VUWSA and VSM
April 30th, 2009 at 12:22 pm by David FarrarIt is time for National to live up to its core principles and make a commitment to voluntary membership of student associations. VUWSA gives us two good reminders of why students should have the choice about whether or not they hand over millions of dollars every year.
First have a look at this story and comments at Salient about the VUWSA Exec refusing to lay a wreath for ANZAC Day. Scores of angry students – but you know not one of them is legally allowed to quit as a member and get his or her fee back – or refuse to join up and spend the fee joining a group they do wish to belong to.
The other going on is at Salient itself. I’m not going to cover the full story, as it is on Ethical Martini, but Salient (which is funded by VUWSA compulsory fees) threatened Dave at Big News with a defamation suit over a very trivial issue (involving someone from the Salient office spamming his site). Now student media of all groups should be the last to be trying to use defamation laws aggressively against people. Again – if they actually had to earn their money – not get given it by statute – this silliness would largely disappear. Fortunately Salient have withdrawn their threat of legal action.
If you want to give 200,000+ students a choice, then e-mail Minister of Education Anne Tolley and ask her to stick it on the agenda for 2009 or 2010.
Related posts:
- VUWSA and flag burning
- Will VUWSA President be flag burning tomorrow?
- Salient vs VUWSA
- VUWSA in strife
April 30th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’m in. First party (ACT, Nats, whatever) that gets this through gets my vote next election.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Of course, that would have to actually happen under a voluntary system. When AUSA went voluntary at Auckland Uni, students were told it was partly about not being forced to give money to AUSA. Many didn’t know then, and most still don’t know, that they are charged a student-services levy whether or not they join AUSA – the university controls it if they don’t join, AUSA controls it (and they get a say in how it’s spent) if they do.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
There is a degree of variation in terms of students’ associations… none of them are saints, but organisations such as UCSA and OUSA are more about service delivery than politicking these days, whereas VUWSA has always been a branch of the Labour party (or worse – seems like the Workers’ Party has a firm foot hold there now!).
The point is that SOME of these associations are providing SOME valuable services, that would make their campuses poorer with their non existence. A simple voluntary/complusory vote risks some of that, as some of those services are invisible – representation on swathes of university committees for example.
So, totally agree that the wingnuttery that infests the majority of students associations needs a good prune out. But how do you preserve the few good bits that do exist here?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Some sort of re-education camp to purge the wrong-thinkers of their wrong-thinking?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
# Ryan Sproull (1735) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 3 Says:
April 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Scores of angry students – but you know not one of them is legally allowed to quit as a member and get his or her fee back – or refuse to join up and spend the fee joining a group they do wish to belong to.
Of course, that would have to actually happen under a voluntary system. When AUSA went voluntary at Auckland Uni, students were told it was partly about not being forced to give money to AUSA. Many didn’t know then, and most still don’t know, that they are charged a student-services levy whether or not they join AUSA – the university controls it if they don’t join, AUSA controls it (and they get a say in how it’s spent) if they do.
I campaigned for UCSA President in 2006 and VSM was going to be my platform – I dropped it in the last minute because of the reason you listed above regarding the levy.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Is there no getting around it? I mean, is that how it is at every university – that you pay a student-services levy as part of your uni fees and the student association controls it? Or are there some universities where paying membership fees to your student association is separate from student-services levies?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I wonder if anyone clicking the pretty red button would like to address the actual issue I’m pointing out.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Don’t hold your breath Ryan.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The use of that levy appears to be recognition of my point – i.e. that the University is paying the students’ association a fee the delivery of services. Such agreements are usually accompanied by a contract, outlining what needs to be done for payment – and it is usually non-political, student services stuff.
I’m not sure why anyone would object to the continuance of a students’ association on those terms. The voluntary-ness is then restricted to the student political activities, so you preserve the service functions without the association with the nutbars.
What’s the problem with that?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Fair enough, Baron. It was more that some people are under the impression that voluntary SA membership means having the option of saving a few hundred bucks. For example, DPF’s phrasing: “or refuse to join up and spend the fee joining a group they do wish to belong to.” Not an option at the magical voluntary land of Auckland University.
