SFUO sends bus to G20
Services use student money to make protest accessible
THANKS TO THE Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO), students from the U of O were able to participate in protests at the Toronto G20 summit June 26–27.
At least four SFUO services—the Student Appeal Centre, the Women's Resource Centre, the Pride Centre, and Foot Patrol—combined finances from their budgets to rent a bus which took students to Toronto.
“The services got together and said ‘there’s a bunch of us that really care about these issues, so let’s pool our money and go to Toronto’,” said Tyler Steeves, president of the SFUO. Georgeanne Blue, a fourth-year women's and religious studies major, and Community Relations Coordinator at the Women's Resource Centre was involved in requesting the bus access.
She expressed pride that students were represented at the G20 protests, and lauded the SFUO and its services for the role they played.
“I think what [the SFUO] did was great because [it made] sure that going to the protests was accessible to everybody that wanted to go,” she said. “I think that students have a lot of privilege ... and so we need to use that privilege in positive ways to make changes.”
Third-year U of O student in women's studies and sociology Rita Valeriano also attended the summit protests.
“It’s really important to be there as a student to show that you’re in solidarity with all the other movements, but also you’re there on behalf of students to fight for justice in terms of accessibility to education,” she said. “I think there was definitely a demand to send [the transportation] ... The SFUO works on behalf of the students, so if the students were demanding to get access to these movements then I think it was definitely in their right to faciltate that,” she said.
Not everybody was pleased by the acquisition of the bus, however. Peter Flynn, president of the University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives, thought the decision represented a misuse of student funds.
“I understand that at the G20 groups of protesters protest everything under the sun, however ... I don’t necessarily see how sending individuals down to participate in protests, and potentially riots, at the G20 is a positive, cost effective way, or even legitimate way of spending students' money,” he said.
Flynn noted that encouraging activism was not under the mandate of any of the SFUO services.
“I don’t necessarily understand how students on the University of Ottawa’s campus who are trying to appeal their marks apparently need to be represented at the G20. It just doesn’t really make sense ... If we had a protest service, I would say, ‘you know what? It’s part of their mandate [and] as much as I disagree with it, it passed a referendum. Send them down there!' I wouldn’t be happy about it, but it wouldn’t be as troubling or as disturbing, or as blatant a violation of the use of student funds by the services.”
Steeves said that the services were simply doing their job by sending the buses—engaging students.
“[Activism is] a part of the student experience. Part of that [experience] is being politically active and having your voice heard and getting out there and rallying for something you care about. Just like part of [the student experience] is playing intramurals, joining a club, debating, or running for student politics.” f
Word. I agree with Rita and Tyler, it is part of the student experience. The SFUO has spent money on different types of events and initiatives (social, cultural, political, recreative, academic). This is one among many others. Students have an important role to play in society. Today, not after university. I also agree with S Topan: great article!
Well said Peter. I totally agree with you.
So my question still remains unanswered: if, as Georgeanne Blue claims, "[it made] sure that going to the protests was accessible to everybody that wanted to go", then where was all the advertising? I for one certainly wasn't aware that student-funded buses were being sent to Toronto.
I'm with Peter, not everyone agrees with these varied protests at the G20, and I would even argue that not even a majority of students are interested in these types of protests. To take student money from the SFUO coffer in order to benefit a small group of students who don't necessarily represent the interests of the student body, but rather their own interests as activists is wrong.
This is money that other students or their parents or whomever pays their ancillary fees have worked hard in order to earn to improve the campus life of that particular individual and the campus as a whole, not merely a small group of students advocating for any number of issues that may or may not even be involved with the lives of other students.
I'm all for suggesting people be politically involved and know what's going on in their world etc, but to misuse other people's money in order to benefit the SFUO's inner circle of activists is downright wrong. Especially considering that the money used didn't come from the CFS whose actual mandate is promote student issues and advocacy.
