And now, the meeting you’ve all been waiting for…
I am going to attempt live-blogging the meeting tonight.
11:30 – Motion Fails 215-237. Posse out.
11:26 – The ballots are being counted.
10:37 – Building hours will be extended long enough for us to finish voting and hear the results. The line to vote is still very long. I’d say there might be over 100 people waiting to vote.
10:25 – Still voting. I’m now getting reports that we have to leave the room before 11:00 (the meeting was extended until 10:45), but I suspect an attempt will be made so that we can stay later.
9:30 – My friend John Hurley has kindly let me use his laptop for the past three hours. The battery is going to die in 13 minutes. If somebody in the McInnes Room would like to let me blog from their computer, I would appreciate it (Don’t get out of your seat during the vote; just leave a comment). Otherwise, I’m going to have to type on my iPod Touch, which is fine with me, but will slow down my productivity greatly.
9:28 – We will have to present our DalCards to receive a ballot.
9:25 – Chair has asked Dan Boyle, Daniel Pink, Alia Saied and Jane Kirby to act as scrutineers.
9:23 – It is freakin’ close. Shannon Zimmerman has moved for a ballot vote (Chair asked that if someone was going to do it, do it now to pre-empt his hand-count). Mark Coffin has requested a role call vote, but Zimmerman wants the ballot vote to preserve some anonymity. Everyone has been asked to find a seat. (According to the Chair, “A seat is not the ground.”)
9:20 – Okay. This might make it a little clearer: We can make Council collaborate with NSPIRG. We probably can’t make NSPIRG collaborate with Council. So, if NSPIRG doesn’t want to collaborate, Council can go ahead with initiating a referendum so long as an effort is made to collaborate first.
9:18 – Chair’s interpretation is that this wording of this motion requires Council to collaborate with NSPIRG when drafting an appropriate question. At the same time, it requires Council to draft wording of a referendum question…Does that make sense to everyone?
9:16 – Debate is over. Now we get to vote!
9:14 – VPFO has raised a point of order regarding whether the current wording is within the spirit of the original motion because it requires collaboration between NSPIRG and DSU Council. His concern is that nothing may happen if NSPIRG does not agree with the wording of the referendum. Only one minute of debate left…
9:09 – Speaker took a couple of points of information about NSPIRG elections. When Ben Wedge raised one, she refused to take his question. (I suspect his question was going to be in regard to her comment that any Dal student can run for a position on the NSPIRG Board. A Dal student who has opted out of the NSPIRG fee, as I’ve been told, is not eligible to run for a Board position.)
9:05 – Speaker is saying that Stop NSPIRG is not a Conservative Party conspiracy. He feels we should put this to a referendum.
9:02 – Steinberg objects to the speaker’s reference to “leaders of NSPIRG” as they are a non-hierarchical body. Chair is trying to explain when a point of personal privilege should be used; it is not meant to clear up technicalities. Only use it if somebody impugns your honour.
8:59 – A member of the crowd has taken issue with some of the speaker’s comments. She objects to the term “Dr. Cluster Bomb”, but if the individual the speaker is referring to refers to himself by that name, it’s not out of order. The person raising the point of personal privilege did not speak into the microphone, so I missed a lot of what she said.
8:56 – Motion passed.
8:54 – Subsequent speaker has called to question. That passed. Now we’re voting on the amendment.
8:52 – Debogorski tried to call the question earlier out of turn. Now he’s at the mic and making comments. Robert’s Rules fun fact: If you are going to call to question, you can’t speak to the motion first.
8:50 – Here’s the wording of the amendment as it appears on the big screen:
BIRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to word a referendum question to reaffirm the mandate of NSPIRG and its levy over motion 166:90 to take place in the 2009-10 academic year.
BIFRT the NSPIRG Board and DSU Council collaborate to resolve issues raised at this meeting.
8:46 – Colin, a “moderate” supporter of Stop NSPIRG (moderate in that he has engaged in dialogue with NSPIRG members), supports the motion/amendment (as long as NSPIRG really does want to make changes to their operations) and raises Stop NSPIRG’s three main problems with NSPIRG: (1) opt-out procedure, (2) accountability of working groups, and (3) NSPIRG falling in line with their original referendum question.
8:45 – NSPIRG is willing to improve advertising and accessibility of their opt-out policy. They welcome students bringing concerns forward.
8:44 – Steinberg has also raised what I feel is a very valid point: NSPIRG and the DSU have mechanisms in place if students have complaints which have not been used.
8:43 – Steinberg is raising the point that this meeting is not the proper forum for deciding the fate of NSPIRG. NSPIRG supports going to a referendum.
8:41 – Chair finds the referendum stuff is the essence of the motion. While it may push the limits, he finds the amendment to be permissible.
8:40 – Boyle explains that we shouldn’t cripple the society before everyone has had a chance to have their say in a referendum.
8:35 – NSPIRG Board Member Jean Steinberg is moving an amendment seconded by VPI Daniel Boyle.
Move to strike all whereas clauses because they are inflamatory. Also moving to strike the BIRT and first BIFRT. I’ll give you all the proposed new wording of the referendum-related clause as soon as it’s available.
8:33 – VP of Dalhousie Culture of Autism Awareness Society is speaking about NSPIRG’s support for their society. This, he says, suggests NSPIRG is not the extreme leftist group its opponents say it is. But where in the motion does it say that they are?
8:31 – Motion passes. Debate will end at 9:16, if not before.
8:28 – Eric Snow has corrected a spelling error in the motion (NSPIG amended to read NSPIRG; I believe I typed it correctly below) and he moves to limit debate on this motion to 45 minutes.
8:27 – Chair says cheering is good, but you’ll be kicked out for heckling.
8:26 – Speaker, who Chair has still not cut off, says the phrase “Leftist extremists are still extremists” is libel. Also, we’re getting the NSPIRG staff members at a bargain given their poverty-line salaries.
8:24 – Eric Snow raises point of order as speaker has exhausted his 4 minutes. Chair will be timing people from this point forward.
