Month: January 2007

We’ll both have withdrawal symptoms and we hope you’ll still read and interact with our discussion posts below. Play with them! We’ll probably reply. Actually, I’m sure we will. And stay tuned for Elections Results tonight! We’ll come back then, with commentary, of course. And photos.

End Transmissions. This is goodbye, because the election is almost over, and we’ve each neglected some parts of our normal life. Not that we didn’t enjoy this (way too much at times). We’ve both invested a lot into this blog, the AMS, and the university, so writing this is cathartically bitter and heavy. But we’re also happy, because this has been an incredible experience for us, and, we hope, for you as well. We’ve learned that engaging people in dialogue is as difficult as is presumed. It’s a matter of approach. And more importantly, there’s a demand for thoughtful discussion of student issues, and that demand exists outside the AMS clique. Students don’t care? Bullshit.

So what would we ask you to take away from this blog? That student want to be engaged, they want places to engage, and they want to be able to inform themselves. Don’t take students for granted, nor for idiots, and you’ll be rewarded.

We didn’t do this on our own. We have some people who need to be thanked:

First and foremost, Gerald Deo. He gave us the wonderful design for this page, made it functional for us who are largely computer and design illiterate, and was responsive to our sometimes annoying demands. (Sorry Gerald! – Gina)
Everybody who contributed, and responded to our questionnaires. We know it was time-consuming but, trust us, people read them. Especially the candidates – how else would they get such insight into the job they’re aspiring to get?
The Candidates. This is an excellent, diverse crew of people who’ve responded well and really reached out to students. While we could only endorse a few, we’ll be happy with (almost) any result tonight. We tried hard not to be mean; please take any criticism constructively. And stay involved. Students need your energy.
Everybody who supported us outside the blog. It’s been a busy three weeks, and not insignificant chunks of time have been poured into this. For those who put up with us, had to suffer, or otherwise supported us, thanks so much. You know who you are. Vous etes notre raison d’etre.
Finally, you. All you 5500+ unique viewers logging in from all over the world! You helped turn this into a place of discussion, engaged us, challenged us, and contributed at least as much as you got out of it. This only succeeded to the extent it did because of your participation.

It’s been so amazing. Thanks! We’ll be in touch.

—
Gina Eom and Tim Louman-Gardiner

Don’t forget about the post below. We want your thoughts.

But there’s another important question, too. Which is how ought this blog to live on? I think there’s a demand for some AMS/student/UBC blog out there. Now Gina and I are graduating, but would be happy to help out anybody who wants to keep a blog going in some way year-round. And we chose an unfortunate URL for non-elections info. But if someone wants to use it for student info purposes…

It’s kinda silly that these things only operate during the Elections period. And I’d keep going, but I’m pretty much out of here. So any thoughts as to how we can leverage this capital into producing a longer-term way of engaging students?

So, we can’t publish tomorrow. And elections are up. So, this post is designed to have a great deal to chew on in our blogging absence.
In short, a few ideas requiring bylaw reforms have been floated this election. If we can amend bylaws for one of them…. why not all? To begin:

AMS Fees Linked to Inflation
Discussed before. Let’s do it.

Turnover Change
The UBC AMS is pretty much the only SU in the country that runs its elections in January. The status quo has three major drawbacks:

1. The summer is useless for getting stuff done, because no students are around. The spring term is useless because it’s taken up with elections, lame duckery, and transitions. That leaves only one workable term, the fall, to get anything done and engage students.
2. It requires execs to take three academic terms off school, instead of two. This limits the pool, and throws a scholastic schedule for a loop.
3. Elections are in January, when school gets back. People don’t know about them, and there’s no natural run-up to build momentum.

Change the turnover to May 1, and give execs the summer to get used to the job, and a school year to make a difference.

Exec Re-Organization
President stays the same. Re-purpose the lobbying VPs, creating a VP University Affairs, and a VP External lobbying. That’s basically the status quo. Conceptually easy.