The point about being forced to be a member of something you don’t necessarily want to be a member of is still a valid concern, to my mind. That is why I favour opt-out, or a tick-to-join section of university registration (suggested by someone in a previous thread).
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
It would be interesting to see what happened to AUSA voluntary membership if subsidised drinks at Shadows were only available to members.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Maybe people just don’t like you Ryan.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Could be. Sort of gives me this mental image of something starting to respond, realising they haven’t got a leg to stand on, and clicking negative karma in frustration. At least Baron had a point.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hmm, tho I wasn’t arguing with you, Ryan. I think the majority of students’ associations should be fed to the lions, in exactly the manner you describe. Just not all, and I am concerned that the few get tarred with the brush meant for the many.
As for AUSA and subsidising drinks – would seem a clever move to me. I assume that they are funding such subsidies from their money, not the uni contract – therefore it should only benefit their members. Such things (i.e. services focussed) are great ways of surviving in a post-complusory world really – though my understanding is that they cannot discriminate that way due to their policies (which seems idiotic).
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
To be honest, other people know far more about how the dynamics work of AUSA and trust-owned businesses, etc., than I do. My point was more that you do often have that situation in voluntary SAs where all students benefit from advocacy supported by the few.
I’m ideologically opposed to compulsory membership in anything. And, at the same time, I’ve seen first-hand how difficult it is to get things done in AUSA as opposed to other student associations – getting things done that students almost universally want to happen.
I think all student associations should be voluntary, with SA-advocated and SA-funded benefits limited only to members, perhaps with competing student associations at the same tertiary institutes (competing for members), membership facilitated by the university registration process and, finally, with a clear understanding of student-services levies.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“It would be interesting to see what happened to AUSA voluntary membership if subsidised drinks at Shadows were only available to members.”
The membership who just want cheap grog will increase, boosting the total numbers. At least for a while. In the longer run, only those people who saved money in excess of the fee would stick around. They will continue to consume more than they pay which would be a drain on resources and other services would suffer.
It WOULD be popular though, with the costs not being immediately apparrant, so is exactly the sort of thing self-centred politicians love to do.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Or they could field and elect candidates who aren’t tools…maybe this will cause a shakeup at the elections this year?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Why not let/make the universities let private companies compete with student bodies (and not limited to one per site – imagine MAWSA or some other body delivering services at Vic) for the delivery of services currently provided? As it stands the university pays a lot of money to the student association for these services, yet nobody knows whether they are getting good value or not. Then the argument regarding “we deliver services to everyone…” is out the window. Plus the process is that much more transparent. After all, the EMPU don’t provide services except for perhaps mediation for their members.
Student associations should be there for lobbying on behalf of voluntary member students – much like a worker’s union. That is all. They are not a mini-government who provide social services – that is what the actual government or other private enterprises are there for.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
People have to turn up and vote first.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
So are you planning on letting students vote on this or do you just want to see it imposed by the government David?
[DPF: You sound like a Stalinist arguing against imposing democracy on people against their will]
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
sonic – I believe the plan would be to let every student vote as an individual as to whether they joined or not.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Sonic you penis.
By making a system voluntary you are not imposing anything.
If the student body thinks funding these oxygen thieves is worthwhile then they will pay their levies.
The freedom of choice and all that.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I wonder how much of this antipathy is because of the word union in the name – that maybe is it was the student’s co-op, students’club or some other name the right would be a whole lot less agitated.
In a way a University is a discrete community, such as a nation, a region or a city and the student union serves much in the way as a government or council; it levies taxes or rates and provides services.
not one of them is legally allowed to quit as a member and get his or her fee back is a bit like being a citizen and paying tax isn’t it? You can’t opt out.
