As an organization that funds many worthwhile causes, I find no fault with the goals and actions of QPIRG as a whole. Where I take exception, rather, is with the duplicity and incoherence with which QPIRG has made, and continues to make, its case regarding opt-outable fees.  In particular, its public statements regarding the constitutionality and legitimacy of the question it put forth during the fall referendum period, in addition to their reasoning for doing so, have been consistently misleading and dishonest. 

Before and after the referendum, and particularly in statements and arguments made by interveners during the J-Board case, QPIRG maintained that firstly QPIRG’s future existence was contingent on the elimination of online opt-out fees through Minerva, and secondly, that the “reasonably informed average voter” would understand this. Accordingly, QPIRG argued that the result of the referendum question, which passed with 65 per cent voting in favour, was legitimate. 

But if QPIRG contends that students who voted ‘yes’ knew what they were doing and supported both parts of the question (the “opt-out” portion and the “existence” portion) because they saw them as “philosophically connected,” then they must also, logically, contend that if the two questions had been separated, they both would still have passed. Indeed, if 65 per cent supported both the opt-out changes and existence of QPIRG, both questions separately would have received the exact same 65 per cent.

Why then, even when faced with the prior concerns raised by the McGill administration as to the legitimacy and clarity of the question, did QPIRG not decide to run two separate questions in the same referendum, especially if, according to their own statements and logic, they expected both to yield the same outcome? Or why, for that matter, when faced with the possible invalidation of the results by the J-Board, or even the administration before that, did they not prepare to put forth two separate questions during the winter referendum period? Surely if the QPIRG BoD believed students had supported both propositions combined in the previous question, they could again be counted on to support both, only this time separately.

The reason, of course, is that they didn’t expect both outcomes to be the same and anticipated, likely correctly, that many students would vote for existence but against a change to opt-outs.  To that effect, I believe they deliberately crafted a question which they knew would force some students to vote for something they did not believe in, despite their repeated assurances that all those who voted ‘yes’ did so because they wholeheartedly believed in both. It is, by all standards, the only plausible and logical explanation.

I hope that QPIRG’s new question in the exceptional referendum period does not meet the same fate that CKUT’s did. I sincerely do want it to pass, and wish for QPIRG to keep receiving the money it needs to continue its good work. But I also hope that QPIRG and its leaders admit to the real reason behind the creation of their referendum question. The high moral and intellectual standard which they so often argue for and praise demands it. More importantly, we, as McGill students, deserve it.

-Calvin Elsman 

U1 Biology