The SRC has limited resources. Members of the council are expected to show some degree of restraint, and to be able to justify their actions when using said resources. I would like to go through a few things that seem to me to be an abuse of said resources, as well as an abuse of trust of other members of the Council.
1. To use the SRC printer requires a login and password. This is to prevent people abusing it and printing off reams of paper for assignments and other personal use. Each member of the council has a quota of sheets (both colour and black&white) for every month. While asking for the quota to be raised for a particular month isn't difficult, you're expected to be able to justify said raise - for example, you need to print off flyers for O-Week, or your equity room, or something similar.
If you don't want to send an email up to IT to get your quota extended, you'll need to borrow someone else's login and password.
Do not do this without permission, since they may well have an event coming up for which they need to print material. Also, use common sense. If you're printing mass quantities, then email IT. Don't steal someone else's quota.
2. The SRC is not a Clubs Resource Room. If you want to get resources for your Club or Society, then head on over to the Roundhouse, where there is a Clubs Resource Room. Clubs material shouldn't be printed through the SRC, because of the limitations on the printer there. Clubs are meant to pay for their material themselves - its part of the point of showing they can sustain themselves.
3. During large events where the SRC has stalls (i.e. O-Week and Foundation Day), those stalls are for the SRC. They are there to promote the SRC. They are not there to sign people up to your club. There is no requirement to be part of any club to be involved with the SRC. If you want to promote your club, go over to that club's stall.
If your club missed the deadline for applying for a stall, then tough. That's the club's fault. You can't just use the SRC's space for that. At the very least, to put a club's material within SRC space leaves you open to a massive conflict of interest. It also creates the impression that to be involved, you need to be part of that club.
If you've managed to get your club's stall nearby the SRC, then good for you. But there's a difference between having a club nearby the SRC, and having it within the SRC.
This goes double, or even triple, for political clubs.
I always thought all the above were fairly obvious, commonsense guidelines. I'm worried that I need to be stating this.
So I'm sure you can understand how perplexed and irate I am to discover that Thimmaiah Kaliyanda, an SRC Councillor (Undergrad A), used another SRC member's quota to print off material for the Whitlam Club (NLS, LAbor Left) from the SRC Printer (Tim has recently been elected Whitlam Club President as well).
And furthermore, that the Education and Welfare stall was apparently being used yesterday to recruit for Whitlam Club members instead of promoting Education and/or Welfare campaigns (or at least to get a collective going).
[edit]
It seems I was somewhat misled (quite possibly me misinterpreting what someone else said) on the last point. At least today, there was no evidence of Whitlam Club material in the Education stall. There wasn't much evidence of anything in that stall, in fact. But more on that later.
23 February, 2010
18 February, 2010
UWS Hive collapse?
Hot off the presses: Apparently the Hive (the student organisation at UWS) has just/is about to/is in the process of collapsing.
The Hive was a new student body at UWS, set up about 6 months ago. The previous student body, UWS Student Association (UWSSA), disintegrated in the aftermath of VSU coming into force.
The Hive was very strongly dependent on UWS for funding (as with nearly all student unions post-VSU, Arc included to a lesser degree). And it looks like UWS has removed all funding to the Hive, just before O-Week. There's a few different reasons being floated, from it being 'too political', to neglecting some of the UWS campuses, to even rumours of corruption amongst Hive OBs.
We'll see where this goes. The Hive's board will be meeting soon to determine whether the organisation can remain solvent (which seems unlikely). If so, then UWS students will again be left without even a paltry attempt at representation.
The Hive was a new student body at UWS, set up about 6 months ago. The previous student body, UWS Student Association (UWSSA), disintegrated in the aftermath of VSU coming into force.
The Hive was very strongly dependent on UWS for funding (as with nearly all student unions post-VSU, Arc included to a lesser degree). And it looks like UWS has removed all funding to the Hive, just before O-Week. There's a few different reasons being floated, from it being 'too political', to neglecting some of the UWS campuses, to even rumours of corruption amongst Hive OBs.
We'll see where this goes. The Hive's board will be meeting soon to determine whether the organisation can remain solvent (which seems unlikely). If so, then UWS students will again be left without even a paltry attempt at representation.
17 February, 2010
SRC Structure
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of it all (ie, the 7 or so topics I put up last week), I realised it might be useful to explain a bit about the way the SRC itself is structured. Not many people are familiar with the system used, or why some people have votes and some don't, and the whole mess.
Broadly speaking, there are three groups of people who sit on the UNSW SRC. There are the 'Office Bearers' (OBs), who work in particular areas. The second group is the 'Councillors', who theoretically represent the broad student body. The third group are the 'ex officio' positions, those who sit on the SRC as a result of holding a position in another body.