On you other point Now student media of all groups should be the last to be trying to use defamation laws…. We either have defamation laws, or we don’t. Whatever laws we have are there to be used by any part of the community, not just a select few.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Well put mynameisjack. Good luck getting these myopic nutters to understand it though
and le grande fromage: sonic outsmarted you. No need to get defensive
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
A university is not a discrete community – it is an organisation within a community. There is no separate government for the university, however some at the VUWSA think so. A student organisation is not a government, it is (at best) a union and you should have the option of not joining it. It makes the organisation more transparent and stops programmes that most members disagree with. If there is a creche (for example) at the university then the people with kids who use it should fund it, not the maority of people there who don’t have kids.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Many of the services the AUSA provides are required to be provided on a non-discriminatory basis, member or not.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Hey Ryan,
sorry i don’t have time to address this right at the moment, but there certainly are ways of addressing it.
flick me an email (peteremcc@gmail.com) and i’ll get back to you as soon as i can.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Funny how “choice” justifies killing the unborn but isn’t sufficient to justify mere Voluntary Membership in the VUWSA (and a whole host of other pro-freedom policies the left opposes). Leftwing liberals use the word “choice” for propaganda purposes when it suits them but abandon it when “choice” undermines their political power. They’re lying sociopaths who crave only power.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
In regards to student unions…
It seems obvious to me that it is wrong let people vote on whether or not they will all be compelled to join something against their will. Just because 56% of students want all students to be members of the union should not mean the other 44% are forced to join against their will.
Who agrees with me? Voluntary membership in any institution is the only moral way to go! Say, “Hear hear!” Compulsion is immoral!
Hear hear!
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“I wonder how much of this antipathy is because of the word union in the name…”
Not much. In fact, most of those discussing this issue refer to them as student associations.
The arrogant assumption that most of the people opposed to compulsory student unionism only hold that position just because of the word “union” makes you a complete wanker.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Yeah, I noticed that. I was abbreviating them to SAs.
(Super Army Soldiers!)
Student Associations.
AUSA… VUWSA… NZUSA…
They’re all student associations.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“[DPF: You sound like a Stalinist arguing against imposing democracy on people against their will]”
No I sound like someone who thinks students shlould be able to make their own decisions, and not be told what to by 40 something Tories.
See the difference?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Oh dear you dumb fucks just don’t get it.
Sonic – so you’re saying that students must vote to get their freedom of association? You know bloody well that student associations are well equipped to largely smash down the VSM campaigns. Can you imagine VUWSA allowing everybody an equal platform to share their views? Can you imagine Salient doing the same? Anybody else remember the sort of hate poured upon the “A Team” when they ran because they had “sympathies” towards VSM?
mynameisjack – you’re peddling the tired old SA line that an association is like a Government, hence we cannot opt out of. Thats crazy. NZUSA tried using that since the 90′s – but it doesn’t stack up. Since when is a student union anything like central government, especially when it has the legal status of a bowling club? Does WSU or AUSA print money or represent anybody outside their campuses? If you want to equate this with a Government then it would mean that NZ student associations would represent the lowest voting totals in any “government” in the world.
Ryan – come on pal. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re deliberately ignoring the points about voluntary membership. Many students associations already have levies paid directly for such things as building and recreation. OUSA has a fee set aside that ensures that no matter what, the students will get their gym free and buildings are being looked after. When I ran for VSM at Otago OUSA BANNED the University gym from advertising that the gym use would be free no matter the result of the VSM campaign – because they didn’t want students to know the facts. How is that running a fair campaign? I remember being told by halls of residence that the VSM speakers were not allowed to speak in their halls because OUSA had “put pressure” on them to not allow us in.
Why should anybody be forced to join an association against their will and not be allowed to get their money back if they are allowed to opt out? Can anybody tell me how many students have been successful in the conscientious objection over the past few years? (I can bet you it’s not even a dozen) The VSM debate isn’t about killing associations – I got involved with it in the 90′s and not one piece of material produced ever said it was about ending them for good. It is about representation and freedom of association.
You simply cannot trust a student association executive to run a fair campaign so National has to pull finger and support ACT in the VSM legislation. ACT have had this policy consistently since inception and Heather Roy has written about it a few times this year already. Frankly I’m disgusted with the attitude from Anne Tolley about this – every single Nat should be behind this.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Sonic – “I sound like someone who thinks students shlould be able to make their own decisions, and not be told what to by 40 something Tories”
Were you a writer for Pravda? That’s lies and you know it.
If students were to make their own decisions, in a perfect world, then they would be asked on enrollment if they wanted to join the student association or not. The student association would advertise at enrollment and even send a leaflet to all pre enrolled students explaining their role and what is on offer. If a student joined then the money would go to the association, if not them the money would stay at study-link and that was that. The student referendums are a cop out and if you suggest otherwise then you’re talking out of your ass.
