Gabriella MenezesDisclosure: Benjamin J. Kucher is currently the chair of the National Indigenous Advocacy Committee (NIAC).
Indigenous advocacy is not a buzzword, nor should it be a superficial addition to a candidate’s campaign platform. Yet, throughout this University of Alberta Students’ Union (SU) election cycle, it seems that some candidates are only engaging with Indigenous issues on a superficial level. One candidate spoke on Indigenous issues without a clear understanding of the advocacy work already being done. Another misrepresented established initiatives. A third used outdated and offensive language when referring to Indigenous students.
During the vice-president (external) (VPX) candidates’ opening statements at the Indigenous Students’ Union (ISU) forum on February 28, candidate Nate Goetz made misleading statements about the National Indigenous Advocacy Committee (NIAC). NIAC is a committee within the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), an advocacy group which the SU is part of. Goetz claimed that “CASA’s [NIAC] took months to form, and when it was up and running, it was too late for any meaningful action to actually be done.”
This statement is factually incorrect. CASA established NIAC in 2020 as a standing committee and has been operating for five years. While in the last year, NIAC experienced leadership challenges, the committee resolved these issues several months ago. And this did not prevent the committee from advancing key initiatives for Indigenous students. Goetz’s comments not only misrepresented, but completely disregarded the tangible progress made in Indigenous advocacy. Misinformation about NIAC diminishes the work done to support Indigenous students and misleads voters about the advocacy structures in place. If candidates choose to speak on these issues, they must do so accurately.
Another concerning trend in this election cycle is the misrepresentation of established advocacy work as new proposals. During the ISU forum, VPX candidate Juan Munoz stated that one of his priorities is to advocate “alongside CASA and the [NIAC] for expanding the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP).” Munoz also said that he will “fight for improving the work-integrated learning (WIL) opportunities for Indigenous students, advocating so Indigenous students have a greater participation in the student work placement program.”
However, these are not new priorities. CASA is already working on these initiatives, as explicitly outlined in CASA’s 2025 advocacy document. Presenting them without acknowledging CASA’s ongoing efforts erases the work of student leaders who have already been advancing these issues.
While it is important to continue pushing for these priorities, advocacy requires transparency. Candidates should clarify when they are building on existing work rather than presenting long-standing efforts as their own. Students deserve honesty in leadership, not performative campaigning.
Language is a fundamental part of respect, and the terms we use when referring to Indigenous peoples carry deep historical and political weight. During the vice-president (academic) (VPA) opening statements, Manyu Rathour referred to a time he heard university leadership state that they are “not Indigenous, so it doesn’t make sense for [them] to make laws for [Indigenous people].” Rathour went on to say “I am truly enraged by the statement, for everyone in power tries to play it safe when it comes to polity for Aboriginal people.”
The term “Aboriginal” is not just outdated — it is offensive to many Indigenous people. The term may still be appropriate when referring to the Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Committee (ARCC), as that is its official name. Additionally, it has been used in some legal and governmental contexts in the past. But using it broadly when discussing Indigenous students is not acceptable. It reflects a lack of understanding of Indigenous identity and contributes to the ongoing colonial erasure of distinct Indigenous nations.
Candidates seeking leadership roles must understand that words matter. If they are serious about advocating for Indigenous students, they must demonstrate a basic respect for the language that Indigenous communities use to define themselves.
The SU election is about more than just campaign promises — it is about electing informed, transparent, and effective leaders. The misrepresentation of Indigenous advocacy, the repackaging of existing efforts, and the use of offensive terminology all highlight a larger issue. Some candidates are engaging in performative advocacy without demonstrating a true understanding of the topics they discuss.
Do these candidates genuinely understand the issues they are campaigning on? Are they being honest about their advocacy work? Are they equipped to meaningfully engage in student governance? These are the questions that students need to be asking themselves when they cast their votes on March 5 and 6.
— With files from Peris Jones
