UNBSU votes to eliminate voting position of international student representative

studentunionbuilding The first of three sets of recommendations made by the UNB Student Union's Governance Review Committee was debated at council on Monday, November 30th. One particularly controversial recommendation of the committee was restructuring council, removing the voting position of the International Student Representative and creating what the Governance Review Committee's report refers to as, "a network of non-voting members of Council to be called liaisons," which would include an international liaison.

The change was recommended by the committee, allegedly to address the issue of what it called "over-representation" of international students on council. The change was supported by a majority of councillors. The only councillors who voted against the motion were Law Representative Dave Steele and Arts Representative Tom Cheney.

"I don't see the justification in taking away their [the international student representative's] vote," Steele said in opposition to the motion.

"You can certainly interpret it to be taking away the international representative's vote, to do that looks terrible," said Computer Science representative Ash Furrow. "Even though it doesn't look right, I still think it's the right thing to do to ensure consistency and fairness".

"I am quite comfortable with this motion. I understand the severity of what we are doing, and this motion is still being put forward after hours of discussion at the Governance Review Committee because we felt that it is in the best interest of making sure we are representing every member of our student union equally," affirmed UNBSU President Jon O'Kane.

"If we have an international student rep with a vote, we are going to need a domestic [Canadian] student rep with a vote," argued Science Representative Ashley Wile.

Steele questioned Wile's argument, saying, "I just don't see the comparison between needing an international rep and a domestic rep. I think that there is something unique about the position of international students--they pay twice the tuition of everyone else around this table." All current faculty representatives on the UNBSU are Canadian.

VP Academic Shannon Carmont noted that there, "are a ton of marginalized groups on campus," such as student parents and First Nations who do not have a voting representative on council.

At least 21 other universities in Canada have voting positions on their Student Council for international students and a large number of schools have guaranteed voting positions for Aboriginal students.

International students at UNB pay a $6430 differential fee, making their tution cost more than twice as much as domestic tuition fees. According to the report, Strategy for Change: Money does Matter, written by The Canadian Federation of Students (Canada's largest students' organization), differential fees only came into existence in Canada in 1976, and in 1982 still did not exist in British Colombia, Newfoundland, Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

"Think of an ideal world, an ideal campus. Imagine if half of this council were international students, clearly its not, but imagine. At that point do you think people would sit around debating this?" VP External Ryan Brideau asked council. He then suggested that international students should be encouraged to run for faculty representative positions.

When asked by the NB Media Coop after the debate how many international students currently sit on council, Brideau answered, "I think that's irrelevant to be honest." The VP External is, among other things, responsible for helping to create policy and to lobby politicians.

"This is a progressive thing that we have, to have a voting position for international representative on council, and we have a chance now to keep that progressive measure," Cheney said.

The current International Student Representative, Marion Fernandes suggested that taking away the international students' vote may be a disincentive for students to run for the position in the future, but in the end, voted with the majority of council. For it to be finalized, the motion must pass at two more council meetings that are open to all members of the UNBSU.

Comments

entrenching white privilege

jenmckinley 2009-12-01 14:16:09

This is outrageous!

"If we have an international student rep with a vote, we are going to need a domestic [Canadian] student rep with a vote."

Give me a break. Canadians are already very well represented on this council of privilege!

Shame.

Jess 2009-12-01 15:02:36

This is unbelievable! International students' situation and needs are very different from Canadian students, so they should absolutely have representation.

This also ignores the fact that international students can have a harder time getting elected on the student union, since people are less likely to vote for a name that doesn't sound "Canadian" (Anglo-Saxon).

I challenge the members of the student union to actually think about this, instead of all just voting the same way. (Thank you to the two that were willing to speak up.)

ryan.brideau 2009-12-01 08:22:07

Hey Everybody,

Let me start by introducing myself: my name is Ryan, I am the VP External for the UNB Student Union, and I totally agree with all of the comments so far. Well...almost.

You see, I would certainly agree with them if the description of the events as described by Alex were indeed a true telling of the events. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case - which is a bit disappointing if you ask me. Let me elaborate.