The other two are more tricky. I propose a VP Admininstration and Finance, and a VP Student Life. VP Admin takes on the budget, and all renos/property, and questions relating to the physical space and business operations, in conjunction with permanent staff. VP Student Life takes on club administration. But there’s a demand for more. This past year I worked on “student life”-y projects with both the VP Finance and the VP Admin, in separate capacities. They would have benefited from a single contact, one person whom I could contact. And create a go-to person, hopefully one with a vision for campus life, club activities, events, First week/Frosh, first-year students… there’s just so much the AMS could do!

Council Re-Organization
I realise this is a pipe dream. But I don’t care. I see two major issues with Council, as is. The first is that it’s arbitrarily representative. There’s an underlying assumption that constituency reps are representative of students. But that’s just not the case! Students are engaged in their University in zillions of ways, including their undergrad societies. So I propose a student council with reps from residences, Greeks, clubs, resource groups…. yeah, that’s less voice for constituencies. But to organize representation on that basis is kind of irrelevant.

The second is to eliminate ex-officio appointments to Council. Buy-in to Council is often a problem, and can be with people whose other, non-Council jobs make them reps to Council. Usually this means undergrad society Presidents, but it varies by group. But we should make sure that students on Council want to be on Council, that they’ve sought election specifically to that job. Why? Ensures buy-in, and hopefully makes it more likely that they’ll get to committees, participate meaningfully, etc.

—
I realise that the above are fraught with practical improbabilities. But they’re all reasonably philosophical in nature… thoughts?

Today I saw Jeff Friedrich standing on the North Side of the SUB flyering, all by himself. I’m really curious to see what the voter turnout is going to be. I would not be surprised if it were lower than most years, because of the quiet campaigns which I’ve bitched about many times before.

Needless to say, tomorrow is the last chance to vote in the Elections. It’ll be done by paper ballot – 9AM till 6PM at the SUB and other locations. Please tell anyone you suspect who hasn’t voted yet.

There’ll also be an election results party at the Gallery. Tim and I will be there, and we’ll be drinking our hearts out but more importantly update our blog as soon as the results are announced. Come by and drink with us, or refresh this page around 10pm (Pacific time, Spencer). Pictures will be up the next morning.

Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé? Where did the time go?

There are so many more issues which we could write about, from different angles. I didn’t even get to blog about the Farm, Campus Safety and its intra-politics, senate-specific issues, etc etc. But there’s only so much energy Tim and I can put into this blog without losing our personhood.

Totally unrelated: am I the only one who’s been ambushed by the Reiki lady at the busloop???

My computer has unceremoniously fried itself. This angers me. It also means my ability to respond to comments instantaneously is greatly reduced, as is my ability to create a thoughtful, well-reasoned post.

So, in the style of the “real” media, I present not-quite-formed thoughts, in short, digestible sentence form!

1) I’ll bet The Thunderbird didn’t get the permission of the copyright holder of the photo in this article. I’m not positive, but I doubt they have the right to use it. Way to go, J-school!
2) This blog has had hits from Rogers media in Ottawa, a gadzillion UBC administrators, and, most amusingly, Translink. Repeatedly. Searching for various U-Pass search terms.
3) Candidates have even stopped showing up to all-candidates debates. Apparently yesterday this was particularly acute. I wouldn’t know, of course. I wasn’t there either ;-)
4) Let Them Eat Cake has clearly educated himself about campus issues, and he, like, expresses opinions. That’s, like, awesome.
5) The Underground also has interesting elections info. Worth a read.
6) I think we have to consider VFM to have been a success. Even though it won’t boost voter turnout, it certainly helped drive debate, it differentiated candidates, influenced them, and created an actual discussion. Yay.
6a) We need to stop seeing turnout as the endpoint, as a goal in engagement. It’s a symptom of an engaged populus, not a goal unto itself.
7) Last, a question for candidates: has all the extra time spent answering ‘media’ questions been worth it? I have my opinion, but I’m curious to hear that of the people whose time we all spent…

Without a doubt, my favorite political journo is the intrepid Paul Wells; I get downright giddy when he posts about University affairs, which he does with some regularity.

Today’s post is noteworthy. It explains quite succinctly why tuition reduction is a profoundly misguided way to increase access, and how lower tuition actually keeps the under-privileged out of universities. Call that access? (Click here for the article.)

