SRC Elections 2005 (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

myg0t:
People do not only turn up to rallies when there are free BBQs. There have been at least four rallies which a few thousand people have turned up to, and two at most have had any food provided. 20 or so people did not get arrested, and your claim that only 20 people support USU is patently false. Until you can provide evidence that the 'silent majority' actually supports VSU, rather than not caring one way or the other, we will have to go on demonstrated support for one side or the other, which stands at USU: thousands vs. VSU: twenty members of the Liberal Club.

Note that 1/2 the keep left posters had notification of the rally on them, and also that the counter protest had no free BBQ and only ~50 people would have known about it, so a turnout of 20 is pretty good.

The "affirmative action is condescending" argument has been trawled over many times before, and the fact is that the student body seems to have pretty much rejected it. The fact that affirmative action was passed for Union Board, led by a push from women, indicates that they recognise the assistance it can provide. That some unnamed people have talked to you and said they don't like it is not a convincing argument against the policy. For every person you can name that is against affirmative action, I can name at least two who are for it. I could also honestly tell you that I have never known a female who was against affirmative action. But arguing by hypothetical examples without real statistical treatment of the whole university population is not going to get us anywhere.

Affirmative action only passed because NOLS stacked the meeting and you know it. As for females against affirmative action, did you not see Rachel from SUEUA stand up and speak against it? See also:

The major arguments in favour of the Affirmative Action policy seem to be based on the ideas that either:
- women are too fearful to run, because of derogatory comments being made to them.
- women don't like their chances of being elected.
- women aren't aggressive enough to compete with men.

The first point seems to be a rather moot one, as a large percentage of those on the campaign trail are harassed by those who don't agree with their policies. I think everyone saw at some stage chalking reading “Liberal Scum” under anything by Simon Fontana, but I don't personally recall seeing any of Katy's posters having “slut” written across them, but then that could just mean her supporters are more efficient at removing them. I agree that it's not desirable to have slander/libel flying all over the place, but that is one of the realities of politics, which in my opinion was faced just as much, if not more, by other, male, candidates. I think that by running a campaign where you unethically exploit the fact that you're female to earn votes might not help the cause too much either. It's also been noted by Rose Jackson in the Honi Soit that, even now, more than six months after the SRC elections, she still receives e-mails labeling her a harlot, whore, and a slag. Aside from the fact that if she was male the criticism would still exist, albeit under the titles dickhead, arsehole or fuckwit, if someone can't take a few weeks of criticism during elections, how are they going to cope with even more than what Rose is copping now? The perceived notion of not deserving the position they hold, due to 50% of the competition being automatically nullified, will mean that they most certainly will take more flak.

On the second point, in the past few years, so far as I know, there has been around 2/3 of female candidates actually managing to get up. If a woman is not prepared to take a (relatively) small gamble such as this to make their mark on student politics, then in my opinion they lack the passion that is necessary to commit two years of their life towards making their vision for the Union a realisation.

It is my belief that the aggression issue is a rather silly one to raise, simply because politics in itself is intrinsically aggressive. I acknowledge the point that a lot of women may not be as aggressive as men, but aggressive campaigners usually make good politicians. This is because in order to convince others that policies are worthwhile, a well constructed and aggressive argument is required. If we end up with five women incapable of properly participating in a debate and attacking the policies of others in order to push their own, then half the Union board will be dead weight.

Finally, I think that the proposal should have also given men five guaranteed places, as a matter of principle, as well as needing a only a simple majority to overturn the change when necessary (as it was stressed that it was purely a temporary step), and a certain percentage of the vote needed to get on board (say 2.5-5%?) regardless of gender, because let's face it, if someone only gets 10 votes and manages to get on board they're not really going to be representing the views of the overall university community, are they?

Tamsin Lloyd stated in her article in the Honi Soit this week that “[with reference to women] maybe they really are just smarter?”, and on such a basis I'll conclude by suggesting that perhaps, in the current situation, the men on campus who are actually willing to run deserve the board positions more than the women who aren't.

When my parents were in their last years of high school in Malaysia, the government at the time introduced a policy of fixed quotas for the majority Malay-Muslim student population so they could increase the number of Malay-Muslims entering tertiary institutions, which until then, had been primarily Malaysian-Chinese students like my parents, who had gained university positions based on academic merit.