8:21 – Speaker is raising inaccuracies, which he says are contained in the motion, by reading from the Stop NSPIRG website.
8:19 – Speaker takes issue with use of “NSPIRG members” in reference to the motions at the last meeting. VPEd raises Point of Information, “Isn’t it so that all Dalhousie students who have not opted out of the NSPIRG levy are members of NSPIRG?”
8:18 – We’re back. Those waiting are now in the McInnes Room and another room has been opened for anyone who arrives later.
8:11 – Chair has been notified there are 8 people outside who can vote. He has recessed the meeting until we find a way to let those people in the room or somehow allow them to vote.
8:09 – Angela Day says she has received two phone calls from Dal students outside the room who are concerned because they cannot vote. Chair says ideally, we’ll have people step out. Sounds like we’re going to do our best to open up another room to have people vote in.
8:01 – It’s “New Business” time. Portions of the NSPIRG motion have been ruled out of order. Dan Pink is presenting amendments (seconder is Logan Philp):
Whereas the conduct of NSPIRG at recent events such as the job fairs held at Career Services in the Student Union Building over the last year has been excessively disruptive;
And whereas NSPIRG has not adequately communicated the opt out period for students to come in person to collect the $4.00 student levy that is rightfully theirs if they wish to opt out of NSPIRG membership;
And whereas memebrs of NSPIRG have submitted additions to the agenda of the General Meeting of the Union on March 11, 2009, that called for the Union to act irresponsibly by failing to meet its contractual obligations;
BIRT NSPIRG shall be served ninety (90) days written notice to vacate the SUB given to them in writingo by the VPFO. This notice shall be delivered within forty-eight (48) hours of the conclusion of the AGM.
BIFRT that the administrative payroll service that the DSU currently provides to NSPIRG be terminated as of May 1, 2009.
BIFRT that Council accept this motion as a proposal for a referendum to determine whether the membership supports or does not support DAL-PIRG or NSPIRG, as it is now known, continuing to receive a student levy thereby confirming or rescinding Motion 166:90 PIRG referendum dated March 4, 1990.
7:58 – The point of putting members in another room has been raised. The Chair can’t see into other rooms. But another person has raised the walky-talky in Room 224 option.
7:57 – Debogorski asks, why the executive didn’t look into the fire code problem previously (“What happens if 2000 students show up?”). They did. This was the largest room available.
7:55 – We’ve hit fire code capacity! And there are Dalhousie students who are outside the room and wanting to come in and exercise their votes. Chair is asking for King’s students if they would be willing to allow a voting member to replace them in the room.
7:53 – One of the short-haired guys from before has asked Kris to explain the ticket system for the Death Cab For Cutie contest. Rogers distributed the majority of the tickets, mainly to Rogers customers who voted for Dalhousie.
7:51 – Butterfly guy (remember him?) is at the mic. He is concerned with the representation of minorities (racial and sexual orientation). “Why didn’t we have anything to address inclusion in our campus program for the whole year?” Osmond answers the question by pointing out that we have over 200 societies that address inclusiveness on campus. On a personal note, the gentleman claimed there are no events for gays and lesbians. That made me upset. DalOUT has events almost every week during the school year.
7:42 – I neglected to mention that as people were entering, SMAC was passing out a hand-out called “know the rules…robert’s rules!” One side lists the points which can be raised and whether they interrupt the speaker, require a second, are debatable, are amendable, or need to be voted upon. The reverse reads as follows:
Anticpation of tonight’s DSU AGM has been building for three long weeks. Tensions are high and a lot is at stake but it is important to situate this one evening in the context of a much broader, longer struggle. Tonight is not the most important night. Tonight doesn’t determine the future because tonight is not the end. SMAC stands for the democratic participation of students in their university; we will continue to fight for that no matter the results of this meeting.
We must remain strong and unified. SMAC’s position will gain legitiacy only if we present a collective, rational voice. There is nothing to be gained from engaging in the inflammatory tactics of those opposed to our ideals. Let’s stay cool, calm, and collective! We have already achieved so much!
Some pointers for the evening:
- Stay solid. We’re here to support each other. No one should feel singled out or attacked as an individual; let’s work to make sure this doesn’t happen.
- Don’t forget; we have every right to be here participating. Our best strategy is to remain calm and logical in the face of disorder.d
- Do speak “in order”. You must state your motion with no preamble. Otherwise the chair can rule it “out of order” and it can be dropped.
- Do call a Point of Information if you don’t know what’s going on, even if it interrupts the speaker. Chances are you’re not the only one who is lost.
- Likewise for Points of Order, it’s important to engage the process so that it cannot be used unfairly against us.
- Remember; if a ballot vote is called just write your vote; no punctuation, no comments as these can be ruled invalid. Ex: yes (valid) yes! (invalid) yes. (invalid)
Motions! A motion is a formal proposal for action made at a meeting which is up for discussion and vote. However, a proposed motion does not have to stay on the table as is. If you want to edit the motion you can move to amend it and provide alternate wording. This has to be seconded, will be debated and then voted on. Everyone will then vote on the amended motion if the amendment passes. If it doesn’t everyone will vote on the initial motion. If you think the motion is asking too much you can motion to divide and separate it into two or more motions, each of whic will be debated and voted on separately. If a motion requires more thought and discussion than can be provided at the meeting you can motion to table it to a later date. This can include motioning to refer it to a specific committee.
7:31 – VPSL Osmond says he will complete is report within 10 minutes. Let’s time him, shall we?
7:30 – Mark says the people on both sides of the issues we’re discussing tonight are all “really great people” with “kind hearts”.
7:28 – Thanks, Craig. On my way back, I tried to get a report on the number of people in the room. The closest thing I got was 400-500. We’re basically at capacity. There are some King’s students in the room.
7:27 – Lisa is coming back. It’s been fun everyone, thanks.
7:25 – Apparently he used all his good clip art in the first few slides.
7:24 – Mark Coffin is still going.
7:23 – Lisa is going to pee. Craig Jennex is taking over for…however long it takes her to pee.