OBs: There's quite a few. My earlier post went into detail about my views of the people holding those positions. Each Officer position gets one vote on the SRC. So when a position is shared (as it is this year with Enviro, Indigenous and Ethno-Cultural), only one of the co-officers gets to vote. This is usually worked out when they nominate for election, based off who is more likely to be able to get to meetings.
A (sometimes seen as loopholey) exception is Queer. Because the Queer Department is the only one to have specified as having two Officers (female-identifying and non-female identifying), the Queer Department gets 2 votes on SRC.
Including President, there are 13 votes held by OBs
Councillors: (I'll likely write further about this section later on)
On the full SRC, there are up to 14 'councillors'. These are divided between Undergrad and Postgrad, between Kensington and COFA, and (at Kenso) between the two university 'electorates'. The University electorates are Electorate A (Arts, Law and Commerce) and Electorate B (Science, Engineering, Medicine and Built Environment).
12 Councillors represent Kensington. 3 are 'Undergrad A' councillors (ie undergrads from electorate A), 3 'Undergrad B', 3 Postgrad A and 3 Postgrad B.
2 Councillors represent COFA - one undergrad, one Postgrad. I don't believe the COFA councillor positions have ever been filled, since to get that position you first need to be elected to the COFA SRC then get their endorsement to also sit on the full SRC, then get the full SRCs permission to sit there, then get Arc Board's agreement too. An incredibly overblown bureaucratic process, which the COFA SRC so far has shown little patience for (and really, can you blame them?).
Each Councillor receives one vote. For a running tally, there are 27 votes so far accounted for.
Ex-Officio: These people already sit on another committee/board/council/body, and as a result of that position get to also sit on the SRC. Not many ex-officio positions get voting rights - usually the person is there to find out what's going on in SRC world, to offer advice, and (potentially) to take SRC ideas back to their own groups.
The Chair of the Arc Board sits on SRC, with full voting rights. The Chair is elected by the Arc Board, and must be a student representative.
The Convenor of the Student Development Committee (SDC) sits on SRC with full voting rights. The SDC oversee Arc's Volunteer Programs and Club Affiliations.
(The SRC President and Arc Chair also sit on SDC as voters, and the SRC President and SDC Convenor are ex officio voting members of the Arc Board)
29 votes for full Council.
The ARC CEO also holds an ex officio position on SRC, but does not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW's University Council (one undergrad, one postgrad) sit on SRC, but do not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW Academic Board (four in total, two undergrad, two postgrad) sit in SRC, but do not vote.
The Tharunka Editors are kinda left alone. There's a bit of debate going on as to whether they hold ex officio status on SRC (non-voting) or whether they don't. Legally, they currently do not have automatic entry to SRC meetings. I strongly suspect this is just a case of no-one getting around to putting them back into the Regulations after the merger of the Guild into Arc. The Tharunka editors are invited to submit reports to COuncil, so it seems odd they may not have speaking rights. Also, SRC is the body responsible for maintaining the Tharunka Charter.
So there's (theoretically) 29 voting members of the SRC. For a meeting to take place, at least half of the voting members need to be present - that's of the current voting members, so if a position is vacant then quorum may well be lower.
It is possible to give someone a proxy vote - but that person already needs to have the automatic right to attend meetings. So proxies can only be held by non-voting co-Officers, University Councillors, Academic Board reps or (maybe) Tharunka Editors. Also, crucially, proxies do not count towards quorum.
If anyone's got any questions, feel free to ask. I may well have bungled an explanation, or need to make things more clear.
Broadly speaking, there are three groups of people who sit on the UNSW SRC. There are the 'Office Bearers' (OBs), who work in particular areas. The second group is the 'Councillors', who theoretically represent the broad student body. The third group are the 'ex officio' positions, those who sit on the SRC as a result of holding a position in another body.
OBs: There's quite a few. My earlier post went into detail about my views of the people holding those positions. Each Officer position gets one vote on the SRC. So when a position is shared (as it is this year with Enviro, Indigenous and Ethno-Cultural), only one of the co-officers gets to vote. This is usually worked out when they nominate for election, based off who is more likely to be able to get to meetings.
A (sometimes seen as loopholey) exception is Queer. Because the Queer Department is the only one to have specified as having two Officers (female-identifying and non-female identifying), the Queer Department gets 2 votes on SRC.
Including President, there are 13 votes held by OBs
Councillors: (I'll likely write further about this section later on)
On the full SRC, there are up to 14 'councillors'. These are divided between Undergrad and Postgrad, between Kensington and COFA, and (at Kenso) between the two university 'electorates'. The University electorates are Electorate A (Arts, Law and Commerce) and Electorate B (Science, Engineering, Medicine and Built Environment).