To begin, we at the Student Union aren’t terrible people looking to disenfranchise international students. In fact, we’re always looking for the ways to make sure that all students can be heard to ensure that we adequately represent the wide variety of people that go to UNB. With that in mind, we set out to design a council structure that could best represent everybody on campus, while still being manageable – this is something that I made quite clear at the council meeting last night, but it seems that it was conveniently omitted from the article.

ryan.brideau 2009-12-01 08:21:33

You see, the balance we are looking for is between proper representation, and manageability. By using a system of liaisons, it makes it possible to ensure that every person on campus is represented by one vote, and that we don’t have to arbitrarily choose whether another representative has a vote. For example, if it was decided that we wanted a large number of liaisons, let’s say 5 of which can represent the distinct needs of international students from various regions in the world, 1 of which represented off-campus needs, 1 for those in residence, 1 for vegetarians, 1 for students with disabilities, 1 for first-nations students, another for student parents and so on, we now can. At the end of the day, we will be able to create as many liaisons as we would like, with no need for touchy debate over which ones should get a vote, and we wouldn’t have to worry about double representation. Yes, the international student liaison will no longer have a vote, but the structure as a whole...

ryan.brideau 2009-12-01 08:21:08

will be much more appropriate for the system in which we exist, which has a wide variety of students with a wide variety of needs. You can look forward to us passing a motion that will do just that in the future.

I hope that once you see where we are coming from on this, our actions will seem a little less shameful. I understand the concerns that people have regarding this issue – it’s a touchy subject – and is one that we put a lot of thought into (hours and hours by the GRC committee), and I think that once you see the results, the benefits will be clear as day.

If you have any other questions, feel free to send me an e-mail at external@unb.ca, and I would be happy to respond.
--
Ryan Brideau
VP External
UNB Student Union

jenmckinley 2009-12-01 16:58:20

First you say "By using a system of liaisons, it makes it possible to ensure that every person on campus is represented by one vote, and that we don’t have to arbitrarily choose whether another representative has a vote."

How can people who don't have a vote be represented? and furthermore, what is more arbitrary than eliminating a vote for the only non-Canadian on council?

Then you state "Yes, the international student liaison will no longer have a vote, but the structure as a whole will be much more appropriate for the system in which we exist, which has a wide variety of students with a wide variety of needs."

Please elaborate HOW this system will be more appropriate. How will NARROWING voting representation on council have any chance of successfully addressing a WIDE variety of needs?

Craig_M 2009-12-01 19:06:36

This is a shameful decision. There are many students' unions across this country that have a variety of different minority liaisons with voting rights, and they are able to function without chaos, and any of the "touchy debates" surrounding these issues have been dealt with in ways other than simply eliminating someone's voting rights!

The University of Victoria Student Society is a great example of this. They have reps from the queer community, First Nations community, etc. and they are all equal in their voting powers to that of the other reps.

http://www.uvss.uvic.ca/default.aspx?PageID=1017

Alex Murphy 2009-12-01 19:27:43

Exactly Craig - we could just have easily gone the other way with this. We could have empowered even more students with voting rights, but instead, we remove them.

The bottom line here is that this just gives all minority groups and unique constituent groups on campus less incentive to run and influence council. Sure they may theoretically have a voice on council, but it won't do them much good if no one runs!

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 20:55:42

Why? Why does it mean that minority groups will be less likely to run for council. This has been a point that has been brought up, but there is no logic in it. As a member of council, words sway me more that a vote ever will. I've reconsidered decisions based on the arguments of non-voting members of council (senators and the residence liaison come to mind). A non-voting member of council is just as important and just as influential as any other member. They are just as vital to the decision making process. The only think stopping them from being so, is attitudes like this one.

ryan.brideau 2009-12-01 19:38:50

Hey Jen,

I appreciate your questions!

To address your first point, each person is represented by the voting councilor or councilors representing their faculty. Liaisons will be present in addition to these individuals and have full speaking rights, which is a very powerful and useful thing to have. By creating this structure, we can bring many more voices to the table, making it easier to represent the diverse needs of the people on campus.