7:18 – Guy [correction: new guy; similar haircut] is back again, asking why ANSSA’s fee was raised and why it did not go through a referendum (because it comes out of our operating budget; it isn’t a levy).
7:15 – Coffin’s ANSSA report is getting laughs. I’m glad to many people are here and listening to the Executive reports. It should be like this every year.
7:13 – Guy is back at the microphone with a point of information. He wants to know fees we pay to CASA and ANSSA.
7:09 – VPEducation Coffin has some lovely visuals in his report presentation. For example, the words “TUITION FREEZE” on a photo of a glacier; a woman in a grad gown and cap looking at an oversized piggy-bank.
7:08 – Some guy has approached the microphone, which is not on. This is not question time.
7:01 – Wow. Golding said the word Pepsi, and nobody ‘boo’ed.
7:00 – “Thank you all for showing up to hear my report this evening.” -VPFO Golding
6:59 – Chair does not want to have to remove anybody, but has advised us of his discretion to do so.
6:58 – Chair feels the “Challenge of the Chair” was severely misused at Part 1 of the meeting. Challenge of the Chair is not meant to achieve that which cannot be achieved democratically.
6:56 – I have a report that “Save NSPIRG” pins have been distributed. I haven’t seen one yet.
6:53 – Chair Brechtel is asking us to take our seats. He reports we are approaching capacity.
6:51 – Not surprisingly, things are late getting started. Students are still filing in.
6:16 – After explaining my “position” on allowing King’s students into the meeting (as I’ve explained, I don’t really care one way or the other, I just want the Judicial Board to have accurate information), I show my DalCard to the Night Manager and proceed to the table for those with surnames beginning “A-Ch”. My name is crossed off the list with a pink highlighter and the staff-person hands me my “voting card”.
5:45 – About 40 people are waiting on the 2nd floor landing.
Kate, you disgust me. I’ve never heard anything so brutish, sexist, and absurd. Go get a life.
@Jeff
Please explain what was sexist and absurd about my statements. I am unconcerned with whether or not I disgust some random person nor whether they consider me to be brutish. If you can point out what is wrong with what I said, then you’ll have taught another person a life lesson.
Kate said: “They oppress themselves by fucking.”
I don’t know about you, Kate, but when I make love to a woman, she is definitely not being oppressed, either by me or herself.
If she was being oppressed by me, that might be considered rape.
If she was being oppressed by herself (?), then she probably wouldn’t be having a good time and subsequently, neither would I. So we would pause to address the situation.
How do you make love?
@joey
I used the word “oppress” as a joke, because that’s what NSPIRG and people like yourselves have turned it into. True oppression is a very serious offence and I hope that everyone tries to do what is in their power to end it. However, “activists” like NSPIRG will throw the word out whenever it is convenient for them. If they feel that they can’t win an argument or convince anyone that their perspective is the correct one, then they try to scare their dissenters into disagreeing by using words like “oppress”, “racism”, “sexism”, etc. without offering any evidence that the acts they are referring even remotely fit the definitions of those words. This, in the end, turns these words into a joke. They become meaningless and (to use one of the words that you guys are so fond of) “disempowers” people who know what they are talking about and trying to fight for change.
The real meaning of what that phrase, which obviously nonsense read as-is, is that no one is oppressing these parents. These parents are in an unfortunate situation which they have put themselves in. The fact that someone isn’t offering to take care of their responsibilities for them is NOT oppression. The parents are the ones who reproduced and they are the ones who need to take care of their children. Sadly, there are many parents that have children when they are incapable of taking care of them or become incapable of taking care of them on their own. Thankfully the government already offers assistance for the welfare of the children.
Typo: “into agreeing” rather than “into disagreeing”
Also, that is not to say that any time NSPIRG uses these words they are using them incorrectly. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Oh I get it. You said something stupid to make the other side of the argument look stupid. Right.
Wait a minute. That doesn’t make NSPIRG look stupid. That makes you look stupid.
P.S.
It is not the fault of single mothers who are Dal students if the father was not responsible enough to handle raising a child. That’s not the mother’s fault, and so quit being sexist by saying she’s responsible for the actions of the father.
I don’t throw the term ‘sexist’ around. I don’t throw the term ‘oppression’ around. I use it when it applies.
@Kate
Government-offered welfare is not enough for single parents.
Also, the fact that a woman, due to unfortunate circumstances (one of those circumstances is living in a sexist society) is left with a child and no partner to raise that child with, is a sad testament to the fact that men, at times, are not able to take on the responsibility which their actions have thrust upon them.
The nature of a sexist society keeps women down by relegating their tasks to pre-defined roles, such as child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc., while men traditionally have had the social mobility and privilege to be the bread-winners, communicators, adventurers, etc.
By offering childcare, NSPIRG is actively working to empower women who have been left to raise a child alone, by offering free childcare at a valuable meeting. The fact that the DSU DIDN’T do that, speaks to their priorities in terms of single parent students.
NSPIRG is actively fighting sexism in our society by offering this service. And despite the fact that you are poo pooing on their reasons for doing so, they will continue to do so in the future. Again, thankfully we have NSPIRG on campus.
Do you know how the Dal Women’s Centre got started? During it’s first year of operation, NSPIRG subsidized, in full, the salary of the DWC staff member, thus ensuring a year-long sustainability for the organization.
NSPIRG has done more than this. It has published the ‘Single Mother’s Survival Guide’, written by a former Dal student, that has been an invaluable resource for the community.
NSPIRG puts your 4$ to work.
@joey
“It is not the fault of single mothers who are Dal students if the father was not responsible enough to handle raising a child. That’s not the mother’s fault, and so quit being sexist by saying she’s responsible for the actions of the father.”