12 Councillors represent Kensington. 3 are 'Undergrad A' councillors (ie undergrads from electorate A), 3 'Undergrad B', 3 Postgrad A and 3 Postgrad B.
2 Councillors represent COFA - one undergrad, one Postgrad. I don't believe the COFA councillor positions have ever been filled, since to get that position you first need to be elected to the COFA SRC then get their endorsement to also sit on the full SRC, then get the full SRCs permission to sit there, then get Arc Board's agreement too. An incredibly overblown bureaucratic process, which the COFA SRC so far has shown little patience for (and really, can you blame them?).
Each Councillor receives one vote. For a running tally, there are 27 votes so far accounted for.
Ex-Officio: These people already sit on another committee/board/council/body, and as a result of that position get to also sit on the SRC. Not many ex-officio positions get voting rights - usually the person is there to find out what's going on in SRC world, to offer advice, and (potentially) to take SRC ideas back to their own groups.
The Chair of the Arc Board sits on SRC, with full voting rights. The Chair is elected by the Arc Board, and must be a student representative.
The Convenor of the Student Development Committee (SDC) sits on SRC with full voting rights. The SDC oversee Arc's Volunteer Programs and Club Affiliations.
(The SRC President and Arc Chair also sit on SDC as voters, and the SRC President and SDC Convenor are ex officio voting members of the Arc Board)
29 votes for full Council.
The ARC CEO also holds an ex officio position on SRC, but does not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW's University Council (one undergrad, one postgrad) sit on SRC, but do not vote.
The Student Representatives on UNSW Academic Board (four in total, two undergrad, two postgrad) sit in SRC, but do not vote.
The Tharunka Editors are kinda left alone. There's a bit of debate going on as to whether they hold ex officio status on SRC (non-voting) or whether they don't. Legally, they currently do not have automatic entry to SRC meetings. I strongly suspect this is just a case of no-one getting around to putting them back into the Regulations after the merger of the Guild into Arc. The Tharunka editors are invited to submit reports to COuncil, so it seems odd they may not have speaking rights. Also, SRC is the body responsible for maintaining the Tharunka Charter.
So there's (theoretically) 29 voting members of the SRC. For a meeting to take place, at least half of the voting members need to be present - that's of the current voting members, so if a position is vacant then quorum may well be lower.
It is possible to give someone a proxy vote - but that person already needs to have the automatic right to attend meetings. So proxies can only be held by non-voting co-Officers, University Councillors, Academic Board reps or (maybe) Tharunka Editors. Also, crucially, proxies do not count towards quorum.
If anyone's got any questions, feel free to ask. I may well have bungled an explanation, or need to make things more clear.
11 February, 2010
A brief excursion to Queer Politics
The National Union of Students has two Queer Officer positions. These are elected (usually) at the December meeting. For the past few years, the positions have been dominated by members of Socialist Alternative, who have focussed more-or-less exclusively on the issue of Marriage Rights.
I have to say, I do think marriage is something worth fighting for. But the language used in the debates often comes across as suggesting that marriage is the one-and-only issue in which queers are oppressed in modern Australian society.
As a person living as Genderqueer, I find this to be, frankly, bullshit. The following series of emails, reposted from the NUS Queer e-list, will hopefully go some way towards explaining why.
This email was sent out to the e-list from the newly elected National Queer Officer Bearers (hereafter referred to as NOBs) three days ago.
So they've put out their plans. Okay, they're focussing on marriage (and don't seem to have got the memo that people really should be talking about 'marriage equality', not 'same-sex marriage').
They've also used the word homophobia a lot. Now, this is something of a matter of debate, but generally among queer groups (as the NUS queer e-list must surely be presumed to be) it's become much more standard to use the term 'queerphobia' when referring to discrimination against all queer people, with 'homophobia' being reserved for specific discrimination against gays and lesbians (ie, the homosexuals).
So I decide to respond. Politely. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt where I can. Or maybe I just want to give people enough rope to hang themselves. One of the two.
There's a response from Kath:
There's a bit of to-and-fro, one of my colleagues down at Wollongong uni pointing out the complete lack of consultation by the Queer NOBs as to what they would be focusing on this year. Within a reply to that, from Jason Virgo (who, I gather, is involved with the marriage rallies down in Melbourne), is this paragraph.
The NUS Queer e-list can be signed-up-to here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nus_queer/
It has sometimes been a rather volatile list, since queers are hardly a single bloc. We've all got different ideas on how to achieve equality/equity/freedom/liberty/domination (delete to suit). In the past, there have been massive, sprawling debates on a few different issues. Perennial favorites include: the ethics of sex work and/or exotic dance; arguments between radical feminists (particularly lesbian separatists) and transpeople as to what gender means; and as the above shows, debates on what rights are important to fight for.