Because this policy was implemented, hardworking people like my parents missed out on going to university despite the fact that they had better academic results than their Malay-Muslim counterparts. The Malay-Muslim students were accepted simply because the government of the time felt that Malay-Muslim students were not properly represented at the tertiary level, and that Malay-Chinese students, who were a distinct minority, were taking over the country’s businesses and Malay-Muslims were losing out.

This kind of blatant discrimination was one of the key driving reasons as to why my parents decided to migrate to Australia – because they believed people here in Australia were rewarded based on results and merit.

It embarrasses me that I should have to tell my parents that in this day and age, a university organization that represents students in a developed nation like Australia believes that it should have a fixed number of positions for women simply because it believes they are under-represented on this Board of Directors.

Some of you here today will claim that there is a distinct and overt sense of discrimination because men continue to dominate the Board of this Union. As someone who has experienced discrimination first-hand, by being born Chinese-Catholic in a predominantly Malay-Muslim nation, I am disappointed to see such a motion before us today.

I once heard a woman advocating the appointment of women to a board because of the special qualities they bring as women. This is clearly wrong and insulting. We should be appointing people men and women to any position because of the special qualities they bring to that position as unique individuals. It's all about personal aptitude, motivation, equality of opportunity and freedom of choice. Women should be free to choose what they want to do. The sign that the gender debate has really matured will be when we talk about individual differences, not gender differences.

And of course there is the issue of what the women who are voting think – the concept that their vote is somehow muted because if they choose and vote for a male candidate to represent them over a female candidate – well guess what – your vote doesn’t count! Surely, as the statistics are showing, if women are voting for men over their female counterparts at union board elections, then much has to be said for the quality of female candidates that are stepping forward.

I would like to congratulate my colleague Hannah Diddums, for introducing a Women’s Mentoring and Training program to help and advise women that decide to run for Board positions. I believe this is a step in the right direction.

However, I am disappointed that this motion seeks to introduce what is essentially a “positively-discriminating” concept – the student population is slightly over half composed of women, so we should have half the board positions being given to women, even if the student population votes otherwise.

Where do we draw the line? One fixed position for International Students? One fixed position for students of non-English speaking backgrounds? What about two positions for students who went to a private school and the rest for public school students? If Board Directors are to be selected based upon such "representative" criteria, rather than by reference to their integrity, experience and ability, there is a real risk that such appointees will only be unduly sympathetic to the interests of their representative groups.

Members of the University of Sydney Union – if you truly want to be progressive, I urge you to vote this motion down and advocate a board of directors being elected based on who the student population believes will best do the job.

It still seems to me like Choice and Resolve are telling students that they are unhappy with the job the current SRC is doing, rather than responding to any real groundswell of opposition to their policies.

Very much like the current SRC are telling students that they are unhappy with the government.

 

[Xayma]

The budget you posted is full of crap. The most recent protest alone cost the SRC $100 000. Now use your head, and figure out that this one, of about five protests, cost every student ~$2.50. This means that overall protests cost each student $12.50+, six times the amount quoted in that budget.

The services that the Liberals are ideologically opposed to use the money of the many to deliver minimal benefit to the few (if, for example, the Queer Collective were an effective department it would focus less on Queer Space and more upon lowering homophobia in the general community), and if they continue to be funded the SRC, and what little of its services are actually useful, will choke next year from a lack of students willing to pay $66 for bugger all benefit.

The Baxter bus trips were partially paid out of student's own pockets, but were also subsidised.

And perhaps if the students were presented with a more balanced viewpoint instead of a campaign of gross exaggerations on VSU we would find a lot more students supporting it.

NOLS is just as ideologically motivated as the SULC, so please stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Aren't the safe spaces the Union responsibilities? Funding for Queer/Women/Whatever else collectives would be spent on other things such as forums, travel to conferences and the like.

I could also honestly tell you that I have never known a female who was against affirmative action.

Obviously you weren't looking around at the Union AGM during the vote, there were are a few women who voted against it.

 

[stazi]

homosexuals are gay. nuff said.

