OK, so on Tuesday I outlined what we know and don’t know about the Ford government’s new policy of rendering non-tuition fees non-mandatory and suggested that while some of it was confused and confusing, the effect was going to be quite detrimental to independent student groups. Even if we lend this move some lofty motives and say it is about a positive right not to be forced to associate, or the need to make student groups more responsive to their members (as opposed to the baser one of just wanting to knee-cap groups that tend to be loudly anti-conservative), the evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that this will have some pretty negative effects on overall student life.
So, what’s to be done? Today, I want to sketch out some options that everyone needs to be thinking about. And for clarity’s sake, I am going to confine my remarks to specifically the services carried out by student unions. I understand that the wording of the announcement makes it sounds like the Conservatives are also going after some university-run services; however, some people who are much smarter than I have pointed out that existing ancillary fee arrangements may be difficult to unpick, legally speaking. That’s not to say the government won’t try to unpick them, but whatever happens may not be implementable right away, whereas money heading to student unions is clearly on the chopping block right now.
Even if you find student union politics annoying (which, to be fair, they often are), the fact remains that much of the unions’ day-to-day work is absolutely central to what I call the “civil society” of university campuses – the stuff that allows campus clubs, publications and the like – to survive as seamlessly as possible. Institutions have a three-fold interest in this. The first has to do with skills development: it is precisely in the participation in and organization of campus activities that most students get their first serious taste of actual autonomy with working in organizations. If we are serious about ensuring that institutions give students soft skills as well as disciplinary ones, these activities have to be maintained. The second is competition: look at any institution’s view book and at you’ll see that at least part of the pitch to students is based on the kind of campus life/activities for which student unions provide a base. And third: so many of the tasks involved in this – taking care of room bookings, providing clubs with banking and management services, etc – are so picayune that having anyone other than a student union do them would be absurd (not to say more expensive).
(Also, there are financial issues at stake: several unions own businesses where turnover (though not profits) are in the millions of dollars and/or are supporting mortgages on campus buildings designed for student use. The possible collapse of student unions would require institutions themselves to handle all of this, thus creating additional cost burdens at a time institutional finances are relatively stretched. No university particularly wants to deal with this).
So, there are basically three possibilities for student unions. The first is to punt to the university. Assuming the Minster was not blowing smoke at her press conference and institutions are going to be permitted some latitude to describe what services are essential (at least for their own operations), hand over everything relating to clubs, publications, whatever counselling activities they have, and give it to the institution. Then, have the institution turn around and sub-contract these services back to the student union. As I noted yesterday, this seems to have worked in some cases in New Zealand. The pro here is that it just might work; the con, obviously, is that it leaves student unions beholden to institutions, which makes representation problematic.
The second is more of a gamble: split the student union into two, Australian-style, into one organization which delivers services and another which deals with representation, and see if they can get institutions to declare the former an essential campus-wide service. There’s no guarantee this will work: the rules the government adopts may not permit it. But if it did, it might be the best solution, preserving services and student autonomy (though the representative function would be at least a partial casualty).
The third option is riskier still: stick it out and make no compromises. In the short term it will mean enormous cuts in services, but it preserves independence. In four years time, work like hell to unseat the Conservatives (normally, I am not a fan of student unions getting into partisan politics, but I’m not sure the Conservatives have left them a whole lot of choice in the matter). Short term pain, long-term status quo – if you can get opposition parties to agree to reverse the policy once in power (which, significantly I think, student unions in Australia and New Zealand have not been able to do).
And here’s the thing: student unions and universities/colleges are going to need to make these decisions QUICKLY. As in, over the next month or so. The Government is going to want this policy in place for next fall. In practice, given the need to publish fee schedules and the programming involved in whatever opt-out scheme the government settles on, that means decisions need to be made by early March. For universities and colleges, that’s irritatingly fast; for student unions it’s a democratic nightmare, because it means the zero hour for a decision is going to land right in the middle of their annual election period. It could get ugly.
And for universities, colleges, and student organizations (provincial and campus-level) outside Ontario: don’t assume none of this will happen to you, because now that this virus is lose it will almost certainly spread. Start thinking about how to avoid this, or how you would deal with it if it happens. For student unions in particular: start thinking about strategies like accreditation to prove good governance and value for money now. It might not end up helping, but it can’t hurt either.
Losing a big part of campus life like this is going to be bad for everyone. Good luck to everyone in the fight to preserve what they can.
Tweet this post
Not sure about the argument that student unions are essential to student club life on campus. The world is filled with voluntary organizations and clubs which exist without the benefit of some broader organization to support them.
I think as my own involvement with student clubs during my misspent youth – with the campus PCs, as it turns out – and the student government provided no support (this was during the Harris era, they were openly hostile). Nevertheless, despite the overt hostility of the student government, we formed the largest club on campus, were able to manage our own finances, recruit our members, organize our own events and, believe it or not, book our own rooms. So my skepticism about the value of student unions to club life is informed, in part, by the studied absence of value my student government provided to my club experience in university. I note that this would not be an uncommon experience for campus PC clubs or other clubs with an affinity for conservative causes (e.g., campus pro-life clubs being denied club status, for example), which no doubt informs the views PC activists behind the policy change.
Of course, others may have had a different experience – I suspect those clubs who have historically been favoured by student unions rather liked the status quo. But the fact that clubs do exist in the absence of student union support (or in the face of overt student union hostility) rather suggests that student union support funded by mandatory fees is not necessary to support an active club life. No doubt it makes it easier for those clubs who benefit from it, but “make club life easier for favoured groups” is not a compelling rationale for mandatory fees.
I think you’re on stronger grounds on some of the other arguments or concerns around ending mandatory fees (the point about transitioning away from the current financial obligations and assets of existing student unions is a good one), but I’m not getting there on preserving club life.
Perhaps your campus conservative club was a chapter of the broader national organization, if it truly received no financial support or status from your student union. It’s unlikely it was a completely self-funded, self-reliant organization.
Nonetheless, based on what’s been announced, the following elements of campus life could be on the chopping block: most clubs, campus newspaper, campus radio, campus TV, peer-based mentoring and support, sexual health centres, women’s centres, LGBTQ centres, indigenous centres, student bus passes, student health insurance plans, student appeal support, career and learning development centres, student government as a whole and all of the development/employment opportunities they offer, and more that I’m probably forgetting.
The argument that “well if they value these things, they’ll pay” is faulty. Many students, particularly first year students, don’t understand how these things are structured and funded. They’ll just see that they can save some money and they’ll do it, without understanding or considering the impacts. Or it’ll create a free rider problem, where everyone thinks, “well, I’ll just opt out of the campus newspaper, but I’m sure others keep it afloat for me.”
Is there a transparency and accountability issue at a lot of campuses? Absolutely. And there are ways to address that without obliterating campus life. But this is vindictive overkill. This is a mean spirited and destructive policy, and it will please no one except young conservatives who are irritated that their views aren’t aren’t more popular among student activists. That’s it.
There’s a reason almost no jurisdictions pursue this. The whole premise of this policy is like arguing that you should be able to opt out of taxes for public services you don’t use. It’s foolish. Sometimes being part of a community means contributing to a collective good.