I have to say, I do think marriage is something worth fighting for. But the language used in the debates often comes across as suggesting that marriage is the one-and-only issue in which queers are oppressed in modern Australian society.
As a person living as Genderqueer, I find this to be, frankly, bullshit. The following series of emails, reposted from the NUS Queer e-list, will hopefully go some way towards explaining why.
This email was sent out to the e-list from the newly elected National Queer Officer Bearers (hereafter referred to as NOBs) three days ago.
Hi All
This is Kath Larkin and Phoebe Kelloway, your newly elected National Queer officers for the National Union of Students (NUS). We've been centrally involved in the equal love campaign to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage, particularly on the campuses, where we've been working with students. We look forward to continuing that work this year as well as making NUS more relevant to students.
Last year's Queer Officers Heidi Claus and Liam Byrne did great work in building a profile for NUS and keeping it relevant to students by immersing themselves in this campaign. The demand for same-sex marriage rights has overwhelming support from students and we hope to build on that this year; the national year of action for same-sex marriage. Equal Love has called 2010 the year of action, so as to use the election year as an opportunity to place real pressure and demands on our government to repeal the homophobic ban.
We made a great start yesterday at Pride, the annual march which concludes Melbourne's Midsumma festival - a celebration of the LGBTI community. . We marched with the equal love contingent, because while it's fantastic to be able to celebrate who we are, it also really important to continue to fight for equal rights, the reality is that homophobia continues to kill people today. Rudd's ban on same-sex marriage enshrines this homophobia in law.
The contingent drew a diverse range of people (not limited to Victorians), including many students. The contingent was lively and vibrant, getting a great response from the crowd as we chanted. As part of the contingent we handed out thousands of leaflets advertising the next rally (details bellow) and got 100's upon 100's of signatures on the equal love petitions demanding same-sex marriage rights.
It was fantastic to have an NUS presence at this important community event- to show NUS's continued support for queer students. Phoebe was even interviewed by Joy FM!
Next Rallies
Sydney
March 20: Rally, 1pm, Sydney Town Hall
Melbourne
March 13: Equal Love rally, 1.00, state Library of Victoria
Brisbane
March 20: Rally, 1pm, Queens Park
It'd be great if you could all come along to the speak-out for same-sex marriage, this Friday 12th of February on the corner of Bourke and Swanston sts at 5.30pm.
Looking forward to a year of campaigning
Kath and Phoebe
So they've put out their plans. Okay, they're focussing on marriage (and don't seem to have got the memo that people really should be talking about 'marriage equality', not 'same-sex marriage').
They've also used the word homophobia a lot. Now, this is something of a matter of debate, but generally among queer groups (as the NUS queer e-list must surely be presumed to be) it's become much more standard to use the term 'queerphobia' when referring to discrimination against all queer people, with 'homophobia' being reserved for specific discrimination against gays and lesbians (ie, the homosexuals).
So I decide to respond. Politely. I do try to give people the benefit of the doubt where I can. Or maybe I just want to give people enough rope to hang themselves. One of the two.
I was wondering, since it didn't seem to be covered at all in your email, what plans you have for campaigns for the rights of sex and gender diverse people?
There's a response from Kath:
Which, while respectful, suggests to me they haven't got any ideas, and I really wonder whether they'd have even tried to come up with ideas if they hadn't been prodded.
We're keen to take up issues that effect sex and gender diverse people, there's going to be someone representing one of the transgender organisations in melbourne speaking at the next rally.
Do you, or anyone else on the list have any ideas or initiatives they'd like to suggest?
-Kath, national queer officer for
There's a bit of to-and-fro, one of my colleagues down at Wollongong uni pointing out the complete lack of consultation by the Queer NOBs as to what they would be focusing on this year. Within a reply to that, from Jason Virgo (who, I gather, is involved with the marriage rallies down in Melbourne), is this paragraph.
I think the equal marriage is a campaign that is growing momentum and as it is one of the biggest issues nation-wide it should definitely be a priority and take up resources of the nus queer officers, of course anti-discrimination laws are also important but if we can't get our own government to stop discriminating against us (ie not allowing us to marry) i hardly doubt they are going to put in solid anti-discrimination legislation.For a lot of people, this wouldn't seem like a big thing to say. I suspect Jason Virgo didn't think about the implications in this paragraph. Well, hopefully he's now considering his next move, because I finally got my rant on with this reply.
To reduce all government discrimination against the queer community to one issue is to ignore the many and varied ways discrimination works. In particular, to put this single issue forward as the *single main* topic of discrimination is incredibly short-sighted. It comes across as at least being cis-privileged.~~~
Let me make it plain to you, and to the others reading this. Every time I fill out a form, including legal governmental forms, I am forced to make a choice. Do I put down my gender identity, and risk having my application being denied on the basis of not answering a required field in an acceptable manner. Or do I lie, tick the box that says 'man' or 'male'.