@S Topan @Julie - no one here is arguing there shouldn't be campaigns or protests. Political action is why we have the Campaigns Committee for example, where all students have a chance to put forward and vote on campaigns.
What I am concerned about is the seeming lack of oversight on this decision. If the money did in fact come out of the Foot Patrol budget or the Student Appeals Centre there is certainly a problem.
brandon raises a good question... ive often noticed that unless you're uber involved in the sfuo, you dont usually hear about things... i dont recall recieving an e-mail about this from the vp comm.
if alex is right, why didnt the money come from the CFS?
Good balance in opinion. I tend to agree with a good chunk of what everyone had to say actually.
The money going to the buses was financed by groups (not the SFUO directly as I understand it, though correct me if wrong) that wanted to use their funds to do it. That's cool. I have a bit of a problem with foot patrol and SAC financing it though as their mandate is that of a service without any particular political reference point. So, perhaps it might be best next time to examine your groups mandate more closely before supporting political causes.
I tend to agree with Flynn in a limited sense, but gravitate more towards Chaput in that the funds really should have been requested from CFS (or reimbursed). This, I agree, would likely fit under their mandate.
To Clim: I believe she was saying that anyone that found out who had access issues (physical, mental etc) was able to participate. I do agree that this needed to be advertised better to students since they helped finance it. Perhaps at the next BOA you can ask VP Comm why it was not.
To Alex: Sort of agree with you buddy. It can be argued that a concert (and even winter challenge) don't really benefit the majority of students at all (It didn't help me out in any way since I focused hard on studies last year). I still would not take that away though as some people really love concerts on campus and we should foster an opportunity for them to participate in ways that they find enriching to their lives.
I don't necessarily think that the direction of these funds were wrong as long as they do not prevent other events from happening that benefit different groups of students. So if they spent so much money that it hampers another groups chance to do something they like, then I would be against it. Proper oversight and accountability would greatly help here. Need a check into that.
Anyway, good comments all around people!
@Laura (Mclennan?) I didn't say anything about the decision (which I do support) but was simply smiling at an article that represented BOTH sides of the argument... If you are the Laura I think you are, I believe you were on the Fulcrum as well and can probably appreciate a well-written piece of journalism.
As for your concerns about where the money has come from, I think I can see your point: why would money be coming out of Foot Patrol to fund a bus to Toronto? I can't comment on this, I don't know where the money came from, but as someone who has worked for the SFUO services in the past, if your service supports an overall cause or interest and if the students you work with show an interest in something, then its in the interest of the service to support that so long as its benefiting students... but my advice to you is to ask the VP Finance. I trust she'll be able to give you a satisfactory response.
@Brandon You may have a good point there, but I would say advertising in general is a problem and its not something specific to this incident. Additionally, Lumberjack is right, Georgeanne is talking about accessibility; you're taking her out of context.
@Alex (Chaput?) If it is Chaput, it's clear as to why that's your argument, as VP Social is focused on apolitical event programming...
Regardless, attaching a normative value such as the word "wrong" to your argument makes it weak and easy to dismiss. What does "wrong" mean? "Wrong" by whose standards? You feel it's "immoral" to use peoples money in a way they would not support"? There was an election, leaders were chosen, and when that happens those chosen then become the decision makers.
You say " I would even argue that not even a majority of students are interested in these types of protests" and I would respond that not all students are interested in all events on campus, but I still support event planning, because different events will draw out different student groups, as different causes draw out different students. Diversity is the key to a healthy campus life. (That argument stands whether you are an event programmer or not.)
You write "This is money that other students or their parents or whomever pays their ancillary fees have worked hard in order to earn to improve the campus life of that particular individual and the campus as a whole, not merely a small group of students advocating for any number of issues that may or may not even be involved with the lives of other students."
I then encourage you to share your thoughts on the $200+ a year per student that goes to the Gee-gees, and why none of you (including Flynn) ever seem to take those fees into account when bashing the Fed and it's spending habits, the fees to the CFS, and so on.
