PIRGatory
In a rant posted on the NSPIRG website earlier this week titled Attempt to destroy NSPIRG, the group railed against the “right wing members and Councilors of the Dalhousie Student Union” that they claimed were trying to shut them down. The article contained a number of inaccuracies and used the term “right-wing” to describe their opposition five times.
The original version of the page has been deleted, but two revisions have been posted, each with more of the innacuracies corrected and more of the language toned-down. The new postings still imply, however, that the NSPIRG referendum motion is an attempt “to remove all opposition to politically conservative groups on campus.”
This assertion, that everyone involved in the DSU and anyone who questions NSPIRG’s actions, efficacy or accountability is part of a right-wing cabal, has been a constant refrain for the past few years. It’s something I’m damn tired of.
To clear things up, let’s take a look at the last four years of the DSU and the ideologies of those who have created the policies that NSPIRG has all these problems with.
In 2005-2006, the positions that deal with the union’s political side – the President and the VP Education – were held by Ezra Edelstein and punditry.ca stalwart Jen Bond. Jen’s most recent political involvement I know about was working for the more progressive mayoral candidate in the HRM election. Ezra got his start in campus politics on the board of… wait for it… NSPIRG. That’s right, not only did a PIRGer and committed progressive hold the DSU presidency for two of the past four years, but he also served as national chair of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, the federal lobby group that NSPIRG hates so much.
In 2006-2007, I took over for Jen. I’m happy to compare my progressive credentials with anyone at NSPIRG. Hell, my current job description includes the line “dedicated to advancing economic, environmental, political, and social justice.”
In 2007-2008, I served as President and Tara Gault became VP Ed. She’s now working for the Liberal party, last I heard on education and poverty relief.
In 2008-2009, Courtney Larkin became president. She’s the definition of non-partisan, which is an incredibly helpful trait for a student leader and lobbyist. Punditry.ca’s own Mark Coffin served as the VP. He got his start in campus politics at SustainDal and is a dedicated environmentalist. I think he may have even voted for the Green Party.
So the ideologies of those in political positions in the union over the past four years have ranged all the way from left-left to centre-left. The DSU may be a lot of things, but it certainly isn’t a right-wing front dedicated to destroying NSPIRG. They’re doing a great job of doing that all on their own.
This is possibly my favourite punditry post to date. It also reminds me of the letter to the editor a certain past-VP Internal wrote to the Gazette after he had been called conservative in that same publication (I think in a letter or an opinions piece). It contained the immortal phrase (which I’m probably slightly misquoting): “I practice yoga, wear Birkenstocks and voted for Nader…twice.”
If the DSU has been filled with a bunch of right-wing members for the past few years…I don’t even have a good punchline for this, it’s just ridiculous.
I do not agree with Miss Bond. I do not think it is ridiculous for members of our Union to express the opinion. Even if some of the statements made by NSPIRG are an exaggeration, the Union should take note of the feeling of animosity by many students.
The other day at the Second Cup, in the Killam Library, I asked a lady if she had voted yet. Her words were as follows:
“I couldn’t give a @$!% if the whole building burned to the ground. What can the DSU possibly do for me. The DSU has always been the same and always will. I am not going to waste my time.”
I would say this is the attitude of most students; this also exactly how much of a failure our Union is up to this point.
@Gregorian
I think there is a distinction between “ineffective” and “right wing” (did *I* just say that?!). Seriously, though, one can have an opinion that the DSU isn’t doing anything for them and isn’t addressing their concerns, and I think that’s a totally legitimate concern. Just because one disagrees with the leadership of the Union, however, doesn’t give them carte blanche to paint it with the “right wing” brush. Lefties, centrists and apolitical types alike can all also be just as ineffective at running a Union…or anything else.
So, disagree with me if you like, but disagree with what I’ve *actually* said, which is that the Union hasn’t been filled with a bunch of right wingers for the past few years (*fact*). All student concerns about the effectiveness of the Union are a completely different matter.
I love how NSPIRG tries to rally support by invoking the r-word. The DSU Execs and the students involved in student politics are mostly lefties. (That was not meant to be disparaging.) Too bad for them its not working. Students left, right, up, down, backward, sideways, are standing up to NSPIRG for their abuse of student dollars, and their consistent use of tactics meant to intimidate others and discourage honest discourse on this and other matters.
It’s also interesting to note that three of the six people I mentioned above hadn’t been involved in the DSU at all before they ran for VP. Some quick math in my head says that nearly the same ratio holds true for the rest of the execs for those years.
Being involved in the union previously obviously increases your chances of choosing to run for the exec, but the DSU is a far cry from the insular clique that NSPIRG’s supporters claim.
It was almost exactly a year from when I attended my first council meeting to when I became President.
@Jen Bond
Have you ever read Marx?
P1:All Socialism basically contains some form of Marxism
P2:Socialists are lefties
P3:Participatory Democracy is the impicit bases of Marxism
P4:Socialism therefore implies a high level of democratic involvement
P5:The left is more democractic than the right
P6:The DSU is undemocratic
Conclusion: therefore the right is undemocratic relative to the left; the Union is run by the right.