This is not a light decision. It is not easy to make. One choice involves continuing to live in the closet, somewhere I swore I would not return to. The other involves trying to deal with often quite transphobic policies, and people that simply cannot understand the concept of gender diversity.
For me, this is a far more fundamental human right that is being denied. Far more fundamental than marriage. And to be told, time and time again, often by the people who have promised (and are getting paid) to advance the cause of queer rights, that I just have to wait until the latest popular cause is done with, strikes me as a betrayal.
It makes me wonder just how these people dare claim to represent queers when they seem to only have the interests of cis-gendered gays, lesbians and *some* bisexuals at heart.
In many ways, I'm a lot better off than many other people within the umbrella of 'sex and gender diverse', in that I don't need to deal with the medical community.
But don't you dare tell me that marriage is the one and only matter of discrimination queers need to worry about. If you continue to do so, then I will have no regrets in calling you a transphobe.
The NUS Queer e-list can be signed-up-to here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nus_queer/
It has sometimes been a rather volatile list, since queers are hardly a single bloc. We've all got different ideas on how to achieve equality/equity/freedom/liberty/domination (delete to suit). In the past, there have been massive, sprawling debates on a few different issues. Perennial favorites include: the ethics of sex work and/or exotic dance; arguments between radical feminists (particularly lesbian separatists) and transpeople as to what gender means; and as the above shows, debates on what rights are important to fight for.
08 February, 2010
ideas
I've got a few different ideas for what to write about in the next little while. So I thought I might as well see what people want to see (and, by-the-by, work out who's actually reading this).
1. 'What is a councillor?'
2. Explanation of the factions - where they come from, where they're going. Probably a series of posts.
3. 'what is a small-i'
4. looking at how the SRC fits into the overall Arc structure
5. looking back over the fiasco that was last year's NUS conference, then the various deals and collapses involved in the SGM. This one I'd like to leave a bit, see what else comes to light. Plus I would be very surprised if one of the Tharunka editors doesn't write about it themself.
6. explanation of the SRC election methodology - forming tickets, the process of voting, 'what is a valid vote' etc. Almost definitely a series of posts, way too big to fit into one.
7. The proposed Post-grad council - who's in favour, who's against, how the whole shebang is meant to work, and why it's all taken so long.
8. Anything else you'd like me to take a look at?
Let me know.
1. 'What is a councillor?'
2. Explanation of the factions - where they come from, where they're going. Probably a series of posts.
3. 'what is a small-i'
4. looking at how the SRC fits into the overall Arc structure
5. looking back over the fiasco that was last year's NUS conference, then the various deals and collapses involved in the SGM. This one I'd like to leave a bit, see what else comes to light. Plus I would be very surprised if one of the Tharunka editors doesn't write about it themself.
6. explanation of the SRC election methodology - forming tickets, the process of voting, 'what is a valid vote' etc. Almost definitely a series of posts, way too big to fit into one.
7. The proposed Post-grad council - who's in favour, who's against, how the whole shebang is meant to work, and why it's all taken so long.
8. Anything else you'd like me to take a look at?
Let me know.
Attack?
Before things go any further, I'd like to clarify something. I'm not trying to just mindlessly attack people. There is a method to my madness (or perhaps there's madness in my method, we'll see).
I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them. Not just at elections each year - it's incredibly rare for anyone to actually stand for re-election, so the ballot isn't a good way of holding anyone to account. Rather, we need to look in on them throughout their term.
I want to know what the people I voted for are doing. I also want to know what the people I didn't vote for are doing (and there's a few of them, the wonders of below-the-line voting). If someone's being competent, then that person deserves congratulations. If someone's being incompetent, on the other hand, that person should be getting in trouble.
There are a whole lot of things wrong at uni. The point of the SRC is to try to better the student experience. If someone on the SRC isn't pulling their weight, this needs to be realised. If the whole SRC isn't pulling their weight (which I sincerely hope will never happen) then that definitely needs to be publicised.
That doesn't mean our reps should be held with their noses to the grindstone. They are, after all, students, and every now and then things like parties, work, general life and (last, and sometimes least) actual study intrude. This helps keep you sane in such a position.
But an SRC member can't just fall back on excuses all the time. They need to do something, or at least keep trying to, or else move away.
And I don't want to hear that tired old refrain that 'UNSW students are never activists, the activists all go to USyd'. To be frank, that's bullshit. It's offensive to the very character of our student body. It's also readily disprovable - the Queer Collective, twice, got quite large turnouts to the Marriage rallies (one well outside of semester). Turnouts that were well above what the USyd collective managed to muster.
To fall back on the old stereotype that UNSW students don't participate in activism is sheer laziness. It's proof that you either haven't tried, or you don't have a clue as to how to mobilise people.