I feel like there is an underlying assumption in all of this that the councilors present will simply ignore what people bring to the table, and I believe that this is simply not true. In my experience, there has always been a great discussion around the table and people are very reasonable and understanding of other's perspectives, and I have every reason to think that this will continue in the future. All that it takes to swing half the votes in the room in a well articulated and thought out statement, and you don't need a vote to make one of those.

-Ryan

Misrepresentation of this article

ash.furrow 2009-12-01 19:43:09

This article misrepresents the holistic idea of the motion; we knew this would happen when we made the recommendation, but as I said in Council, is it OK to not do the right because it looks bad?

This is about ensuring that future councils we be empowered to created new positions. Someone mentioned LBGTQ reps - I think that's and interesting idea and something we should look into. Now, should LGBTQ students have two "votes" by their reps on council? Should they have two opportunities to run for voting positions? You might argue yes, but where do you stop? We could create a rep for undeclared majors, or first year students, should they all have voting rights? You need to define the line somewhere, and this makes sense to the committee.

Also, the article failed to point out, as I did twice last night, that you don't speak with your vote, but rather with your voice. A vote is inconsequential when a well-reasoned argument can sway the majority opinion. Our non-voting members and senators influence our decisions all the time.

Also, I call into question the integrity of the reporter. I support independent media, such as the late Carleton Free Press, and I have a blog which I take seriously. However, when a reporter shows up to a meeting to report on it, and spends most of the time reading a novel instead of paying attention, I question that reporter's ability to report on the meeting.

I think that the fact that the international Representative voted in favour of this speaks volumes towards the merits of this motion.

Ash Furrow - clueless? Yes!

Million2Juan 2009-12-01 20:01:33

Hey Ash, tell us something, did you get dizzy, slip and hit your head when you stood up from five consecutive hours of Twitter today? If so, that might explain your comment on here.

Do you honestly think that LGBTQ students have the same needs as students with undeclared majors? Are you truly that daft? Your snuggle bunny Ashley Wile certainly is. What was that she said in the meeting? "If international students have a special rep, shouldn't domestic students as well?" Looks like you agree with that sentiment.

What next, Ash? Are you going to deny Black students the right to have a representative on council? Since then we'd need a "White" rep as well? Because, by your logic, Black students certainly have no concerns unique to those of White students, now do they? Or how about a "disabled student" rep? We'll need an "abled student" rep to counter-balance it, no?

Good to know that narrow-minded conservative bigotry is alive and well in New Brunswick..

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 20:58:30

Wow. Just wow.

The only thing "wow"...

Million2Juan 2009-12-01 23:21:15

...is your case of verbal diarrhea on here. Srsly.

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 23:34:10

Clever

laurenevail 2009-12-02 02:02:36

I don't know how you expect anyone on here to take you seriously when all you do is attack others. Have some integrity.

Ha!

Million2Juan 2009-12-02 09:39:28

I'm the one attacking others? Gee, the last I recall I'm not the one who voted to concentrate white Canadian control of council by dispossessing international students of the tiny bit of representative decision making power they had while in New Brunswick. Yet my remarks on here constitute "attacks" in your books?

Right. Perhaps you should re-check your priorities.

Craig_M 2009-12-01 20:19:40

I feel like I need to respond to the idea of a non-voting International Student Liaison. Though I wasn't at the university at the time, I've heard that years back there was a similar position on the STUSU council. It was an International Student Liaison who didn't have any voting rights, and what past councils found was that no one wanted to run for the position, because it held just as much sway as any other student, because every student is allowed speaking rights (at least at our council, though I'd be surprised if it was different at UNBSU).

Also, what were the issues with the UNB International Student liaison having voting rights in the first place, other than the chance that other oppressed groups might want a voting rep? Aren't we as student union reps always wanting more students to get involved in the process? Why then would we want to eliminate the enticing factor of a position that might inspire queer, disabled, First Nations, etc. students to get involved in the Union?

