McGill TribuneThe assertion by Professor Mendelson and supported by the McGill Tribune (“Admin was right to refuse the referenda” Jan. 16, 2012) that the referenda questions run by QPIRG McGill and CKUT 90.3fm were unclear betrays a particularly low estimate of the intelligence of McGill students.
We asked students to support our organizations with a non-opt-outable fee. Our campaigns had 5,245 students voting, far exceeding quorum for a fall referenda and both QPIRG and CKUT received a clear majority. If students objected to the question, or did not want to support the continuation of our groups with a non-optoutable fee, they could have voted no, they could have voted no opinion or they could have organized a no campaign. This is what people do in a democracy.
McGill students have repeatedly demonstrated that they understand the value of CKUT and QPIRG, and the threat to our existence that the online opt-out system has created. To declare this evidence invalid is undemocratic. CKUT’s question was approved by the Chief Returning Officer for Elections McGill and by the SSMU council on Oct. 17, 2011. The wording was debated and students democratically decided that it was a clear and reasonable question to put to referendum. QPIRG McGill obtained the signatures of over 500 undergraduate students from seven faculties, following the regulations for a student-initiated referendum.
In a letter dated Oct. 26, 2011 five days before the referendum and with disregard for SSMU due process. Professor Mendelson informed us that we had to run an identical question to the 2007 referendum (interestingly, the 2007 question contained provisions concerning both our existence and a change to our funding arrangement, and was accepted by the administration.) There is no requirement in our Memorandum of Agreement or any other regulation that we are aware of that requires us to run the same question in perpetuity. To repeat: the CKUT and QPIRG questions had both been approved according to the established democratic processes of SSMU, processes for which the Deputy Provost apparently has no respect whatsoever.
Students supported these referenda questions because they understood the problems of the online opt-out system. The financial burden caused by this system undermines our ability to carry out the service students voted to retain. Every semester, our organizations are forced to devote considerable resources to defend ourselves against unregulated and inflammatory campaigning during the opt-out period. Beyond these financial implications, the issue of opt-outs concerns the democratic question of whether mere convenience should be allowed to undermine a service that a clear majority of students have repeatedly said they value. There was no history of students being refused a refund, or being treated in a discourteous fashion if they requested a refund or any incident of harassment or intimidation prior to the imposition of the online opt out. Since the implementation of the Minerva opt out system, each semester there is unregulated, poisonous campaigning that affects all student groups and every student who participates in and supports these groups. Is that the price we should have to pay for convenience?
McGill students have voted. When will the Administration listen?