 

[Plebeian]

I'm not sure if we should have the affirmative action debate here again, because it so far hasn't really been an issue in the campaign. In any case, what I meant when I said "I have never known a female who was against affirmative action" was I have never personally known one. I should have phrased this more clearly, but the message I was trying to convey is that Quah's anonymous sources who are known only to him are not good evidence that the student body is discontented with affirmative action, because I can just as easily refer to my own anonymous sources who think AA is fine and dandy.

And as for the executive "telling students they are unhappy with the Government", the place this could apply is with VSU, and as I have stated before, methods like the referendum which have been proposed since the very beginning clearly indicate the willingness of the current SRC to take direction from the student body on VSU. If the majority of people were really in favour of VSU, I'm sure they could have made their opinions known somehow.

 

[Phanatical]

Um, the "anonymous" source on that email I quoted was just one of many posted to the Education Action Group e-list, the only method of participation in the SRC available to many of the students at our university.

If we were talking about affirmative action to benefit disadvantaged groups, why no guaranteed spots on SRC for affiliate sites students? Why don't we make it a rule that at least one Union board director has to have, or is currently completing studies at a campus other than the Main one? Why no affirmative action for ethnic minorities, students of economically disadvantaged backgrounds, goths, Liberals, people with blonde hair etc.?

As an ugly Asian male with a lower-middle-class home in the Outer Western Suburbs, whose remains based at the Conservatorium, I am FAR more disadvantaged both at university and in society than say, Rose Jackson, a beautiful white woman who lives in Double Bay and whose mother is the Media Watch host. I ask - WHO is more deserving of preferential treatment?

Affirmative Action for women doesn't help promote equality. Far from it, AA reinforces the idea that women need to be treated differently to men, and should have a different set of rules and regulations dictating their actions and treatment. In other words, it basically ensures women think of themselves as weaker than men, and that they need help to be elected.

 

[ujuphleg]

I could also honestly tell you that I have never known a female who was against affirmative action.

Meet one: me.

I find the entire notion of Affirmative Action down right insulting. It basically insinuates that women are too incompetent to gain a Union Board position on their own. I originally was thinking of running next year, but I refuse to now on the principle that if I got in, it can be attributed to the fact that I don't have a penis. Its bloody ridiculous.

If Rose and Katy had so much problems in their campaign and feel that they now need to whinge about it, it remonstrates to me that I did the right thing by not voting for them (well, Katy anyway) because politics is a tough game - people are always going to try and shoot you down for being fat/short/skinny/male/chinese/female/homosexual/green with purple spots. Whatever the case, unless you can cope with that and realise that it is their own insecurity which plagues them then you shouldn't be in politics.


I'll refer to the post I made back in May about the subject of on-campus feminism/affirmative action. Bare in mind, I wasn't the moderator for this forum then, so the tone is less even.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Womens Honi Soit is a joke. Have a read - its enough to make any rational person puke.

I'm sick to death of the fucking feminists on campus whinging their heads off because they're women and they supposedly get discrimminated against. Men are discrimminated against as well, so are Jews, blacks, Chinese, gays, transgenders, purple spotted aliens.

Build a bridge and get the fuck over it!

This thing of having a quota for women is the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. It should only apply if there is the same conditions for men.

I don't know why I even bother writing here, cos someone is going to come along and shoot me down anyway.

By the way Justin, that quote from Mark Chan is brilliant. Where did you get that from?

 

[Phanatical]

That is, if I recall correctly, an article (Chan) wrote that was published in the idMedia during the debates regarding affirmative action. Mark Chan is one of those students at USYD whom I truly respect, as he really Has faced disadvantage, and instead of whinging about it, made the best of it to become the best Union Director we've had in many years.

 

[townie]

Meet one: me.

OMG!!! i didnt know u were a woman!

i feel like an idiot now

stupid undisclosed gender

 

[Plebeian]

Affirmative action for Union Board is different to affirmative action for SRC, because of the history involved (the previous existence of separate Women's and Men's Unions that amalgamated conditionally on equal representation). ujuphleg's post is also hypocritical in that she suggests people involved in student politics should stay true to themselves, and ignore the opinions of others if those opinions are unfounded ("unless you can cope with that and realise that it is their own insecurity which plagues them then you shouldn't be in politics."), but then suggests that she would rule out running for Union Board because other people might think she was unqualified and only got the job because she was female. If you know that you are a good candidate, and you honestly believe that you deserve to be on Union Board, then by your logic it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.