Finally, if we are so concerned about over-representation of International Students with them having two votes, shouldn't we be more concerned about the fact that your logic would suggest that domestic students are extremely overrepresented by having the vote of every other rep on the council? When an arts rep, science rep, etc. comes to the council table, it's not as if they somehow shed all their other identities (e.g., Canadian, male, heterosexual, etc. etc.). These play a role in their decisions, whether they realize it or not, and so, by institutionalizing meaningful representation from oppressed groups, we can try and make sure these other voices are heard.

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 12:52:03

It constantly amazes me how people are able to take words and actions completely out of context and, when fronted with sound logic, just resort to knee jerk reactions and circular logic.

Craig, to address your point, domestic students are not overrepresented, and, before you take this quote out of context, I encourage you to read on and follow the logic of this argument.

The representative structure that we are implementing will have 20 councilors, represented by faculty, and 5 executive councilors (external, internal, finance and operations, services, and the president), all with voting rights. Council will have a set number of voting members (25). Students will be represented by their faculty, all students, be they domestic, international, etc. Any one of these members might be an international student. Gasp! Now, I know no member (outside of the international student rep, of course) is an international student, but this is not always the case and, hopefully, will not be true in the future. Make sense so far, right? Now, the union will have the power to create a number of liaisons, which could include international, residence, off campus, etc to give a voice to those that need it.

The logic of the opposing argument I cannot understand is how this new system does not allow voices to be heard? As a councilor, any issue that is brought to me I look into, regardless if the person is domestic or international, male or female, or any other factor. This is the job of a councilor. Also, the position of liaison allows voices to be heard. Speaking rights are very important. Any the tone of the article and some of the comments doesn't seem to acknowledge this fact.

On another note, since it's not covered in the article, its worth mentioning that the UNBSU voted to submit a policy to res life to allow students to stay in their rooms over winter break without paying a extra fee. Brought forth by a white Canadian female, our VP Academic, this motion will greatly help international students as they (hopefully) will be able to say in residence over the break without any extra cost.

Before crying shame, look at the facts. This article is one sided and incredibly shoddy journalism.

Jordan Thompson
UNBSU Business Representative

ashley.wile 2009-12-01 21:04:21

I think what's been overlooked is that the international rep, now the international liaison, is not the only non-faculty member of council. SU council also has a residence liaison. During the governance review it was felt that consistency should be achieved between the two. While it's very easy to argue that international students represent enough of a significant minority to warrant a vote, while the residence population does not, this gets very fuzzy very quickly when trying to decide if newly created members should get a vote or not. Should there be a GBLTQ rep or liaison, an accessibility rep or liaison, etc?

Since another facet of this motion was to allow council the ability to easily create new liaisons, the question of which would get a vote is very real. Therefore I personally supported this motion in the interest of fairness and consistency.

While I welcome argument and debate on either side of this issue I'd appreciate it if personal attacks could be avoided.

liberalism and formal equality

Dave Steele 2009-12-01 13:17:27

I just think this is fundamentally about different opinions about what really qualifies as equality and fairness. Some feel the mere appearance of equal representation is enough, others, including our federal government and Supreme Court do not. I don't buy the argument that reducing council to just faculty reps will increase the level of democracy on council. I find the argument - and it is the only one I have seen put forward - that non-voting members of council merely have to convince the voting members to vote one way or another unconvincing. So not only are we disadvantaging international students and possibly other future non-faculty members of council from disempowered groups by taking their voting rights - we are burdening them with the extra hurdle of having to convince all the voting members? It is towards the goal of empowering historically disadvantage groups that having non-faculty representatives with voting rights aspires. We should be following in the footsteps of other progressive student unions and including even more non-faculty reps, but instead, we have decided to move backwards once again. One blogger, in a subtle comment on this topic posted a video of the movie Deliverance!

Some specific points:

1. I do not like the ad hominem attacks on the author of the article. If you would like to point out factual errors, the Editorial Collective that runs the media coop can be reached at editors@nbmediacoop.org.

