Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In fact, the FA picks the national team from every player eligible by nationality, no matter where they play.
-
No one ever said there was forced membership of the UCSA; rather that forced membership of the UCSA would be no worse than forced membership of UC.
The UCSA is an interesting example in that there are no membership fees so it makes very little difference if membership is compulsory or not. (And the UCSA has universal membership you can waive, but then take up again if you want it, which makes the distinction seem utterly pointless to me.)
-
But that also applies to any restraint a university applies, which you've already admitted can in some cases be legitimate.
I really do think this comes down to whether or not you think students' associations are part of a university, or merely coincidental. I think they are, so I think it is entirely justified to have universal membership, you don't, so you don't.
-
So what should the internal functions of universities follow the same restraints as liberal democracies? In particular, why is it for a university to decide what courses are required --- and note that you can't decide that you don't want to associate with the rest of the plonkers in LAWS10* and still get a law degree --- but not for that same university* to decide that all students shall be members of the students' association?
Well, I assume you'll argue that the costs outweigh the benefits of universal membership, but (a) I disagree, and (b) why is that a matter for government, any more than the specific details of what restraints on people's liberty can be imposed in exams?
* Not for parts of that same university, I should say.
-
A liberal democracy is one is which the fundamental rights of minorities are not subject to majority veto.
Universities are not liberal democracies.
-
I just think trying to create a healthy student body by mandating membership of a student body association is a step too far, and a step that is unnecessary.
Suppose I grant this, does it then follow Parliament passing Douglas's bill the best solution to this? I can think of a lot of sort of unjustified restrictions a university could impose on students* that wouldn't be matters for an Act of Parliament, because that would be excessive interference with the universities' freedom to manage their own affairs.
In this case, if a majority of students want out, they can get out; the part of the university directly affected (i.e the student body) has the ability to take that decision. Douglas' bill would deny the university that self-governance. And I don't see why this should be a matter for governmental interference.
* Requiring BFA candidates to take art history courses, etc...
Must rush, plane is leaving, that's a bit muddled and repetitive, but.
-
Well, yea, the purpose of VUWSA is not precisely the same as the purpose of VUW, but all the above would appear to me to be very similar to the purposes of a university,. It isn't identical, but they are close enough that it doesn't seem worth splitting hairs over the distinction. It appears that VUW agrees with me on this one as well, which suggests that maybe Parliament should show some deference. (If you disagree, well then.)
At it's most basic choosing to attend a university involves choosing to attend a university - it's more of an expression of free association than a limit on it.
Very few people say, oh, I want to attend university. They say `I want to get a BA' or `I want to be a doctor'. So that argument's flawed from the beginning.
I'm at a loss to see why being a member of the student body also requires you to be a member of the student body association - an entirely separate organisation.
Because it is my opinion that part of a healthy university is a comprehensive student body association, in exactly the same way that part of a healthy university is the requiring of exams, and justified as a restriction of human rights in exactly the same way.
-
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing against the existence of universities.
Er, actually, I am pretty sure that what you have said is an argument against universities: you must associate to get the degree; you have very little choice about who to associate with if you want a given degree; and they are public* organisations. The justification for universities is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research; that is also the justification for students' associations.
What you have to now show is either that there is some difference between students' associations and universities that allows one to distinguish them, and I think this will be very hard, because it is my belief that the difference between a body composed of the members of a university and a body composed of the members of a university currently studying at that university is pretty slim; or that students' associations do not advance knowledge etc., which technically speaking is a matter of practical utility I believe you are not interested in.
* Again, a dodgy term, but.
-
Craig, dear god, you just said that calling an actual straight up fucking merchant banker an usurer `had unfortunate anti-semitic connotations' & now you lecture others about Godwin. Do you have no fucking shame?
-
No, you're the one comparing universal student membership to the Test Acts & the exclusion of women, ffs.
(And I would have been far more willing to cut slack if you'd shown any sign of engaging with the reasons those are bad comparisons; it looks very much to me like arguing by connotation.)