Ryan – thank you for at least discussing the debate here. Apologies if I sounded a little aggro above… this thing just bugs the hell out of me
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Well, given that I was sued by one association while forced to be a member of another one, It would have been ironic if I was studying at Vic, as I will have effectively been forced to fund my own legal action against me, and forced to fund the computers that were used to spam me.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
“No I sound like someone who thinks students shlould be able to make their own decisions, and not be told what to by 40 something Tories.”
They should be told what to do by 20 something student politicians the way God intended.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Clint, you seem to have missed my posts that completely agreed with you, or perhaps thought that they were satire.
Say it with me: “It is immoral to compel people to be members of associations they didn’t choose to join voluntarily!”
Anecdotally, the people I’ve met most in favour of voluntary student associations are often also the ones most frustrated that they can’t win elections within them. However, whether or not it’s about killing associations, the fact remains (in my mind): compulsory membership is immoral.
How is it a government issue? Can’t students themselves demand that student associations become voluntary, rather than calling on Nanny to help out?
Don’t worry. Given the response to my offer of having a drink with me in Wellington, “a little aggro” is a pleasant respite. Besides, I don’t take arguments online personally. You have to understand that while ideologically I am opposed to compulsory membership and support voluntary membership, I know that this devastates student associations, and I know that people who ostensibly support voluntary membership for principled reasons are well aware that their success would mean the devastation of institutions almost uniformly ideologically opposed to their own ideologies.
I can’t pretend to know the mind of the average VSM-supporter, but it is obvious that it is the natural position of someone who wants to realistically destroy student associations. That is sad news for people like myself, who wish student associations to thrive as well as being voluntary.
In the end, my principles win: voluntary over all!
Say it one more time! “It is immoral to compel people to be members of associations they didn’t choose to join voluntarily!”
Hear hear!
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
um did I say sue? well it didnt get that far. Thankfully.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Ryan, “freedom of association” is shorter.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Students could change this tomorrow, they vote in the elections for a candidate who agrees with Clint and David. They organize a campus referendum and Bob’s your sister’s brother!
Of course they know would lose a democratic vote so you are trying to get your political ideology imposed by government dictat.
That’s Tory freedom of choice, you are only ever free to agree with them.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I’m afraid my enrolment at Waikato U preceded the VSM efforts, albeit the last couple of years of my PhD was present trying to exercise’ freedom of association’.
One issue was that Waikato U had devolved the decisions on objections to the Union. While I felt that Paul Williams was sympathetic to the case I was making, the reality was that nobody would disclose the criteria the WSU used to judge such cases.
And the last 12 months of my PhD were spent in the South Island. Which made pushing the case to leave logistically impossible. I still had to pay for the “services” provided by the WSU of course, even if geographic distance meant that there was no way I could use them.
But seriously, I don’t think that Student Unions would cease to function under freedom of association. Rather, there would be shrinkage to core functions that provided broad appeal. Rather, the rorts and more politically orientated campaigns would be squeezed out.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
The reality is that you are lucky to get 10% of the student body voting, as 90% regard the student politicans with either contempt or indifference. It is a fiction that anything connected to student politics has legitimacy as a democratic process.
Individual rights that depend on the whim of the voting majority, are not genuine rights. If you have no objection to students being compelled to belong to organisation, would you have also no objection to stgate employees belonging to the Natgional Party. After all, the National Party as the government provides enormous benefits to state employees- like wages and salaries for instance.
I mean, if it really is a problem, then the state employees can organise a political campiagn against such provisions. Oh, and as freedom of association isn’t up to individuals anymore, there’s obviously no problem with banning state employees from joining a union. After all, aren’t you arguing that individual rights can only exist on the sufferance of some mandate from some ‘democratic majority’.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Sonic regurgitates again – “”Students could change this tomorrow, they vote in the elections for a candidate who agrees with Clint and David. They organize a campus referendum and Bob’s your sister’s brother!”"
You know that isn’t true Sonic. SA’s are well equipped to deal with the VSM threat and have been mostly successful to date in dealing with it. You failed to read my argument about that – or ignored it. VUWSA is a good example of where a resourced SA out campaigned candidates wanting to go onto their executive. At WSU they held a VSM referendum during exam time and with a tiny percentage of students voting, overturned VSM there.