The issue has been raised by Quebec Universities, trying to end that province’s freeze, and using BC as an example. Read the G&M story here.

PS – Please visit the Radical Beer Tribune. We like them today.

This hit me the other day. I was having a conversation with a candidate, asking him (candidate wasn’t necessarily male, I’m just using the pronoun because it’s easier) about his ideas, and he was having trouble communicating, and verbalizing them, particularly when I’d ask him to relate them to abstract concepts. I tried my reassuring best to indicate my patience, but the candidate was clearly flustered and probably growing frustrated with his inability to communicate with me.

Yes, I have a propensity for verbosity. And that’s partly to blame. But I couldn’t help but realize how damn frustrating it must be for someone for whom English is not a first language.

Think about it. How many AMS Councillors, or even Executives, have been non-English speakers? It can’t be easy to articulate relatively complex platforms, answer debate-style questions, and engage with dense blogs like this one, for someone whose comfort with English is not first-rate. I can see why it just might not be worth the effort.

Moreover, it goes beyond participating in politics. Consider services. Many English language speakers won’t know what “Advocacy” means and how it’s distinct from an Ombudsperson, never mind someone for whom the language does not come naturally. Peruse clubs days banners, or walk through the lower level of the SUB at lunch hour – many signs, publications, and conversations are in languages other than English. The demand is clearly there.

To me, it begs the question – how can we address language barriers to make the AMS more accessible? Of course I see the need for a lingua franca, a language of business, which reasonably should be English. But there are some simple things we can do, to make the AMS more accessible. And by making it more accessible, it becomes more welcoming.

• Print one-page overviews of AMS services in, say, ten different languages. Wouldn’t cost much, would greatly increase access to services.
• Have the occasional sign in a language other than English; much more welcoming.
• Ensure language support at Speakeasy and other “store-front” type services

I don’t know how to address issues of political participation, though I note that’s probably a problem in the “real world” as well. Any thoughts? Should the AMS take positive steps to be more language-friendly?

Now that online voting has closed, it’s time to pollute the waters of the Sea of Democracy with that most undemocratic of innovations – the opinion poll!!

We had 80 responses, and this violates pretty much every law of polling – no random sampling, no random ordering of the numbers, self-selecting respondents… so it’s pretty much worthless. But fun nonetheless! Check behind the jump.

President
Jeff Friedrich: 82%
Maxwell Maxwell: 18%

VP Academic
Jerry Fan Fan: 17%
Brendon Goodmurphy: 73%
Bruce Krayenhoff: 10%

VP Admin
Lougheed the Barbarian: 20%
Sarah Naiman: 39%
Suvina To: 41%

VP External
Chris Brush: 4%
Joel Kozwarski: 36%
Tom Masterson: 9%
Matt Naylor: 51%

VP Finance
Peter Rizov: 49%
Brittany Tyson: 51%

Board of Governors
Darren Peets: 67%
Jeff Friedrich: 65%
Aidha Shaikh: 24%
Tristan Markle: 11%
Rob McLean: 11%
Cris Marincat: 4%
Melody Ma: 2%
Hillson Tse: 2%

Senate
Jaspreet Khangura: 92%
Tariq Ahmed: 80%
Alfie Lee: 39%
Daniel Lin: 22%
Lawrence Song: 20%
Hillson Tse: 16%
Raymond Pang: 16%

The AMS recently passed a motion to support the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. If you haven’t read them/are too lazy to Google, they can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

At first I thought the motion was out of order as this had no context or relevancy to the AMS. And then I re-read the 1948 declaration which stated “Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.” (see link above)

Within this spirit, I would like to make a personal appeal to the candidates running in this election. See after the jump.

To give some background I will borrow from an article which I wrote a while back:
We see an increasing trend in public universities and biomedical research institutes where the promise of future royalties from licensing agreements with private corporations (eg. pharmaceutical companies) has become a prominent alternative source of revenue. This severely cripples the social contract between a public research grant and subsequent publication of research, which could eventually be translated into a public good – such as a cure for a rare disease.

Furthermore, the lucrative idea of licensing new discoveries to private industry has caused areas of public research to be more and more catered towards the commercial market-oriented interest, away from neglected diseases and deeper into the select realm of profitability. Very little, if anything at all, has been done by the governments to move away from this trend.

