Fair and Balanced
Last week I blogged about how a team challenging the vested interests at VUWSA had already faced an onslaught of staff lobbying against them in the elections, posters (allegedly produced by a political party’s youth section) labelling one member (who had left that party to join National) a “whore”, another rigged online poll etc.
Now voting started last Friday, and VUWSA has a rule you can’t basically campaign while voting so the A-Team has taken down their website etc to comply.
But surprising Salient this week had not one but five articles on the A-Team. And these appear at a time when the candidates are banned from being able to publicly respond through say their website or through pamphlets. The issue includes stories on:
- Accusations of racism against two A-Team members
- A welfare column devoted to attacking the A-Team
- Report of a lobby group formed just to oppose the A-Team
- How the incumbent President would halve his pay if re-elected
- An environmental group attacked the A-Team
- Continued assertions the refund promised is illegal if fee paid for by student loan (despite the Govt saying they are fine with it)
- A story on how the Returning Office appointed by the incumbent Exec has said the individual spending limit of $100 per candidate also applies to the A-Team so they are limited to spending just $100 over all 14 candidates.
Now I am not saying Salient should not carry negative stories on candidates. All for freedom of the press. But to carry an avalanche of negative stories during the period where candidates are banned from being able to publicly respond strikes me as grossly unfair.
And it gets even better. Vic student Chris Bishop submitted an article to Salient which pointed out that the A-Team have done a good thing by running as they have got people debating issues which deserve debate such as whether clubs should get $300,000 of central funding.
But you know what. Salient said they could not run it, as it was election week. So they can run an avalanche of negative stories and columns attacking one group of candidates, but they won’t run even one column which doesn’t even endorse them but points out the good stuff they have done such as publish a full alternative budget in advance.
And people wonder why I am so cynical about a compulsory association running its own elections.
Anyway in the interest of balance, I reproduce below the column by Chris which Salient refused to run:
A-Team article for Salient
Christopher Bishop**
If you’re like me, you’ll have spent the past week or so being assailed with advertising by a group of students known as the A-Team. You won’t have been able to miss the chalk in the quad and by the bus-stop, posters everywhere you can look, speeches and DVDs prior to your lectures, free sausages in the quad, and students handing out cards, fliers, and handbills.
You may have been annoyed by the advertising. You may think their policy of advocacy, accountability, and a $25 refund for every student is brilliant. You may think they’re going to gut clubs and rep groups, and so the price isn’t worth it. But whatever your political affiliations, I think it’s worth pondering just what the A-Team has done in this election. In my opinion they have fundamentally changed the way elections are, and will be, fought at Vic from now on.
They have invigorated a moribund students’ association where turn-out in elections had fallen to less than 1 per cent of all students. Most importantly, they have fundamentally challenged the political framework that VUWSA has long-operated under. With their policies on clubs and rep groups, the A-Team have started an important, and long overdue debate at Victoria about the proper role and function of a students’ association in a user-pays world.
Think about their campaigning. The A-Team have totally redefined the concept of what it means to campaign in student elections at Vic. In the past, prospective student politicians would attempt to solicit your votes using hastily-thrown together posters, some chalked signs somewhere, and fliers left lying around lecture theatres.
The A-Team have chalk – and lots of it – along with well-designed posters, handbills, and fliers. But it’s the additional things they’ve done that are so impressive: a website with FAQs, a regularly-updated blog, candidate profiles, copies of all their posters, and much more. A “meet the candidates” launch party at MVP. Barbecues in the quad with free sausages. And they’ve spoken to lecture after lecture over the last ten days, and played their very funny DVD. This has been a slick, professional, and well-organised campaign. If these guys can organise VUWSA as well as they’ve organised their campaign, then we’re in safe hands.
The A-Team has a full slate of candidates for every position on the executive. They have a manifesto and a clear programme of action for when and if they take office. When was the last time you saw candidates publish an alternative budget for the forthcoming year? Most candidates don’t even stop to consider the cost of their promises. Ask Joel Cosgrove how much his “free internet and printing” promise is going to cost. (And, how he’s going to deliver on it – there is, of course, no such thing as a free lunch).
The A-Team has made the election exciting and got people interested in it. Turn-out in VUWSA elections has been atrociously low the last few years; I bet it’ll be much higher this year. I’ve overheard numerous conversations around the university about the election over the last few days – and apathetic friends of mine who wouldn’t normally give two shits about the campaign have been asking me about it. Partly that’s because the A-Team campaign has been so in your face, but also because the policies the A-Team is promulgating are so different to what’s usually seen in VUWSA elections.
This is the most important effect of the A-Team. VUWSA elections have long operated under the assumption that clubs and rep group funding are like sacred cows that should not be touched. The A-Team believe that all students should not be forced to fund clubs that only a minority participate in – and that they may actively disagree with ( e.g a youth wing of a political party). Opponents claim some clubs will die without VUWSA funding. One has to ask though – how valuable is a club if the only way it can survive is through the forced redistribution of wealth to it by VUWSA? If clubs are valued by their members; they will survive and thrive. If they don’t, then VUWSA money shouldn’t save them anyway.
With their clubs policy, the A-Team have opened up an important debate about the role (some might say the very existence) of VUWSA. It is long past time that students at Vic had this debate – which has already occurred at other campuses around the country. Students here have been stuck in an ideological straitjacket about VUWSA for far too long. In a user-pays world, and the prospect of a National-led government after 2008 committed to freedom of association, we all need to be debating the existence, functions, and activities of our students association.
This is my 5th VUWSA election. I’ve never seen one like it, and that’s all due to the A-Team. Even if you don’t vote for them; you should thank them anyway – you can expect more professional campaigns from now on, renewed interest in student politics, and the continuation of a debate about just what VUWSA should do.
** Christopher Bishop is not a member of the A-Team. He has had a minor involvement with their campaign. He is standing for University Council representative as an independent candidate.