You claim that "to misuse other people's money in order to benefit the SFUO's inner circle of activists is downright wrong". This is a descriptive statement. It is an opinion. It is not based on any sort of fact. I point this out not to be a bitch so much as to give you some pointers on how to argue more effectively. Take them at your leisure.
@Shaun, Alex, Lumberjack Why would the money come from the CFS? This is something students from our campus wanted that we were able to fund. The article implies it was covered by the services, which probably came together at the round table and decided it was a project they wanted to collectively take on. I don't understand the logic behind asking CFS to pay for this...
@Lumberjack Good to hear your thoughts, and hope to see you back in the blog circuit this year!
Obviously Peter Flynn is going to hate on this decision, and people who share his political perspective and constant distaste for the Fed will support him. I am simply going to remind everyone that this issue isn't up for debate, its already taken place. Perhaps your energies are better invested somewhere where you aren't complaining about an event that has already happened and is no longer in anyone's control.
I have to agree with what Alex said. I pay my fees to the SFUO, expecting the money to be returned to me in some form, not spent on sending people who may or may not share my beliefs, and may or may not represent me well. I have nothing against those who gathered to protest the G20, so long as they did it in a peaceful and respectful manner, but I felt no need to protest it myself, therefore why should I be paying for others to go? Everyone should have a right to their opinions, but my opinions were not fairly represented in this case. Why was I not informed of what my money was being sent to? Why was there no option to say 'No, this is not how I want my fees spent?'
When students decide to fund/support services like Foot Patrol - how does this end up sending protesters to Toronto? We specifically fund services to provide the services they are designed to provide, not ridiculous activism causes.
Also, how does a student hear about these things before they happen? If I knew I was (indirectly) funding a bus to Toronto I'd have caught a ride for a nice weekend getaway.
@Sameena - why shouldn't it be covered by the CFS? We pay a ridiculous amount of money to be a part of this 'federation' and what have we got out of them? Absolutely nothing. It's about time for some accountability and for them to give back to the students which give so much to them.
I wont repeat what topen said. But WOW, alex...
"not even a majority of students are interested in these types of protests” Duh, you'll almost never find a majority of students interested in the same thing! Except maybe coffee. But a minority is interested in concerts, another minority in academic speakers, or diving in the snow for prizes, or political debate, or black history month... All of these interests, THAT's what makes a diverse student population.
"This is money that other students (...) have worked hard in order to earn to improve the campus life (...), not merely a small group of students advocating for any number of issues that may or may not even be involved with the lives of other students."
Because poverty, and the environment, and our economy don't affect us at all? Some people on our campus live in a cave, and all they know or fight for is that little cave. That's fine by me. Others recognize that the way G8 / G20 countries run things, it has a huge impact on us, our families, our neighbours, our environment. I mean, “any number of issues that may or may not even be involved with the lives of students” ... Really??
"...to misuse other people's money in order to benefit the SFUO's inner circle of activists is downright wrong. Especially considering that the money used didn't come from the CFS whose actual mandate is promote student issues and advocacy."
What? .... Are you sayin that... the SFUO's mandate is NOT partly to promote student issues and advocacy? Jésus Marie Joseph, this whole time I thought the SFUO was a student union! If it's “downright wrong” to use student funds for the interest of a small group of people... then shut down the Chess Club, and Swing UO, and le Club bloquiste... heck ALL the clubs!
Final note: You don't have to be interested in the G20 and the peaceful protests around it. That's okay. Just like I'm not interested in any sports, Zoom and most of the social activities of the SFUO. Do you hear me whine about every dollar spent on these?
Hell, here's my only whining: I would have sent more buses to Toronto! At least three. :)
Really? Who is 'Manny'? And for that matter, 'Jennifer' and 'Will'? All these "posters" seem fake to me, because I have no idea who these people are, and there is no screening for posting on here. Also, if you know my name (which hasn't been explicitly posted, but those who know me can tell who it is)then I would probably know who you are... and I have no effing clue who "Manny" is.
