No competition in Ryerson Students' Union election
It looks as though the controversial appointment of Eric Newstadt as Chief Returning Officer of the Ryerson Students' Union will be largely irrelevent. Only one slate of executive candidates is running in this year's general election, consisting of two incumbent executives (Nora Loreto and Chris Drew) and two board members (Heather Kere and Ibrahim Snobar), running under the banner "Ryerson Students United." Although The Eyeopener has encouraged students to vote "No" in the ensuing Yes/No vote, it seems likely that all four candidates will win.
38 Comments:
Christ, that's pathetic. Is interest in student democracy so pitiful people can run unopposed and be acclaimed because people won't dare vote "no" because we're instinctively programmed to regard "no" as having worse consequences than "yes"?
The University of Manitoba also has an unopposed slate running for office. Ugh...
The SCSU has competition this year (unlike last year, where two positions went unchallenged), but that still doesn't mean the options are very good...
One of the people that tried to run had 50 signatures, one was disallowed, and hence they were one short of registering. (I think that was what I read)
I do not have the time to dig that up, but it was something to that effect.
Most student unions do encourage you to get more than the required number of signatures - they say to usually get 10% more.
This is slate politics, and back room politics at its worst - from the very people who claim to be above it all. What happens, is all the little lefties get together to figure out who will run this year. They can't run more than one candidate at each position or they risk splitting the vote, so they decide ahead of time who will run. What it means without an opposing slate in this case is that essentially the decision on next year's executives has been made for the students by a small group.
There had to be more than one person interested in these positions, but they were likely told it wasn't their turn yet. In an optimal world Ryerson students would have had a chance to hear all the arguments, and decide for themselves which little lefty they wanted. It's the lack of debate, and lack of discussion of new ideas that is particularly troubling.
It is a bit unfair to accuse the people who ran of ensuring no one ran against them, just because they are a slate so amongst themselves they didn't run against eachother. Would the student population have been better served if these candidates all ran for one position leaving three with no candidates?
The big question is why don't students run? Are they disenchanted with the student union? Is it too much work & responsibility for too little compensation?
Is it because they can't afford to run against the candidates backed by the CFS big money machine?
I certainly didn't "accuse the people who ran of ensuring no one ran against them" as you so sloppily put it.
What I was trying to say was that, understandably in a slate situation, it makes sense for people of like-minded politics to strategize to best ensure someone of like-minded politics gets elected. This usually means picking only one candidate to run in wach position, to reduce the possibility that two similar candidates will split the vote.
I was pointing this out as a failure of slate systems, not necessarily as a shot at those who candidates who were acclaimed.
Don't quite know how 'all the lefties' getting together means there's an acclamation - what about 'all the right wingers' or 'all the non-partisan centre types'....seems to me that they wouldn't be involved with the 'lefties'. Bit simplistic if you ask me
"CFS big money machine?"
Hahahaha. That's starting to sound like a "vast right wing conspiracy".
Even if it were so how much money are we talking about here? Granted, it's not expensive to make thousands of photocopies on the cheap and some minimal photoshop action, but how much of an advantage could that confer, against a genuinely capable and determined candidate?
The problem, it seems, is that those capable and determined candidates are looking elsewhere for their high-profile resume stuffings -- the student press, perhaps?
NOOOT!!!
(Pardon my cynicism, here).
For too many, high-profile resume stuffing equates to staying on the student union/federation/politburo/trotskyist star chamber payroll until forced retirement.
Oh please - big money machine! The Eyeopener was already forced to retract their assertion the CFS bankrolls these slates - they don't. Besides, Ryerson student union refunds the expenses of candidates, so I highly doubt money is standing in the way. I don't know why you think there is some conspiracy stopping candidates from running.
Running in an election is hard. You get criticized on anonymous mediums like this website, or on facebook, or in the student media by people who have never met you. You could make a lot more money getting another job, especially considering the hours put in, and the fact that many execs have just graduated and are sticking around for another year to do this. People attack and criticize student union leaders far more than the members of their university's Board of Governors or Senate, who do way more important things like agree to new buildings, set curriculum, set tuition.
