So what if senate endorsed the day of action!

CARSON JEREMA STAFF

UMSU presented and passed its first motion of the year to Senate last Wednesday, and they are no doubt pleased with themselves. No small feat considering the often confrontational relationship UMSU has had with university administrators who, through the Senate executive committee, influence the agenda for every meeting. Except, however, the motion that evidently supports the Day of Action is little more than a ploy constructed to impress people who are impressed by empty activism.

In case you are unfamiliar with the poster campaign or the people adorned in white scarves, the Day of Action is a national, annual event where students’ unions/associations that are affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Students, and their supporters, gather to protest the government for increased funding and a reduction in tuition fees. UMSU asked Senate, the principal academic governing body of the U of M, to endorse these activities, which the Senate did.

The original motion was presented to the senate executive committee late last year. It called for the Senate to declare “February 7th, 2007 to be a penalty-free day for which no student shall receive an academic penalty for not attending classes or labs.” The initial text also demanded that professors set their syllabi accordingly. The next step (I suppose) would be to demand the university be shut down entirely, elevating the Day of Action to the prominence of, say, Remembrance Day, or Christmas.

Unsurprisingly, the words “without endorsement” accompanied the agenda, stating the Senate executive committee’s decision to let the motion be considered. To be fair, according to UMSU president Gary Sran, he did try to have the motion presented for the Dec. 6 meeting which, the argument goes could have giving them more clout. But as it is, the motion was presented a little less than a month before the Day of Action and after most professors already set their class schedules for the term.

After a number of consultations, Sran apparently realized that his intended motion had little hope of being adopted. The text he ultimately presented was much softer in language and included qualifiers such as “where reasonable” when considering amnesty for student absenteeism, and calling for students “to inform their instructor(s) prior to February 7th, 2007.” The motion also clearly encourages professors to be lenient. But, the discretion is ultimately left to the instructor.

And, seeing as students are encouraged to consult with their professors beforehand, it is hard to see how participation in the Day of Action, at the expense of time in class, is any different from a student seeking time off to attend an academic conference. Many professors, if not all, are often happy to oblige when notice is given beforehand. In other words, so what if Senate adopted the motion. What does it really change?

The problem with symbolic endorsements is that they are little more than PR campaigns giving the illusion of success. The decision of Parliament to recognize the Quebecois as a nation is a good example. No special privileges or constitutional recognition, just air. Another illustration would be the “World’s Greatest Dad” T-shirt I gave my father some years back.

Given the difference of opinion between UMSU and the administration and many if not most deans regarding the tuition freeze, the union certainly considers the university to be a part of the establishment, even if this particular protest is aimed specifically at the government. The importance CFS has given what they see as exorbitant administrator salaries is evidence of this. So then why is UMSU seeking university support? Again, the obvious conclusion is to impress the student peasantry by producing “results.”

That the passing of the motion is little more than a paper spin was made explicit after Senate elected representatives to sit on the presidential search committee tasked with seeking out a replacement for Emöke Szathmáry when she retires next year. Sran was nominated to serve as the student representative but was passed over. The power (though not absolute) in the university administration lies in the office of the president. Even if you’re not a conspiracy theorist, it is not difficult to see that as chair of Senate, if Szathmáry had not wanted the motion to be presented she likely could have prevented it. Essentially, there was a reason it passed. UMSU will have trouble accusing the administration of being anti-student, and it is likely (at least from my vantage point) that that is just how Szathmáry wants it: a toothless motion that can be spun in her favour, just as it is being spun in Sran’s.

As for the presidential search committee, having a direct say in choosing the next president would give Sran the opportunity to exercise influence beyond passing a diluted motion.

Though, the opportunity remains for Sran to be elected by the Board of Governors to sit on the committee that will choose the next president. But there is certainly no guarantee that this will happen. Earlier this year, Sran was passed over for the student representative on the Board of Governors financial committee. Still, that Sran has opportunities to sit on such committees, albeit unsuccessfully, there is ostensibly the perception that he has much more influence than regular students.

However, Sran should be aware that like most student politicians, he can hardly claim to have widespread support. Only 10 per cent of students voted in the last UMSU election. Students should ask who is he really speaking for? And in whose interests?

Initiatives like the motion and other UMSU political activities, while couched in populist language do little more than bolster the appearance of the influence the union claims to have. It is politicking to give the illusion that students are being heeded.

In the end, the Day of Action intended to give students more voice, only confirms that they are voiceless.