UMSU not unduly ‘confrontational’

UMSU president rocks the boat

GARRY SRAN

It’s hard to stand up to political opposition, to take a stand in favour of those you represent, to support the people who gave you your mandate. But standing one’s ground is the hallmark of representative democracy. Canada would not have universal health care today if some members of parliament had not taken on the federal government and the medical lobby. We would not have weekends or minimum wage if unions had not stood up for their members and rocked the boat. And we would not have a tuition fee freeze if students had not worked together and made their case to the government. Simply put, if you aren’t willing to rock the boat — to push for change even when it is difficult — then you shouldn’t run for elected office.

A students’ union has an obligation to represent students’ interests, to make their voices heard, and to remain principled in the face of adversity. Not that long ago, the practice of UMSU was to avoid conflict, taking a stance, and opposing the powers that be at the university. Rocking the boat was simply not the practice, and the results were consistent: no positive change, only incidental improvement on the issues students found important and a steady stream of UMSU executive members taking jobs with the university administration after completing their terms of office.

Over the past 28 months, UMSU has made a number of choices in order to better represent its constituents, and some of them have been controversial. Yet students have consistently supported this change — support shown through elections, consultations, and via an 87 per cent vote in favour of joining the Canadian Federation of Students last year.

It is important to clarify a couple of issues with regards to University 1 orientation (U1O) and UMSU’s efforts to become further involved with first-year orientation. UMSU was approached by director of Student Affairs David Morphy nearly two years ago, in an attempt to get UMSU more involved in U1O. Morphy’s concern — one that UMSU agrees with — was that students are having a negative experience at U1O, and the overarching goal of building student community was not being achieved. Building community on campus — making students feel a part of their university and of their students’ union — means that students feel they have a stake in what happens on campus, and get involved with student groups, clubs, the students’ union and university governance. Morphy was absolutely right, and UMSU has been working with his office since then to try to solve the problems identified.

Unfortunately, U1 director Christine Blais maintains a very specific agenda for U1O, one that has seen student involvement diminish. The result has been that the reputation of U1O remains in the gutters. Her unwillingness to cooperate and negotiate with UMSU and even her colleagues has been a consistent barrier to working together for a better U1O. UMSU is always open to working with any campus groups — including departments in the administration — and we will once again be contacting U1O to talk about the challenges this year, and how we can work together in the future.

Jerema’s underlying thesis is that UMSU is confrontational, that we seek out conflict and that this is a “childish” approach. Jerema goes as far as saying that UMSU’s advocacy on behalf of students — working on issues like the tuition freeze, date rape, and inclusion in university governance — alienates UMSU from its membership. Being “confrontational” is not a source of pride for the union, but informed challenges to the status quo do advance our collective interests as students. I don’t see how disagreeing with a process or objective is “confrontational.” From time to time, students’ unions organize activities and try to mobilize students, but I would argue that holding a rally to show that there is widespread support of an issue is not “confrontational” (unless you’re living in a dictatorship), but rather the democratic responsibility of students. It’s easy to trot out the argument that apathy is a problem. Does Jerema not see the contradiction in lamenting apathy while at the same time lambasting UMSU for generating debate and encouraging students to participate in the political process?

Finally, it is unfortunate, though not surprising, that Jerema hasn’t discussed the many areas where UMSU representatives work closely with the administration. We have been working closely on big issues like food services, campus parking and transportation, and University Centre. We meet regularly with administration representatives, and while we don’t agree on every issue, these meetings lead to collaborations like celebration week, and the new tunnel murals painted this past spring.

I believe that debate, argument and differences of opinion are positive, important steps to resolution and progress. Universities teach us alternative ideas, and debate can help us work together to reach a consensus. Debate allows minority opinions to be heard, and invites new ideas into the political arena. The only time students don’t appreciate debate is when we are shut out of it — as has been the problem with the U of M Board of Governors. But as long as we have open debate from Carson Jerema, or any U of M student, we know that we are doing our jobs.

In future, perhaps Jerema could write something constructive, about the real issues that U of M students face, rather than simply putting down those who are working hard to solve them.

Garry Sran is president of the University of Manitoba Students’ Union (UMSU).