If these are fake posters, then I am sincerely sorry for you and that you have to start creating aliases to support your cause. What could you possibly gain by having more "people" supporting Alex's terribly flawed argument? I don't care if there are 3000 posts on here supporting him, he still doesn't make any sense and the bus has long gone to Toronto and back.
I have so much respect when people sign their own name to posts... really. It takes courage to stand behind ones convictions (especially in our political climate), and I will always respect courage!
In any case, in response to "Manny": I don't think it should be paid for by the CFS, because it has nothing to do with them. The SFUO has its own mandate, this falls within the mandate. Do you know what the CFS is or anything about what it does?
Regardless of what you know, or what you think you know, you are entitled to your own opinion. It's fun to argue with you all for a bit but then it gets repetitive and boring. To me, kind sir, $30 a year is not a "ridiculous amount of money". Your statement is, like Alex's (maybe that's who I'm talking to again here... hmmm), a statement of opinion. I would say I have gotten plenty out of the CFS. I have been to one of their AGM's and seen all the thoughts, ideas and concerns exchanged between schools at the national level. I have seen their policies and how they encourage students to tackle contemporary issues that are facing campuses collectively... but you probably don't want to hear about all that so I will stop.
There's that buzzword - "Accountability" That's a Flynn trademark, maybe I'm talking to you Peter? Nah. You are many things, but a coward's not one of them. The english is too good to be Clim or Denommee...plus I'm pretty sure neither of them ever spell my name right. Okay well anyways... its time for "accountability" - to who exactly? The CFS gives back to the students who care about what it does, just like the Winter Challenge, or 101 week or Relay for Life or the Muslim Student Association or whatever. I'm going into 4th year, and I've never participated in a 101 week. You don't see me crying about where my money has gone. I'm happy that so many students on our campus have been able to enjoy a Fedstock, or whatever else it is that they do for 101 week. There are countless activities and services our money goes to that we don't make use of... have you all visited Peer Help? Or the Student Appeals Centre? Probably not. It's a package deal folks, you pay your fees, and you hopefully enjoy some of the things they fund (I think you guys enjoy them a lot to be honest - compared to students who have zero interest in the SFUO and what they do).
I don't think you guys realize this is how it works at all schools. I went to college, I was on my student council there. I have also worked for the Canadian Organization of Campus Activities, who run national level event planning conferences for colleges and universities in Canada. Not everyone gets involved, not everyone gets exactly the worth of their fees back. It's a gamble.
Also, I'd just like to add that I think it's hilarious and hypocritical of how you are not complaining when the money is benefiting you directly - then you are not screaming that this is an "injustice", because as soon as you get something out of it, to hell with all the people who apparently speak for on campus. Brandon and Tristan you had a budget on PIDSSA, I don't think all PoliSci students knew what was going on then, or benefited from your events. The Campus Conservatives get money, but that only benefits a small percentage of students. I know some of you haters have been to LeaderAction, and there are like 100 students who go to that, so how is that justified? Because you are working hard? (I think you are...I see you guys working at what you believe in all the time... I don't always agree, but I respect you for it).
I don't know most of you very well, (if at all - Jennifer, Will), but you seem really selfish and self-absorbed when you make comments about where your money has gone, because you have not gotten something tangible out of it THIS TIME. Your time will come, with all your involvement, you are all guaranteed your share of the Fed budget, so chill out a little.
I just want to add that I am in India, and there is no booze and I'm not allowed out after dark, so I have lots of time on my hands to write 10 page responses such as this one.
