Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
To the extent that Students' Associations are separately incorporated bodies from their parent universities, by far the strongest argument against compulsory membership is the simple freedom of association argument presented by Graham.
That's a really interesting point. Seriously.
Because I don't think I have a great philosophical (or legal) objection to student government. It would be rather odd in a New Zealand context, but a student-run Honor Code (such as that proposed at the University of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson, and in force since 1842) would not raise a "freedom of association" objection from me; and a really comprehensive system like that at Haverford College wouldn't either.
It may just be that my objection boils down to "something of an historical accident". I don't think it will stop being an objection, but this is certainly an interesting twist.
-
And it's a very simple answer:
Private arrangements aren't government funded.
Plenty of private arrangements are government funded.
I have no problem with private universities saying that their students association is compulsory - in fact the bill accounts for this.
Hardly. The bill makes no mention of private universities. Moreover, it is an amendment to the Education Act - a law which doesn't really provide for private universities in New Zealand.
And finally, it would make it illegal for any person to require someone to become a member of a students' association. In short, it has exactly the opposite effect you claim it does.
-
if we do away with student politics
No-one's suggested doing away with student politics.
At least I'm not. I'm not even you sure you could - I doubt making it a criminal offence could even do that.
-
Keith - the first question revolves more around whether an institution that exercises public power should have that right (see section 3 of the Bill of Rights. And whether Parliament should be granting such bodies that power.
If that was the case, shouldn't students - as an integral part of a university - be able to make decisions about the conditions for enrolment at that university, within the frameworks of a liberal democratic society?
I don't see why not. And this is exactly why I support elected student reps on boards throughout the university.
back to the bodycorp example... How is this different from compulsory student unionism?
A fundamental difference is the lack of a real state mandate. Also, as a factual matter, your opportunities for avoiding one are much greater. There is only one (real) university in Wellington. There are many more housing options - at the very least, this makes any question of the proportionality of the limit imposed a lot easier to resolve.
But the argument there is not about compulsion, but about the politicisation of a compulsory body. Sure, compulsion makes it easier to politicise something, but the two attributes are still distinct and separable. It's unfair of you to say that because compulsory membership of a political organisation is wrong, therefore compulsory membership of anything is wrong.
The problem you get to with this line of argument is that it can lead to one injustice replacing another. An organisation of students (or anyone) should be able to get as political as it wants; and there is no way I want to stand in the way. I want students to be able to collectively unite to push for university action or state action - and I see no reason why a large organisation called the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association shouldn't be at the forefront.
If the option is between removing the right of students' associations to be political or removing their right to force others to join them, it's a pretty simple question for me to answer.
-
Comparing this issue to advances which meant people no longer had to live their entire lives in fear, have their life opportunities curtailed or even go to jail is just silly.
To be honest, I was thinking more of things like equal pay. And then I was saying this even fell well short of that.
And there was a reason why I tied my comment to the battle for legal equality. I recognise there are a bunch of bigger issues out there - but legislation ain't the answer to a lot of them.
-
Collectives are a great way of providing balance.
And workers choose whether to join unions. Why can't students have the same opportunity?
But don't campaign for a bill which will force students who have chosen compulsory association membership* to go voluntary against their wishes.
For some reason, you posted this in response to a point I made about slavery, I can but suggest that the same argument applied to such circumstances would be deeply hollow - don't argue for the banning of slavery, argue for the banning of slavery (for the next two years, until the next vote is held) in your city.
What you propose may be "democracy", but it is not liberal democracy.
I support section 17 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act being there. I think it is a good right. I don't think the limit currently imposed by the Education Act is a reasonable limitation than can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
If you disagree, then please:
1. tell me why the limit is justifiable in a liberal democracy - advising me of the compelling state interest advanced; or
2. campaign to remove freedom of association from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. -
So why must I be forced to be a member of the University of Canterbury then?
Keir - as I note in a comment above, if someone was proposing legislation that stopped the mandated university-membership of all undergraduates and graduates I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I'd join voluntarily, but if someone wants to be a graduate (or undergraduate) and not be a member of the University, why would I want to stop them? It is, I suspect, a hangover from a time of much greater collegiality, and I further suspect, a time when universities were closer to religious orders. In a liberal democracy which respects the right to freedom of association it is probably past time that this was gone.
Given you don't seem to support compulsory membership of universities why do you (I assume) support compulsory membership of students' associations?
it's utterly dodge to say that VSM has no connection to the fact the student unions are generally left
I don't believe I said that - was this a response to someone else? Because it's probably true. The support many on the right have for VSM will doubtless be influenced by their experiences under majority-left students' associations.
I just don't care what their political stripes; merely whether they're correct. In this case I think they are.
-
And which one of those is an organisation that advocates for students?.
I'd have thought all of them.
The idea of voluntary Student Association membership is a perennial right wing, pseudo liberal, dogma, as is Union bashing.
I don't care why others support it, or whether it has a history of being a fashionable cause in this circle or that. I - almost certainly naïvely - argued that this shouldn't be about politics. I stick to that.
Sometimes those historically of the left have advanced the cause of human freedom, sometimes those of the right. I don't care that Lincoln was a Republican - that he fought against slavery is good enough for me. Much smaller potatoes this time around, but I'm arguing for an idea, not a side.
-
And that is the point. It isn't a small group - a majority of students have decided that membership should stay compulsory.
1. It was no where near a majority of students.
2. Almost no-one who voted for compulsion is actually a student any more.
3. What other fundamental human rights are you willing to submit to simple majority rule?
If a majority of New Zealanders voted in favour of child smacking would that make you support it?
-
More seriously, I think the discussion is really around the scope of activities conducted by students' associations, in the same way there is discussion around the scope of local (and central) government activities. Students associations do play a governance role in their institutions. Perhaps a more appropriate solution would be to reconstitute them in that light.
I certainly have no problem with students electing representatives to University Councils and Academic Boards, etc.. Indeed, the Education Act already provides for that in some measure in tertiary institutions without compulsory memberships of students' associations.
Reconstituting students' associations into a different role, is, unfortunately, as problematic as making them compulsory. If the students at Victoria University want to band together to form the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association, I'm certainly not going to stand in their way to prevent them advocating whatever they want. If they want to be an advocacy/political organisation that is just as powerful a manifestation of their right to freedom of association as that right is represented by others in not joining.
I just don't want them to be able to force others along for the ride.