Important: Anti-vsu Rally (1 Viewer)

[Phanatical]

Election campaigns are NOT the responsibility of the SRC. Our representative body should not take a side in a federal election, because at least half of the students that representative body represents will disagree. USYD's SRC spends Thousands of dollars sending people to places like Baxter Detention Centre to protest, when that money should be going right back to the students who fund it.

Conferences of the NUS are also stupid. They create heinous policy which they expect ALL SRC's to follow, and speak on issues as far removed from student issues as Aborigine Rights on the behalf of all 400000 university students. For example, NUS protested at the TJ Hickey funeral last year. I disagreed, but as a member of NUS, they had spoken on MY behalf against my actual viewpoint.

I don't care how corrupt the Federal Government is, in the context of this debate. Just because somebody else runs around naked down Pitt St. covered in shit doesn't mean that the rest of us should.

 

[Minai]

Exactly. The government is a different story, because unlike the SRC's, they actually do useful things from time to time, in the interests of its citizens.

Travels to NUS conferences, full catering for their closed meetings are NOT necessities. These so called student politicians, as Phanatical has pointed out, may campaign directly AGAINST the beliefs you hold, yet you still have to fund them. Now I know it's the same with the Federal government, but they are democratically elected in an election where it is compulsory to vote. In SRC elections, something like 20% of the student population actually votes, so you can't say that because that SRC got voted in, they must have a majority following.

Oh, I do also believe many a Federal MP has been caught rorting taxpayer funds with "excessive travel"

My argument is, that in the context of student representation, the SRC's should only provide services beneficial to students (such as the legal advice or whatever). SRC's should not think of themselves as political parties and hence go off spending students' money on their own political campaigns (which I mentioned may not have a majority following in the student population).

Also, Unions won't lose half their revenue, they'll more than manage to survive. As Xayma has calculated in a similar thread, the unions would lose about 20-30% of revenue which they can easily make up through price increases and increased sponsorship.

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...se-uni-fees-law/2005/04/16/1113509970028.html

 

[Phanatical]

I have an exam scheduled that day. Even if I didn't, I still wouldn't go to this rally because while I support the principles of USU, in practice it has stuffed my campus over and I believe that students based at the Con (both the Greenway and the Seymour facilities) will benefit from saving $540 from services that we as musicians never use.

SU Sport gets $140 or thereabouts from each of us. The music societies at USYD get, as a combined figure, maybe about 50c from each student. I will celebrate the day this situation is swapped around, and SU Sport have to beg for money and keep worrying about the bottom line while we musicians can fund bigger and better opportunities for students in the creative arts.

It's like the wankers who to this day complain about the Carr Government's "Wasteage" of money on the Conservatorium's redevelopment, which cost $145 million, while at the same time they extoll the $690 million Telstra Stadium, which is so money wasting it even had to sell its naming rights, and the $197 million Sydney SuperDome. At least people use the Con.

 

[stazi]

I have an exam scheduled that day. Even if I didn't, I still wouldn't go to this rally because while I support the principles of USU, in practice it has stuffed my campus over and I believe that students based at the Con (both the Greenway and the Seymour facilities) will benefit from saving $540 from services that we as musicians never use.

SU Sport gets $140 or thereabouts from each of us. The music societies at USYD get, as a combined figure, maybe about 50c from each student. I will celebrate the day this situation is swapped around, and SU Sport have to beg for money and keep worrying about the bottom line while we musicians can fund bigger and better opportunities for students in the creative arts.

It's like the wankers who to this day complain about the Carr Government's "Wasteage" of money on the Conservatorium's redevelopment, which cost $145 million, while at the same time they extoll the $690 million Telstra Stadium, which is so money wasting it even had to sell its naming rights, and the $197 million Sydney SuperDome. At least people use the Con.

After all hundreds of thousands of people a year flock to the Con. Because it's just such a massive event in the quest for national and/or sporting identity. That is a rediculous comparisson. The government can make a shitload of profit from sporting venues, as people often go to see sporting events. There's also sponsorships. Stadium Australia 'had' to sell its naming rights? It couldn't possibly be because profit could be made? The development of the stadiums prior to the olympics increased tourism and gave Australians a venue that they can be proud of. Sure, I may not absolutely agree with whether or not it was that necessary to keep most of the venues after the olympics I somehow think that financially the stadiums are a much better venture then redeveloping the Con.
I do approve of the fact that the con was redeveloped though. I think it's great when the government supports Arts, I just don't like your comparisson.

 

[Phanatical]

We don't need sporting identity. We need cultural identity. As for making profit - both Stadium Australia and the Sydney SuperDome are huge white elephants in the middle of Sydney which are next to never used. Nice venues, sure, but necessary or even sensible? Nope.