I don’t know why you’re assuming that single parents are mothers. That’s sexist. I never said it was the mother’s fault that the father is not parenting the child. I *would* say that it is often the fault of both parents that the child was conceived when neither were prepared to take care of it. There you are again putting words in people’s mouths. I said it’s the responsibility of the parents of children to take care of those children. This is why child support is forced on parents who don’t want/have custody of their children and it is also why adoption is an available option to parents (single or not) if they are unable to take care of their child. Please explain to me what is sexist about saying that parents are responsible for the welfare are their children? Are you saying that women aren’t responsible for the welfare of their children? That is also sexist, so I hope that’s not what you’re implying. I think women are just as capable as men at supporting their children. (Hey look, I can put words in people’s mouths too!)
“I don’t throw the term ’sexist’ around. I don’t throw the term ‘oppression’ around. I use it when it applies.”
Current evidence shows the contrary.
It’s sexist to say that a mother of a child is responsible for the actions of the father of the child. It’s blaming her, and relegating the role of child-rearing to the woman, when it’s the responsibility of both parents.
Single parents are mothers. Single parents are fathers, too.
Don’t tell me that women oppress themselves by fucking, and then maybe people will take you more seriously.
Were you part of Stop NSPIRG?
@joey
“Government-offered welfare is not enough for single parents.”
Tell your government.
“Also, the fact that a woman, due to unfortunate circumstances (one of those circumstances is living in a sexist society) is left with a child and no partner to raise that child with, is a sad testament to the fact that men, at times, are not able to take on the responsibility which their actions have thrust upon them.”
That entire paragraph was incredibly sexist. I don’t think we live in a sexist society. I think we live in a society that has some sexist people in it (sexist men and sexist women). I find that the majority of Canadian society (and that’s what matters, we can’t change everyone in Canada) are either free of wrongful prejudice or are at least pretending by abiding by our laws. In the case where one of the parents does not want to take responsibility for their actions, some sort of responsibility is forced upon them by law (e.g. financial support).
“The nature of a sexist society keeps women down by relegating their tasks to pre-defined roles, such as child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc., while men traditionally have had the social mobility and privilege to be the bread-winners, communicators, adventurers, etc.”
What the heck are you talking about? I’ve never met any male or female in Canada being forced into a “pre-defined” role. You don’t get to punish people now for what wrongdoings of the past. I’d say we’re doing pretty well now in terms of freedom to take whatever roles we like and are able to, but I’m sure there is room for minor improvements.
“By offering childcare, NSPIRG is actively working to empower women who have been left to raise a child alone, by offering free childcare at a valuable meeting. The fact that the DSU DIDN’T do that, speaks to their priorities in terms of single parent students.”
Again, women. What about the men? The DSU’s priorities are exactly where they should be. There is absolutely no way you can demonstrate that it is the responsibility of the DSU to offer free childcare, ergo it is not in their list of priorities. If people want the DSU to offer free childcare, they should talk to the DSU and work to find the means to provide this, if it makes sense and is feasible.
“NSPIRG is actively fighting sexism in our society by offering this service. And despite the fact that you are poo pooing on their reasons for doing so, they will continue to do so in the future. Again, thankfully we have NSPIRG on campus.”
Child-care services have nothing to do with sexism. I didn’t realize that NSPIRG had “baby-sitting” in their mandate, but I happily support their efforts to help out parents, whether they are male, female, single or not.
“Do you know how the Dal Women’s Centre got started? During it’s first year of operation, NSPIRG subsidized, in full, the salary of the DWC staff member, thus ensuring a year-long sustainability for the organization.”
What’s your point?
“NSPIRG has done more than this. It has published the ‘Single Mother’s Survival Guide’, written by a former Dal student, that has been an invaluable resource for the community.”
Yes, I read some of that survival guide. There was a significant amount of male-bashing. It was hilarious and sad at the same time. Dear single parents: try Planned Parenthood, various womens’ and single parents’ centers or some other organization that won’t discriminate against you based on sex to get your information and help.
“NSPIRG puts your 4$ to work.”
It certainly puts it somewhere. I’m not sure if a few people’s pockets is where I want it going. I’d prefer if they used the money to Research and give that information to the Public in a Non-Partisan way. Wouldn’t that be special?
@joey
“It’s sexist to say that a mother of a child is responsible for the actions of the father of the child. It’s blaming her, and relegating the role of child-rearing to the woman, when it’s the responsibility of both parents.”
I never said that. I don’t blame “her”. I blame them. If neither parent can take care of the child it should be put up for adoption. No one is forcing any woman or any man to raise a child. If one parent choose to keep the child (keyword: CHOOSES), then they have several options including child support and social assistance.
“Single parents are mothers. Single parents are fathers, too.”
Thank you for acknowledging that.
“Don’t tell me that women oppress themselves by fucking, and then maybe people will take you more seriously.”
More seriously? I didn’t think they were taking me seriously at all! Again, see above for my explanation of the use of “oppress” in that context. Reading is hard
“Were you part of Stop NSPIRG?”
Nope. To be honest, I haven’t been keeping track of their activities. Last I heard they were changing their goal from ending to reforming NSPIRG, which is great since trying to end it is a little ridiculous, though I could see them losing their funding temporarily again if they refuse to cooperate with the DSU whenever the next demands are made. I’ve been keeping up on many of the things said by Eric Snow, various individuals who have for years been calling for accountability from NSPIRG, etc.
Kate: “Women oppress themselves by fucking.”
Joey: That statement makes you sound like such an idiot, I had to quote you again.
Kate: “Tell your government.”
Joey: I do, regularly.
Kate: “I don’t think we live in a sexist society.”
Joey: That’s exactly your problem. And that’s where NSPIRG comes in. Why don’t you find out what sexism is.
Kate: “I’ve never met any male or female in Canada being forced into a ‘pre-defined’ role.”
Joey: Yes, you have. They’re all around you.
Kate: “Again, women. What about the men?”
Joey: Women experience sexism first hand. Men don’t.
Kate: “Child-care services have nothing to do with sexism.”
Joey: Yes, they do. A lack of child-care hurts women in society the most.
Kate: “What’s your point?”
Joey: My point is that NSPIRG, for 19 years running, has been taking active measures on campus to make sure women have the services they need, and that meant subsidizing the first year of a salary for the Dal Women’s Centre.
Kate: “There was a significant amount of male-bashing.”
