But Where’s the Tilt-a-Whirl?
Today, SMAC had an event in front of the Killam library. Well, they actually piggy-backed on the weekly Food Not Bombs gathering that was coupled with an NSPIRG…rally? Meeting? Tabling (sans table)? Regardless, there was definitely a sign that said “support NSPIRG”. FNB is a group that offers free vegetarian food each week in front of the Killam (in addition to other places around the city). In truth, no one would have been able to know it was three different, “completely unaffiliated” groups converging in the same spot…but I digress.
There were people juggling, a couple of guitars going, and a handful of people enjoying some no doubt delicious veggie fare. I have been struggling with how to write about my experience, I think I’m going to opt for a straight up narrative. We’ll see how it goes.
I arrived at around 4:15. There were a few DSU types hanging around the Muskoka chair area chatting and looking furtively over at the 15 or so NSPIRG/SMAC/FNB supporters a few feet away. I felt like I was at a grade 6 dance, but divided along imaginary (and false) political lines. I decided I would head on over and peruse the literature on offer, Eric Snow in tow. As soon as we approached, Jane from SMAC came up to us, handed us a flier and said, “Would you like a flier? I feel like you’re misinformed.” She then walked off, so I didn’t get to ask her any of my questions. The flier had SMAC’s general “about us” information on it, which can be found here at their much improved website. There were an assortment of other fliers and publications kicking about including: the Single Parent Handbook (an NSPIRG publication); the report on the commercialization of campuses, the name of which escapes me (also through a PIRG working group); and a copy of the SMAC motions from the AGM (SMAC is “in solidarity with PIRG”, just in case you were wondering how one of these things is not like the others).
After meeting up with John Hillman and Ben Wedge (who may stil be there waiting for someone to give him a flier, poor lad), enjoying an apple from the FNB crowd and dancing along to some protest songs, I thought it might be time to actually get some information at this information session. I sought out Jane to ask a few questions. First, I wanted to know who drafted the AGM motions. It was a collaborative effort, I was told. Did they know that the DSU has a turnitin.com policy on the books that opposes the service and calls for, at the very least, an opt-0ut system? They were aware of that, I was told, but the motion spoke more to wanting a stronger stance.
Here’s the BIRT part of that motion:
BIRT that the DSU will take an active stance against the use of Turnitin.com on campus and will petition, lobby and fight Dalhousie University to remove this gross violation of student rights from all classes.
Call me nitpicky, but if you want a stronger stance, you might want to acknowledge that there’s a stance to begin with…otherwise people (like me) are just going to scratch their heads and say “But we already have a policy…we already do this…I’m confused by your ire.”
My next question was, if SMAC could choose one motion to pass at the AGM, which one would it be? Jane didn’t want to speak for the group (fair), but said that really, the most important issue was NSPIRG. Needless to say, I found this interesting. Was Jane opposed to the re-visiting of the referendum question? Yes, she was, because she felt it was an unfair attack on PIRG. Since this was an information gathering exercise for me and not an opportunity for debate, I refrained from asking how in fact she thought NSPIRG should be held accountable for its $60,000 per annum…
Really, though, I was interested in the main goal of SMAC. I was told that it was to mobilize students on campus. That is why they wrote the AGM motions, to get students involved. Sure, I buy that. I even commend that. I still don’t know why we had to have so much carrying on about non-Dal students being at the AGM if the whole point of SMAC is to mobilize *students* though…
Finally (and this is possibly my favourite part of the exchange), I asked if the SMAC meetings were open. “They *were*” replied Jane. “Oh?” I asked “They aren’t anymore?” Jane told me that the group hadn’t quite decided, but offered (I’m going to say reluctantly) to take my e-mail address and let me know. I pressed her on why, if the goal of SMAC was to mobilize students, their meetings wouldn’t be open to…students (of which I am one). I didn’t get an answer to that particular question, but I imagine it’s that SMAC doesn’t want students “like me” at their meetings. Please SMAC, feel free to prove me wrong…preferably by telling me when your next meeting is. I have also subsequently followed up with an e-mail to the SMAC contacts, Alia Saied and Kaliegh Trace, to see if I could get on their mailing list.