2. I find the argument that all you need is your voice to sway people particularly disingenuous, especially coming from the VP External, who 'called the question' (which for those of you lucky enough to be unfamiliar with Robert's Rules of Order means that it forces a vote on an issue BEFORE the debate is done) during the debate on this issue. True you technically speak with voice (did anyone deny this?) but this is mere rhetoric meant to obfuscate the matter at hand. While you may speak with your voice, with your vote comes your power. Why listen to or try to convince another member of council if they can't vote on the matter? How much sway would MLAs have if they could only speak in the legislature?

3. From the comments posted in favour of this motion I really sense an inability to even see the other side of this issue. A union's role is to represent its members. Any number of measures may be taken to accomplish this task as effectively as possible - as I am sure the Governance Review Committee knows. My argument, which I was going to raise at council before debate was cut short, is that our union would be able to better represent the diverse interests of students on this campus WITH a voting international student rep, not without. Arbitrarily choosing to divide up all the voting members of council between the faculties is one way to give the appearance of fair and equal representation - but that is all it is - the appearance.

4. The power of SU needs to spread out, more people need to get involved, more voices need to be heard. While I suspect most councilors would agree with this, even the ones arguing in favour of this motion, I have not heard one argument explaining how this new structure will accomplish these goals. If we want less people involved, a more cliquish atmosphere, and fewer diverse opinions, this motion, and several other proposals from the Governance Review Committee will (unfortunately) help facilitate that.

ash.furrow 2009-12-01 13:46:57

Hi, Dave. My comment about the author of this piece was not an ad hominem attack, as you suggested. It was actually a critique of a piece of media from a media organization trying to be taken seriously. I support the initiative independent media, but if someone wants to be taken seriously as a media organization, they need to be willing to be the subject of critical reception.

To address your point about limited debate, you spoke last night at least three times to my recollection, bringing up all sorts of points which were all then addressed. A call to question is not, as you implied, a limit of the debate. It is a vote to see if the 2/3rds majority of council is satisfied that debate has been exhausted. Council was satisfied, so they moved to a vote.

I don't see how increasing the number of councillors or adding the ability for council to create ad hoc liaisons in any way creates a cliquish atmosphere or one of little diversity.

I know we disagree on a lot of issues, and we debate them at council. At some point, we need to respectfully agree to disagree and call a vote. It's important to me that all opinions on the matter were heard. It appeared to me, as it appeared to council, that this was the case.

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 21:47:34

I'll once again pose the question, why is the argument that non-voting members convincing voting members to vote a certain way unconvincing? Unless voting members decide that they will not listen to non-voting members, this argument is not sound. As I've stated before, I've been swayed by arguments from non-voting members (a certain senator comes to mind). In fact, I'd argue that non-voting members are more involved and more empowered than voting members. They are there to contribute to the discussion and raise specific issues, while voting members are there to vote on motions. Some voting members of council rarely speak or contribute to discussion, while all the non-voting members present at council regularly contribute to discussion. Seems to be the reality is the opposite of what you are arguing, Mr. Steele.

You also raise the question how much sway would MLA's have if they could only speak in the legislature. I would say the same amount they do now. Are the members of the legislature or council so self important that they will not listen to a member of council that does not have voting rights? That is an incredibly negative view on council and one, I hope, most councilors do not share.

Also, to address your last point, this new council structure will allow more voices to be heard. The new council will have the ability to have MORE voices that the current structure. Council will have the ability to create liaisons to represent certain groups of students. What's that? More voices at the council table? Seems to me that would get more people involved. The only thing that would stop this is the attitude that non-voting members cannot sway the opinion of council, which only seems to be expressed in the comments that oppose this motion. Most other councilors seem to listen to any member of council, regardless of their voting rights. And if you think that a non-voting member of council presents an argument to convince council to vote another way, and that council wouldn't listen, you sir are mistaken.

And dividing up the voting members of council by faculty is not arbitrary. Having a University Student Union's voting members representing the faculties at the university seems pretty sound to me.