Joey: Maybe the Single Mothers Survival Guide should have had a whole chapter called “Women Who Oppress Themselves By Fucking”, and then maybe it wouldn’t have come across so anti-male.
Kate: “I’m not sure if a few people’s pockets is where I want it going.”
Joey: All organizations who have staff have them for a reason: to carry out the tasks that are essential for it’s functioning. NSPIRG has a board which administers it’s money, oversees the budget, and makes decisions on how to spend that money. You think NSPIRG spends too much on staff salary? Why don’t you complain to them. Show me the evidence that you formally brought that to the attention of NSPIRG. Do that, and then I’ll do what you suggest above and I’ll formally complain to the DSU about the lack of DSU-provided childcare for their AGMs.
Kate: “Women oppress themselves by fucking.”
Joey: I rest my fucking case.
You’re keeping up on Eric Snow? Good. Let me know what he’s up to.
NSPIRG and accountability? What, accountable to some demands which undermine social justice? Sorry, that runs counter to their mandate.
How is publishing a “Single Mothers Survival Guide” partisan? How is publishing a dossier on poverty in Nova Scotia partisan?
@joey
“Move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.” — Kodos
@joey
I’m still not clear on what you want the DSU to do. Kate makes some good points (though she’s being deliberately inflammatory at times I’ll wager). Single parents do have a choice. They can give up their child for adoption in the worst case, though there are lots of other options. While there might be some issues with sexism that would make the lives of single mothers harder, I don’t think you can claim the DSU is responsible for them.
Bottom line is: If you choose the responsibilities of having a kid, you should be prepared to deal with them. It is unreasonable to expect other people to accommodate your choice by providing free childcare, or even “affordable” childcare.
That said, maybe this is something the DSU should look into. I know that student services is looking into it already. I just don’t think the fact that it hasn’t been looked into previously can be blamed on the DSU being sexist, so much as a previous lack of demand. 50 or even 25 years ago, how many single parents attended Dal? Not many.
Joey, you are sexist. You must be ashamed for being part of the male gender, since we are obviously to blame for single mothers.
It takes two to tango, and if a couple aren’t ready for the responsibility of a child, then they shouldn’t be having sex. Protection can fail. If you don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Sex produces children. It amazes me how so many people don’t understand that basic concept.
Ditto @Kate on the Mother’s Survival Guide. It encourages single mothers to have extra-marital sex, and tell anyone that advises them otherwise that it’s her body, not theirs.
From the guide, on the page about sex:”It’s your life! It’s your body! Feel good about yourself.” That’s the kind of attitude that increases the number of single mothers in this world. Telling women to think about themselves first, and unplanned children later.
You don’t get to say “no one can tell me what to do”, and then turn around and demand that the community pay for you to raise your children. Take some responsibility for your actions.
I also like how the Guide smears pro-life activists by saying they support the Iraq war, and don’t care about world hunger. (e.g, ‘Where are the “pro-lifers” to protest against the mass murders of people by US supported authoritarian regimes in Latin America?’) I thought it was supposed to be a practical guide for moms, and not a political rant?
Why can’t this “research” group publish something that isn’t dripping with hate and self-indignation? When will NSPIRG stop telling everyone they are victims?
As a single father, I find it INCREDIBLY sexist for joey to assume all single parents are all women.
I should also point out that not all single mothers are in their position because they have been left by men. That too is sexist. Some leave men for any number of reasons.
Joey, please stop essentializing. You are adding to the oppression.
I actually agree with Joey to a degree on this point.
I wouldn’t say exclusion is automatic, but the presence of alcohol does discourage some students, like me, from coming out. Speaking as a student from a conservative Christian background, I dislike that so many events on campus (including ones hosted by my own Computer Science Society) revolve around alcohol. I think a lot of students don’t want to participate in the drinking culture, or be associated with it.
That being said, a lot of students get involved on campus through these events, and until there are good alternatives, it will continue that way. I think more events should be dry, but I’m not going to criticize without proposing any solutions.
@Stewart Rand
I completely understand not wanting to be at a wet event. I have felt that way myself at times, especially after having bartended at some, but I would have to change the following:
“I think more events should be dry”
to
“I think there should be more dry events”
The difference being that I don’t think that we should change the current events, because students show up and enjoy them, so there is obviously a demand for them. There should simply be more events, and some of these new events (perhaps most) should be dry. All you need is to find the people willing to volunteer to make them happen … that’s the hardest part.
@Kate
Fair enough.
@Stewart Rand
I agree with Kate. In my experience, people who want wet events organize them and just want seed money (for the most part). People who want dry events complain to me about the wet ones.
Granted, this is a generalization, but when I was President and Social Rep of the CS Society, at least early on, I went to great lengths to host dry events to make people who wanted them happy. They were advertised better than the wet ones were at the time, and attendance was usually in the neighborhood of 25% of what a wet event requiring comparable organization would draw. None of the individuals attending were interested in running future events.
So the crux of the matter is: Wet events have broader appeal, and elected representatives have finite amounts of time. Wet events typically have break-even or profitable business models. Dry event proposals often focus on giving away food to draw students. Wet events nearly always draw more students than dry events.
Result: Elected representatives are obligated to host wet events preferentially. It’s the best investment of time and money they can make. That’s not to discourage people from requesting dry events, but if they want money, those events had better aim to break even, and those people had better be willing to volunteer their time to make it happen.
After reading Joey’s posts on NSPIRG, I have changed my opinion on the issue. I have gone from supporting NSPIRG to opposing it. I think it should be radically reformed if they are supporting half of the things that are being said by him.
It seems that NSPIRG takes a stance that is wholly unwilling to just leave people who are not oppressing anyone (ie. the majority of citizens who freely choose to take a gender role), and are trying to convince us that because of societal norms and the like, we who choose gender roles are in fact oppressed.
This is wrong. If we want to exhibit any sort of functional free will, making arguments like this are ridiculous. If we have very real options to choose one thing over the other, who cares if society encourages you to do something? Just don’t do it, and since tolerance is a pillar of our societal norms in the first place, we almost always accept a different lifestyle choice, so long as the person who made that choice does not try to enforce it on others.