If you wonder why there is a dearth of candidates, consider the treatment that student union leaders often get on this forum and others.
In response to previous post:
First, the Eyeopener story did NOT say that "the CFS bankrolls these slates", as you assert. The Eyeopener story referred to a "a CFS-backed slate" without specifying what sort of backing was involved - I think it's more likely that they meant logistical support(e.g., similar to that received by Derrick Harder at SFSS and the 2002 Access All-Stars slate at SFSS by the BC component of the CFS. If the eyeopener specifically mean financial backing, they presumably would have said "CFS-financed slate", which they certianly did not!
Second, you say that "the Eyeopener was already forced to retract statements that the CFS bank-rolls these slates." It's true the Eyeopener story was removed, but Erin, the president of Canadian University Press (CUP) has commented on this site that the article "was removed, but not because of libel despite the letter [from CFS lawyers to Titus Gregory] posted on this site". As CUP president, she would have first-hand knowledge of why the article was retracted. Do you have any first-hand knowledge about this issue, or are you just speculating?
Robyn Doolittle, editor of the Eyeopener, sent the following response to Titus after the letter was posted. (It was never posted for some reason. Titus...?)
"I'd like to thank you for posting the legal letter the CFS sent you on your site -- if you hadn't, we never would have found out that our own law firm was advising the CFS on this issue AFTER they had advised us. Just to clarify, we did not take down our story because we believe it to be defamatory. The debate as to whether the CFS-backs slates at universities isn't a question for me. I was surprised when Ian called denying it. However, as he pointed out, I was unable to point to a document which proved it at that time and, as they say, you have to pick your battles. I happily reached a clarification agreement with Ian. That said, The Eyeopener -- editor@theeyeopener and my cell is 647-404-4740 -- is now accepting documents.
Lastly, I am happy to report I have been assured by our law firm that, in the future, they will NEVER again deal with the CFS if it relates to a CUP member in any way.
Sincerely
Robyn Doolittle"
To be clear, the article was not retracted; rather, there was a clarification published. (These are very different things.) The clarification made clear that the Eye was not suggesting that the CFS financially backs slates but that there are groups of people that run on CFS issues.
Secondly, I am not convinced that saying that the CFS backs slates could be proven libelous even if it was found to be untrue in court. But that's a discussion to have over beers at a CUP conference.
-Erin, CUP Pres
Whatever. Clarification / retraction - either way it is shoddy reporting to print something you have no evidence for. Printing your suspicions is what tabloids do. Not real newspapers.
Someone here claimed that no other slate ran because they couldn't afford to. That is bogus. Most student associations provide funding, and poster printing costs especially, for any candidate.
Are all CUP elections contested? Is there really never an acclamation? There hasn't been an acclamation at Ryerson or Manitoba in years so maybe it happens once every 10-15 years. Does CUP have a better track record?
actually, there's a huge difference between a retraction and clarifiction. the sentence was never meant to say "financial" - if i had proof they were pumping money into the election, that would have been the lede. it was always meant to be ideologically - and if you compare the goals of the cfs, with the goals of our RSU exec, it seems clear that the cfs does ideologically support the aims of our exec. the mutally agreed upon clarification explains this.
Robyn, was your election to the masthead of the Eyeopener contested? What abour Erin's election to the presidency of CUP? How many of CUP's executive and bureau chiefs were acclaimed? When the Eyeopener and CUP have acclamations, are there yes/no votes?
I think, more importantly, the point about CUP is that editorial staff - as at campus papers - are not directly elected.
Think about it: at a student newspaper, you get on the editorial board or similar body by submitting content - although anyone involved with the students' union is usually not allowed on the editorial board. This board of newspaper insiders and CUP-loyalists then elects the next editor.
Am I the only person who finds it odd that students papers - funded by student levy, but in no way transparent in how they spend their money, not accountable to students, and with their leaders certainly not elected by students - are criticising students' unions - where principles of democracy and transparency are in-fact followed?
You people are crazy.
Student papers are as accountable to students as are student unions. We have AGMs and public budgets, expenditures, and board minutes. We may not be as visible, but that probably because we don't have as much money.