Hey Sameena,
I thought that'd I'd jump into the fray here! I was enjoying watching the discussion until the paranoia post (I think Will might be Will Hadrian? I don't know if I know Jennifer but a facebook search for "Jennifer" at the UofO had over 500 potential hits, and as for Manny, I don't know if I know him, but again a facebook search turned up an Emmanuel Manny Morakinyo at the UofO? I guess it doesn't matter, I wouldn't assume that anyone would know everyone who reads the fulcrum online, but still, attacking people who don't post their last name?).
Anyways, onto the debate!
-I initially also commended Amanda for writing the article, I believe the exact words I used were "I read the article and was quite glad to see how balanced it was" (see? I like balanced media articles too.) (this was via text message).
-When I was talking with Amanda about this issue, I read the mandates of two of the services, specifically the Student Appeal Centre and the Foot Patrol. Here are their mandates:
Student Appeal Centre:
We listen to students. We explain the university policies and/or regulations that apply to a case. We provide advice on how to best handle a situation. We research regulation and university policies. We give tips and advice on building a case and writing letters of appeals. We review all the documentation provided within your appeal. We represent students and advocate in their name. We act to improve and change administrative procedures and regulations. We lobby the administration for student rights.
and the Foot Patrol:
To escort individuals or groups of individuals to their destinations, on or off campus; To patrol the campus and inform Protection Services of any safety concerns or incidents on campus; To raise public awareness of personal safety and act as a source of information.
As you can see from my comments in the article, I was quite upset with how funds were taken (used, allocated, etc.) from the services when that route may not have been the best way.
Essentially, the SFUO services receive levies from the student body because the student body voted in referendums to create an organization that they thought would fill a void in the student community. I may not agree with all of the services, but they passed a referendum, fair enough. However, I highly doubt that when foot patrol was created, the students who voted on it would have dreamed that part of the money that they gave to it would go towards sending down a small group of the "SFUO's inner circle of activists" (I had to use that line, I thought it was funny..) to participate in G20 protests. This is why I believe that the manner in which these funds were appropriated represents a misuse of student funds. Because, although as you said, "Peter Flynn is going to hate on this decision, and people who share his political perspective and constant distaste for the Fed will support him," I don't believe this is about solely those who have "constant distaste for the Fed", but rather the manner and means through which it happened.
(Just as an aside here, I just thought that the Alex comment may not be Chaput, perhaps its Alex Smyth? But I digress..)
If there would have been an appropriate route for this to occur, it would have been a campaign created through the campaigns committee (Students At G20 (SAG?)), which would have been voted on and approved in an appropriate manner.
Was this possibility open to the entire student body? Was everyone informed about this? Or was it only the "SFUO's inner circle of activists" (I really like that one!) that found out about it or had the opportunity to go? It happened over the summer, so that eliminates anyone who doesn't work or live in Ottawa over the summer, and additionally, if more people had known, perhaps just creating a "BUs to Toronto event (BUTT)" to let everyone who wanted to go down for whatever reason go down.
Moving on,
@Lumberjack:
"I have a bit of a problem with foot patrol and SAC financing it though as their mandate is that of a service without any particular political reference point. So, perhaps it might be best next time to examine your groups mandate more closely before supporting political causes."
You hit the nail on the head.
@Sameena:
"Regardless, attaching a normative value such as the word "wrong" to your argument makes it weak and easy to dismiss. What does "wrong" mean? "Wrong" by whose standards? You feel it's "immoral" to use peoples money in a way they would not support"? There was an election, leaders were chosen, and when that happens those chosen then become the decision makers."
-I've been finding that you may have a tendency to dismiss people's arguments too easily at times through our previous discussions. Stating that Alex (Smyth?Chaput?)'s argument is weakened by using the word wrong doesn't make much sense? Wrong means that he doesn't believe it is right, at least in his perspective. Additionally, leaders still have to lead for the individuals who didn't vote for them, not just for those who did, right? Also, I don't believe the heads of the services involved in making this decision were elected, were they? (I could be totally far off on that one but I do believe they are hired..).
again, @Sameena:
"You claim that "to misuse other people's money in order to benefit the SFUO's inner circle of activists is downright wrong". This is a descriptive statement. It is an opinion. It is not based on any sort of fact. I point this out not to be a bitch so much as to give you some pointers on how to argue more effectively. Take them at your leisure."