The Sydney Conservatorium of Music redevelopment was not only important for the development of the Arts in NSW, but also in terms of our history - restoring a Francis Greenway building and exposing and protecting even pre-Greenway structures on the site. There are over a thousand students based there, not to mention several music companies and research institutions. And on Wednesdays and Saturdays, the building is filled with people who come to appreciate the history of NSW and the art music of today's society.

This is why I oppose paying SU Sport fees. Firstly, the Con doesn't HAVE any SU Sport facilities or activities. Secondly, even if we did, none of us would be involved because we're musicians and not sportspeople. We'd much rather see our money go towards our Own endeavours in the field of music, and if we want to play sport, we can play on our local fields at home or outside in the Botanical Gardens.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But... do Non-Con people have to pay for SU Music things? (if they exist)

 

[Phanatical]

No. Student organisations spent about $15000 at the Greenway facility last year, but took in $800000 from fees levied on Greenway based students.

 

[Plebeian]

My argument is, that in the context of student representation, the SRC's should only provide services beneficial to students (such as the legal advice or whatever). SRC's should not think of themselves as political parties and hence go off spending students' money on their own political campaigns (which I mentioned may not have a majority following in the student population).

I think different people have different views about the legitimacy of political campaigns conducted by the SRC. However, this argument you have put forward is NOT in favour of VSU! When you say the SRC should only provide services beneficial to students, you acknowledge that these do exist. Under VSU, they won't. Even though the Union may apparently survive on the strength of sponsorship (this is a somewhat dubious claim; given the amount of money the Union is putting into the anti-VSU campaign, they obviously see it as a serious issue), the SRC has no revenue-raising arm with which it will be able to generate cash to pay for these beneficial and essential services. Yes, we may succeed in preventing students from using public funds to raise issues such as refugees and the environment, if you feel this is a good thing. But this will come at the cost of removing the student voice on student issues which DO actually affect us all, and at the cost of the beneficial services (such as legal, health, welfare, academic representation and childcare). There certainly are some problems with the current situation, but the introduction of full-scale VSU to kill off the whole SRC, and slash funding to the Union, is simply not the way to fix them.

 

[Xayma]

You seem to think that VSU would cause the certain death of the SRC.

Iff a) The SRC's budget became alot more transparent
AND b) Students could choose if they want to contribute towards political radicalism then a lot of VSU supporters would join, if not purely for the "insurance" value of the SRC.

 

[Phanatical]

The SRC needs a change of the guard. When SRC elections come around this year, I strongly encourage everybody to support the Conservatorium's ticket, because we believe in representation for ALL students (not just the aborigine-wannabes lesbian hippies who shave their heads but not their legs).

Our representatives need to be Pragmatic. The Labor factions, Socialist factions and Liberal factions have ALL proven their incompetence. So it's time to elect some independents.

 

[withoutaface]

*sigh
Seems like another engineering lab we're gonna have to catch up, gg fuckwits.

 

[acmilan]

So is this day off actually happening or is it just all talk?

 

[withoutaface]

So is this day off actually happening or is it just all talk?

Hopefully it's just the union BSing us as always.

 

[Plebeian]

You seem to think that VSU would cause the certain death of the SRC.

Iff a) The SRC's budget became alot more transparent
AND b) Students could choose if they want to contribute towards political radicalism then a lot of VSU supporters would join, if not purely for the "insurance" value of the SRC.

I am basing this view on:
a) the historical precedent from Western Australia, when VSU was introduced there; and
b) the fact that most people seem to be mostly concerned about the fact that they apparently can't afford to pay union fees, and so don't really like they'll be willing to pay for the insurance value. The fact is, it's difficult to give the SRC a mandate to protect the rights of students without running any political campaigns, because it is necessary to protest against decisions made by the Government where these come into conflict with the interests of students. Some people might construe a campaign against VSU as political radicalism (indeed, some people have commented in this thread that our money is being wasted on anti-VSU T-shirts), even though this is clearly a campaign directly related to student rights and not some other cause such as illegal immigrants.

VSU will cause the death of the SRC, because not enough people see the benefits they get out of it, preferring instead to keep their money and/or see the SRC stereotypically as an extreme left-wing body.

So is this day off actually happening or is it just all talk?

No, it's definitely happening. It's never been in any doubt despite what withoutaface would have you believe. The University Senate resolution excusing students from classes was passed a couple of weeks ago.

Hopefully it's just the union BSing us as always.

Incisive commentary, as always . It would be nice for once to hear an actual well thought-out argument for VSU instead of unevidenced attacks on the Union or the simple "I can't afford to pay" (in which case, removing student representation is going to open you up to a whole barrel of extra charges in future).

 

[acmilan]

So classes are still going ahead for people that want them to?

