Presumably, what OSPIRG will be discussing at its meeting 6 p.m. tomorrow is the ballot measure the group is drafting. The measure would not mention OSPIRG, but rather ask if students are interested in funding the kinds of things OSPIRG does (or so I hear).
But many groups do very similar things to OSPIRG, which means (in my understanding), if the ballot measure fails, it could endanger the Oregon Student Association and student unions themselves — in other words, the base of the entire ASUO left.
Other student groups are rumored to be upset about that and they may be heading over to the OSPIRG meeting to oppose the measure. What does OSPIRG hope to gain by upping the ante that way? I’ll make it my mission tomorrow to learn, but make no mistake: if my understanding is correct, this could be the most politically significant ASUO-related meeting in years.
Any chance you’ll be able to take video from the meeting?
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire
Campaigns for student government on campus should not single out a group for termination in order to appeal to voters. It’s the job of the ASUO to represent student interests, not dictate which ones are valid. Our justice system tries to eliminate jurors predisposed to certain beliefs before a defendant goes on trial – arguing during the campaign season that certain groups should not be funded, is like executing a prisoner without giving him or her a fair trial. This attitude alienates the student body, and makes many of us think that we have to defend ourselves from the ASUO, not work with it. At this point it’s important to make a careful distinction: The ASUO is an association of students, not a government. Almost everyone agrees that we need to find ways to get students more involved. This is not the way. Students must be allowed to express their opinions in a safe environment, not one where they fear of prosecution. We need to stop incendiary politics on campus. Working together with those we have disagreements with will teach everyone an invaluable lesson: how to cooperate. It’s important that a student association helps students learn this essential skill.
As neither a supporter nor a defender of OSPIRG, rather an astute observer, I would like to show how defunding this organization reflects on the convoluted and difficult processes that the ASUO works with. With that, I’d like to offer my two cents on why OSPIRG lost its funding, where the process could see improvement, what I think would have been a reasonable compromise, and finally how iGov would have been useful during the process.
Where OSPIRG went wrong:
Students in the ASUO operate in a secluded reality – that is, they quite literally live and work amongst the EMU’s many labyrinths and dictate issues from a stuffy board room on the third floor. It’s not their fault that the institution they’ve found themselves working from has developed out of complicated rules that engross participants in the process rather than empower them to advocate on behalf of students. OSPIRG has also secluded itself, but in a different way. Defenders of the organization argue that it helps students achieve ‘real’ progress in the ‘real world.’ It doesn’t take a philosophy major to realize that two separate institutions, operating in two separate, yet equally secluded realities, will have problems functioning together.
Realizing the situation they were in, OSPIRG should have tried to find avenues that would help resolve the disagreeable elements of the organization that the ASUO cited. Now, I know it’s rather hypocritical to suggest that OSPIRG needs to ‘change’ anything, when I at the same time propose that students ought to be able to work on what they like and their ifee money should help them do that, however, all programs have to operate within certain limits and prove their viability to students on campus. On principle, it seems wrong that OSPIRG might have to potentially ‘sacrifice’ any of it’s goals, but we don’t always operate in a world of principles. Sometimes, we find ourselves in tricky situations that require us to come up with new ways to work with each other. A little give and take could have helped produce a more beneficial result, especially when the group was (legitimately or not) faced with not getting any money at all.
Where the ASUO should have stepped in:
The ASUO’s primary function should have been helping resolve differences, not inflaming them. Before singling out OSPIRG for execution, the ASUO should have done two things. First, OSPIRG ought to be both a program and a contract. As a program students who want to participate in the group on campus ought to be given funding as any other group might. This way, even if the lobbyist arm of OSPIRG is injured (defunded), the rest of the body will still be able to function until it heals. The ASUO should have facilitated this transition, and explained to the members of OSPIRG what it meant to be a contract rather than a program. As representatives, senators have an obligation to help each group equally and work with them to find compromises. Yelling, fighting, and a few meetings, was obviously not enough time to come to an agreeable settlement.