-Holy smokes! I would suggest that your statement is an opinion, and his initial one (based on the general understanding of what occurred with this event) is very close to the truth, ergo a fact. He made quite an effective argument, and to attempt to dismiss it by stating he is using his own opinion is shocking! Many arguments are based on individuals having different interpretations of the same set of facts... An opinion isn't invalid if you argue it rationally, as I believe he did (once again, subjective)
and again, @ Sameena:
"Perhaps your energies are better invested somewhere where you aren't complaining about an event that has already happened and is no longer in anyone's control."
-Wow. I actually am shocked to see you say this. Essentially, "so what guys, its over, who cares"? Sameena, you're the last person on earth who would just stop caring about an issue because the money was spent and it had already happened. This obviously is important to some students and if its important to them then I encourage them to speak up!
@Jennifer:
"Why was I not informed of what my money was being sent to? Why was there no option to say 'No, this is not how I want my fees spent?'"
Exactly. To be informed about this in an open manner and to have an ability to state disapproval or disagreement with it before it occurred. That's what I believe many people will be most upset about.
@Will:
"We specifically fund services to provide the services they are designed to provide, not ridiculous activism causes."
Thats the point I was attempting to make when I was interviewed for this article.
back @Sameena:
"Your statement is, like Alex's (maybe that's who I'm talking to again here... hmmm), a statement of opinion"
-At the risk of sounding "repetitive and boring", everyone's arguments here are based on their own interpretations of the facts. Doesn't mean their arguments are invalid. By your own logic, both your and my arguments are useless as well :)
"There's that buzzword - "Accountability" That's a Flynn trademark, maybe I'm talking to you Peter? Nah. You are many things, but a coward's not one of them."
-Thanks :)! Although its definitely not a trademark of mine (but good idea, I'll look into it haha).
I guess thats it for now... looking forward to a 10 page response ;)
Respectfully Yours,
Peter Flynn
@The Hungry Lumberjack - Alright, so that quote was definitely not clear to me in that sense. Also, I am at the BOA meeting as I am writing this and I will definitely be asking the question.
@Topan - Yes, I agree that advertising is def a problem on many levels and not specific to this particular event. I can only hope that this changes for the better in the near future.
So, whether or not this money was spent legitimately (which I would argue it wasn't really an appropriate expenditure on the part of the various SFUO Services cited), my initial question still remains: Why weren't these buses publicized so that all students who would have wanted to take advantage of them could have?
Flynn, Flynn, Flynn, Your post honestly made my day. Nicely thought out reply, however, you are either unfairly putting words into my mouth or I have not done a very good job articulating myself. I will assume it’s a mix of both, dust myself off and try again.
I also enjoy this term: “inner circle of activists”. It conjures up over-romanticized impressions of sly revolutionaries, breaking into high security events to steal confidential information. Perhaps even a secret lair which is made of stone, lit by torchlight, where now-wanted citizens of the state hideout and plot assassination. “Inner circle” implies those most privy to important facts and details and those most trusted. I can only hope to one day be considered an activist in an inner circle. I will wear leather and carry a semi-automatic pistol while wearing my hair in a bob… a little bit like Kate Beckinsale in the cult hit ‘Underworld’.
But, I digress.
I love, LOVE that you referred to my last post as “paranoia”. If there was something in my tone that gave the impression of fear, I offer my most sincere apologies. I was not at all afraid or delusional; I was merely saying that there is a possibility those are not real people, mostly on the basis that I’m pretty sure the “Manny” post is a fake name, and I already explained my reasoning behind that. I do not know “Emmanuel Manny Morakinyo”. In either case I could care less. I was not “attacking” those people; I was merely encouraging anyone who felt shy to be comfortable using their own name. Potato/potato I guess. While we’re on the subject, I didn’t outright assume it was Chaput, I suggested it might be, and whether it is or isn’t, it matters little to what I was saying, but we’ll get into that in a minute. ..
