overt manner. Then, you wonder, how do these people justify their overt conflicts of interest?

Stay tuned to know more.

April 25, 2008 - The Enemy

This is a truism of politics: few things can unite people like the struggle against a common "enemy", whether this enemy is personal or impersonal.

Last April, 3000 students who had nothing in common, from all political allegiances, assembled in the middle of the exams to oppose the Code. I hope you were there. It was truly an awesome time. And we won. [By "we", now I really mean all students, rather than the insider "we" I am using elsewhere in this blog.] So I hope you didn't miss it, because the way things are going, we won't see that kind of unity anytime soon.

The irony, of course, is that despite the far-too-obvious purpose of the Code - silencing an increasingly vocal activist crowd - the administration gave a huge boost to student activists and their representatives on the SFUO. If it wasn't for the Code, we would have ended the year with a highly-divisive Fulcrum AGM and a slightly controversial trip to New Orleans to campaign against the SPP.

Now the Code is gone, and some people in the movement need a new enemy. But what happens when the new enemy is part of your membership? This happens.

You think that the SAC is a legitimate instance? You don't agree that Seamus is making a farce of it? Then you're siding with RPG. And by the way, RPG is racist. Don't you remember how he betrayed us during the CFS referendum, and sided with conservatives? CONSERVATIVES. I even heard that some of them are anti-choice [pro-life]. Do you really want to be associated with these people?

So instead of uniting the student body, the role of "the enemy" is to ensure uncritical support from those "inside the base". We can't afford internal debate when we're at war. And we'll always be at war with Estasia (or what is Eurasia?).

[Tomorrow - The Rules]

February 15, 2007 - Wind of change

Picard, Wolfe, Joseph, Brisson. They won.

We won.

It's nice to win for a change. For the first time in ages, social justice and environmental groups on campus got their members on a majority of the executive seats of the SFUO.

Heck, even Dean (the comeback Finance candidate) had a green platform that year.

The presidential race (Hrick vs. Michel) was decided by 12 or 15 votes, and there would be a recount, but none of "us" cared that much. I don't even remember who "we" supported between the two of them.

Four out of six was what mattered. I remember Danika's campaign, with volunteers from a bunch of student clubs, Alt 101ers, and others, who participated in such an election for the first time. She was running against two SFUO insiders, and it looked like an uphill battle. Then the Fulcrum endorsed her for VPSA. So did La Rotonde. And by the third week we thought we could win. But it was hard to believe until February 15.

So when the results were in, there were shouts and tears of joy. On that evening, the 1848, the usual hangout of the SFUO clique, was taken over by a different group of students. It seemed very symbolic. It felt like the clique was broken and the SFUO was based on a grassroots student movement once more.

-------------

This was only two years ago. If you read the media and blogs, it seems I'm now part of the clique, it appears the roles have been reversed. Isn't this strange? How much can change in two years?