And, yes, power comes from voting. But overall, one vote on council of 25 is not worth much (4% of the overall council). However, the ability to freely speak and discuss the issues on the other hand, is worth much more.

....as a non-voting member of council.

laurenevail 2009-12-01 13:57:54

In the words of our colleague Brad McKinney, "as a non-voting member of council...." I value my speaking rights so much and don't feel bad at all for not having a vote ... sure I wish I too could raise my placard, but you know, I feel that my dialogue and input is more valuable than say a councillor who rarely/never speaks who has a vote. The fact that I have speaking rights is a nice privilege. And while students may feel like not running if they don't have a vote, I don't think that will be a big problem, if students are keen on being involved the ability to raise their placard and vote will not be the make or breaking of their decision to run.

ryan.brideau 2009-12-01 22:00:32

You know what, Dave, your 4th point resonated with me, and I'm starting to question some of the comments I made earlier.

Giving it a second thought, what difference does it 'actually' make if somebody is doubly-represented? Does the world collapse? Probably not.

Furthermore, what would be wrong with having a council size of 35, 40, or larger? Robert's Rules were designed to work with much larger groups. What would be wrong with having 20 seats open to anybody as faculty spots, and another 15-20 for currently underrepresented groups, all with voting rights, *ensuring* they have a voice? I can't think of much myself.

I guess the change in mind for me came when I started thinking back to the Acaidan Bus Lines issue in the summer, when they were discussing moving the terminal. I certainly had speaking rights at the meeting, but felt totally helpless against the change. In essence, I felt disempowered and my efforts futile being unable to cast a vote to symbollically express my disapproval. Although voting can seem like such a trivial thing, it adds a new level of power that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I'll be giving this more thought before next Monday.

-Ryan Brideau

Good point, Ryan

ash.furrow 2009-12-01 14:51:17

Hey, Ryan. It's a good argument, but I'd counter Dave's point and your argument with three points:

1. The GRC looked at different council structures, and decided that structuring council on faculty was the best way to do things. Giving voting rights to groups of individuals undermines the structure of council.

2. With a sufficiently large council, anyone who runs gets elected. Student involvement is fantastic, but if anyone who wants to gets elected to a voting role, council no longer represents the will of students. If two candidates have differing opinions, they can choose to run for different positions in order to ensure that they don't have to be chosen by students.

3. Here's a situation: I have a friend with a disability. I'm cahoots with him. I move to create a disabilities rep, with a vote. No one opposes this (it'd be politically craptastic), and my friend is elected. Knowing I got him on council, he's now voting the way I want him to.

All of these examples are weak on their own, and I don't see them happening any time soon. The idea was to future-proof these recommendations. Taking away a voting position from the int'l rep isn't nice, but it creates a consistent council that still gives a voice to int'l students (and indeed, let's council give voices to more marginalized groups).

EDIT: I'd just like to iterate that I'm fully supported Dave's notion of spreading council out, but I'm of the opinion that the GRC thought of that, hence this motion and the create of the liaison network. We have the same end in mind, just different ways to achieve it.

Nod of approval to Ryan.

Million2Juan 2009-12-01 22:38:22

I'd just like to give Ryan props for his emerging position, and for being critically analytical about this matter. It is tentatively reassuring. But I'll hold my full applause for Monday.

ash.furrow 2009-12-01 14:43:14

Hell, I'll applaud him now for critical thinking, even though we disagree. I'm not sure why you'd hold out full props until you're sure he agrees with you - it's not really critical thinking if you have to think a certain way.

Good for you, Pikachu.

Million2Juan 2009-12-01 15:13:22

But unlike yourself I don't go around dishing out praise based on words alone. You see, critical thinking is not about agreeing with me (or anyone else). It is about thinking independently, but then backing up your independent thoughts with action. In my world (known as "common sense / ethical / reality world"), people are judged on their actions, not their words. So while I support the spirit of Ryan's sentiments, I'll wait until Monday to see if he stands up against the cabal and actually votes in favour of empowering marginalized and exploited students.

jordan.thompson 2009-12-01 15:08:27

Props are in order for being able to critically examine your position and come to a different conclusion. I respect that in anyone. I had the same reservations that are being expressed here when we discussed this in the GRC meetings, however I stand by the decision of the GRC.

