Commentary On Campus 'Social Justice'

Some of this commentary may be a little out of context, my apologies. It was written in response to a fellow student's defence of a UofA SU Presidential candidate's proposal for increased activism on campus. 

First, with respect to the "white,male student" comment, I have to disagree with you. While it was quite the statement, I don't think there is folly is trying to make the population of a University representative of the greater population. And that goes both ways, there needs to be a greater focus on getting females into engineering, for example.

As far as curtailing free speech, I would concede that the Admin's response to Derek Warwick was overly aggressive.

With respect to APIRG, I feel that herein lays the problem and solution to social justice/activism on campus. To consider them anything but partisan is to ignore the reality of the campaigns they sponsor. It has gotten to the point where applying for funding for anything not aligned with their obvious view is a waste of time. Their actions have done much to sour the population's view of institutionalized activism on campus. Mine included. Overhauling their mandate and ensuring some sort of non-partisan participation would be far better than creating another institution capable of reaching the same, sad state of affairs.

Whenever you create something that is, de facto, representative of the population of a school, you run the risk of entirely disenfranchising anyone remotely interested in contributing. I agree, social justice is an essential and admirable goal of any institution of higher learning. However, why vest the power within one position?  Save referendums on every initiative, I feel that the risk of having a body representative of the students pursue a goal many students are opposed to.

And I totally agree, apathy is a huge problem on campus. It is pathetic. Perhaps, a better goal for Adi, and others, to pursue is some meaningful way of increasing student participation in special interest groups. As far as I know, some other Canadian universities ( UWO, as far as I know) mandate students be involved in clubs. Is that not a better route to pursue? You will have students being involved in initiatives they, ideally, care about.

I did not imply that he is using it to pursue selfish/less goals, Adi is a great guy. However, this possible position creates the potential to be abused. I don't disagree that there exists a 'good' in pursuing social justice. I commend the end achieved by activism, in this case, however, I oppose the means. If we want the University to represent us, why put in place a position that allows someone, potentially, to imply "We, the Students of the U of A, support goal X". I am uncomfortable with having my values told to me,albeit implicitly. I concede that if this office is focussed on things generally considered 'good', such as ending the crisis is Darfur or reducing corruption in developing countries, I have no problems. That said, if this position is used to advance contentious issues, such as the opposition to a honorary degree for an individual who may be "considered to be a criminal against humanity", I can't help but oppose that.

I have my values and beliefs. I do things that deem to be in the interest of advancing what I consider to be 'good'. Encourage others to do the same through some sort of policy pursuing student involvement, not through creating a potential pedestal for a vocal majority/minority. 

Another Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor:

Despite what can be described as a general lack of interest, the Occupy movement appears to have made it through the winter and will be here for a while. Given this, I think it is time for a frank discussion on the resonance and validity of the movement.

The rhetoric that emerged from the Occupy debate on campus was interesting, there seemed to be an assumption that if one opposed the movement, one did so out of ignorance, not differing opinion. This is something that has been perpetuated in almost the all ‘official’ Facebook and Twitter commentary of the movement. I argue that herein lays the essential problem with the movement, a desire to pontificate, not engage in dialogue; this is the movement’s existential issue. If any lasting change is to be made, this ideological arrogance needs to be abandoned. Running through the gilded halls of Engineering chanting, much to the dismay of students writing exams inside, is not a way to make supporters, it is a way to disenfranchise anyone remotely interested in your movement.

Further, and much to my personal amusement, was Ms. Taylor’s repeated complaints about the “mainstream media’s” misrepresentation of the movement. Ironically enough, it was @occupyyeg’s official twitter feed that was misrepresenting the truth, claiming that hundreds of supporters were marching on campus, when the real figure settled somewhere between 50 and 80. To make matters worse, no one would actually acknowledge that their figures were completely wrong. This ought to be a concern for a movement calling for greater accountability and transparency in government, or the complete dismantling of government, but that is another story. This deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is, unfortunately, not unique to Edmonton’s movement. The Occupy UC Davis incident is perhaps the best example of this; everyone has seen the 15 second clip of pepper spray being used on students. How many have seen the video of the preceding 15 minutes, which shows the protestors surround the police and refuse to let them leave. Even further devaluing the protest at the University was the Palestinian Solidarity Movement’s official endorsement of Occupy Edmonton. This is a group that supports virulent racism operating under the banner of Israeli Apartheid Week. How can an organization that claims to speak for all students allow the endorsement of such an organization?