And it seems that NSPIRG is almost trying to do just that. Force their alternative lifestyle choice on others. Surely, they do it by protesting, publishing articles and the like; they do it by SOCIAL means.
And if they claim that the majority of the oppression that they fight is by social means, that in turn suggests that what NSPIRG does is very similar in nature to what they are fighting..
oh how I love our new increased student involvement and dialogue!
I hope the insiders listen this year; I think we can create twice as much involvement by next April given the right initiatives are created by council and the executives.
Sill critics!
Stop NSPIRG claims that NSPIRG gives Dalhousie students a bad name, because of the actions at the career fair.
Without a hint of bias, I can assure you all that getting rid of NSPIRG, losing NSPIRG, would be the greatest damage of all to Dalhousie’s reputation.
@Kate (I think)
Way back, at comment number 50 or so (I’m too lazy to check), I think Kate challenged everyone to name at least one example of racism at Dalhousie. One example alone would win you one point, and subsequently the game.
While Kate thinks she’s being funny, racism is not funny. Check the article here:
http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/1392
Where’s my cookie, Kate?
@joey
Oh my goodness! I’m convinced. I am completely satisfied with your wholly unsupported claim of non-bias. I also feel it is unimportant that, if someone were to call you out on that, you would have difficulty finding evidence to back it up. Evidence is oppressive.
non-bias? explain.
Shouldn’t I be asking you that question? You claim you are non-biased when saying ridding campus of NSPIRG would harm Dal’s reputation more than keeping NSPIRG on campus. It is evident from the nature of that claim, and by virtue of your other comments on this forum, that you are involved in some way with NSPIRG. In other words, your opinion will be shaped by the people you see on a regular basis. BIAS.
I mean, that’s why PIRGers claim sexism/racism/homophobia is rampant on campus. They deal with legit victims and no one else. That’s all you see. For my part, and this is completely 100% anecdotal, in my four years on campus I have neither participated in nor witnessed a legitimate act of discrimination. Does that mean it doesn’t happen? No. It means I should consult others and find out just how often discrimination happens on campus, and then on that basis take action to prevent it if I see fit.
The thing is, the only ones who say there’s a discrimination problem on campus are the friendly speech censors over at NSPIRG. Even Anthony Stewart, the English professor who was that subject of that article you linked, talks about discrimination in the form of people assuming he was a basketball player. OH NOES. He even says that after correcting the woman who made the incorrect assumption, she replied sincerely, “Good for you.” This is not something I, as a third party observer, have to be up in arms about. If this is the extent of discrimination at Dal, I trust those affected to handle it themselves.
But there was one legitimate concern in the article. Prof. Stewart talks about employment discrimination at Dal and claims that minorities are occasionally overlooked in the course of hiring decisions because of their minority status.
“Imagine a job interview where two candidates are vying for a position as a professor. One is a black woman with an ethnically marked name, the other a white male, “with a name like Anthony Stewart,” he jokes.
Both candidates do OK in the interview, but not great. They are on equal footing in terms of qualifications.
…
So when university administrators make that decision, which candidate do they hire?”
It is PRECISELY at this point that Stewart should provide some hard evidence. But what does he say?
“I’m here to tell you,” Stewart says solemnly. “Eight or more times out of ten, [the white guy] gets the job.”
Am I just supposed to trust him? Where are the studies? Where are his sources?
The same goes for you, joey. SHOW ME THE NUMBERS. How many students are affected by discrimination at Dal? What type of discrimination is it? Only after providing this evidence do you get to say that you are free of bias. Only then will you get to make claims about the nature of our campus. Until then, don’t expect us to take you guys seriously.
I think Andrew is referencing your first comment above (“Without a hint of bias…”)
The second comment is more interesting to me. I think a great deal of this has to do with differing definitions of racism. If you ask most people at Dalhousie what discrimination means, they would answer something along the lines of “judging another person’s value on the basis of their appearance, culture, or other qualities that have no bearing on the judgment being made”. Assuming a person is a basketball player because they have darker skin an example of racial discrimination.
Anthony Stewart makes very good points in a way NSPIRG does not. He identifies discrimination at the university level without trying to address issues of blame. Assignment of blame for a racist environment is a difficult issue that NSPIRG trivializes.
While I have met many racist white people, not every white person I have met is racist, nor is every racist I have met white. When NSPIRG talks about discrimination in our society, the tone is shrill, angry, and tends focus on how white males are keeping everyone else down. I don’t think anyone can really dispute that there are white males who make racist, sexist or homophobic decisions. What offends so many people though, is the assumption present in NSPIRG’s tone, that being white or male makes them racist, sexist, or homophobic.
This ties back into the earlier claim that, while many of us support NSPIRG’s aims, we do not like how they go about achieving them. Their methods focus on divisive “us verses them” language, where people who look like me are portrayed as, at best ignorant and at worst aggressive and malicious. Racism is an issue on campus, but implying that members of StopNSPIRG can’t know about social justice because they are white or male (Something Angela Day, one of NSPIRG’s staff members did live on CKDU if memory serves), achieves the opposite effect of what NSPIRG claims it wants. It polarizes people based on race and gender.
Joey deserves a cookie for demonstrating his point with an example. NSPIRG deserves reform because they don’t take that example to heart.
NSPIRG doesn’t trivialize blame of racism. Rather, an anti-oppression framework that is explicitly in NSPIRG’s mandate is to address, and confront, racism in all it’s forms, including structural or institutional racism.
Though the tone of certain advocates of NSPIRG may be shrill, or angy, that’s because talking about racism necessarily brings up anger for certain people. There is no shame in that, and anger should not be trivialized, but rather, when there is anger against discrimination, that anger should be heard, and an attempt to understand WHY someone would be angry would be a good reaction.
NSPIRG has never said that being white or male makes someone sexist, racist, or homophobic.