I want to see our student reps do well. A big, massive part of that is checking up on them. Not just at elections each year - it's incredibly rare for anyone to actually stand for re-election, so the ballot isn't a good way of holding anyone to account. Rather, we need to look in on them throughout their term.
I want to know what the people I voted for are doing. I also want to know what the people I didn't vote for are doing (and there's a few of them, the wonders of below-the-line voting). If someone's being competent, then that person deserves congratulations. If someone's being incompetent, on the other hand, that person should be getting in trouble.
There are a whole lot of things wrong at uni. The point of the SRC is to try to better the student experience. If someone on the SRC isn't pulling their weight, this needs to be realised. If the whole SRC isn't pulling their weight (which I sincerely hope will never happen) then that definitely needs to be publicised.
That doesn't mean our reps should be held with their noses to the grindstone. They are, after all, students, and every now and then things like parties, work, general life and (last, and sometimes least) actual study intrude. This helps keep you sane in such a position.
But an SRC member can't just fall back on excuses all the time. They need to do something, or at least keep trying to, or else move away.
And I don't want to hear that tired old refrain that 'UNSW students are never activists, the activists all go to USyd'. To be frank, that's bullshit. It's offensive to the very character of our student body. It's also readily disprovable - the Queer Collective, twice, got quite large turnouts to the Marriage rallies (one well outside of semester). Turnouts that were well above what the USyd collective managed to muster.
To fall back on the old stereotype that UNSW students don't participate in activism is sheer laziness. It's proof that you either haven't tried, or you don't have a clue as to how to mobilise people.
07 February, 2010
Fact-checking and typos
So far I've noticed a few errors, mainly in the typographical area, which I've then gone and corrected. If anyone else sees anything, please let me know and I'll adjust/respond. Just because these posts are being written in the heat of the moment is no reason not to correct errors later on once they come to light.
SRC 2010
[the following has been submitted to the first issue of Tharunka for 2010. I thought it may as well get out a tad earlier]
"'University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small'" - Henry Kissinger
For better or for worse, student politics is often likened to a festering snakepit. It is brutal, harsh, full of various ever-changing alliances and cults-of-personality.
So it’s no surprise that many of you reading this will have no interest whatsoever in being involved in politics at UNSW. You may well wonder what relevance these petty squabbles and power-plays have to your own life. But is that the only attitude? To ignore it and leave it to the student politicians? There are many things at uni which could be improved – are you going to leave it to those few people who ran a week-long campaign to try and fix those problems?
At the very least, it’s good to know who these people are, so if you’ve got a problem you can know who to harangue to try and fix it. Elsewhere in this publication, you may have found Office-Bearer reports from your Student Representative Council. These will, of course, have been written to show the SRC in a very positive light, inspiring confidence in those SRC members. But they won’t tell you very much about them as people. Or even much about them as politicians.
So here I am, one snake amongst many, giving you the gossip on student politics, UNSW-style.
To start with, there’s the Factions. These are mostly (but not always) linked with Australian political parties. They aren’t quite the same as ‘tickets’, which are what run for election (which will be covered in a future column). At UNSW, on the current SRC, we’ve got: National Labor Students (NLS), composed of leftwards-leaning members of the Labor Party. There’s also Socialist Alternative (who you may well have encountered shouting various things around campus by now).
Outside of the current council, we’ve got Student Unity (a misnomer of course, they comprise right-wing Labor members), the Australian Liberal Students Federation (the Young Liberals, more-or-less), as well as a few people calling themselves WHIGS (right-wing ‘independents’).
Most of the current SRC is non-factional (indeed, this has been the case for a few years now), referred to in student-politics-speak as ‘small-i independents’ (to distinguish from the ‘big-Is’, a West Australian faction). Bear that in mind whenever you hear people talking about the ‘Labor-dominated SRC’.
So now, we can move to looking at the people themselves.
First up: Osman Faruqi, SRC President, ‘small-i’. The first non-Labor President since the early 90s (so you can imagine that people in both Labor factions are somewhat taken aback). He’s quite nice, as far as SRC snakes go. Since he’s non-factional, he’s also significantly less likely to pay attention to what the National Union are likely to be saying.
Jelena Samardzic (also known as Helen) is the Education Officer. She has made clear her intentions to become the next President (for NLS). What is less certain is just what she intends to do in her current role. Her immediate predecessor was more interested in filling out his CV than activism – will this tradition be continued?
James Still holds the Welfare role. He’s been very active over summer, printing off a new version of the Cheapskate’s Guide. We will all be watching to see whether his enthusiasm continues throughout the year, or whether he burns out (as did his immediate predecessor).