If I can just quickly comment on your comment about Acadian Bus Lines. I feel that this comparison is a bit off, as Acadian is a private for profit organization with monopoly power. They don't claim, or should not claim, to represent the will of its customers (as was clearly seen this summer). However, the SU is a different beast. It's a not-for-profit organization whose sole purpose of existence is to represent the will of students. If this is not the case, then we are failing our those we claim to represent. Any concern or comment from any student to a councilor about the SU's policies, actions, etc should be taken seriously and be given thought. It is our job as members of the council to represent our students and their interest, no matter how small. Acadian does not share this responsibility.

And to address the size of council, you could make the argument that all motions could be voted by all 6000ish members of the union. With the advancement of technology and the Internet, this very possible to do. This way, every student is guaranteed a voice and a vote. It's direct democracy. So, why don't we do this? Truth be told, I don't know. But it's clear that this is not the way we want to proceed, as this was not a suggestion.

So the question then becomes, what size of council do we want and how do we want to structure it? It was decided based upon input that the current faculty structure was the best and that voting rights would only be given to those who represented a faculty. This way, theoretically, all students would be represented through their faculty rep. With the addition of office hours and other things to increase the viability of their faculty rep, it is hoped that students will be able to present their rep with any issue and their rep take that issue seriously and bring their students concerns to council. And, of course, to add a voice to students that might not be adequately represented, liaisons created. The decision to make these liaisons non-voting members was not an easy one. There was much discussion among the GRC. The logic that we applied was that where is the line drawn? I can come up with a long list of marginalized groups that deserve a voice on council, that currently are not represented. However, it was felt that the vote should come from the faculty reps (and we did look at different ways of representing students) with additional discussion and issues brought to the table by liaisons. This way, every students gets represented by faculty reps and then additional concerns specific to a certain group of people can be brought up by liaisons, which can introduce motions, they just need to be moved by a voting member (which shouldn't be a problem).

I'm more than happy to change my opinion and admit I was wrong, however all the issues raised here were raised by the GRC and debated. Our conclusion was not just random, it involved much thought. I still stand by this motion, but would be more than happy to be convinced otherwise.

jenmckinley 2009-12-02 10:48:41

I'll note that not a single person who has criticized the journalistic integrity of this article has given any specific examples of factual errors. I can only surmise that this is because there are none.

It is naive to think that a councilor will represent all of his or her constituents just because he or she is a good person. In our provincial legislature for example, a measly 12% of MLAs are female. The result? Publicly funded abortions are near impossible to get, and we still don't have pay equity legislation in the private sector. People are naturally more inclined to represent the needs of their own demographic.

Let's stop ignoring this very obvious reality. The fact that international students have such unique issues to contend with such as high university tuition and fees warrants a vote on council.

Sure, international students can run for any position, but that ignores the fact that their odds of winning are substantially lower because of a variety of factors including possible language difficulties and racism.

I'll wager that the reason that the international student rep. voted to scrap his had more to do with intimidation (whether this was intended by the other councilors or not) than his actual opinion on the matter.

More comments on Liberalism and representation

tom.cheney 2009-12-02 13:06:05

This post raises some interesting issues that I'd like to expand on.

Ultimately, this issue seems to be divisive due to some very different conceptions of representation and fairness. I find the conventional liberal discourse that those who support this motion rely on to be inadequate. Here's why:

Liberal theory relies almost exclusively on conceptions of negative liberty - that is freedom "from" external impediments. In this case, it has been said that there is nothing that impedes an international student from running for a faculty rep position. In the strict sense of external liberty, this is true.