So, that’s about everything exciting that happened. Fellow pundit John Hillman took some photos, I hope he puts them up. If anyone knows when the next SMAC meeting is, let us know. A combined 2,500 words in 2 hours, I’m spent.
Alia Saied is the founder of No One Is Illegal, an NSPIRG working group, and was (still is?) part of the NSPIRG board.
They’d be foolish to add you to their mailing list. You’re not really interested in getting involved in their organization, that much is clear from the tone of this post. You’re sarcastic, you’re snide, and you’re condescending. I get that this is your shtick, and that’s fine, in fact I often find your posts pretty funny, but if they read this blog you can’t fault them for being wary of wanting to have you at a meeting.
Absolutely – why bring in a dissenting voice? It’s a royal pain in the ass to deal with people who disagree with you.
@G.C.
I think that would be a fair comment (I don’t agree with it, but I understand the point of view) if not for “Would you like a flier? I feel like you’re misinformed.”
If they’re really interested in informing you, how foolish it would be for them to add you to a mailing list or have open meetings.
Oh give me a break. The goal of their organization right now is clearly to mobilize to try and get their motions passed at the AGM. Why else would they be handing out fliers outside of the library? You think Jen Bond wants to help them get their motions passed? Of course not. I’m sure SMAC know that. So why should they invite her to their meeting? So that she can come back and post some snide comments on Punditry.ca about how they’re all a bunch of hippie lefty PIRG-lovers?
Maybe they’ll decide to invite her, who knows. Maybe they’re a bunch of optimists. Personally, I think it would be foolish for them to invite her.
Pretty sure the snide comments will be here whether she’s invited or not.
You’re still all acting like Jen Bond is genuinely interested in getting involved in SMAC. Normally, I would agree with you: If it were a stranger who walked up to them and they opened with “I feel like you’re misinformed,” I’d say they were being stupid. But clearly they knew who she was and figured she was just attending so that she could write jokes about it for Punditry.ca. Hey, they were right.
Which is great. I think she writes some funny stuff. But that’s not the point: we’re talking about the merits of adding to your mailing list and inviting to your meetings someone who you already know doesn’t support your organization. What’s the point? She’ll write her snide comments regardless, but at least she won’t be here revealing SMAC’s plans for the AGM, etc.
Sigh. It’s getting so a man can’t make a light-hearted comment on his own website anymore.
@G.C.
… to both posts I guess:
I disagree. If they knew who she was (and I assume they did) and feel it’s worth correcting her views (I assume this too, if not that was a pretty lame shot) then adding her to a mailing list or inviting her to a meeting is the best way to try to inform her of what they actually do.
I’ve attended meetings of societies I disagreed with (or thought I might) in the past. Most of the time it just confirmed my suspicions (hey, when I’m right I’m right…), but sometimes I changed my mind. There could also be some combination of the two — hypothetically she could attend, decide that for the most part they were jackasses, but “HEY, THERE’S THIS ONE COOL THING THEY’RE DOING.”
I dunno. Revealing their plans? If you’re worried about moles, how hard do you really think it would be for any group that cared to get someone sympathetic at a meeting?
Interesting, Jen, that you fail to mention what I think was the most significant part of the conversation: That I feel the referendum question on PIRG was unfair especially given that the Progressive Conservatives have been funding groups to destroy PIRGs and other social justice organizations across the country. The rhetoric and tactics being used against NSPIRG neatly line up with what is being promoted elsewhere–hardly the result of the grassroots concerns of students. http://ryersonfreepress.ca/site/archives/745?amp;preview=true
I’m sure this was a totally accidental oversight?
@G.C.
