Politics: Not for Ryerson students
Residence Director Kerri Birtch was one of 13 who supported a motion to ban political student groups at Ryerson. The Eyeopener quoted Kerri as saying “students are here to learn, not to be political”
Voting 13-9, the RSU Board of Directors decided to deny Official Status to the Young Liberal, Conservative and Green parties who were requesting it. Ryerson has typically allowed these groups in years past but decided to only allow them ‘Affiliate Group Status’.
You can read the article written about this in the link I posted to The Eyeopener. One other quote I would like to point out was this: Board member Nick Gauthier disagreed with Rose’s views on the ban. He finds this to be the “most arrogant policy” the RSU has made in the past two years. “Groups should be given the right to disagree,” he said
I don’t understand what dangers are posed here. These 3 groups actually worked together to combat this motion because they saw the validity of keeping political discussion alive. I’ve never thought of University as a place without politics. Hell, everyone knows that politics (whether of the Govt. or the governing body at the school) plays a big role in a students life esp. as it comes to fees…
- edited at 5:18pm Friday Dec 2nd -
Related posts:
wow… super odd. From my days at U of T, there were over 20 clubs which had political objectives or activist tendencies and I think that really made the place more alive (Young Liberals, NDP Club, Environmental Club, Breakdown). They actually forced change and participation in local politics and decision making. Quite an anal policy on the part of Ryerson and I’m betting it’s going to be overturned eventually.
First off, I would like to state that the quote you have posted on
your website was taken very much out of context. At the Board of Directors meeting, where the writer of that article claims I said “students are here to learn, not to be political”, that is not exactly what I said, and certainly not what I meant. That paper has had it out for the RSU for quite sometime, so this misquote does not surprise me.
Further, the point I was actually speaking to, was the fact that as
Residence Director, the students I represent are an average age of 18 and will be voting for the first time ever. My main concern is that if we allow political student groups on campus, that these
young students will be harassed and bombarded by overzealous
campaigning, as they have in the past.
At the end of my point, I also mentioned in the meeting that I feel student are here to learn, not to fulfill political affiliations. For heaven’s sakes, I sit on the Board of Directors. By all means I
encourage all students to be political in school government and to become active and educated voters both in school elections as well as Federal and Provincial government elections.
And that is what was really said at the meeting.
-Kerri Birtch
Residence Director - RSU
Not sure if I agree with Kerri’s points since students are on the front line of many issues (animal rights, the environment, social change, democracy). I don’t see any harm in exposing people to issues and politics even if they can’t vote YET. If we are ever want to improve the numbers of educated voters going to the polls this would be one way.
To the political parties that overzealously campaign… Well they are more likely to be UNsuccessful. The “pushy” are more likely to be pushed aside or passed over like junk mail.
Stephen, you’ve got a very valid point. There was lots of debate at that meeting. It seemed to me, if these were two lawyers fighting in a trail, the pro student group side would have won.
In regards to quotes being taken out of context, I use a voice recorder for accuracy.
Great to see you blogging about my story!