September 9, 2010
Download the PDF of our latest issue here.
Unofficial opposition emerges against Yes side of Millennium Villages referendum
POINT/COUNTERPOINT The snow sculpture of the unofficial Millennium Villages No campaign was built in Quad behind the Yes side’s similar display.
An unofficial campaign has launched against the implementation of a $15-per-year Dedicated Fee Unit that would go towards the Millennium Villages Project.
The project's goal is working towards ending extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Opponents of the proposed DFU, however, explained that it’s the nature of the fee, not its eventual goal to which they object.
“[The Yes side seems to be] very offended by us. They think we’re pro-poverty or anti-charity, which is not the issue. We just want the right to choose our own charities,” said Bridget Casey, a U of A science student that started a “Vote No” group on Facebook.
As of press time, the Yes group had close to 600 members, and the No campaign was leading slightly with over 650.
Organizer of the Yes side Mark McCormack said that the opposing side helps foster a healthy dialogue.
“I think it’s good for democracy; it’s just that some of the things on the No side that they say are completely uninformed,” he said.
Casey believes she knows all she needs to to make an informed decision.
“There is this perception that the reason we’re disagreeing is due to a lack of information — it’s not. We’re fundamentally opposed to the fact this fee is being forced on us,” she said.
An opt-out option is being promised, but Casey doesn’t believe this remedies the issue.
“I don’t think it’s legitimate that we have to fill out a form to get our own money that we didn’t want to give in the first place,” she said. “It seems so obvious, that it’s hard to believe [the referendum] got to where it is.”
Board of Governors representative Steven Dollansky explained that this was a concern shared by some members of Students’ Council earlier in the year.
“Council dealt with this issue in the fall, indirectly, through a bill would have limited the collection of a student fee to purposes directly related to the student experience, and that bill failed,” he said.
McCormack argued that student needs are directly connected to those of people that the MVP supports.
“As a global citizen, I need to know that there aren’t terrorists being brewed on the other side of the planet because they can't get enough food to eat, and they’re going to come bomb one of our buildings,” he said. “Food security, water security, things like that are actually becoming legitimate issues that may affect us.”
But if these are student-supported causes, Casey said she’d have no problem with an opt-in option, instead of the fee being automatically collected unless people say otherwise.
McCormack, however, stated these types of programs need to be institutionalized.
“Sure people can donate now, but something could happen, like maybe there’s a huge greed that goes around. Suddenly people won’t care at all, and that will crush the systems that were in place relying on that,” he said.
McCormack argued that this type of project can benefit students and the University through an improved public perception, and in other ways yet to be seen.
“If we weren't invested in, nothing would be here. If we didn't give the public the image that we were going to help them in the end, nobody would invest in us at all. If they thought they were breeding a bunch of Hitlers, or Nazi Germany, nobody would invest in us,” he said, noting that student apathy can create the perception that students are uncaring.
Dollansky worries that legislation based on speculation of this kind can lead to the SU overstepping their bounds.
“The MV proposal drastically changes our existing view of dedicated fees, in now saying that it’s okay to use student dollars collected through the SU’s power of taxation for a very admirable purpose, but one far beyond the normal everyday student experience,” he said. “That’s concerning to me and I think that’s concerning to many students.”
Opt in is not possible via
By Frank DaviesOpt in is not possible via current referendum rules so to say that you are against this because it should be opt in instead of opt out is to say that you haven't really looked into student politics.
Most unions, and nearly all of the most respected ones, are involved in philanthropy - and in this particular instance there is a very significant partnership component to it ranging from internships, to cross-disciplinary courses, to world leaders speaking at the UofA.
Opt In
By Paul R. WelkeFrank,
I was a councilor for almost three terms, so I'd say that my understanding of student politics is pretty solid. Having said that, there are numerous charities that are "opt in" at the U of A. They are not maintained by the SU, but by other student groups who have formed specifically for philanthropic purposes.
Also, if there is a desire to have the SU run an opt in charity, it is definitely possible, and would require a simple bylaw change.
Finally, as an alumnus supporting the "No" side, I would like to thank the "Yes" side for allowing Mr. McCormack to represent them. When he says things like, "If they thought they were breeding a bunch of Hitlers, or Nazi Germany, nobody would invest in us," he's basically doing our work for us.
Frank
By EmiliaIf this was a more controversial charity that claimed HIV doesn't cause AIDS, pro-life/pro-choice organization, etc. this thing would've been stopped long before it could've began. I can't wait until next year when student group decides they want a fee for a controversial charity tacked onto the SU Fees system (that is, if this passes).
