Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
NZUSA doesn't tell students what they think any more than John Key tells me what I think.
NZUSA speaks on behalf of "students" all the time.
Helen Clark declared that New Zealanders had moved on from knighthoods, etc. I don't have a John Key one, but I suspect one will arise at some point =)
By making things such as Student Associations voluntary you remove the passion. Without that passion all becomes grey.
The anti-nuclear movement, the anti-Vietnam movement, and the anti-tour movement were all pretty passionate. The Labour Party is pretty passionate. Hell, the VSM movement is pretty passionate. I'm not sure that compulsion would have helped - and even if it would have it certainly wasn't needed.
All kinds of activities are controlled by bodies that are at least partly compulsory, most of them Government, a few non-Government, and most don't have opt-out referendum clauses. What's special about this one?
I'm not arguing anything is special about this one. I asked whether there was a compelling state interest in making student membership compulsory. I couldn't find one. There have been a couple of attempts in the comments - but I haven't found them particularly compelling. That some other organisation is compulsory and perhaps shouldn't be isn't a particularly good argument from a human rights perspective.
-
Graeme, how about this: students retain freedom to associate or disassociate with their respective student association as is their whim, but there's not getting out of the compulsory donation to said association.
Does that satisfy your human rights concerns, or is this really about the money?
The money certainly can't be divorced from it - there is an additional indignity in being forced to provide funding to an organisation that publicly advocates your political opinions are not far short of evil. But it's certainly not the major problem. "Mere" forced membership of an organisation that publicly advocates your political opinions are not far short of evil is pretty bad in itself.
If a university - or the state - wants to contract with a students' association to provide services to students, I wouldn't have a problem with that from a freedom of association perspective (and the separate debate about whether its appropriate for the Government to be funding political advocacy is for another day).
NZUSA is pretty insistent that students shouldn't pay fees because education should be funded, as with everything else, through taxes. I'm not sure why they don't think the same logic can't be applied to fees and student services.
-
And the dues that fund those telephones are still compulsory, only now they're taken directly by the university, and then given to the students association. AUSA is effectively a contracted service provider.
Same fees, less control over them.
This is a great argument to use against DPF. Or Student Choice.
But I don't oppose compulsory membership of students' associations from a free-market perspective. I oppose it from a human rights-based perspective.
This is a cost I'm willing to accept, as I note in my argument: sometimes financial expense is the cost of respect for human rights. I certainly don't agree that it reaches the standard of compelling state interest required to reasonably force membership on others.
-
Why not?. It comes back to the same thing, choice. Are you saying we should be forced to live in a wishy washy world where nobody has to think that hard, where all the decisions are made for you?.
I'm pretty sure I'm not.
[checks]
I want to live in a Liberal Democracy. Illiberal democracy - say Singapore - is certainly an alternative. Benevolent dictatorship is another.
I'm spending a few minutes trying to figure how you get to the conclusion I want all the decisions made for me. It is of course exactly the opposite. At the very direct level, I want individual students to be able to decide for themselves whether they want universal fully-taxpayer-funded tertiary education: rather than having that decided for them by NZUSA.
I don't want the society in which almost everyone is indoctrinated into Christianity because all the state schools have decided to teach it. Having an organisation to which you are forced to belong decide your religious or political ideas for you is the antithesis of choice.
-
PS. Thanks for the rude response.
I did follow up - almost immediately - with a more tempered one.
The perils of fast-paced commentary.
-
The phones on campus there were at Vic were provided by the University.
The ones in Auckland seem to be maintained by AUSA.
I fear this one hurts your case, rather than helps it. As Matthew notes above, AUSA is voluntary.
-
will you now be defending landlords' 'human rights' to not rent to 'Maoris,' or shopkeepers' 'rights' to not have, say, blind people in their shops?
After pressing "post reply", I decided you perhaps deserved a better answer than my glib one above - you obviously weren't seriously suggesting I held such opinions.
The fuller reply might be to quote myself:
Proponents of compulsory membership of students' association are trying to limit human rights; they should be able to point to a compelling state interest to be advanced.
I can point to a compelling state interest to be advanced in relation to Māori tenants, and blind customers. The limit such restrictions place on what might otherwise be landlords' or shopkeepers' right to freedom of association is reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Russell has had a punt at providing what might be the compelling state interest in this case, but so far, he seems to be the only commenter wanting to give it a try.
My response is basically that they are nice points, but not nearly enough - not least because I feel the goal could be obtained by less restrictive means. You or he might disagree, or perhaps you'd like to posit your own: what is the compelling state interest to be advanced in this case?
-
will you now be defending landlords' 'human rights' to not rent to 'Maoris,' or shopkeepers' 'rights' to not have, say, blind people in their shops?
No.
You?
Good. That's sorted then.
-
It will demonstrably improve student welfare -- helping ensure that I get good outcomes for the money I'm tossing in.
That's a debate you can have with DPF and student choice - but I suspect you'll find there's some pretty strong disagreement with this point.
It will allow and encourage the student body to provide services facilities for itself, from phones on campus in case of emergency to Student Job Search and physical infrastructure. These both ease demand on pubic services and, in some cases, benefit the economy.
The phones on campus there were at Vic were provided by the University. SJS is almost exclusively government-funded.
You get the picture: as a non-participant, I figure I get a better deal for my contribution if students are required to get their collective shit together. Students' rights to have a hissy fit over compulsion occupy me less.
I like to think this wasn't a hissy fit. Then, given all the money my taxes pay toward roads, it would be pretty useful if drivers could get their collective act together and decide what they want. Let's ask the AA.
-
We should retain the freedom to attend a university that has compulsory association membership. Even if you choose not to participate you can experience the joy of having to pay for things you don't want. A bit like real life if you like.
And the freedom to choose to live in a country that practises [insert some human rights indignity here]?
Why should someone who wants to be a vet (only available at Massey-Palmy) have no choice while others do? What if a majority of students (who can be bothered to vote) at each university opt for compulsion? What if the only reason you can study at a university is you're working nights to pay for it all? What if your kids like seeing their father?
Should the parents of your local state primary school be permitted to decide whether there should be compulsory instruction in Christianity? You can just move house. Only one school in your town, or several that have all decided the same way? Move town and get a new job.
Something is a fundamental right or it isn't. I'm happy to have a debate over whether freedom of association is one (I'll win that) or should be one (I'll try pretty hard to win that). I'd like to think we wouldn't force people to give up certain fundamental rights because, by virtue of circumstance, they don't have too much choice in where they study.