If you can look at the numbers of women who have served on Union Board (I think it has never been higher than 4 out of 11, and usually about 2) for the last 10 years, and tell me that the only reason for that is that women are less able at running the Board than men, then you are sexist. Note that it's not about skill at being in election campaigns, as that makes no difference to how well the Union is run once those people are elected. The best candidates at running the Board should be elected, and clearly women are underrepresented.

I also do not believe that discrimination occurs against other groups as much as it has against women. AFAIK, the only person who has played the race card in this campaign is Quah; no-one has actually attacked him on the basis of his race, or scrawled racist remarks on his campaign material. The women running for Union Board were subjected to sexist graffiti; it also happened to Rose during her campaign for president.

Faced with both the historical commitment to equal representation, and the adverse circumstances that are making it impossible in the present day, there was real justification for affirmative action on Union Board. But this thread is about the SRC, and so far no-one has proposed affirmative action for Council or NUS, or anything like that, so there is little point in debating it. If you want to make a case against the SRC Women's Room, go right ahead.

 

[erawamai]

. The SRC Women's Room is fairly Spartan, so I suspect the one referred to in that email is the one in Manning run by the Union, which is a different matter.

What a grand travesty of justice it is having this womans room! I always thought people could direct themselves at more pressing issues.

As an ugly Asian male with a lower-middle-class home in the Outer Western Suburbs, whose remains based at the Conservatorium, I am FAR more disadvantaged both at university and in society than say, Rose Jackson, a beautiful white woman who lives in Double Bay and whose mother is the Media Watch host. I ask - WHO is more deserving of preferential treatment?

The problem with your above exposition is that you drawn individual differences in order to show the disparity. This seems to contradict with your view that their is validity in the notion of having a mens officer.

Affirmative Action for women doesn't help promote equality. Far from it, AA reinforces the idea that women need to be treated differently to men, and should have a different set of rules and regulations dictating their actions and treatment. In other words, it basically ensures women think of themselves as weaker than men, and that they need help to be elected.

I think most people recongise that large scale affirmative action is a no no. Especially when disadvantage crosses across economic, social and sex boundaries. The same argument can be used against a mens officer or a gays officer. Affirmative action perhaps based on holistic guidlines and on the the basis of individual need is perhaps more appropriate.

The eventual result is that you get a situation whereby, in order to accomodate the plurality of people on campus who feel that they are disadvantaged, disadvantage becomes individualised or confined to the persons individual circumstances rather than as a member of a particlar cohort or group.

Not all women are disadvantaged. Some are. Some are not.

Not all men are disadvantaged. Some are more so than others.

Not all gays are disadvantaged (a case can be made for institutional discriminal and disadvantage (laws that do not recongise etc) - a case can also be made for how the system advantages homosexuals ie dinks).

If phanatical wants to identify himself as disadvantaged because of where he lives, what he looks like and his socio economic status and his race then he is contradicting his own position. The notion of arguing against a womens officer and a womens room was based on the notion that distinguishing on the basis of sex was unfair. I always thought that distinguishing was something that phanatical didn't like. Especially when it comes to gays and women.

 

[Phanatical]

I've not been advocating the creation of a Men's Officer. For some, it's a compromise that would maintain the Women's Officer. Rather, i've been advocating the creation of a Gender Issues and Equal Opportunity Officer.

Comparing myself to Rose Jackson is just one argument as to how Affirmative Action is a flawed (at best) policy. If we have AA for women, why not AA for men? Why not AA for Asians? Why not AA for Affiliate campus students? Why not AA for goth lesbians? Why not AA for cannibals? The point is that Affirmative Action cannot work, for the simple fact that it creates a division where none should exist. This is why I'm also opposed to the maintenance of the Women's Officer, and why I support a "Gender Issues and Equal Opportunty Officer" - Something is obviously wrong when it's a policy of the NUS that representation for men is (and this is a direct quote) "symptomatic of a Backlash Society".

 

[withoutaface]

Affirmative action for Union Board is different to affirmative action for SRC, because of the history involved (the previous existence of separate Women's and Men's Unions that amalgamated conditionally on equal representation).

