Jasleen MahindruNote: Ping Lam Ip and Andrea DeKeseredy are PhD students in sociology at the University of Alberta. Ip is also an international student coming from Hong Kong. They are also former presidents of the Sociology Graduate Students’ Association.
By now, many graduate students should be more or less aware of a series of conflicts between Nathan Lamarche, the associate vice-president (labour) (AVPL), and the staff as well as other current and former directly elected officers (DEOs) of the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA). For those who are not interested in student governance, they might be annoyed by the sheer volume of emails, statements, and accusations coming from different parties. On the unofficial University of Alberta subreddit, some have characterized the series of events over the past few months as personal and internal conflicts within the GSA executive team. But they are more than that. The recent conflicts surrounding GSA governance have evolved into collective and one-sided efforts in bullying and defaming Lamarche, our labour representative and also the only Indigenous DEO.
These conflicts are rooted in a number of recent proposals and decisions put forward by the GSA. One is the proposed GSA budget back in March and April. The proposal included the $7,000 cut of the AVPL’s stipend, benefits, and employer contributions. It also proposed the reallocation of the $5,000 Indigenous Strategic Initiatives to the DEO Strategic Initiatives. Both were retracted in the approved budget. Another is the decision to rescind the appointment of Tamara Dubé to the position of vice-president (Indigenous relations) (VPIR).
Lamarche was among the most vocal critics of these controversial items. He has sent a large volume of public and internal emails to criticize the GSA, other DEOs, the staff, the chief returning officer (CRO), and members of the Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC). He has also launched a petition claiming that the refusal of Dubé’s appointment is election fraud. Linked in the petition is a public Google Drive folder named “Election Fraud Evidence” containing a large number of emails, documents, videos, and audio recordings.
Lamarche has done nothing other than raising criticisms against the governance practices of the GSA executive team and staff. The latter had conducted a series of unfair and hostile actions targeting the former. Many of these actions have become obstacles for Lamarche to perform his duties.
In May, when the current executive team came into office, the GSA posted on its Instagram an introduction to each of the DEOs. All introductions share similar components, including the background and past experiences of each DEO and their vision on future advocacies. But Lamarche’s statement was the only one with a disclaimer at the end. The disclaimer said that Lamarche provided the caption and “it does not reflect an official statement from the GSA as an organization.” Email communications between Lamarche and other DEOs, which have now been made public by the former, show the disagreement between Lamarche and the other DEOs over his statement. The GSA added the disclaimer even after Lamarche rejected the idea multiple times.
On June 19, the GSA Board, of which Lamarche is also a member, released a statement without his consent. It characterized the petition and some of the email communications as misinformation and “xenophobic” personal attacks against international students. In the statement, the Board called for all members who feel affected by Lamarche’s actions to file complaints against him and his petition.
Certainly, many of these emails are intense, long, and overwhelming. But elected officials shouldn’t treat persistent and harsh criticisms against elected officials, even when they make people feel uncomfortable, as insults. After all, criticism is an essential, and indeed desirable, component of a healthy democracy. Student politics, or any politics for that matter, is neither a carnival nor a playground. It is supposed to be contentious. Facing harsh criticisms is part of the job of any democratically elected officials. It is how the accountability of those in power is ensured.
If the DEOs feel insulted simply because an adult criticizes their decisions and actions, they should not have run for their position in the first place. Moreover, no racial slur or explicit language based on a person’s race, country of origin, gender, sexuality, social class, age, disability, and other identities can be found in any of the documents that are now public.
The staff and DEOs also framed Lamarche as a “threat.” Ever since he became the AVPL, he has not been able to get a key to the GSA office despite sending numerous requests to the staff. He received a notice on June 11 that his key was ready. On June 19, Lamarche attempted to pick up his key in the GSA’s office in Triffo Hall. But a staff member told him that a decision was made not to give him the key, although that had not been communicated to Lamarche beforehand.
The staff called the U of A Protective Services (UAPS), alleging Lamarche of presenting a threat to their safety. Two peace officers came to escort Lamarche out of the building, and issued him a trespass notice, which bans him from entering Triffo Hall for one year. Video and audio evidence, recorded by Lamarche himself, shows that he was nothing but calm and respectful during the entire encounter. He did not do anything other than trying to ask questions and reason with the staff.
The bullying against Lamarche reached its current height during the June 23 GSA Council meeting. The meeting had a session dedicated to discussing allegations of election fraud and ongoing conflicts within the executive team. Most of the DEOs gave an emotional speech about how they felt hurt and attacked when criticisms were raised against them. Some even spoke in tears, accusing such criticisms of spreading misinformation and insulting international students. For attendees like us, who as GSA general members have no right to speak in the Council and are familiar with the situation, the meeting sounded like a group therapy session for every GSA officer involved.
Everyone but Lamarche.
Lamarche was stripped off his privilege to speak, vote, and file a motion at the very beginning of the meeting. In the morning of the same day, the GSA Appeals and Complaints Board (ACB) suspended Lamarche after receiving a complaint against him. Lamarche repeatedly stated that the complaint was invalid because it did not have a signature as required by the bylaw. However, the GSA speaker, Zain Patel, still ruled that Lamarche was suspended from his role of AVPL and had no right to speak in the meeting. In contrast, back in April, when the ACB had suspended former President Arshad, Patel allowed him to speak in the Council. Although the suspension has now been rescinded, as far as Patel knew at the time, it was a valid suspension.
Even if we remain completely indifferent to all the emotions and nuances in the meeting, and abstain ourselves from making a judgement about which claim is true and which is not, what happened in the Council was very obvious. First, the GSA silenced one side of the conflicts, who not only is our labour representative but also the sole Indigenous student in the executive team. Then, each and every one of the opposite side gave a long, emotional speech casting themselves as the victims of their critics.
Enough is enough. No decent democratic organization on Canadian soil should tolerate such childish, continuous, and collective efforts in targeting, isolating, silencing, and bullying a person of dissidence. This is a person who has done nothing other than voicing concerns and criticisms about problems in governance practices. They are a powerless labour representative who does not even have a vote on how our union dues are spent. Because of such efforts, our AVPL is now unable to do the job we elected him to do.
And we are right in the middle of GSA collective bargaining, the single most important task of the AVPL. There is no place for us, the general members, to stay “objective” and play “both sides” on this matter. The DEOs, the staff, and many other people who have jeopardized Lamarche’s ability to perform his duties are wrong, morally and legally. The only way to move forward, to make things right, is the resignation of every single individual who conducted a hostile act to Lamarche.