Undergraduate, graduate, medical and law students across North America have come together to lobby for change. The Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) has recently launched a worldwide petition called the Philadelphia Consensus Statement, with a mandate to promote equal access to university research, promote research and development for neglected diseases, and measure research success according to impact on human welfare instead of the number of patents filed in a given year.

There has been measurable success in other universities such as the University of Washington and Yale. This has caused next to no profit loss to the pharmaceutical industries, as there is no market for their drugs in the third world countries in first place. Generic drug companies in these countries would drive down the costs of these drugs (since the patenting laws are lifted within those geographic borders) and provide them at accessible costs. The most common reaction is that there would be attempts to smuggle the drugs back into first world country. Case study after case study has shown that this has not happened.

The University of British Columbia, with an increased focus on research activities over the recent decade, and with the adoption of the Trek 2010 Document, bears responsibility to live up to the mandate of the Philadelphia Consensus Statement. As former President Martha Piper stated: ”The University of British Columbia…will prepare students to become exceptional global citizens, promote the values of a civil and sustainable society, and conduct outstanding research to serve the people of British Columbia, Canada, and the world”. If research produced at a public academic institution such as UBC is accessible primarily by select individuals with privileged monetary wealth, then we cannot in our right conscience call ourselves global citizens.

Last year, AMS Council passed a policy motion supporting this initiative.

I have brought this issue up with the President Stephen Toope last week and the UAEM (which I am part of) will be meeting with him, the VP Research John Hepburn, and the University Industry Liaison Office head Angus Livingston. However, this movement – to incorporate equitable access provisions in our licensing agreements and fostering neglected disease research – will require the further cooperation and lobbying of the AMS President, VP Academic, Board of Governors, and Senators. We the students will be playing an integral role. As Gandhi said, “we must be the change we want to see in the world.”

The AMS has done a terrific job in addressing issues of systemic barriers to access. (Note: by “access” I refer to the general ability to participate in the AMS, both in terms of services and in government.) See the gender-neutral washroom, its bursary fund, cab fares after midnight, and childcare for examples.

But take a quick glance at the demographics of AMS Council and, by extension, AMS executives. I note two glaring deficiencies. The first is an absence of first-year students, the second is the absence of non-native English speakers. Herewith begins my two-part series on AMS Access – First Year Students.

There are two ways to get involved directly with the AMS. The first is to sit on Council, the second is to win a campus-wide election. It’s very very difficult for a first-year student (FYS) to achieve either. Since the undergraduate societies hold their elections in the spring, for a FYS to be on Council there pretty much has to be a vacancy at some point during the year, and some way to win the ensuing election. It’s very difficult.

Some would argue that undergraduate societies (and their respective first-year committees) serve the purpose of engaging first-year students. That certainly may be true. But the situation begs for more first-year involvement, and we’re doing them no favors by ghettoizing them in their faculty committees. The other argument is that FYS may not have enough of a grasp on campus issues, and need to learn a little before taking an active role. Again, that may be true. But consider the flip-side; by the time people get on AMS Council they are comfortably ensconced in the University, they have a place. They’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a first-year, and the gut, visceral feelings it could inspire. And that’s a valuable perspective we’d do well not to exclude.

(I should also note that the elections results will be held in the Gallery. I certainly hope that there is some arrangement whereby the underage candidates can participate in the Elections merriment, too.)

What solutions have been tried? We’ve attempted a first-year society in two successive years, each of which suffered from a lack of buy-in from various parties. Or maybe it was a doomed idea to begin with. The AMS used to have a frosh rep on Council; the position was once held by A. Kim Campbell, who would go on to become Prime Minister. Ought there to be some direct way to engage first-year students with the AMS? Or is the status quo sufficient?

The Candidates:
No candidates explicitly refer to first-year students in their platforms.
Alfie Lee (Senate) and Hillson Tse (BoG/Senate) are the only first-year students currently running for election. Jaspreet Khangura is in first-year Med, but that So doesn’t count.
Jerry Fan Fan ran for President, BoG, and Senate as a first-year student.