But rather, NSPIRG understands the deep rooted nature of racism, sexism, and homophobia. And it makes efforts to call into questions these types of discrimination when they are in operation, or when they are informing actions of a specific group.
There is no “us versus them” language employed by NSPIRG. There is no portrayal of white males as ignorant, aggressive or malicious. Rather, this is what commenters like Kate and others have foisted on my comments. For example, she says my comments are anti-male, when I have never once said anything against men.
NSPIRG has never said that ‘being’ white or ‘being’ male makes one sexist, racist, or homophobic.
I am not NSPIRG. But I have said above that people who are white, or who are identified as white in society, benefit from race privilege. People who identify as male in society, benefit from gender privilege.
That does not discriminate against their ideas, or say they are sexist or racist.
Finally, in terms of polarization, no one has worked harder to polarize this campus than Stop NSPIRG. By employing defamation, slander, and by calling NSPIRG racist (anti-semitic), Stop NSPIRG has been the most divisive and polarized of all.
Thank you for my cookie.
@joey
I suspect that kate will quite rightly say that anecdotal evidence of racist individuals does not prove an entire campus is racist.
“Hey look, another guy agrees with me” isn’t the same thing as “evidence”. And even some of those anecdotes are suspect. For example, Andrew Stewart thinks people assume he’s a basketball player because he’s black. I’m a 6’2″ white guy in decent shape, and people assume that about me all the time. “Wow, you must play basketball!” It’s a conversation starter – a stupid one, but an innocent one. Is there a word for situations where someone claims someone else is being racist when they aren’t?
Obviously neither I nor anyone else can understand, describe, or judge his personal life experiences. This is natural, unavoidable, … and exactly why such stories are not “evidence”.
Stop NSPIRG is far from an ideal organization.
Over the course of this conversation, you have:
- called the entire Dalhousie campus racist
- denied the right of freedom of assemble and of freedom of speech to people who hold certain viewpoints (which happen to oppose your own); more generally, condoned the suppression of the same.
- probably done other things in the time since I got bored of you and stopped reading.
- referred to individuals by name as being racist (defamation)
Your attempt to claim the high ground is laughable and misguided. At least be willing to admit you and Stop NSPIRG read from the same playbook.
I want to point out that joey appears to be Rami Mohammed. (http://twitter.com/RamiJoey) Just so everyone knows where Rami is coming from, here are some of his comments on the StopNSPIRG site:
“You can’t be sexist towards men. Sexism discriminates against women and non-male genders.”
“There’s no such thing as reverse racism. By [...] calling them white, you are actually battling racism.”
The latter quotation was in defence of Asaf at Margaret Wente’s lecture at Kings’ College.
Here is Asaf’s blog post explaining his actions at the lecture: http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/asaf-rashid/171
@Matt and Stewart;
I’ve always said that reverse racism doesn’t exist; racism and all types of oppression happen along a line of privilege and discrimination. If you benefit from your race or your gender your entire life, and one act happens that makes you feel you’ve been discriminated against based on your race, then you can’t say you’ve experienced racism, really… Because you know after the act is over things will go back to normal and you will continue to benefit from race privilege.
The person who experiences racism every day of their life, however, may feel some justifiable rage for constantly being treated unfairly due to their race. Their ancestors may have been relocated to make way for a white neighbourhood, for example. And then, if at one time they make a white person feel uncomfortable because they say something, that doesn’t mean they’re being racist towards that white person.
Racism is a system that keeps someone down their entire life based on their race. Does that help you understand, Stewart and Matt?
So, to respond to some more specific points:
Yes, many people will tell you that the Dalhousie campus is a racist environment, not just myself, not just the people at NSPIRG. The people at the Black Student Advising Centre will tell you it. The people at the Native Education Counselling Unit will tell you it.
In fact, everyone I talk to agrees with me about it, except here on punditry.
Matt: “denied the right of freedom of assembly and of freedom of speech to people who hold certain viewpoints (which happen to oppose your own); more generally, condoned the suppression of the same.”
Joey: When did that happen? Are you talking about the NSPIRG press conference? NSPIRG and it’s supporters spoke at the NSPIRG press conference. Stop NSPIRG hecklers were not given the floor. There was a scrum style question period at the end, where anyone could speak to anyone. NSPIRG has never denied freedom of speech or freedom of assembly.
Matt: “Referred to people by name as racist.”
Joey: Well, that’s true for Margaret Wente, who published a racist column in the Globe and Mail titled “What Dick Pound said was dumb – and also true.”
(October 10th,2008, Globe and Mail, available by purchase on their website.)
For more information on this, please refer to the article by Ben Powless, entitled “What Margaret Wente said was Really Dumb – and also Racist.”
Read it here: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2266
I think Ms. Wente’s article was pretty reasonable. She is challenging us to “think critically” as you might say, about what’s actually wrong with what Dick Pound said. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can cut through the political correctness drivel and look at things objectively.
Here is her article, for everyone’s enjoyment:
http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/what-dick-pound-said-was-really-dumb-8211-and-also-true/
For a comedic take on it, check out This Hour has 22 Minutes’ “Critch’s Totem Pole of Political Correctness” under Season 16 | Oct 28 here: http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/videoplayer2.html
I think Wente’s article (http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/what-dick-pound-said-was-really-dumb-8211-and-also-true/) is actually pretty reasonable. I know you think he disrespected their culture, but the question remains–were the natives savages 400 years ago? “They had not developed broader laws or institutions, a written language, evidence-based science, mathematics or advanced technologies.”
I respect anyone who can cut through the political correctness drivel and look at things objectively.
Is she racist? No. She doesn’t say there’s anything wrong, or inferior about their culture. She simply says that their culture is less advanced. Based on metrics like language, science, and technology, that’s true.
By advanced do you mean closer to death and destruction?
“Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish has been caught
will we realize that we can’t eat money.” – Cree proverb
Stupid fucking capitalists.
You tell me who was/is more savage.
Native peoples across North America were fed into a genocidal system. Residential schools are the most recent example of a legacy of killing off of a culture.