 

[withoutaface]

I am basing this view on:
a) the historical precedent from Western Australia, when VSU was introduced there; and
b) the fact that most people seem to be mostly concerned about the fact that they apparently can't afford to pay union fees, and so don't really like they'll be willing to pay for the insurance value. The fact is, it's difficult to give the SRC a mandate to protect the rights of students without running any political campaigns, because it is necessary to protest against decisions made by the Government where these come into conflict with the interests of students. Some people might construe a campaign against VSU as political radicalism (indeed, some people have commented in this thread that our money is being wasted on anti-VSU T-shirts), even though this is clearly a campaign directly related to student rights and not some other cause such as illegal immigrants.

VSU will cause the death of the SRC, because not enough people see the benefits they get out of it, preferring instead to keep their money and/or see the SRC stereotypically as an extreme left-wing body.



No, it's definitely happening. It's never been in any doubt despite what withoutaface would have you believe. The University Senate resolution excusing students from classes was passed a couple of weeks ago.



Incisive commentary, as always . It would be nice for once to hear an actual well thought-out argument against VSU instead of unevidenced attacks on the Union or the simple "I can't afford to pay" (in which case, removing student representation is going to open you up to a whole barrel of extra charges in future).

Tell me why I should miss out on a class which the majority of the rest of the people doing the subject will do on another time, which I can't attend because these other times clash with my physics lectures, just because some people want to run off and hold a protest?
EDIT: And yes, I agree it would be nice to hear a well thought out argument against VSU And by the way, half of the union's claims are just as unevidenced as the attacks upon it.

 

[Plebeian]

So classes are still going ahead for people that want them to?

I imagine that will depend on the individual lecturers, and how political they are (some lecturers will hold classes, whether or not they support the NDA, some will decide they support the NDA enough to cancel their classes altogether). The University Senate hasn't stopped classes, it's said that no student who goes to the rally or festival instead of class will be penalised, because the University supports the action that the Union and SRC is taking. It may be a good idea to ask your lecturer in person.

Tell me why I should miss out on a class which the majority of the rest of the people doing the subject will do on another time, which I can't attend because these other times clash with my physics lectures, just because some people want to run off and hold a protest?
EDIT: And yes, I agree it would be nice to hear a well thought out argument against VSU And by the way, half of the union's claims are just as unevidenced as the attacks upon it.

Because that cause has been deemed to be in the interest of the population of the university both by the students' elected representatives, and by the University itself. I can't really comment further without knowing what has actually happened - has your lecturer/tutor decided to cancel a lab on the NDA?

EDIT: Your livejournal says you have a lab on a Friday which has been cancelled. The NDA is on a Thursday, what's happening here? Also, the protest is not being organised by "fuckhead leftists". Sam Crosby, the Union President, and most of the Union Board are either centrist or members of the Labor Right, who are certainly not very leftist.

Also, saying that the Union's claims (btw, most claims in this campaign are made by the SRC) are false without explaining why is still not a very convincing argument in favour of VSU. (My typo has been fixed now .)

 

[withoutaface]

I imagine that will depend on the individual lecturers, and how political they are (some lecturers will hold classes, whether or not they support the NDA, some will decide they support the NDA enough to cancel their classes altogether). The University Senate hasn't stopped classes, it's said that no student who goes to the rally or festival instead of class will be penalised, because the University supports the action that the Union and SRC is taking. It may be a good idea to ask your lecturer in person.



Because that cause has been deemed to be in the interest of the population of the university both by the students' elected representatives, and by the University itself. I can't really comment further without knowing what has actually happened - has your lecturer/tutor decided to cancel a lab on the NDA?

EDIT: Your livejournal says you have a lab on a Friday which has been cancelled. The NDA is on a Thursday, what's happening here? Also, the protest is not being organised by "fuckhead leftists". Sam Crosby, the Union President, and most of the Union Board are either centrist or members of the Labor Right, who are certainly not very leftist.

Also, saying that the Union's claims (btw, most claims in this campaign are made by the SRC) are false without explaining why is still not a very convincing argument in favour of VSU. (My typo has been fixed now .)

It's on thursday? My bad, I was under the impression it was on a Friday.

I don't like the fact that the union uses the subsidised food line of thought to draw students in, when in fact the food is pretty expensive, and perhaps if it were owned by someone other than the union it would be priced more competitively, especially if there were several different businesses which owned different outlets.

I also don't like that they try to make out that VSU spells the definitive end of everything fun on campus, eg clubs and socs. Sure their fees will go up, some might no longer be subsidised by the union, but if people want the services they will still pay for them, I know I will be rejoining most of the socs I'm presently in next year.

And they're leftist because the views they hold are that of the most left of the major political parties, they're fuckheads because they scoff at me when I refuse to sign their petitions.

 

[Xayma]

Techie: For no student to penalised then no material presented in lectures at that time may be examinable. Hence there is point in running them.