You’re right, being snide and sarcastic is *totally* my shtick. You’re wrong in thinking that I’m not interested in what SMAC is doing. I think the turnitin.com motion is a good one and I most certainly would like to help get that motion passed. I don’t agree with a lot of the content of the other motions, but I most certainly am not the type that would walk into a SMAC meeting and try to shut it down. Would I give thoughtful criticism? Yes. But I’m not a monster, I respect SMAC’s ability to organize and bring their concerns forward.
@Jane
You know, I thought about writing about that part of our conversation, but then I said to myself “Jen, you’re going to get accused of conflating SMAC with NSPIRG.” Apparently, I made the wrong call.
Also, I fundamentally think that the Conservative Party (not the Progressive Conservatives…if this movement is happening, it’s coming from the fed wing) issue is separate from what SMAC is trying to do. I also think that if this CPC thing is true, it’s not the primary force behind this particular NSPIRG motion. People have been unhappy with NSPIRG for a while, and I think the timing happened to be right here.
You mentioned in our conversation that the DSU society referendum motion was the exact same as a motion that was tabled in Kingston to bring down OPIRG. I would like to see a copy of both motions, because I know the society policy revamp has been happening since 2005 and that motion was a long, long time coming from a string of society review committees that had no affiliation to the Conservative Party. I just don’t buy that the movement at Dal is being driven by the CPC, I think it’s being driven by concerned students trying to mobilize, a concept that SMAC fundamentally supports.
Having said all of that, for full disclosure (because this was also part of the conversation), I don’t have a problem with the CPC funding/teaching students to run for student politics. I *do* have a problem if they’re doing it and telling students to distance themselves and pretend to be apolitical.
This is similar to what happens in political meetings: rank and file Dippers don’t go to meetings for other parties, for some reason. Only the executive does. I’ve been to many a meeting/rally for NDP and Liberals merely to hear what’s going on. They welcome that, in fact, they even charge a premium rate to enter. At Tory rallies and conventions, I often spend time talking to the Liberals and NDP supporters in attendance.
Of course, we do have some closed door aspects to those conferences, but SMAC won’t allow students to go to their regular meetings? Come on.
A bit of an NSPIRG/SMAC/AGM discussion has started up over at DalNews in response to a very brief article about the AGM. They, too, seem to be having difficulty drawing the distinction between NSPIRG and SMAC, as they call the “anti-NSPIRG” motion a counter-motion to those brought by SMAC.
Here is the article and discussion:
http://dalnews.dal.ca/2009/03/19/discuss-nspirg.html?utm_source=my.dal&utm_medium=RSS
You must be wearing an outfit that makes you look like you just came off the set of some post-apocalyptic film about anarchists with too many feelings.
I love when groups bitch and moan about the elite in-crowd running the show all on their own…..then turn around and state that their own meetings are not open to members outside of their own little clique.
Honestly, SMAC/NSPIRG/whateveryouare you just make it way to easy to call you hypocrites.
I read that article. Since when is “Ontario” equal to “across the country”? For what it’s worth, I live in Alberta, a hotbed of Conservative power if there ever was one, and I pay attention to what happens on campus. There’s no meaningful talk whatsoever about eliminating APIRG.
I support exaggeration to make a point or to be funny; that did neither.
@Alex
Here, Here! If this is true.
“Since this was an information gathering exercise for me and not an opportunity for debate, I refrained from asking how in fact she thought NSPIRG should be held accountable for its $60,000 per annum…”
Just a point, NSPIRG does get audited like other society. I recall the last one was passed after the VP Finance did a new one that included a review of the previous one, which he found (I think) less than comprehensive. That was around the time of ratification.
@Andrew Robinson
True dat. He didn’t find anything major wrong with their books.
@Andrew Robinson
That’s all well and good. But when that money is going towards actions that are actively hurting the Union and giving the school a bad image something needs to be done.
I’m all for a difference of opinions, but when situations arise like at the Job Fairs the school’s reputation is hurt.
Call me a fascist, but I don’t think the DSU should be funding a society that is actively ruining its reputation.
@Andrew Robinson
True. I think I meant more in the broader “accountable to students” sense.