I was contested when I won editorship of the Capilano Courier, and when I won the presidency of Canadian University Press.
Most editorial staff at papers are elected.
CUP has not, to my knowledge, ever been involved in any editorial election. You imply that "CUP loyalists" elect the next editors. This is untrue. CUP has a long history of the underdogs winning elections. I was not the favourite when I won leadership of CUP.
You know nothing about student papers. If you did, you wouldn't make such ignorant comments.
shh, stop asking questions or else the feds will start asking you bigger ones.
I would love to see the public's reaction if CBC were to face questions of that sort from the government of the day...
Yeah... I got unreasonably annoyed last night in my post. It happens.
It sure was nice to see the shrieking when the very idea of CUP accountability was posed. CUP does share something with their professional colleagues and that is a zeal for accoutability and moral probity that diminishes only when the light is shone on them. Go forward child soldiers of truth and attack all that is wicked in the campus world!!!!
They who walk in shadows curse the spots on the sun.
Student newspapers are more clique-y than any student unions. Why? No student union can reasonably and regularly prevent people they don't like from being elected to their board or council (indeed, most student unions have a sort of 'unofficial opposition' within their councils) but student newspapers have a totally easy avenue - to not publish the person in question's work. Then they never get the chance to vote for or run for the masthead.
Indeed, it was funny to watch Erin's little shriekfest. Imagine have people question and criticize not just your actions but your *motives* every day. Why doesn't student journalism actually focus more on the big fish - the universities and colleges, and their governing bodies instead of just the student associations who for some reason couldn't get more than one team to run in elections this year with the oh-so-intelligent analysis of "ugh."
Many, many student papers have acclaimed editorial boards. And so maybe the presidency was not acclaimed Erin, but what about all the other exec positions?
All right. This is really starting to get tiresome.
A bunch of you have cleverly shifted the focus of the comments box onto the student journalists in order to shift attention away from the whole question of student politics. I find this to be very disingenuous, not to mention very cheap.
There is no direct correlation between student newspapers and student unions (unless the student newspaper is also directly dependent on the union). Sure, maybe there are "cliches" and close-knit groups involved here, but how does this affect the effectiveness of their reporting? What does it matter whether or not they were acclaimed or competed for their position? Shouldn't the content of the stories matter more than who was involved in creating them?
And what's this about over-focusing on student union affairs? As far as I know, the problem is precisely the opposite in some cases.
I've kept out of this discussion until now, but I find it very irritating how certain people see fit to attack Erin and her colleagues for their own twisted amusement rather than for any constructive purpose. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about the issues with student press, then I'm all for that, but if you just enjoy eliciting "shriekfests", as you yourself admit, then I must say that I'm not impressed.
Oh, and about that whole "accountability" thing...I'm not afraid to attach my name to these comments, and neither is Erin. How about you?
What a spectacular case of missing the point there Juan.
First, given that the point was that holier than thou CUP types inventing a non story tied to their CFS conspiracy theory obsession about uncontested elections, it seems entirely relevant to point out that the window is broken in their glass house.
You outdo yourself though when you say there is no connection between SU’s and student papers. Who do you think funds the student press the tooth fairy? No, in fact they are funded the same way student unions and the CFS is funded – through student approved levies. Therefore, they should be held to same level of scrutiny. At the very least one should be able to mock them when they lose their temper at the least thought they should be a bit less smug. Let’s have a bit of investigative journalism into the chummy world of CUP and student union papers run by small cabals that recycle the same people and their allies (surely not The Peak!). How about it Erin how about a full page spread on the number of contested elections for boards at CUP papers as well as the political and working relationship between those appointed to various positions – replete with quotes and unsubstantiated accusations from those not hired. A great story CUP will never write.
I do, shockingly, agree however that this is a bit of a digression from the original non story of uncontested elections. You and the rest of the anti CFS liberation front only care about this as a story when a CFS school is involved. That much is laughably clear. I suspect if Titus posted a blog entry identifying Ian Boyko as the shooter on the grassy knoll you and CUP would run with it as yet more evidence of the vast and diabolical machine.