Sonic – if you believe that a SA could arrange an impartial VSM referendum let alone allow pro VSMers enmasse to win election to a SA then you are nuts.
Did we have a referendum making trade union membership voluntary? I bet the fact we didn’t makes you very sick eh Sonic?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Student association “core” services are not expensive. For instance, “advocacy” in the OUSA budget cost students less than $3000 p/a and with Student Job Search subsidised by the Government you have their 2 main services costing students associations a pittance.
Associations gain a million dollars plus a year – so where does the rest of the money go to and why are associations like VUWSA losing money? The prime argument about VSM is the “representation” bit. Should an association speak up on behalf of its members? The answer is NO. We all know that SA’s are always going to support Labour/Alliance/Greens/Workers Party every single day of the week. There is no coincidence that NZUSA kept their mouths shut for almost all of the last 9 years. By the way, NZUSA is a voluntary association.
What else should be core University services? It isn’t student media, why should student money go into a commercial enterprise where it is used by everybody? Traditionally student media is a niche, unpopular and a waste of money. Why then should students fund a failing radio station or a Workers Party mouthpiece (Salient) in order to get a degree?
So I am not too sure what would be destroyed by VSM? It will take the ideological teeth away from those who have coverted the idea of speaking on behalf of others without checks and balances – and that is the main reason why the left do not support it.
Ryan – I never got offered a drink in Wellington by you?? Did I?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
In the general debate thread today. It was a bit of a mistake, and elicited mostly nastiness, apart from a nice email from someone well out of Wellington.
If you’re keen, email me on wataki at gmail. I’m keen to grab a drink at some point on Saturday.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Ryan, fwiw I reside nowhere in the vicinity of Wellington. But given I’ve got famously drunk with Chinese communists over half the length of China, aren’t particularly concerned about your political views.
Generally if someone will cover their round of drinks, isn’t boring and has some decent yarns, I’m okay with drinking invitations.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Well, I’ll definitely cover my round of drinks. Pity you’re nowhere near, but thank you for the thought.
I’m in Christchurch the following weekend, and have a few drinks lined up already down there. Good times.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Clint, your excuses add up to one thing, students do not agree with you. “Oh we can’t win” cries Clint.
“At WSU they held a VSM referendum during exam time and with a tiny percentage of students voting, overturned VSM”
You lost, suck it up. Don’t trash democracy just because no-one agrees with you and you mates.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
So is there actually anyone who’s got big enough balls to stand up and say “It should be compulsory” and provide a reasoned argument on this thread?
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
The time for Voluntary Student Membership has arrived.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
We can honour our Fathers and Uncles who served, individually with respect- we don’t need another “soldiers day” to challenge the economic premacy of valentines/easter/mothers/fathers/christmas.
Vote:Without soldiers – there would be no war!
April 30th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
valeriusterminus
Without war – there would be no soldiers. You will need to do better than chicken and egg shit to justify the elected by a few funded by all ‘elite’ having free reign over ‘the voice’ of all students.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Ok Burt
Vote:“Without war – there would be no soldiers”
So many Nations nurture their armies and soldiers with no imminent war (I won’t list them and their era’s cos you know that your assertion is shit)
You could posit an argument against compulsory Student Union membership – but this would likley falter when it encounters the parallel concept of Taxation – we don’t like it but the compulsion has a nett benefit for the Collective. If the entity encounters demands to take a politcal stance, a mandate should be sought, and enacted. Until then neutral action by the entity is appropriate.
Students have the option to vote for whoever may represent their views.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
valeriusterminus
In the context of university the net benefit for the collective is an accountable administration. Not a jobs for the boys and girls of socialist ideology. I have trouble understanding how a left wing organisation can justify forcing people to pay money that they have borrowed to fund shit that they may or may not be interested in. Wow… The left wing ideology has climbed so far up it’s own ass that it’s more important than the people it represents. Fantastic.