Both the Appeals Centre and Foot Patrol are under the SFUO and its overarching mandate which strives to protect student’s rights and interests. That’s all I have to say about that. I will add, however, that yes services staff are hired, by elected leaders who are elected to hire staff for the services. So that’s part of what should be considered when voting for the SFUO executive.
You write: I don't believe this is about solely those who have "constant distaste for the Fed", but rather the manner and means through which it happened.
No it’s not “solely” about that distaste; I said a combination of your views and distaste. The distaste is imminent when evaluating the clash of views. You can’t deny that the campus right has a general distaste for the Fed. Those who articulate their concerns the most often do so because they are so irritated.
I think you raise a good point about the campaigns committee, but even then, if a bus would have been funded through some avenue there, I think there would still be complaints. Do you disagree? Are you more concerned about which budget the money came from, or that the money came out at all? I still don’t think what the services did was illegitimate; As I have said I believe they are allowed to fund events that fall under the general mandate of the SFUO within reason. Obviously, it’s the “within reason” part that is being contested. I support the decision because I can see the value in it, others will not. I wasn’t there and thus, ultimately I don’t care about it that much (because it doesn’t bother me). This is the last post I will write about it.
In response to both yours and Brandon’s questions about advertising, to be fair I wasn’t there and don’t think I can say much more about it than what I already said to Brandon.
You write: I've been finding that you may have a tendency to dismiss people's arguments too easily at times through our previous discussions.
Duly noted. In my conversations with you I will be more conscious of that or at least better articulate why I’m dismissing them. Also, I think it’s my right to dismiss whatever I want, but in the interest of discussing things with you I’ll keep it in mind.
You write: Additionally, leaders still have to lead for the individuals who didn't vote for them, not just for those who did, right?
To be honest, I’m not sure how to answer that. The words “tyranny of the majority” come to mind. I don’t feel I’m being led by my current (federal) government and I understand how that’s a problem, so I can see what you are saying, but this is a complex idea. In any case, you are at least half right: those elected have a responsibility to all of “the people” (whoever they may be). At the same time those are (hopefully) elected on the basis of their ideas, plans and values, and so they must act in accordance with those values, otherwise they upset and let down the people who put them into power in the first place… so that’s what I’m referring to when I say its complicated. This would be a great chat to have with you somewhere other than this thread.
You write -Holy smokes! I would suggest that your statement is an opinion, and his initial one (based on the general understanding of what occurred with this event) is very close to the truth, ergo a fact. He made quite an effective argument, and to attempt to dismiss it by stating he is using his own opinion is shocking! Many arguments are based on individuals having different interpretations of the same set of facts... An opinion isn't invalid if you argue it rationally, as I believe he did (once again, subjective)
Peter, this paragraph makes no sense. You go from saying it’s a “fact” to being “subjective”. Facts are not subjective by definition. An opinion isn’t valid if it’s not backed up by argument, which is what makes it rational. Sound arguments are not based only on perspective. I respond in full to this at the end of the post where you call both yours and my arguments opinions.
You reposted what I said:
Perhaps your energies are better invested somewhere where you aren't complaining about an event that has already happened and is no longer in anyone's control."
And then added:
-Wow. I actually am shocked to see you say this. Essentially, "so what guys, its over, who cares"? Sameena, you're the last person on earth who would just stop caring about an issue because the money was spent and it had already happened. This obviously is important to some students and if its important to them then I encourage them to speak up!.
You are right, I apologize, sincerely. I hesitated while writing that, but was really irritated (which is why I said “perhaps” which denotes a suggestion, not a command). I take it back. I personally don’t see the point THIS TIME, but that’s not up for me to say.