Ben Noone and Nicola Karcz are sharing the role of Environment Officer. The Enviro role is usually shared by two people. Sometimes they get on and do a lot of fantastic activism together. Sometimes, they do not.
There are a group of positions sometimes referred to as ‘Equity’ roles – they represent special interest groups, typically groups that historically have faced persecution. Jess Mobbs as Women’s Officer, Shuang (Samantha) Guo as International Students Officer, Marita Morgan as Students with Disabilities Officer, Felicity Lee and Anna Khan in Ethno-Cultural, April Long and Peta MacGillivray sharing the Indigenous Students role, and Nick Atkins and Squish Ramsay are the Queer Officers (the last of these I hold in a special place – a student politician snake who keeps snakes!). The Equity Officers are usually devoted to their special area, and do good work in it. If they don’t, they may well find themselves replaced by someone even more passionate.
And then we come to two particular roles. These roles aren’t necessarily problematic, more to do with the individuals holding them. You see, Anh Pham as Postgraduate Students Officer and Rebecca Hynek as COFA Campus Representative are members of Socialist Alternative. And the thing about SAlt is, they often fight for good things. But the methods they use are nasty. Attacking the individual, repeating mantras instead of engaging in debate, ‘with us or against us’ attitude in general.
Pham and Beck may well rise above this usual method of SAlt behaviour, which I hope occurs. But I cannot be confident of this.
If you’re over at COFA, then you get another group of Office-Bearers as well. In this snake’s experience, COFA OBs are inspired and full of fun. They have miniscule budgets, but great ability to make the money work.
So those are your Office-Bearers for 2010. Then we’ve got Councillors, both Undergrad and Postgrad variants thereupon. Councillors usually aren’t that noticeable. The role is notoriously undefined; it’s not quite clear who they represent. They generally fall into three groups.
First off, you’ve got the up-and-comings who didn’t manage to snag a position as office-bearer. Next, you’ve got the old hands, staying on for an extra year. Then you’ve got the randoms, people who got the position simply for being in the right place at the right time.
And why am I doing this? Well, I’m just another snake slithering around this snakepit. I was on Council for two years, first as a Tharunka editor, then an Office-Bearer. Maybe I'm waiting for another chance to get involved. or maybe this snake is sick and tired of the whole shebang, but can’t quite muster up the courage to let go. Time will tell.
"'University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small'" - Henry Kissinger
For better or for worse, student politics is often likened to a festering snakepit. It is brutal, harsh, full of various ever-changing alliances and cults-of-personality.
So it’s no surprise that many of you reading this will have no interest whatsoever in being involved in politics at UNSW. You may well wonder what relevance these petty squabbles and power-plays have to your own life. But is that the only attitude? To ignore it and leave it to the student politicians? There are many things at uni which could be improved – are you going to leave it to those few people who ran a week-long campaign to try and fix those problems?
At the very least, it’s good to know who these people are, so if you’ve got a problem you can know who to harangue to try and fix it. Elsewhere in this publication, you may have found Office-Bearer reports from your Student Representative Council. These will, of course, have been written to show the SRC in a very positive light, inspiring confidence in those SRC members. But they won’t tell you very much about them as people. Or even much about them as politicians.
So here I am, one snake amongst many, giving you the gossip on student politics, UNSW-style.
To start with, there’s the Factions. These are mostly (but not always) linked with Australian political parties. They aren’t quite the same as ‘tickets’, which are what run for election (which will be covered in a future column). At UNSW, on the current SRC, we’ve got: National Labor Students (NLS), composed of leftwards-leaning members of the Labor Party. There’s also Socialist Alternative (who you may well have encountered shouting various things around campus by now).
Outside of the current council, we’ve got Student Unity (a misnomer of course, they comprise right-wing Labor members), the Australian Liberal Students Federation (the Young Liberals, more-or-less), as well as a few people calling themselves WHIGS (right-wing ‘independents’).
Most of the current SRC is non-factional (indeed, this has been the case for a few years now), referred to in student-politics-speak as ‘small-i independents’ (to distinguish from the ‘big-Is’, a West Australian faction). Bear that in mind whenever you hear people talking about the ‘Labor-dominated SRC’.
So now, we can move to looking at the people themselves.
First up: Osman Faruqi, SRC President, ‘small-i’. The first non-Labor President since the early 90s (so you can imagine that people in both Labor factions are somewhat taken aback). He’s quite nice, as far as SRC snakes go. Since he’s non-factional, he’s also significantly less likely to pay attention to what the National Union are likely to be saying.
Jelena Samardzic (also known as Helen) is the Education Officer. She has made clear her intentions to become the next President (for NLS). What is less certain is just what she intends to do in her current role. Her immediate predecessor was more interested in filling out his CV than activism – will this tradition be continued?