The settler/colonialists were the real savages, and still are, judging by the way we destroy habitats, rivers, mountains, lakes…. by the way we have all but killed off indigenous peoples. Mountain-top Removal in Eastern U.S. the Tar Sands in Alberta. Canadian lakes converted into toxic tailing ponds.
It really sickens me, this science/technology/mathematics bullshit. No amount of science/technology/mathematics saved the northern ice caps from melting. They won’t save the polar bears from going extinct. They didn’t save the jungles in Colombia from clearcutting for the sake of biodiesel.
Dick Pound is also on the International Olympics Committee, and yes, the Olympics in Vancouver/Whistler in 2010 are on unceded indigenous land, and yes, they are destroying indigenous lands for those games, and yes, they will be way, way in debt when that is all over.
The 2010 Vancouver/Whistler Olympic Games are only the latest blight on the face of Canada’s racist, colonial history. the 2010 Olympics have been steadfastly ignoring the demands by Indigenous elders, leaders, band councillors, and activists that are calling for no Olympics on stolen Native land.
But they’re deliberately not listening, because that would be bad for profit.
This is racism, and just the latest development in a genocidal policy towards Canada’s indigenous peoples. And Dick Pound and Margaret Wente are just racist cogs in the racist wheels of a colonial/settler society built on racist policies.
So do you support them?
I don’t know enough about them to know if I support them. I do however, know enough about you now to know I certainly don’t support you. It’s almost comical that you believe the bizarre rhetoric you produce.
Typical anti-intellectual” statements that come from tree-hugging internationalists of all stripes:
“By advanced do you mean closer to death and destruction?”
“It really sickens me, this science/technology/mathematics bullshit.”
Also, now you’re confusing racism with cultural superiority. I don’t think anyone here, or Margaret Wente for that matter, thinks natives are savages (or anything else) because their skin is a different colour. As Stewart correctly points out, by the metrics Wente uses (and I’m not saying her metrics were necessarily a good choice), the native peoples of Canada were not advanced. “Savages” is not the right word, as the native peoples of Canada were no more savage than anyone else, just less advanced by the metrics Wente proposes.
Cultural superiority is very different from racism, and it would be good of you to stop confusing the two.
Example of racism: Saudi Arabia is a barbaric civilization because the people there have dark skin.
Example of claims of cultural superiority: Saudi Arabia is a barbaric civilization because they have public beheadings of those who violate an antiquated, religiously based moral code. Canada is less barbaric because we accept other people’s right to decide for themselves what is and is not ethical.
The later argument is one most of us consider valid, whether we agree with it or not. The former most of us think is barbaric.
Colonialism is a type of racism. The Canadian settler state is founded on colonialism. It is racist to say the settler nation was ‘culturally superior’ than the natives that they obliterated in order to claim the land for their own.
You say ‘cultural superiority’, but face it, if you think your race is culturally superior to the indigenous people of this continent, now or 200 years ago, you’re racist.
Why? Because you can’t judge, you’re in absolutely no place to judge these other cultural traditions from your standpoint on the ‘winning’ side of history, where 99% of native populations have been decimated.
‘Advanced’ according to whose standards? The white ones? Exactly, you’re not even trying to understand another culture, you’re just saying yours is better, that’s all. SUPERIOR.
Yeah, you definitely win the ‘superiority’ contest when it comes to disgusting racism.
Also it should be noted that the racist comments made above, were by John Doucette, a member of Stop NSPIRG.
@Amy
@joey
You guys are reminding me of this: http://qwantz.com/archive/001443.html
Joey, are you now saying Canada as a whole is racist because we were once a colony?
How can you say science, technology, and linguistics are “white standards”? Seriously, that’s absurd.
@joey
Wow. I wish I could say that your reaction surprised me. First, construing my comments as racist exemplifies the points made above: You are grossly misusing and abusing the term. The comic Stewart links to does a good job of conveying this point, but I’ll go further.
First, at no point did I assert that my culture was better than that of anyone else, or that my race made me better than anyone else, or that I agree with Wente’s comments. My points were:
1. Wente’s argument is based on cultural superiority, not racial superiority.
2. I explicitly noted that Wente’s metrics for comparing cultures could be viewed as flawed, but that if you accepted them as valid, her argument makes sense. I did not say that I believed them to be valid, and I don’t think that, used alone, they are a good means of evaluating a culture.
There are lots of other ways you can measure the value of one culture against that of another. For example, I like to use personal freedoms and liberties as a metric. By that metric, the native people of Canada were/are in no way culturally inferior to any other culture I can think of.
3. I gave an example demonstrating the difference between a racially motivated argument and a culturally motivated one. You’ll notice that the criteria I used for the culturally motivated argument were my own, not Wente’s. I did not, for example, use “being on the winning side of history” (your words, not mine), as the criteria, because I don’t think it’s a useful metric when comparing cultures.
It’s shocking how quick you are to pull out the word racist, and goes back to the reason I’m involved with Stop NSPIRG: Although I agree with their ends, I don’t agree with their means. When the expression of a dissenting opinion (e.g. I don’t think Asaf’s outburst at Wente’s lecture was justified) is instantly met with accusations of racism, discrimination, close mindedness or ignorance, NSPIRG has a serious problem. So much for fostering alternative opinions on campus.
My points can be distilled as follows: Although
oops. Looks like a piece from the drafting room floor made it’s way onto the end of the final product… Disregard the last sentence of the post.
What is section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
If no one answers within a day, I’ll tell you.
@joey
“26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”
Take it from someone who has sworn her life to protecting the rights of Canadians, these documents are not meant to be brought up frivolously or used cheaply as a means to your own end. Please do not bastardize the meaning of that section to fit your own argument as it will be a travesty.
I don’t think anyone is trying to defend racism here. They are trying to ensure such a strong word is not thrown around carelessly. Racism is an awful and real problem and should be taken seriously, however the word should not be used as a person pleases just to win an argument or contrarily wise trivialized.
ps if you were trying to point out the section on aboriginal rights(I am deducting this from the way the conversation seems to be going) then you mean section 25.