The hour of the engineering student

Voting ‘yes’ to tuition increases is a chance to vote ‘no’ to UMSU

PATRICK SMITH

It is no surprise that the engineering referendum has sparked more interest campus-wide than the UMSU election itself. An uncontested election that sees all incumbents sail to victory is hardly exciting. But behind the scenes, something much bigger is happening.

This past election roughly 23 per cent of students who cast a ballot voted “no” to re-electing Garry Sran and a further 9.5 per cent spoiled their ballot. Sran did receive around 68 per cent of the vote but because turnout was only 7.5 per cent, this translates to roughly five per cent of the student body voting for Sran. This is hardly a glowing endorsement from students.

The apathy of the student body is likely due to UMSU’s increasing irrelevance on all issues but tuition fees. Because of its concentration on a single issue, UMSU is seen as more of a lobby group than a council that addresses a broad range of needs for the student body.

Until now, students were quite happy to go about their business on campus and to leave UMSU to go about theirs, each coexisting with relatively little interaction. This is reflected in declining voter turnout numbers. However with the advent of the engineering referendum on tuition increases, the debate is now polarized around an issue that will directly affect the pocketbooks of students.

But is the referendum really about pocketbooks? By all logic, students of any faculty should be vehemently opposed to tuition fee increases of any kind. What person in their right mind would voluntarily inflict higher fees upon themselves?

The fact that there is a vocal and mobilized “yes” side to the referendum is indicative of the nature of the debate. It is highly symbolic. And supporting the ballot question is a statement of protest. Students who vote “yes” are also voting “no” to UMSU policy. Since UMSU has made the tuition issue its only issue, rejection of the freeze will be a rejection of UMSU itself.

Tying itself to any faculty’s referendum would pose a risk, but in bringing the tuition crusade to engineering, UMSU and the CFS have made a tactical error. They chose the wrong faculty.

Engineering is one of the few student bodies that consistently votes against UMSU candidates from the left. With a very possible “yes” triumph, the optics of the faculty joining management and law in rejecting fixed tuition would send the message across campus that UMSU policies go against the mainstream student. As such, UMSU’s legitimacy on the only issue it has ownership of will be lost.

A “yes” victory would also hamper the chances of next year’s Choice for More/Building On presidential candidate. With a coalition of students mobilized against the freeze and a perception that UMSU policy is no longer relevant, the challenging slate (and indeed there will be one) will have a large pool of resources to draw from.

In fact, the 2008 UMSU election could be a barnburner in comparison to this year’s boring contest. A slate heavy with engineering representation would pose a substantial threat to an executive seen to be out of touch.

And such a perception would truly be an ironic reversal of fortunes. The Amanda Aziz dynasty of candidates draws so much success from its ownership of the underdog image of mainstream students fighting the oppressor.

The new executive can say goodbye to that should the “yes” side prevail this week. With the CFS flexing its muscles and throwing its support behind what could become increasingly unpopular policy, the role of oppressor might just leap from the university administration to our students’ union. This would allow the challenging slate to seize onto the underdog image, stripping the incumbent executive of its crucial campaign asset.

So as freshly re-elected UMSU executives get ready to push their agenda this year, they should realize it may be their last. Whether by choice or unknowingly, by meddling in the affairs of engineering they have tied their own fate to the outcome of the referendum. Risky business, considering engineering students seem poised to raise their own fees. Such a result would amount to nothing less than a sea change in student politics.

Patrick Smith ran for UMSU president in 2006.





Volume 94 Issue 23	The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website	March 07, 2007

Home About Us Advertise Contact Staff Current Issue PDF Employment Letters to the Editor Meet the Staff Online Archives Personals Volunteer	Font Size Respond Email Print-Friendly The hour of the engineering student Voting ‘yes’ to tuition increases is a chance to vote ‘no’ to UMSU PATRICK SMITH It is no surprise that the engineering referendum has sparked more interest campus-wide than the UMSU election itself. An uncontested election that sees all incumbents sail to victory is hardly exciting. But behind the scenes, something much bigger is happening. This past election roughly 23 per cent of students who cast a ballot voted “no” to re-electing Garry Sran and a further 9.5 per cent spoiled their ballot. Sran did receive around 68 per cent of the vote but because turnout was only 7.5 per cent, this translates to roughly five per cent of the student body voting for Sran. This is hardly a glowing endorsement from students. The apathy of the student body is likely due to UMSU’s increasing irrelevance on all issues but tuition fees. Because of its concentration on a single issue, UMSU is seen as more of a lobby group than a council that addresses a broad range of needs for the student body. Until now, students were quite happy to go about their business on campus and to leave UMSU to go about theirs, each coexisting with relatively little interaction. This is reflected in declining voter turnout numbers. However with the advent of the engineering referendum on tuition increases, the debate is now polarized around an issue that will directly affect the pocketbooks of students. But is the referendum really about pocketbooks? By all logic, students of any faculty should be vehemently opposed to tuition fee increases of any kind. What person in their right mind would voluntarily inflict higher fees upon themselves? The fact that there is a vocal and mobilized “yes” side to the referendum is indicative of the nature of the debate. It is highly symbolic. And supporting the ballot question is a statement of protest. Students who vote “yes” are also voting “no” to UMSU policy. Since UMSU has made the tuition issue its only issue, rejection of the freeze will be a rejection of UMSU itself. Tying itself to any faculty’s referendum would pose a risk, but in bringing the tuition crusade to engineering, UMSU and the CFS have made a tactical error. They chose the wrong faculty. Engineering is one of the few student bodies that consistently votes against UMSU candidates from the left. With a very possible “yes” triumph, the optics of the faculty joining management and law in rejecting fixed tuition would send the message across campus that UMSU policies go against the mainstream student. As such, UMSU’s legitimacy on the only issue it has ownership of will be lost. A “yes” victory would also hamper the chances of next year’s Choice for More/Building On presidential candidate. With a coalition of students mobilized against the freeze and a perception that UMSU policy is no longer relevant, the challenging slate (and indeed there will be one) will have a large pool of resources to draw from. In fact, the 2008 UMSU election could be a barnburner in comparison to this year’s boring contest. A slate heavy with engineering representation would pose a substantial threat to an executive seen to be out of touch. And such a perception would truly be an ironic reversal of fortunes. The Amanda Aziz dynasty of candidates draws so much success from its ownership of the underdog image of mainstream students fighting the oppressor. The new executive can say goodbye to that should the “yes” side prevail this week. With the CFS flexing its muscles and throwing its support behind what could become increasingly unpopular policy, the role of oppressor might just leap from the university administration to our students’ union. This would allow the challenging slate to seize onto the underdog image, stripping the incumbent executive of its crucial campaign asset. So as freshly re-elected UMSU executives get ready to push their agenda this year, they should realize it may be their last. Whether by choice or unknowingly, by meddling in the affairs of engineering they have tied their own fate to the outcome of the referendum. Risky business, considering engineering students seem poised to raise their own fees. Such a result would amount to nothing less than a sea change in student politics. Patrick Smith ran for UMSU president in 2006.


Terms of Use \| Member of the CUP \| RSS Newsfeeds © Copyright 2006 The Manitoban Newspaper Publications Corporation