Vote:April 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
valeriusterminus
To equate compulsory union fees with taxation is desperate stuff. Students who earn pay tax and as such contribute to their own education and the administration of the institutions that provide that. Why do they also need to pay money to support some people with delusions of grandeur and Labour party ambitions?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:04 am
I’m astonished that a fundamental human right – freedom of association – is something the left wants to be put to the vote. Democracy for everything. You have no rights unless the majority say you do, and if the majority vote to take them away, you shouldn’t complain because 50% plus 1 head said so.
I shouldn’t have to vote for the right to free speech – I should have it. I shouldn’t have to vote for the right to freedom of religion (or no religion) – I should have it, even if 99% think I shouldn’t.
Some rights are fundamental to being human and being free – freedom of association is one. The argument that “compulsory membership is good for the collective” is a fascist one – sacrificing the individual for the greater good, regardless of the harm or the fraud it creates for the individual – the “collective” is what matters, well according to the view of an individual who believes she holds the “general will” of the collective in her hands. This is, of course, what communist parties think, which is why they were the only parties in Marxist-Leninist states – they held the “best interests of the workers’ at heart” so disagreeing with them meant you disagreed with the interests of workers – and how dare you!
The arguments around student facilities and the like are facile distractions, that can be fixed by some imagination (as they are addressed in all other voluntary bodies).
Students should choose whether they want student associations or not, in the most democratic manner available to them, by choosing whether or not they want to belong to them. It is like trade unions, like sports clubs, like ratepayers’ associations, like Federated Farmers, like Rotary Clubs, like political parties.
It is a fundamental right of individual choice. It isn’t about imposing anyone’s will on them, the status quo is.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:04 am
And we pay rates to our local and regional bodies and we have no option to “quit as a member and get his or her fee back – or refuse to join up and spend the fee joining a group they do wish to belong to”
Vote:So often these bodies engage in policy and ideology that is worthy of critical consideration when voting.
The reality is that the fees/tax fund the mechanism of democracy – the volition and mandate is seperate.
A Student Union candidate could easliy campaign on the return of the “mandatory” fees to the students.. this has not happened because??
I suspect this is beacuse the majority of students see value in Collective reperesentation in campus affairs – this is a time where Universities are under extreme funding pressures, the formulas have changed – students are the spam in the sandwich – their Collective advocacy has abended much.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:10 am
Valeriusterminus: That’s because government is fundamentally different from an association. Government’s have the monopoly on the legalised used of violence within their territory. They protect citizens from each other and from invasion, and local government has statutorily devolved powers to use violence on matters of planning, regulating certain behaviour around property, dogs and the like. Indeed, only property owners pay rates, but everyone votes in local body elections – so there is democracy among those who may not pay a cent (even indirectly, as they may live with their parents paying no rent).
Student associations are nothing of the sort, they are akin to trade unions, or industry associations.
You “suspect” the majority of students see value, you don’t know, because you don’t give them the chance to just say no to the student association. The only way you’ll truly know is if people have choice. You see there is no such thing as a “collective brain” (your capitalisation of Collective is almost Christian or Stalinist like), there are many individual views, and if someone wants to opt out of belonging to any organisation, why should any other individual or individuals make them do so?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:12 am
so because you guys think that VSM might not actually be popular with the students you’re going to make (/have made) the decision for us? *cough*nanny state*cough*govt. in our lives*cough*hypocrisy*cough
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:32 am
valeriusterminus
I run a small company, how about I decide that like taxation I’m going to run a compulsory social club. The committee members will be elected by annual vote. The elected committee members have free reign on how they spend the compulsorily collected fees. Every workplace should have one right?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:40 am
Somewhatthoughtful: Who is “us”? I wouldn’t want to make the decision for you, but neither should you make it for every other student. The choice to belong to an association is an individual one, it shouldn’t be up to a vote, or up to you.
Trade unions used to not be compulsory per se, but followed a “qualified preference” system whereby union members voted on whether union membership should be compulsory. Almost always they did, although there was precious little transparency in those votes. Voluntary trade union membership works, but most of those opposing it for student unions have a strong vested interest in the status quo funnily enough, so clutch at straws that “oh it’s like tax”, which is nonsense.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 12:41 am
And Universities have a unique statutory right to manage and asert educational achievements in the tertiary sector (oh – that is a trusim) They are a “closed shop” – to recieve the state sanctioned “graduate” label a student must pay and obey such an institution.