Uncritical, blind adherence to the CFS line is silly but no less silly than the venom of the morally righteous fools of the CFS liberation front.
You are right about at least one thing, Juan: this is starting to get tiresome. (But then again, I keep coming here to read this stuff...)
Anyways, I, and CUP by extension, is getting crticized on this forum because we are not open to questions about accountability. I have absolutely no problem with being questioned about these things; in fact, we should be.
The reason that I was so annoyed was because there is a lot of random anti-CUP discussion here that isn't concrete or focused. The comment I responded to did not include one valid and true criticism of CUP. It's hard to respond to things when they have no facts behind them.
To be fair, CUP and student papers do have their actions and motives questioned all of the time. I am constantly defending my actions to other student papers (including CUP papers) and in spaces like this one. Student politicians are not the only ones that put up with this.
For example, one anonymous (ugh) comment complained about us over covering student politics and not covering "the big fish" (universities and colleges) while others complain about us not covering student politics enough. One person complained on this forum about one non-student issue story on the wire two weeks ago, when there was an entire supplement dedicated to tuition issues.
My point is that we can't win. We can't keep everyone happy. It's not possible. So we try our best.
You are right, at some papers executive positions are not very competitive. That's a great story. Papers' money is student money as well, and it is a shame that more students aren't involved in their boards. I will suggest to the national bureau chief that we cover this story. Look out for it.
Also... just to be fair, there have been many more stories recently on the wire that have focussed on the day of action, tuition, and other CFS-issues, than so-called "anti-CFS" articles. Those are there too, of course, but they should be.
i don’t know how you can begin to compare newspaper elections to student politics.
at ryerson – for example – there are several campus papers, unlike the one student union. if you’re a steady eyeopener volunteer (and therefore eligible to vote,) you most likely hold similar views as the paper or you’d go elsewhere. and because everyone is on the same page, there aren’t intimidating slates to scare off competition from numerous positions. we’ve certainly had positions unopposed (never eic to my knowledge), but if you consider only about 40 people are eligible to vote by the end of the year, that’s not bad.
and we’re always held accountable – it’s called letters to the editor. feel free to write one. editor@theeyeopener.com
- robyn, eyeopener eic
Anyone else bothered by the fact that
#1 CUP editors and student newspapers use a blog (that's right a fucking blog) as a source for articles, and that blog writer also uses the same student newspapers as sources for his blog. Isn't that kind of circular and questionable?
#2 That CUP senior editorial staff are actually making these sorts of unprofessional comments on the comments page of a blog and arguing with anonymous posters.
The only thing worse than students unions are the idiots who try to write about students unions.
Just for fun:
"Is anyone else bothered at the anonymous people attacking people who reveal themselves and that the anonymous people keep taking us off-topic"
Anyway,
Naturally, I have a bias. I blog and I write for a student newspaper. So, I guess that I see student newspapers as legimate sources for sure and blogs at times. I tend to use blogs for direct quotes or to get the pulse of students at another campus.
Titus runs a good blog here. A lot of his posts result from research or tips he gets from good sources. Naturally, I read that both as a fellow blogger and as a journalist. My blog is my thoughts, usually unfiltered. My journalist still has my bias but I work very hard to get both sides of a story. I am working on cutting down my bias in my writing for The Silhouette when it comes to news pieces.
In terms of using studentunion.ca as a source, most of the time it is a quote or two from Titus or a mention of his site as a place to go for more information. I have yet to see a story that consists entirely of Titus' blog. A lot of what is said in student newspapers is commonly known to student journalists. Blogs make it known to everyone.
of course you look for story ideas on blogs.
that's why every major media outlet has reporters who specialize in trolling online sites.
the best stories don't come from board meetings.
- robyn
Does anyone else find this quote weird: "you most likely hold similar views as the paper or you’d go elsewhere. and because everyone is on the same page, there aren’t intimidating slates to scare off competition from numerous positions."
