The AMS voted last week to the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), one of the two federally-aligned post-secondary student lobby groups in Canada. The other option, seemingly never on the table, was the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). I hadn’t heard anything about these two organizations until the AMS picked one for us. So, when I heard about the alignment, I wondered where this decision came from.
It seems to me that this kind of move should represent the priorities of the student body. It would have to come from a discussion of the pros and cons of each option, followed by a binding referendum. How else can a national organization claim the consent of its ? But there was no real referendum, no public debate and no effort to find out the preference of students.
So, how did the AMS come to their decision? In the words of Matt Lombardi, AMS academic affairs commissioner, we went with CASA because, like the AMS and Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA), they stay away from social issues. CASA’s national director told the AMS that they make “no public advocacy for a social agenda.” Lombardi told the Journal we went with CASA because, “The CFS tackles a wide range of social issues. Historically, the AMS, OUSA and CASA have chosen not to. Not saying that [CFS] are wrong, [CASA] is just a better fit for us.” Is Lombardi right? Is silence on social injustice a “good fit” for us?
While this course of action was being deliberated, Lombardi told the Journal that the decision would have to go to a referendum for approval. The only referendum question, however, was “Do you agree, in principle, that the AMS should seek to a suitable, nationally-focused student organization that lobbies the federal government on post-secondary education issues?” Eighty-seven per cent of students voted yes, but this in no way shows that the Queen’s student body prefers CASA to CFS. CFS is also a nationally-focused student organization that lobbies the federal government; by the of the referendum question, it should still be in the running.
As Lombardi mentioned, CFS performs a lot of social functions beyond government lobbying. And yet, there was no corresponding referendum question, “Do you agree that the AMS should seek to a suitable, nationally-focused student organization that takes action on social issues?” The 87 per cent “yes” sheds no light on how people feel about the other functions of CFS. This makes me think the question was designed to keep CFS out of the running.
Finally, it was a non-binding question. It doesn’t give the AMS the right to take any decisive action, but merely shows that students agree with the idea of a national affiliation. Far from indicating that the public discussion was over, this referendum question should have been the launching point of extensive debate and a campus-wide awareness campaign.
I don’t feel very well represented.
The fact is that CFS is a much better fit with the priorities of the Queen’s student body. In addition to lobbying both the federal and provincial governments on their education policies, CFS operates services on campus that benefit students, such as the National Student Health Service. They run a research department, which is a good indicator that they’re interested in understanding the problems we face in education today, not just paying lip service to them. When the Jacob Mantle incident hit, CFS was on the ground at Queen’s doing their part to help combat Islamaphobia in our University. Had we been a CFS member, David Suzuki would have come to our campus as part of his Students for Sustainability tour. As the icing on the cake, CFS requires a referendum before any school can . They actually care about getting the consent of the students they wish to represent so that at the federal policy table they can have a strong claim to represent their hip.
CASA thinks change is a simple matter of money and federal policy. I agree that we need funding to run a university. But I think we’ve all learned this year that the problems in our education system go deeper. Almost everyone on campus understands the gravity of the social issues we face, the impact they have on our community and our responsibility to be aware and involved. It’s why our university has a human rights office and why our student government runs a food bank and a social issues commission. It’s why every year we run countless social issues-related clubs and events. It’s why our campus has been enflamed with discussions of Islamaphobia, the Robert Sutherland insult and the culture of whiteness. If you disagree, just read what’s been making Journal headlines this year, or the platforms of the teams who ran for AMS executive.
The choice to go with CASA had nothing to do with student opinion or priorities. It was an ideological decision made by “representatives” who believe that leadership should not take a role in leading social change. I have a feeling that Queen’s students disagree.
Here’s my call to the AMS. Drop OUSA. Drop CASA. Represent the priorities of your electorate. Start doing your job and give us a referendum on CFS.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].