Vote:The inate power of this “closed shop” demands a counter.
Best achieved by a collective of their customers – ! (small C for both – will now also use a small H where appropriate)
Students could always vote for a candidate who advocates $0 effective fees.
Have you seen one of these?
May 1st, 2009 at 12:47 am
Valeriusterminus: Universities are hardly a closed shop, they compete with each other (and with universities overseas).
Why does it demand a counter? Because you say so? I’ve been a customer of countless companies (some monopolies for what I wanted) without needing someone to be a “counter”.
Why is is best achieved by a collective of their customers? Some would rather argue individually, some don’t want collective representation. Why should you force it upon them?
Why don’t you believe in freedom of association? How hard is it to grasp this concept. If someone doesn’t want to belong why the hell should you or anyone else make them do so? The argument that they should because it is “good for them” is patronising and insulting – leave students alone individually to make their own choices. You don’t know what’s best for someone else.
I don’t give a damn what candidates stand, I don’t give a damn if the students’ associations were run by libertarians, it is still wrong to force anyone to belong to an association.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 7:59 am
In my experience as an academic at 3 NZ universities, universities are solicitous of student welfare and have many procedures in place to deal with greivances and hardships. We’re not the enemy of the students.
More to the point, a university cannot get a student to give up their individual human rights. It cannot ban students from joining a sports team outside campus. It cannot control their vote. It cannot get them to give up freedom of speech. Individual rights are in this sense, universal (check out the UN Declaration on Human Rights signed after WW2). All a university can do is hold students to a certain standard of behaviour.
Freedom of association is a universal, individual human right. Nobody when they drafted the UN declaration said- of, except for student associations because they are a sovereign power (like a government), or because of the collective good student associations provide, or because for students, it’s a matter of majority voting.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Chthoniid,
How dare you disagree with Valerie, how fucking dare you.
Student unions, especially those that feed Labour are exempt, how fucking dare you.
kind regards
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 8:37 am
Sonic – how reassuring that you condone the borderline legal tactics used by our student associations. I feel so much better knowing we have stuck to the law. What is laughable is that you think that you’re in the majority when no more than 10% of students actually vote in SA elections. What do the other 90% do Sonic? What about the majority of students who didn’t vote for the left parties? Why did NZUSA tell all students to vote Alliance the same year they got booted out of Parliament and got less votes than the Outdoor Recreation Party?
If that is what you call relevance then you should consider doing stand up.
Anybody comparing an association being voluntary with opting out of taxation, Governments etc are reading from a very old songsheet. You cannot compare an incorporated society with Government. In that case should we make membership to the AA compulsory?
What is it with left wingers wanting to exert power over others? Since when did the left in NZ want to be all authoritarian?
Vote:Bullied at school perhaps?
May 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Stupid or unco-ordinated (or both) and bullied at school I think you’ll find Clint.
Think blackboard monitors.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 8:51 am
Chthoniid:
“In my experience as an academic at 3 NZ universities, universities are solicitous of student welfare and have many procedures in place to deal with greivances and hardships. We’re not the enemy of the students.”
Quite right. So in order to expedite this relationship, Universities bring in “student representatives” to engage in consultation/participation in University planning and processes. As well as fund student activities (such as clubs/sports teams). As well as provide services such as gymnasiums/music rooms/sports equipment to hire. All of which looks a lot like the job done by student associations. Which is to say, if students’ associations do not exist, it is necessary to invent them (or something that looks a lot like them, even if it is sans the elected leadership). This was the point made earlier in this thread … VSM won’t make any real difference in a financial sense to individual students – all it will do is end the fun and games of 20-somethings fighting over trivia as if it was the most important matter in the Universe.
“More to the point, a university cannot get a student to give up their individual human rights. It cannot ban students from joining a sports team outside campus. It cannot control their vote. It cannot get them to give up freedom of speech. Individual rights are in this sense, universal (check out the UN Declaration on Human Rights signed after WW2).”
