Rosty SorokaThe University of Alberta Students’ Union (SU) is responsible for many things, including “represent[ing] all undergraduate students, and [acting] as a strong advocate for students at the university, and to all levels of government.” But sometimes this doesn’t entirely translate into their actions.
On September 10, at a council meeting, the SU executive dodged heavy questions about the upcoming climate strike, which will take place September 20-27 around the world. That week is closer than ever, and all we have are non-answers and redirection for their response.
The SU executive cited their non-partisan bylaws as the reason they couldn’t endorse it, but that doesn’t fully check out. Is climate change truly still a partisan issue? Googling “climate change study” without any positive or negative indicators brings up thousands of peer reviewed studies, not only supporting the existence of climate change, but also proposing solutions. Is proven science partisan?
Other schools have been speaking up in solidarity with the strike, perhaps most notably the president of UBC. In my own Faculty of Arts, several professors have told me that students won’t be penalized for missed work or attendance on September 27. And, despite the fact that the strike is a student driven movement, Canada’s National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has also thrown their axe in the ring. NUPGE is a non-partisan organization, so why are they able to support the strike when the SU can’t?
Climate change itself is inherently political, but so is everything. Buying a popular brand of toothpaste is a political action. For example, supporting Colgate, a toothpaste company rife with scandal, is arguably more controversial than striking for climate change. In a world of political division, every action we take has a consequent reaction, like Isaac Newton’s third law. If we bound ourselves to this standard, we would never get anything done. Imagine if the SU decided they couldn’t brush their teeth because buying toothpaste is a partisan action; it’s a ridiculous thought, right?
You could argue that the idea of striking for climate change aligns with a particular voter base, but I don’t think that’s true either. While the Green Party has explicitly come out in support of the strike, no other party has expressly condemned it. Perhaps the strike’s goals clash with some ideals, but not so badly that it would create an issue.
So what’s the problem? Why is the SU executive claiming that this is a partisan issue? Is it because they’re afraid of damaging their relationship with the provincial or federal government by supporting the strike? Or maybe there’s contention within the executive team itself, and they’re unable to provide us with a united front. We can only speculate, because they’ve given us no response other than the assumptive façade of remaining non-partisan.
The SU should unequivocally and continuously support this strike. Their reasons for not doing so fall not on deaf ears, but disbelieving ones. As an organization which not only contributes to governing our university, but also acts as its face, they should not and cannot remain neutral on this subject.