Second, the ASUO should have clearly defined what the problem was that they had with OSPIRG. They repeatedly told its organizers that they didn’t see the real impact on students on campus (again a reflection on the secluded realities the two operate in). To this, OSPIRG responded by showing how their lobbying efforts saved students tuition dollars, helped draft legislation that impacted health care reform, drafted a renters guide among other things, and in general described how they impacted the real world. Again, the ASUO responded that they did not see any impact. No compromise was met, no solutions were adequately discussed, and not enough time was spent working with the organization. Their fate had been predetermined last spring during the elections.
Senators should have stepped in and helped OSPIRG find ways to address their concerns, rather than repeatedly assault their integrity. It’s one thing to be critical, it’s quite another to block someone out entirely. One possible solution would have been sending members of OSPIRG to all the groups on campus and the ASUO once per month to discuss policy issues that directly relate to their causes. If this would have happened, I am absolutely convinced that groups on campus, as well as the ASUO would have seen how OSPIRG is working on many issues that not only directly impact them, but are also in line with the goals of groups and the ASUO. In return, OSPIRG would be able to gain valuable insight into what matters to students today.
The final result:
No solution like this was proposed because the ASUO and OSPIRG were fighting rather than working together. Their arguments had become engulfed in incendiary politics. Persons with predisposed beliefs were unwilling to give an inch even if that meant gaining a mile. This is true not just of the ASUO, but also of OSPIRG, and students who, feeling alienated by the process, were unable to speak out on the process.. There’s no reason why students on campus should feel like their voice is being sequestered by other students (lest we forget, senators, and group members are students as well).
What if iGovernment would have existed?
A. Supporters of OSPIRG would have been able to allocate their incidental fee (remember, just the programs part) to OSPIRG, guaranteeing the group at least $18,500 (180 x105) to continue operating. At the very least protecting them from losing all support.
B. Because iGov will help connect students with their representatives (that is people ought to be able to clearly see who represents their major) and facilitate discussions between constituents and senators, iGov would have facilitated more constructive forms of of communication. It’s my firm belief that had the support of OSPIRG been made more clear, each of the representatives would have felt a stronger need to address their constituents concerns ultimately ensuring adequate measures were taken to find an agreeable compromise.
C. Students would have had a place to voice their concerns, free from personal prosecution while being able to interact effectively. Some of us are better speakers, others are better writers. iGov will let you choose, write a blog post, or make a video response? Who will you speak with, just your senator, the whole senate, or the whole school? iGov will provide avenues of interaction that are currently unavailable.
Right now the board room hardly facilitates proper discussion. It gets stuffy and is easily overcrowded. Roberts rules make it awkward to know when it’s okay to speak, or to even know if I can. iGov will be easy to use, and will integrate other web-based programs like facebook and twitter, to make sure that students voices are being heard. iGov will also be accessible at any time, so students who have prior commitments during senate meetings will be able to effectively convey their beliefs before hand.
Lets stop incendiary politics on campus, find solutions, and reconnect students with each other.
I forgot to mention what exactly iGov is in this post… so here you go.
What is iGovernment? And how could it benefit me?
iGovernment, or internet government, would reform the ASUO into an institution that facilitates student involvement by providing a multifaceted internet based user interface that allows students to interact with their representatives, help allocate the budget, and connect with campus groups. Welcome to the future of the ASUO. Welcome to iGov.
This is essentially the platform Ian and I are running on for ASUO elections.
By the way Alex, do you believe that the organizations like OSA and other student unions are necessarily left? It would be interesting to hear your opinion on why we categorize groups and campaigns on campus in terms of liberalism and conservatism. I think part of the problem stems from our idea that we have a student government instead of a student association on campus… that’s just a thought
This iGov sounds interesting, ooh wait no it doesn’t actually.
Ryan you have been considered a joke since day one. At take back campus last year, you got up and yelled and screamed, and were the laughing stock of the entire filled classroom.
Throughout this year, you have pontificated with your arrogant beliefs, yet you hardly ever dedicated yourself to service or for that matter, the student body.
You want to know where apathy comes from? It comes from white males like you who talk at people, instead of to them.
Do you really think you can sit around and tell other people what to do, considering you have never served students a day in your life.
And what about your commitment to students of color, LGBTQ, ect.??
You should run for office, you have a good chance seeing as you are an arrogant white male who is willing to continue the patriarchal ways of the ASUO.
Congratulations, you are going waste a lot of your own time, and produce no long term change. Have fun!