This actually is highly debatable (at least in a legal sense). For instance, the Canadian Supreme Court has held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to Universities’ internal processes (on the ground that they are self-regulating institutions that are run according to different processes/standards than the rest of society). The situation in NZ is less clear … it may well be that the NZBORA applies to Universities, but that they still have a wide latitude to limit individual rights in the name of their educational mission. So, for example, a University may have a code of conduct that punishes students for “bringing the institution into disrepute”, even for actions that are carried out off campus and that have been dealt with before the courts. Furthermore, in order to be a lawyer, you must belong to the NZ Law Society. To be a Doctor, you must belong to the NZ Medical Association. So “freedom of association” isn’t absolute, even within a country that has signed up to the UN Declaration.
The more general point is, are Universities different to other institutions in society, by virtue of their role? Certainly they are in terms of concepts like “academic freedom” (what other job exists where a boss can’t fire you if you publicly state opinions that are contrary to the boss’ interests?), self-governance (there’s no equivalent of the University Senate in the Warehouse or New World!) and collegiality (expected norms of behaviour towards one’s colleagues). My own view is that this difference extends to students attending the University … by studying there, you become a part of an academic community, not just an individual consumer of education. This is a clear normative preference on my part.
Finally, why can’t the market resolve this dispute? We now have two clear options, differentiated by their approach to student association membership. Auckland is voluntary. Otago is compulsory. Both institutions have virtually identical market reputations (i.e. their degrees are equally well regarded), both offer much the same range of subjects to study, both are roughly the same price. If a prospective student really cared one way or the other, let the market rule!
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 10:57 am
Recently the MUSA had their agm. They had people out telling students to come and vote and they’d get free subways.
They needed the numbers to pass their budget so they could pay themselves. They used the students fees to pay for the subways (one of the most expensive fast food options).
These people will grow up to be good little labout party knuckledraggers. Using peoples own money to bribe them so they can collect more money to give themselves.
The reality MOST students are blissfully unaware of student politics because they are either serious about studying and don’t give a crap beyond being pissed off about having money taken away from them that they could be using for books or they are the high turnover stoner party types who don’t give a crap beyond beyond being pissed off about having money taken away from them that they could have used for more weed/beer. The first never vote because they are either in class or in the library and the second never vote because they can’t even find the library on a map and the voting takes place during daylight hours dude and thats like so harsh.
Its a bullshit useless system that does nothing to actually represent the students. Witness that the Victory harpie is in fact a lecturer and gave consideration to burning a New Zealand ensign as being a wizard weeze for ANZAC Day. More the few Victoria alums are burined in foriegn fields and at present Victoria provides Bravo Coy 7WnHB with alomost an entire infantry platoon and always has done.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Would it be a step towards voluntary state membership?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am
Are you claiming that student unions are on a par with states now Ryan?
If you want to go down that trail then the Insitutions themselves are the states and the unions occupy the same status as unions within a state.
Or does the concept of individual freedom cause you to sweat and fret that much?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
I am noting that they share the characteristic of compelling people to join them.
Eh? I’m the one in favour of voluntary membership of unions AND states. I take it you agree with me, in favour of individual freedom as you are?
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Being born somewhere isn’t being “compelled”.
Your analogy is spurious.
Cows have characteristics similar to people in that they stad up, that doesn’t mean they should have drivers licenses.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Murray
You are right, cows should not have a drivers licence. What is more is that cows will not notice what speed they are travelling at so they are not safe to drive.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 11:57 am
Being born somewhere isn’t being compelled. Having an institution consider your birth criteria enough to be able to tell you what to do, demand your taxes, and threaten you with violence if you don’t comply is being compelled.
Did you voluntarily become a member of this organisation called the state?
The situations are analogous in the relevant sense. You are forced to become a member of a student union by virtue of having signed up to learn from the university. You are forced to become a member of the state by virtue of having been born. Neither signing up to learn from the university nor being born are moral criteria for membership in an organisation, because the only moral criteria for membership in an organisation is voluntary association.
Vote:May 1st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
The day VUWSA starts to print money, provide state housing and pays students to sit at home instead of going to exams is the day a student union can justify the “state/student union opt out” argument.
However as much as the Workers Party/VUWSA tries, they will never be accepted by the 90% of students who don’t participate in their world. Perhaps that is why the left like compulsory membership? In the real world they know they will never get that many people in any club they are a part of – so why not force them to join? It looks better on their CV for when they run for Labour.
Vote: