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.

Being born somewhere isn’t being “compelled”.

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?

Your analogy is spurious.

Cows have characteristics similar to people in that they stad up, that doesn’t mean they should have drivers licenses.

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.

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.

Your analogy is spurious.

Cows have characteristics similar to people in that they stad up, that doesn’t mean they should have drivers licenses.

Are you claim that student unions are on a par with states now Ryan?

I am noting that they share the characteristic of compelling people to join them.

Or does the concept of individual freedom cause you to sweat and fret that much?

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?

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?

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.

“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!

Think blackboard monitors.

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?
Bullied at school perhaps?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?