If you are interested in having a mass donation cause into this, why not look into an opt-in clause or lobby the SU for one? UofA employees can opt in to donating for the United Way (as in, it's not automatically taken off their paycheques and then refunded later). I imagine the system is already in place so it could be done for students. And if that fails, what happened to bake sales and other fundraisers?
Why on earth do we need
By BrandonWhy on earth do we need another fee added on to our tuition. I choose my own charities that I want to support and I support them because I want to. Perhaps they should do what every other club on campus and other organizations do when they want to raise money to donate - hold a fundraiser. Those who want to participate and donate can. Those who don't are not FORCED to. Pretty simple.
Nazis.
By EhemIf you vote "NO" on Millennium Villages and terrorists attack, that shit's all on you.
If terrorists attack, we can
By Chris WiseleyIf terrorists attack, we can spend the undonated money to fund self-defence measures. Yours is a moot point.
Nazi.
By EhemNazi.
The winner of this round is
By GodwinThe winner of this round is Ehem.
(By definition of Godwin's law)
You know who else declared
By GodwinYou know who else declared victory prematurely?
THAT'S RIGHT. HITLER.
or bu$$$h, which would be more edgy to use in this context? I want to be as edgy as possible, bonus if someone can suggest a way I can fit in "ameriKKKa" or something about WMD's.
Could you guys stop
By HitlerCould you guys stop slandering my name?
I don't want to be associated with these NO-side assholes.
Thanks,
Hitler
Mandatory charity support
By Jeremy NickurakMandatory charity support trains people to think they shouldn't have to worry about taking an interest in charity. Some authority figure will figure out the details for you, don't bother donating anything yourself!
Agreed. Survey students two
By Richard RobinsonAgreed. Survey students two years from now if this passes. I'd bet half of them don't even know the fee is there, and the other half have no idea what it's for.
If the SU feels passionately about this charity, they'd be better off enclosing a brochure with other convocation materials. That way you can appeal to people who actually have incomes to donate.
Mixed Messages
By Zita Dube-LockhartLast year, the U of A's campus food bank serviced over 2300 individuals. Every year, we hear about the need to freeze, if not, lower tuition. We are bombarded by messages surrounding the overwhelming student debt that is carried by a majority of the university's population (the average student debt load as of 2009 sat at just over $17,000.00 and continues to rise every year). We hear horror stories of students living in their cars, working two full times jobs just to make ends meet and being unable to feed their families.
I am not opposed to charity, but I am opposed to mixed messages.
Students- how can you expect the government and the people of Alberta to take you seriously when you are signing away your money to charity instead of using it for your own schooling costs? This is exponentially true for those of you who are already relying on government loans just to get by.
Having an opt-out option for those who are willing to brave being called 'nazis' or 'terrorist breeders' is a bare minimum in this situation. However, in my opinion, having an opt-in option is the only ethical way for this fee to pass (and, to echo Mr. Welke, those of us who have served time as councillors know that there are measures that could be taken to make this a possibility).
But, even with an opt-in clause, has the student population considered the message that it is sending the government and the rest of the province?
"Lower our tuition because we are too broke from our student loans to afford to eat...and feed the rest of the world" Not the catchiest tuition campaign slogan I've seen in my time.
U of A needs to get its message straight- and this dedicated fee is certainly not going to do it.
Solidarity Against Tuition Increases
By OwainI think student solidarity against tuition increases is the most important issue at stake here. If students truly believed in lower tuition costs, they wouldn't be voluntarily implementing new fees, be it for charity or otherwise ( i.e. the Paw Center). Fighting poverty and donating to charity are important responsibilities for every student to take on. However, even a small tuition fee of 15 dollars per year (not to mention the possible $29 Paw fee), is enough to call students who oppose tuition increases hypocrites. Like many other "no" students, it is not the charity I oppose, but the way it functions with tuition. Thank-you Zita Dube-Lockhart for your astute comments.
Well stated Zita. If this
By EmiliaWell stated Zita. If this passes, what message does that send to our university? Our province? The people of Alberta? We have enough people thinking we as a university community should just suck up the debt and it shouldn't be on the backs of taxpayers. This is a slap in the face to those who campaign for lower tuition and more accessibility to post-secondary education.
I wish there was a "like"
By Leanne LabossiereI wish there was a "like" button on here for this comment. Bravo on illustrating the hypocrisy of the "starving students" supporting this motion.