But I think we can take the discourse to a new an different level. By focussing solely on external liberty, we deny the internal freedoms and restrictions that may or may not prevent an international student from running for a faculty rep position. That is, we ignore the complex and intersecting dynamics of oppression, power, gender, class, race, etc. that may effect a student's decision to run or not. It's easy for a group of white, Canadian students (let me point out that council is composed almost exclusively of white students and that the only position occupied by a non-white person stands to lose its voting privileges) to say that an International student can run for a faculty rep position if they want to. But it's much more complicated than that. There are factors other than the rules and regulations that will determine whether or not an International student will run for such a position.

This is why it's so important to keep the International rep and its voting privileges. By keeping a position specifically for international students, we encourage their participation and engagement. It is not, of course, a solution the problem of uneven power relations or representation. But, it is a progressive measure that is valuable.

I would also like to address the notion that an International Liaison with speaking rights will still have power on council. This idea completely misunderstands the basic principles of representative democracy. Any person, provided they are sponsored by a member of council, can speak at meetings and possibly sway the vote. But representation in a democratic body is manifested only in the power of an elected representative to actually vote.

jordan.thompson 2009-12-02 16:57:47

To answer why we feel that this is shoddy journalism is because the article does no reflect the true nature of this motion. It wasn't just a decision to say "hey, let's randomly take away the vote of the international student rep!" it was "hey, what should council look like?" It was decided that we should have 20 faculty reps and 5 executive councillors to have voting rights. All other members would not have voting rights. The article does not reflect this. It is coming from a biased perspective.

The article then goes on to mention differential fees. Every member of council is aware of these, and discussions have been had to look at this issue. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the Internal Student Rep and if they should have a vote or not. International students pay the exact same SU fees as domestic students, therefore should have equal representation on council. Keep in mind that faculty reps are suppose to represent every member of their faculty, which some do well, others not.

Another thing not mentioned in the article is that the SU has a part-time employee that is an international student advocate. He works closely with the executive to make sure international student issues are being represented by the SU. One of the Christmas housing motion brought forward at council was drafted with the help of this person. No mention in this article is this motion, which would greatly help international students.

And to address the point that the international student rep voted to scrap the vote was due to intimidation is incorrect. There was no intimidation and debate was friendly. Could it possibly be that he believes that this is the right move? Maybe, before making such suggestions, you should talk to him.

I also want to address the point of council being completely white. This is true. But, guess what, there are white international students and non-white domestic students. Skin colour has nothing to do with this motion.

Jess 2009-12-02 12:58:08

What I see here is a council trying to replicate some sort of clean, scientific notion of democracy, "fairness" and "consistency" that resembles more the governmental structure. (That being said, I think our government is actually more progressive than this.) If we all had equal opportunity and representation as a starting point, sure, maybe this system would work, but the reality is that many groups and communities have been marginalized and under-represented for a long time. This is something that needs to be dealt with. We cannot just continue to replicate that pattern, and ignoring it certainly won't make it go away.

That being said, universities have always been progressive institutions. Positive changes in society often happen on university campuses first. So why should we be content with this status quo myth of equal representation? It clearly has many issues in government, and i think university students have a responsibility to create a better system, not merely replicate the existing one.

I'm really happy to see that Ryan is reconsidering his position. And I agree. Why doesn't council create more positions to represent under-represented communities. Many universities across Canada have such positions and it has worked very well. An extra 5 voting seats would not be the end of the world - and I can assure you it won't threaten Canadian students' representation - but would be a step in the right direction for democracy and fair representation. THAT would show genuine concern on the part of the councilors. I don't doubt that they mean well, but I do think they are quite naive.

Democracy is not as clean and simple as most councilors are making it out to be. To think that only replicates historical patterns of inequality, racism, sexism, etc.

Council Documents

ryan.brideau 2009-12-07 12:51:52

For those interested in reviewing the council documents and proposed amendments before the meeting tonight, here they are: http://login.mybusinessadmin.com/noauth/download.php?id=19919

-Ryan Brideau

Only registered users can write comments!

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Verify Password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

NB Media Co-op

UNBSU votes to eliminate voting position of international student representative

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Donate via Paypal!