If someone signs a contract on the basis of equal representation, and then fails to field enough candidates, they should take a good hard look at themselves before introducing new amendments to compensate for their own inability to hold up their side of the deal. It is the fault of the women on campus that there are not enough females on Union board, not the men.

ujuphleg's post is also hypocritical in that she suggests people involved in student politics should stay true to themselves, and ignore the opinions of others if those opinions are unfounded ("unless you can cope with that and realise that it is their own insecurity which plagues them then you shouldn't be in politics."), but then suggests that she would rule out running for Union Board because other people might think she was unqualified and only got the job because she was female. If you know that you are a good candidate, and you honestly believe that you deserve to be on Union Board, then by your logic it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Her point was that she is principally opposed to running for an organisation whose guidelines she views with such moral outrage and disgust.

If you can look at the numbers of women who have served on Union Board (I think it has never been higher than 4 out of 11, and usually about 2) for the last 10 years, and tell me that the only reason for that is that women are less able at running the Board than men, then you are sexist. Note that it's not about skill at being in election campaigns, as that makes no difference to how well the Union is run once those people are elected. The best candidates at running the Board should be elected, and clearly women are underrepresented.

The reason given that women are not as aggressive was not put forward by me, rather by one of the pro-AA women at the AGM. I then extrapolated it to draw the conclusion that politics is an aggressive profession and if a group lacks this aggression then they will probably not make good politicians. If this makes me a sexist then so be it.

I also do not believe that discrimination occurs against other groups as much as it has against women. AFAIK, the only person who has played the race card in this campaign is Quah; no-one has actually attacked him on the basis of his race, or scrawled racist remarks on his campaign material. The women running for Union Board were subjected to sexist graffiti; it also happened to Rose during her campaign for president.

I appreciate the fact that Rose got sexist graffiti scribbled, but if she can't put up with it she can shut the fuck up and go back to the kitchen [comment]Note: this is a joke, if you are going to seriously attack me over this then I'd suggest you are one too[/comment], because politics is clearly not the game for her.

 

[ujuphleg]

Her point was that she is principally opposed to running for an organisation whose guidelines she views with such moral outrage and disgust.

Thanks.

I appreciate the fact that Rose got sexist graffiti scribbled, but if she can't put up with it she can shut the fuck up and go back to the kitchen, because politics is clearly not the game for her.

I think this is a bit harsh - the whole going back to the kitchen bit mainly. I think its an awful thing for Rose to have such graffiti written about her but withoutaface is right in that, if you don't realise (and accept) that people are going to take any shot they can at you when you are in politics, then you really shouldn't be in it. More to the point you shouldn't be complaining about it.

Furthermore, I fail to see how Affirmative Action helps this - in this situation it demonstrates that what these people try to achieve is correct - they write nasty things about the female candidates and thus, they seek a motion which ensures that women are always elected to the Board.

It is also hypocritical because, feminists believe that women are equal to or better than men. So why do you need assistance in being voted in?




Anyway, we're meant to be discussing the election and not the AA motion from May.

Personally I would like to hear more from Spark! and the Joke Candidate

 

[withoutaface]

The terms "Spark" and "Joke" are interchangable with the way they've run their campaign. Also Joke Candidate is an old Trinity boy, and a hardcore lefty.

 

[Phanatical]

The Joke candidate will probably get more votes than me

Not that that's a problem though, he's the embodiment of what this election is all about. If I weren't running, I'd vote for the Joke candidate.

 

[withoutaface]

If anyone would just read the blurbs for the Aardvark candidates they're way funnier than joke candidate.

 

[withoutaface]

Keep Left are a joke.

Will someone please get the cops to beat some sense into them?

Especially that curly haired faggot that's always shouting.

 

[Phanatical]

What, Pepperspray Paddy? How else would we know that the sky is falling?

 

[withoutaface]

Hahahahaha.

Also they misspelled Labor on their pamphlets.

 

[Plebeian]

Everything that withoutaface and ujuhphleg posted has counter-arguments, generally based on the fact that election campaigns are very different to actual administration, and also that women might be equal in skill, but are placed at a disadvantage, which AA is the counter to. However, I will conform to the moderator's suggestion (which I also supported in several posts) that re-debating the Union AGM is not productive, and I would hope that others do as well.

PS. Way to steal my title, Justin. Although I think I stole it from Labor Right.