Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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 think a hell of a lot of people want to attend university. It's easier to see in somewhere like the US, where people might aspire to "just" attend a Harvard or a Yale. But I very much think that attending a university is a massive draw for a lot on students in New Zealand too.
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.)
VUW has no control over VUWSA. The Education Act actively prevents them recognising any other organisation as representing students.
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 think you have distilled our point of difference. Change that to "part of a healthy university is a healthy student body" and I wouldn't disagree. 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.
-
In the end I can't distinguish the principles from the practice and so am attracted to a long forgotten view in favour of universal membership. The difference being an automatic exemption from membership on application.
Do that, and my argument goes away.
A box on the enrolment form, or a page on the university website, or a form - name, student ID, signature - you get fill out at the registry office and have your membership fee refunded. That's all I need. I'm reasonably confident that would be enough to qualify as a justified limitation.
It would be enough for me anyway.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be using it - I've nothing against collectivism. I was a research assistant for about three months, and I joined AUS - I think there was maybe one other student member (perhaps two?) in the entire law faculty. It's forced collectivism I'm arguing against here.
There will still be arguments over whether that's the best system and whether it's optimal for society, students generally, students at a particular university, etc. - but you can have those arguments with other people.
-
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.
I could go through a few others if necessary, but the justification for the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association is also:
1. to secure and maintain adequate state income, welfare and employment support for students.
...
6. to promote discussion and action as appropriate, on issues concerning students as citizens.
Indeed, while "[ensuring] the university provides equity and quality in assessment, teaching, conditions and course access supported by sufficient resources." is there "the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research" doesn't really get a look-in.
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.
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. And choosing to go to a university necessarily involves choosing to be part of other groupings - the group of people studying law, or attending the tutorial in room 212 at 1pm on a Wednesday, and the student body. 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.
-
The advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research is I believe the standard terminology.
I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing against the existence of universities.
There is no compulsion to participate, which is where your Church analogy falls down.
My church analogy - which I explicitly note in the original post is flawed - isn't particularly important. However, I would note that there is no compulsion in universal membership of a state church. You don't have to attend, you can join another church as well, believe whatever you want, etc.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Parliament doesn't need to point to a compelling state interest to pass laws - this is a democracy; it only needs to point to a compelling state interest to have laws which infringe upon guaranteed human rights - which makes us a liberal democracy.
Also, as I noted in my original post:
I do not pretend that voluntary membership will be a panacea for the ills faced by students' associations, or students, or tertiary education. It is not supposed to be – this isn't about fixing something...
That said, there in fact does happen to be a compelling state interest to be advanced: advancing respect for human rights - in a small - but very real - way.
-
The right of "Freedom of Association" is there to protect us from those that will not allow us to gather together and fight back against oppression. It is not there to allow us the right to not have to have anything to do with annoying people.
And the right to freedom of speech is there for pretty much the same reason. But that doesn't mean it doesn't protect really offensive pornography (US case), and hate speech (NZ case).
The logic behind your stance would allow schools to refuse admission to "other" kids because "normal" kids would be forced to associate with them.
No it wouldn't. Even if you can argue that freedom of association is implicated in such cases, that would give rise to:
1. a justified limitation.
2. a conflict of rights - specifically with section 19 - the right to freedom from discrimination. -
The former, dude, the former.
I figured (for most people anyway...).
What follows is the rather simple question:
"Why?"
and the question I've repeated a few times that encapsulates what's necessary:
"What is the compelling state interest to be advanced by giving associations of students the power to compel others to join them?
-
But I think you'd be on surer ground with a slightly different tack: Everything else has been deregulated -- why not this?
It's more apt, and more palatable, than the human rights argument.
And also bankrupt.
I wasn't saying that we should make membership of students' associations voluntary because we've done good things in the past - like pass the Equal Pay Act. I was looking at students' association in almost total isolation, running the system by which they are/can be compulsory for students through sections 17 and 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and - I think unsurprisingly - determining it comes up short.
And then I remarked that I realised it wasn't all that big a deal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway.
I wouldn't argue for freedom of expression on the basis that other things had already been de-regulated, and I don't see why I have to here.
Section 17 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees freedom of association. I don't believe anyone here has seriously suggested it's not implicated. That pretty much leaves two options to those who disagree:
1. They believe that the limit imposed in reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society; or
2. They believe that we shouldn't have the right to freedom of association. -
Universities are independent bodies, and have historically chosen to have student associations. What this law (and the predecessor requiring ballots, for that matter) is to dictate that they cannot have such associations as part of the package of university membership.
Universities in New Zealand have never chosen whether to have students' associations. It's not up to the university - in the past, a bunch of students decided to associate. Different bunches of students have continued to do so. At some point along the line, a law was passed giving those students the power to force others to join as well.
-
I want to get a bus to Karori. Why should I be forced to subsidise Brian Souter's homophobia?
I don't know, but certainly not because the New Zealand Parliament passed a law giving him the power to require you to fund him.
-
There's the equivalence again - and it's simply not true. Still at least one large potato to go.
No it isn't.
I've never fought with anyone over rights for the disabled. I've not seen an arguments here between other people over rights for the disabled.
I was comparing things fought over (by students, particularly, or mass movements generally) in the past, with things fought over (by students, or mass movements) now. Why would things that have not yet been fought over (by students, or massmovements) be part of the comparison?