Charity is the giving to a
By Jo P.Charity is the giving to a cause through voluntary goodwill. Essentially you choosing for yourself who and when to give, out of your own goodwill. To have a referendum on the whole matter is a violation of the entire concept of charity, specifically the voluntary aspect of what constitutes charitable giving. What right does 51% of the student population have to FORCE 49% of the rest of the student population into donating to a cause only those that vote yes care about? That's essentially what a referendum is. Referendums are the proper forum for many things political and economics, but for charity i'm not sure if it is the correct mechanism. I'm not saying we all want Africa to starve and remain poverty stricken, but what right does 51% of the population have to redirect my funds (of which are mainly in the form of debt and loans at the moment) from a cause I care about (rebuilding Haiti) to a cause that is important, but I care less about (Africa)? What right do 51% of the population have to make it more difficult for me to support a cause I care about?
If an opt out clause is not drafted to provided for quick, cheap, and user-friendly implimentation, I will defintely vote no. This is not because I am against charity, but because I think this whole concept of referenduming charity is BS. When you make it mandatory for someone to pay for public works, whether they feel strongly about it or not, regardless of where the public works is located, it isn't called charity, it's called taxes.
Further...
By Paul R. WelkeJo,
To make your point even clearer, it's not 51% of the student body that will pass this. It's 51% of those who actually vote. If this goes through, I am relatively certain that it will be through the will of a MINORITY of students.
LOL
By Andrew"like maybe there’s a huge greed that goes around."
I wouldn't even support a bake sale of his if this is the best thought that came to his mind as a response.
There's definitely a lot of
By Jo P.There's definitely a lot of heart behind this, but also very little brain.
http://thegatewayonline.ca/ar
By Anonymoushttp://thegatewayonline.ca/articles/news/2009/10/28/council-forum-octobe...
Some councillors already tried to stop this from coming forward to referendum in the first place. I would like to know how the various SU elections candidates voted on bill 10.
"Bill 10 was defeated after over two hours of debate and a tied vote. The Bill sought to give council the power to reject the a referendum question prior to its appearance on a campus-wide ballot requesting the implementation of a DFU in any case where students didn't receive direct benefit."
"The restriction, he stated, would allow Council to eliminate referendum questions that, while however pertinent to the student population, may lay outside the domain of Council."
The votes, recorded
By Online EditorDue to the contentiousness of the vote, Council opted to call for division, meaning councillors' votes are in the votes and proceedings documents for that meeting.
The candidates who served on Council at the time voted as follows (with Yes being in favour of restricting DFU implementation, and No being opposed to the same):
Dehod: No
Zepp: No
Seth: No
Chin: Yes
Mastel: No
Fentiman: Yes
L'Abbé: Yes
Candidates Murphy, Eastham, McCarthy, Tighe, Turner, and Hansra were not voting members of Council when this took place.
Two clarifications: * Hansra
By AnonymousTwo clarifications:
* Hansra was a member of council at the time; he was merely absent from that meeting.
* Turner is also a member of council, but happens to be the Speaker (and is therefore a non-voting member).
the Yes side
By RevulvaSo those supporting 'yes' on this, are essentially saying that the 15 dollars in question belongs to them first, and if you go through some sort of procedure, they may then allow you to have your money back.
Not how a free country works.
Under serfdom, the labour of a serf first belongs to the lord, whose land the serf is bound to in a feudal system. The lord would then give back to the serf the basic needs (if the serf could not support themself) such as the food the serf made for the lord.
Under an opt-outable fee, our labour, in the form of currency we expended effort to obtain, first belongs to the SU, and then to us.
http://aidwatchers.com/2009/1
By jballshttp://aidwatchers.com/2009/10/do-millennium-villages-work-we-may-never-...
Zita Dube + Paul Welke = What
By Old Hacks Never DieZita Dube + Paul Welke = What is this, 2003?
Old Hacks Never Die
By Zita Dube-LockhartOld hacks rise from the dead when there are stupid people to be mocked!
It would be much more accurate to call us Zombies than Nazis...Though if we're looking for brains, we sure aren't going to find them from McCormack...
Where do we draw the lines on
By SteveWhere do we draw the lines on donating to charity?
You can't walk into grocery store these days without being asked if you would like to donate to this cause or even eat a meal at Boston Pizza before hearing about the charitable organization they are sponsoring and would you like donate. Now people even want it part of our education bills!
It is good see people stand up and not feel embarrassed about not needing to give money to whoever asks for it!
Post new comment