James Still holds the Welfare role. He’s been very active over summer, printing off a new version of the Cheapskate’s Guide. We will all be watching to see whether his enthusiasm continues throughout the year, or whether he burns out (as did his immediate predecessor).
Ben Noone and Nicola Karcz are sharing the role of Environment Officer. The Enviro role is usually shared by two people. Sometimes they get on and do a lot of fantastic activism together. Sometimes, they do not.
There are a group of positions sometimes referred to as ‘Equity’ roles – they represent special interest groups, typically groups that historically have faced persecution. Jess Mobbs as Women’s Officer, Shuang (Samantha) Guo as International Students Officer, Marita Morgan as Students with Disabilities Officer, Felicity Lee and Anna Khan in Ethno-Cultural, April Long and Peta MacGillivray sharing the Indigenous Students role, and Nick Atkins and Squish Ramsay are the Queer Officers (the last of these I hold in a special place – a student politician snake who keeps snakes!). The Equity Officers are usually devoted to their special area, and do good work in it. If they don’t, they may well find themselves replaced by someone even more passionate.
And then we come to two particular roles. These roles aren’t necessarily problematic, more to do with the individuals holding them. You see, Anh Pham as Postgraduate Students Officer and Rebecca Hynek as COFA Campus Representative are members of Socialist Alternative. And the thing about SAlt is, they often fight for good things. But the methods they use are nasty. Attacking the individual, repeating mantras instead of engaging in debate, ‘with us or against us’ attitude in general.
Pham and Beck may well rise above this usual method of SAlt behaviour, which I hope occurs. But I cannot be confident of this.
If you’re over at COFA, then you get another group of Office-Bearers as well. In this snake’s experience, COFA OBs are inspired and full of fun. They have miniscule budgets, but great ability to make the money work.
So those are your Office-Bearers for 2010. Then we’ve got Councillors, both Undergrad and Postgrad variants thereupon. Councillors usually aren’t that noticeable. The role is notoriously undefined; it’s not quite clear who they represent. They generally fall into three groups.
First off, you’ve got the up-and-comings who didn’t manage to snag a position as office-bearer. Next, you’ve got the old hands, staying on for an extra year. Then you’ve got the randoms, people who got the position simply for being in the right place at the right time.
And why am I doing this? Well, I’m just another snake slithering around this snakepit. I was on Council for two years, first as a Tharunka editor, then an Office-Bearer. Maybe I'm waiting for another chance to get involved. or maybe this snake is sick and tired of the whole shebang, but can’t quite muster up the courage to let go. Time will tell.
The Thinking Snake's Guide
So here I am, starting something that might just crash and burn in a few days. Or it might continue for a while. We'll see. My first serious attempt at a blog.
So, after two years, I'm no longer a member of the UNSW SRC. I've been a Tharunka editor, then an Office-bearer, and last year I did one last roll of the dice trying to get preselection for President. Obviously, that didn't happen. But it doesn't mean I'm not still involved, in my own way. I'm around a lot, I talk to various people, I get emailed documents that may or may not have been meant to be confidential.
Pretty much, I'm trying to clear the air somewhat on how student politics works. It's too important to leave to the student politicians. I'd love to see more and more people getting involved. Without having to be a member of any party or faction.
Since it's where I am, I'm mainly going to be looking at UNSW (the SRC, the coming Post-grad Council, plus also uni-based elections). I'll also do some commentary on the ever-changing bizarreness that is NUS, plus also quite possibly some things about what's going down at other unis.
I'm doing a bit of writing for Tharunka this year. Anything I write there will end up here as well, but after publication. (If an article gets rejected from there, it'll still end up here regardless).
Also, it should go without saying that this is all personal opinion, and some of it will get very personal. That, after all, is the point of this being a blog.
So, after two years, I'm no longer a member of the UNSW SRC. I've been a Tharunka editor, then an Office-bearer, and last year I did one last roll of the dice trying to get preselection for President. Obviously, that didn't happen. But it doesn't mean I'm not still involved, in my own way. I'm around a lot, I talk to various people, I get emailed documents that may or may not have been meant to be confidential.
Pretty much, I'm trying to clear the air somewhat on how student politics works. It's too important to leave to the student politicians. I'd love to see more and more people getting involved. Without having to be a member of any party or faction.
Since it's where I am, I'm mainly going to be looking at UNSW (the SRC, the coming Post-grad Council, plus also uni-based elections). I'll also do some commentary on the ever-changing bizarreness that is NUS, plus also quite possibly some things about what's going down at other unis.
I'm doing a bit of writing for Tharunka this year. Anything I write there will end up here as well, but after publication. (If an article gets rejected from there, it'll still end up here regardless).
Also, it should go without saying that this is all personal opinion, and some of it will get very personal. That, after all, is the point of this being a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