So are you really saying that student newspapers don't need to have elections since you wouldn't get involved in a paper whose opinions you didn't support already? Seems awfully hypocritical and cliquey. Besides, aren't there only 2 major papers at Ryerson anyways? Why should the paper have an ideological slant that would make some people uncomfortable? All these papers are funded by students who have no vote about who becomes an editor!
What a disturbing quote.
nooo-
as i said in the post, many newspapers hold elections, including mine, but you can't compare them to political elections for the reason i also stated.
robyn
There is an important clarification I ought to make.
While I am critical of the CFS, I am /not/ a part of the "CFS liberation" crowd. I've chosen to maintain at least a veneer of neutrality (in so far as such can be maintained) because this allows me to interact cordially with people on both sides of the pro/anti-CFS divide. I have not actively supported de-federation, and conversely I have not actively worked against it, either, at least, until the referendum is over. Just because I say some things that criticize the CFS doesn't mean that I support pulling out altogether.
I'm well aware of the levy imposed upon students to pay for the student press. The reason I still maintained that they were "independent" is the distinct fact that, other than collecting the fees on behalf of the student press (if they do this at all) a student union has no direct control over the affairs of the student newspaper. For SFU, at least, the Peak is its own separate society, and its levy can only be altered by referendum (to my knowledge).
As for the fears about to insular culture of student newspapers...I really don't see how frightening that is supposed to be. This isn't the "adult" press. A student newspaper usually consists of people who are both nerdy and energetic enough to actually spend time writing stories and features and stuff like that. Anyone is welcome to contribute, it's just that the people who actually do contribute tend to be of a certain mindset and attitude. I don't believe it's so much ideology as personality, really. The same goes for every other place on campus. Do you really expect to see a precise representation of the student demographic in every group out there? Not every club or society looks like the "global village", or heck, even the "campus village".
Granted, the questions and concerns raised about the transparency of the student press are quite valid, but you're not going to get anywhere if you immediately assume that an air of conspiracy and patronage permeates the culture of the student press.
Anonymous comments should be banninated. Can't help but notice all the pro-CFS/student politics comments are anonymous.
Anyway, as a past eyeopener eic, I want to clarify something else about student-paper cliques (speaking from my own experience, of course).
The cliques do exist in that the papers attract sadomasochistic workhorses who irrationally can't help but spend inordinate amounts of time in dingy offices for days at a time sustained by nothing but stale air, coffee and intellectual superiority. Seriously, I can't pretend that student papers aren't full of pompous asses, I was #1 ass. BUT. And this is a big but. We don't all have the same ideological stance.
If we did, I'm sure there would have been a lot less arguing, bitching, anxiety and snapping in the newsroom last year. And not just because certain editors had an affinity for Britney Spears.
When it comes to the Eyeopener, we have always actively encouraged people to run because a different perspective makes for a successful paper.
The same *cannot* be said of the attitudes of some student unions. I spent last year screening people who cried to me that they were afraid of talking to their students unions (both at ryerson), and could definitely not be quoted because they feared repercussions. No doubt, I had to consider that they might be slightly paranoid or off their rocker -- and definitely with an agenda. But just too many came in independently of one another for me to not consider what this all means.
I still don't really know what it means. But evidently some anonymous posters don't want to allow us to straight up discuss it in public with honestly and accountability.
dominique blain, ex eye eic
/super-long posty! woo!
Its really sad, but when you have the "Ryerson United" * cough* CFS slate * cough* towering over the student union there really isn't much incentive to put your blood ,sweat and tears into a campaign. In my own personal response to this ( beyond obviously voting NO) I ran for board of directors... but after the way even that was run I don't know if making a run for Student union is worth my time.
What really pissed me off though was how arrogant the Ryerson United members were, I had Chris Drew come to one of my classes ( the only member I saw campaigning at all in the business building) and said point blank what was his slate going to do to bring a sense of community back to ryerson, and he just blew it off basically stating well we're unopposed so obviously no body everybody likes what we're doing , thats not a concern for us. And when they recieved close to a quarter ( or even 1/3, its been so long) No vote, again they blew that off as just "protest vote" .... when only 1400 students vote those kind of numbers are HUGE.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home