The argument is neither semantically valid nor flawless, but I do see SMAC’S and NSPIRG’S reasoning.
I think this is a pretty good link to what mant call a fascist Union, and perhaps there line of reasoning.
The worse thing is that the Union has become anti-thesis to the majority its very members.
@Gregorian
[citation needed]
http://xkcd.com/285/
Historically, the right has been more pro-war than the left, and more pro-business interests than the left. There are localized exceptions, of course, but I think that if they were polled, most of the population would likely agree, if we’re talking purely about historical trends.
As such, since at the AGM members of the DSU executive were trying to derail SMAC’s motions that address these issues, it’s only natural that the left-right binary would fall into place.
My point is this: I’m sure there are both ideologically right- and left-wing people in the DSU, but to oppose anti-war motions and motions that seek to end exclusivity contracts with unethical mega-corporation (PepsiCo, etc.) is to adopt a position that has historically been right-wing. In so doing, the DSU as an organization paint themselves as right-leaning, whether or not the individuals on the executive identify themselves as such.
So, to call the DSU right-wing (if only in action, not in theory) isn’t as ludicrous as the posters above me are making it sound.
Meh, I don’t hold that against them, it’s not an uncommon tactic. Perhaps the most visible example of its use in recent times was the Bush administration: you’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us you’re a filthy liberal who loves terrorists.
Are you facing opposition from several fronts? Lump them all together, demonize them, rally support against demons (after all, who doesn’t hate demons?). There is only good and evil; there are no shades of gray, no room for compromise. We are not “engaged in debate”, we are “under attack”. We are not being held to a constant standard; we are being picked on and marginalized because they hate us. (where they = “godless liberal media”, “fascist right-wing patriachs”, whatever.)
It’s cookie-cutter propaganda, paint by numbers for information ministers. It’s as predictable as it is unremarkable.
Opposing anti-war motions doesn’t make you pro-war. Why does it have to be black and white?
Also, http://xkcd.com/386/
It’s in NSPIRG’s interest to make this into a debate between left and right. But if we get too caught up in the bizarre syntax of such an argument (for example, Gregorian’s post about Marxism), we lose sight of what this is really about.
This is not about politics. This is about accountability. NSPIRG has operated with impunity for too long. No student should have to opt-out of a political organization. There should be no “opt-out” political think tanks either of the left or the right anywhere on campus. Freedom of association is also the freedom NOT to associate.
It’s time to put NSPIRG’s funding to a referendum.
The motions also included something about lowering tuition without a mention of grants. Sounds like those right wingers at NSPIRG support a universal subsidy over progressive, targeted aid.
See, I can do it too.
Trying to put this in terms of left and right is counterproductive. NSPIRG’s issues are going to get heard at a democratic assembly on April 1st and they’re free to run candidates who support their positions in any DSU election (like they did in 2006, garnering less than 10% of the vote). If enough students vote for Pink’s motion or sign the stop-NSPIRG petition, their funding will go to referendum and the entire student body will be able to participate in an open and fair election to decide their opt-out policies. It’s not a right-wing conspiracy keeping them down, it’s called democracy.
@Gregorian
No, but I did take a class in “logic” once, and yours doesn’t follow.
@K.L.
@Mike Tipping
Hear, hear! “This is what democracy looks like.” See, I can do it too!
And I booked bands.
@K.L.
I, and many other students, would opt-out of the Union if we could.
Further, some NSPIRG supporters were the first five signatores of the petition for referendum. I agree that it should be democratically decided.
Is NSPIRG’s director still paid more than the DSU President?
@C McCluskey
It would appear that the salaries of their two staff adds up to $39,122.
This would be more than the DSU president.
http://www.nspirg.org/images/stories//nspirg_budget_2007-08.pdf
I hope those are prospective numbers, if that was audited… wow, just wow.
I’m familiar with the efforts of a few individuals to track down an NSPIRG budget. NSPIRG repeatedly insisted that the budget linked there was as detailed as their budgets got. DSU VP Finance at the time confirmed that budget was sufficient to receive the $60k in funding.
@Mike Smit
Beats me. I was just explaining how someone might rationalize it given the historical context. For the record, I don’t think the DSU is right-wing.
Well, In the case that the first, and the signatures fail ((God or what ever is out there…help us all)) Then there is really one action left that the DSU can do in order to keep its neutral stand point. Make a completely Right wing opt-out society…call it NSWMA (Nova Scotia’s War Manger Association) or some thing stupid like that so we can all now pay 8$ a year to have two groups go head to head all year round… At least that would give the Gazzete some thing to write about!
A war MANGER! How cute. Will there be shepherds and sheep? Why of course there will! We are talking about university students here, after all. I bet members of the War Manger Association will wear Ugg boots.
@G.C.
Stop it, I’m getting all hot.