Sure, the movement maybe has some valid points; increased accountability is a noble goal, more needs to be done for developing countries. However, it is inundated with self-aggrandizing malcontents that demand things like a 9/11 Truth Commission, Bush being charged with war crimes, and free tuition for everyone who wants it. Something needs to be done before it becomes even more irrelevant and marginalized.

Dave Jones

Copy of a Letter I wrote in The Gateway

Dear APIRG

I was recently walking by your office in HUB and noticed, to my dismay, but not surprise, that you had posters advertising the events surrounding Israeli Apartheid week. I find this to be symptomatic of the bias present within your organization, an organization may I add that is funded by students of the University of Alberta, and claims to be “non-partisan”.

I think that, at least in concept, APIRG is a good idea. Our society needs to graduate students who have an informed understanding of society. However, in practice, APRIG has become a partisan organization, only supporting projects that propagate the ideology of the board. Groups and events supported by APIRG include: the Palestinian Solidarity Network, Greenpeace, Deep Green Resistance and frequent events that are, I surmise, highly critical of the Oilsands. This is, I gather, not a new issue either. Reading excerpts of a newsletter published in 2005, one read about the “Western chauvinists” and how in the capitalist system, which is motivated by “greed”, there is little concern for “labour rights and the environment”. Now, I have no qualms with any of these groups existing, or for that matter, being funded; I take issue with the obvious political motivation behind the funding. If there was some sort of balance practiced by the board, I would have no problem.

Further, the ideology being promoted is not representative of the student body, in its entirety, at the University of Alberta. Yet, we all fund APIRG. Now, one can argue that these fees are optional; however, being aware of the overall apathy of the student body, I feel this is a weak argument. The fees are small enough that most will not notice or care, yet large enough to allow APIRG to continue to function.

So, in closing, I would like to reiterate that I have no problem with the views being promoted by APRIG, lest I be labeled a bigot, just merely the lack of ideological balance demonstrated by an organization that relies on a diverse student population for funding.

Western Separatism: Ignorant or Well-founded?

In the last few days of the relatively unsuccessful Copenhagen Summit the mayor of Toronto and the Premiers of both Ontario and Quebec had some less than complementary thing to say about Alberta. Despite varying degrees of negativity they all agreed upon that fact that they would not financially shoulder the burden if a Cap and Trade system was established in our country. The basis for this was a lack of "fairness". Claiming they don't directly profit from the oil is, for them, justification enough not to pay for it. Yet, as of recent, they have been more than pleased to directly benefit from our transfer payments, which are an extension of our oil wealth. As recently as 1976 the average wage differed between the two provinces by thousands of dollars, in favor of Ontario and Quebec. It is just just with the recent explosion of the Oilsands extraction that Alberta has fallen upon good times. And we certainly pay the dues that come with economic growth over $5000 is sent to Ottawa in the form of transfer payments for every person in Alberta. Ontario and Quebec combined receive just over $9 Billion a year in equalization payments. And yet, still they stand on their soapboxes and decry Alberta, Saskatchewan and the rest of the Western provinces, making us look like environmental cavemen, albeit rich ones. Ones they willingly take advantage of. This is just a current manifestation of a long simmering problem. From its inception Canada's confederacy has been a tumultuous endeavor; Newfoundland, Quebec, and now perhaps Western Canada as a whole. This is no ones fault but our leaders. The vast majority of them are simply not strong enough to bind the country together and work for a common goal, they mostly just push their own personal interests while in power. In Harper I see hope. Or at least fleeting glimpses of it. I love this country as much as the next but I fear if this political squandering continues the national unity the majority strives for will erode. And radicals in Quebec and reactionaries in the West will be the downfall of Confederation. And then God save us all.