This past Sunday McGill finally appeared to have run out of patience with the James Administration building “partiers” and had police escort them out. Unsurprisingly, the occupation ended without McGill meeting the group’s demands. However, the occupiers were certainly successful in sparking conversation on campus. While much of the (often heated) debate has focused on the occupation itself and the method of protest these students chose to use, there is also discussion of one of the issues the occupation was meant to highlight: last semester’s QPIRG and CKUT referendum questions.

To recap, two almost identically-worded referendum questions were passed by large majorities. The questions sought student support for the continued existence of QPIRG and CKUT, the renewal of their $3.75 and $4.00 (respectively) per semester opt-outable fees, and reinstating in-person opt outs. In January, McGill announced that the results would not be observed, as the questions—and therefore the results—were unclear. This led to a predictable uproar and protests that the administration was ignoring student democracy.

Yet no one can be surprised by the decision. The administration made it very clear that they wouldn’t be changing the form of the opt-out system, and indicated before the vote took place that they considered the questions unclear and that the results likely wouldn’t be accepted.

For QPIRG and CKUT the worst that could happen from this is having to run another referendum question each, meaning another campaign to put together, a delay in their negotiations with McGill over new Memoranda of Agreement, and the very unlikely possibility of a “no” vote.

However, the groups have been in negotiations with McGill over partial recognition of the results.

In fact, CKUT has already come to an agreement with the administration that will see McGill recognize the referendum result as support for CKUT’s existence while requiring them to run a second fee question this semester. QPIRG could come to a similar agreement. In the end, both groups may end up running new referendum questions this March, and both have the chance to benefit from this.

If required to run a second question, QPIRG should seek a fee raise. A straightforward question, asking for approval of, say, a $4.00 opt-outable fee, is almost guaranteed to pass. Last semester’s question passed with 65.6 per cent, and the invalidation of the results has energized QPIRG supporters. There is no way the administration could reject the results of such a question on the basis of clarity.

While the occupation may have stirred up anti-QPIRG sentiment, as long as the fee is opt-outable it’s difficult for all but the most ardent opponents of QPIRG to oppose it. Moreover, a fee increase could help QPIRG make up some of the revenue lost due to opt-outs. If QPIRG feels entitled to a certain level of funding, then limiting opt-outs is only one way of achieving this­—raising their fee, instead of increasing their funding base, is another.

CKUT, however, should use this opportunity to make their fee non-opt-outable. CKUT should make the same argument that both the Daily and the Tribune have (successfully) made: that campus media should be non-opt-outable in order to protect their editorial independence from opt-out campaigns.

In the end, both groups took a risk by running questions that hadn’t been vetted by McGill. Yet the administration’s goal isn’t to defund QPIRG and CKUT, rather it is to keep the online opt-out system as is. A second referendum campaign isn’t a terrible price to pay for taking that risk. Indeed, both groups may end up benefitting from all of this.