You write: -At the risk of sounding "repetitive and boring", everyone's arguments here are based on their own interpretations of the facts. Doesn't mean their arguments are invalid. By your own logic, both your and my arguments are useless as well :)
Peter, you could never be boring. Yes, our (yours and mine) arguments are opinion-based, but we state our opinion and (at least attempt to) back it up by reasoning. This is the part I meant in the beginning about me not articulating myself well. I see what you mean there. No of course, by all means make normative statements, but not JUST normative statements. Alex said “it’s just wrong” without any justification or reasoning, so I meant THAT is easy to dismiss (and I stand by what I said there, little evidence makes an ARGUMENT easy to dismiss, a feeling is another story, but I am not on this thread to share feelings with people). He didn’t explain why it was wrong, or who it affects, etc. Obviously one can infer, but I prefer not to do that. I think by the university level we should at least be trying to back up our opinions by offering evidence, that’s all.
As for the “accountability” trademark, I meant the use of the word. You use it ALL the time, lol. That’s not a dig, it’s actually borderline endearing. As for “being accountable”, I’m sure you are a lot of the time. No one is ALL of the time; it would be good for you (specifically) to remember that in both relation to yourself, as well as those around you (I say that because I know you have really high expectations of yourself and I know how that can be difficult sometimes).
Right. Not quite 10 pages but I think it does the trick. If you want to respond feel free, but I’m done with this thread, so if you want to respond and hear back from me, you can PM me.
Be well,
Sameena
I don't understand what the G20 has to do with improving campus. Unless foreign leader have anything to do with anything going on campus, students money is wasted.
While I am not a current student, I am a little concerned about this use of funds. I am a former service coordinator and was the lead on the successful services referendum in 2000.
It concerns me that services money was used to fund activism. I have no opposition to activism in most of it's forms.
What does concern me is that the services (at least in my day) are about providing services on campus and in the city to the campus community. The mandates are not political ones.
The SFUO is absolutely a political organization and should be engaged in activism on issues of importance to students. There is of course a diversity of issues that are important to students and there will never be agreement by all students on what those issues should be. Activism is an important part of student life.
In my opinion, which really has no importance whatsoever anymore, is that the funds for this bus should have come from the SFUO budget, campaigns or whatever is appropriate and not from the services budget.
The Campus Conservatives are a joke if they argue that students should not pay for all sorts of activities including fees protest at the G20 when they are paying to subsidize both the Campus Conservatives and also are subsidizing the BILLION dollar security bill that Stephen Harper rang up for the failed summit in Toronto.
It's great to see students coming to Toronto and protesting high tuition and failed policies by our federal government and international governments as well who are shifting debt onto students due to the financial crisis.
I just wanted to show my support Peter Flynn. Well done sir.
Shame on the president of the SFUO Tyler Steeves, who has just proved he's as much of a radicalist as former el presidente Wolfe.
Comparing protesting at the G20 to other inclusive campus events such as concerts is a gross fallacy; one doesn't need to hold a narrow political ideology to enjoy the latter.
Fire. Them. All.
Here's the problem everyone is dancing around or hitting on the head (depending on what your intentions are), and I can sum it up in less words than these essays we are writing.
Services with purposes totally, 100% not related to the G20 and protesting spent their allocated funds on this. That is not right.
The "Campaigns" committee decides what and when to put funds towards causes, and we make no mistake in seeing the stated purpose of this entity and the funds they get. Now, we may not agree or care about what they are for or against, but we at least can show up and make that known, and be a voice and a vote BEFORE these decisions and actions take place.
That's the problem. The exec and some members of SFUO groups made this decision on behalf of the entire undergraduate population, for 50 people.
The G20 was no surprise, we knew it was coming here. This should have been brought up and done through campaigns this year. It's that simple.
My two cents.
Great article! Hope to see more from Ms. Shendruk in the upcoming academic year!