punditry.ca — uncovering DSU elections

Tonight, CKDU hosted a panel discussion on student activism. I wasn’t able to listen live, but will live-blog as I stream the discussion. You can do the same if you missed the live broadcast by visiting the Program Archive and start streaming at 21:00. (I’ll base my time-stamps on this start time.)

On with the show:

9:03: Oh, there’s some music first. I feel very at ease. While listening to BBC Radio 2 on Tuesday, I learned from Dr. Frank Lipman that reggae music is a great way to slow down and bring your body back to it’s natural rhythm. I suspect the effects will be undone once the discussion starts.

Beauty of streaming: skip to 20 minutes in to get to the good stuff.

9:21: Julie & Bethany from The Gazette are also in the studio. Julie spoke to Council last night about The Gazette and I learned why they print so many copies of the paper (number of papers printed determines what they get from a national advertiser). Julie got a lot of questions but didn’t get defensive. I like the cut of her jib.

9:26: I have a little rant about Bethany not abiding by the “two Gazette writers” rule despite having received advance notice of the decision. I may have gone so far as to take a red pen to her article in The Gazette last week, but I can save that for another time.

9:28: I agree that students should receive information about potential employers in a critical environment. However, I don’t think Lockheed Martin is hiding the fact that they manufacture weapons. I also agree that students should be allowed to protest in a democratic society, but I don’t think protesters should prevent students from speaking to those on the other side of the issue (i.e. Lockheed Martin recruiters). I also have a little rant about hypocrites which I’m saving for a future post. [I'm not saying Angela was hypocritical in her response. I actually think I like the cut of her jib, too.]

9:32: I completely agree that NSPIRG has not advertised their opt-out period effectively. I don’t like the “it’s been 19 years” argument because I’m of the mind that if a society is still meeting its mandate as set out at the time their referendum passed, and that mandate is still relevant to contemporary society, the passage of time cannot be the only reason for sending a levy back to referendum. I know why they’re making the argument (the levy is as old as most first-year undergrads), but it’s not why I think a new referendum may be necessary.

9:36: <sarcasm>You mean to say that Political Science and IDS students are studying war and national defence?! What?!</sarcasm> Seriously, find me a poli sci student who doesn’t expect some discussion of defence in a foreign policy class.

9:37: I am so canvassing the Poli Sci course listings once this is over.

9:39: I may have written my Poli Sci Honours thesis about modern applications of Virginia Woolf’s ideas about preventing war and fascism by means other than violence and war. This could make me a little bit sensitive when someone claims my education has somehow been compromised by the Department of National Defence.

9:41: Past and future DSU executive are “intimately connected.” Someone’s been reading my DSU Gossip Girl blog.

9:43: Oh, here we go…increasing “conservativization” of the DSU. But we’re not woefully incompetent. Gee, thanks.

9:45: I resent discussion of slander and libel, as it made me pick up my Criminal Code.

9:51: FYI, libel is published defamation while slander is oral, so unless it’s an audio blog, slander is not going to happen on a website.

Something went funny with the stream. I’m warming up another Krispy Kreme while it reloads.

9:53: The panelists are going on a pee parade. I didn’t really need to know that.

9:59: Damn the man!

10:01: SMAC’s vision of student engagement is in line with that of NSPIRG. I’m shocked.

10:08: Okay, I’m trying to understand Stop NSPIRG’s “students should have a choice” argument. I agree that students should be allowed to conform and consume if that’s what they want to do, but I’m not sure I agree that it’s NSPIRG’s job provide equal time to “the man”, for lack of a better term. Isn’t the whole problem that those are the dominant viewpoints presented to us whether we like it or not and NSPIRG’s critical perspective is meant to provide a counterbalance? It’s sort of like saying, “DalOUT, you have to present the gender binary as a viable option even though you’re supposed to be educating us about alternatives to that binary that gets shoved down our throats from the moment we’re born.”

10:09: Okay, Angela picked up on that point.

10:15: I don’t have a problem with a society like NSPIRG paying a non-student staff person (though it would be nice if students were given priority for such jobs), but I have a copy of Dal-PIRG’s 1989-90 constitution, and it’s so lovely and student-focused…

10:24: I agree that the campus and community are inextricably linked, so it makes sense for NSPIRG to focus not just on the campus.

10:25: Safe space! Yay!

10:32: Well, that was sort of interesting, actually. Gave me a few things to think about. I’ll be posting at least once more before the AGM once I’ve had a chance to finally read everything on the NSPIRG, SMAC, and Stop NSPIRG websites.