On record: Frederick and Chu respond
Monday, November 30th, 2009
In light of the recent controversy, we asked AMS President Blake Frederick and VP External Tim Chu to write us a response, no holds barred. Here is what they sent us, edited only for style.
AMS student Council seeks to silence and remove president and VP external for their concern over rising tuition fees
Your AMS Student Council has asked us, your democratically elected AMS President, Blake Frederick and Vice-President of External Affairs, Tim Chu, to resign from our positions for taking action on high tuition fees. The AMS’ current policy on tuition, brought forward by Arts councillor Matthew Naylor and adopted by AMS Council, states that your representatives have no problem with a two per cent increase in your tuition. Tim and I strongly believe that this policy is deplorable and does not represent the views of UBC students. In fact, the primary reason that we ran for AMS Executive positions last January is because we believe that UBC, the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada have severely harmed our society by failing to provide affordable and accessible post-secondary education for students. In our election campaigns, both Tim and I clearly articulated that our number one priority would be to lobby government aggressively to decrease tuition and increase funding for post-secondary institutions. We were successfully elected by students to fulfill this mandate.
It’s important to reflect on why tuition is such a concern to us and so many UBC students. At our university, tuition for domestic undergraduates has doubled since 2002 and tuition for graduate students has increased by 184 per cent over that same time period. UBC also has the proud distinction of charging our international students the highest tuition fees in the country. Students in BC graduate with an average debt load of $27,000—the highest in the country—meanwhile our province provides the lowest amount of non-repayable financial assistance to students. The financial barriers to accessing education are continuing to worsen, as evidenced by statistics which show that while an increased number students from higher-income families are enroling in university, enrolment of students from lower-income families is decreasing. Education is becoming a privilege for the fortunate instead of a right for all.
We understand that for many, tuition and the ancillary costs of education are not a problem, but we must not forgot about those students who had to drop out of university due to a lack of funding or students who did not even make it to university at all because they simply could not afford it. Even those who do graduate are often unable to find employment in their field and are therefore unable to pay off their education debt. The recession is only making this problem worse resulting in the highest youth unemployment rate in the history of this country.
Despite the fact that many students are struggling to get by, your representatives on AMS Council have not been fighting for your right to education. Not only have they shown lukewarm interest in lobbying for grants, they have opposed all efforts that Tim and I have taken to lobby for lower tuition. Earlier in the year when Tim created placards with the message “reduce tuition,” AMS Council voted to cease production and shred all existing materials. Many members of AMS Council have the naive opinion that we can alleviate student debt simply by sitting down with politicians and politely convincing them to do what we want. This is not how politics works. We must never forget that in a democracy, it is the electorate that has the real power and if we want to see change, we must demand it from our elected officials.
Recently, Tim and I filed a complaint with the United Nations against the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada for failing to uphold their commitment to Article 13.1(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which requires Canada to work towards the “progressive introduction of free education.” The intention of the complaint is to put pressure on the government to act now by drawing media attention to a post-secondary system that punishes students for pursuing an education. We filed the complaint without approval from AMS Council because we cannot continue to sit idly and break our promise to students by not standing up for their right to education. We also knew that it would ignite a fierce debate on campus over the cost of education and draw students’ attention to the out-of-touch priorities and policies of AMS Council. Tim and I have brought forward a motion to the Wednesday, December 2, 2009 AMS Council meeting to change the AMS’s official policy on tuition. In addition, despite the fact that we were elected by the student body, the small group of students that comprise AMS Council will attempt to remove us from office at their meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009. Now is the time to stand up to the AMS Council and show them who they are supposed to represent. Show your support by attending these meetings or e-mail your councilors by finding their contact information on the AMS website.
—Blake Frederick (AMS President) & Tim Chu (AMS VP External Affairs)
Ashley Nov 30
1. Nobody calling for your resignation is saying tuition raises are a good thing; that’s a pretty significant strawman fallacy. I’d expect better logic out of a philosophy honours student.
2. You promised students you’d serve them, and Council REPRESENTS students. If you would have shown up to the meeting on Saturday, you would have known that all of the councillors have received overwhelming feedback from their constituents stating that they are incredibly unhappy and embarassed by what you did.
3. That “small group of students” at the meeting on Saturday was DWARFED by over a hundred and fifty students-at-large who came to express their displeasure at what you both did. The only 2 students-at-large who spoke in your defense admitted they were personal friends.
I hope you had fun at the NDP convention and that it was worth attending that, while your careers with the AMS died and you hid from those students who elected you, and whom you are currently appealing to. Well done.
Reply
Nicholas FitzGerald Nov 30
Mr. Frederick and Mr. Chu:
Please stop changing the subject. You were not asked to resign “for taking action on high tuition fees”, you were asked to resign for your gross misconduct in hiding your intentions and going behind the backs of the council you serve, and for a continuing pattern of increasingly inflammatory and irresponsible actions on your part. Regardless of where one might stand on the issue of tuition increases, the blatant disregard for the democratic process which you have continually shown cannot be tolerated.
After Saturday’s meeting, and given the outpouring of negative student response to your latest actions, you can no longer hide behind the lie that you are acting on the wishes of the majority of student. Please, I implore you to do the honourable thing: admit your patent wrongdoing and resign your positions immediately.
Reply
Mitch Nov 30
Same arguments as all your supporters (a small handful) at the meeting. No one is arguing that your stance on tuition is a bad stance to have (except Bijan). The fact that you acted in – frankly – a dictatorial fashion in completely circumventing the democratic process, despite how good your intentions may have been, is the real reason for the call for your resignations.
Please stop changing the subject to make yourself look like the victim in this situation. You are not.
The victim is democracy, which your supporters seemed to hold so dear, yet were evidently blind to how you dragged it through the mud, then beat it to a pulp by taking the actions you did.
I am sorely disappointed in both of you, both personally and politically.
Reply
John Smith Nov 30
“We must never forget that in a democracy, it is the electorate that has the real power and if we want to see change, we must demand it from our elected officials.” …which, ironically, is exactly what is happening to you two.
Reply
Karen Lee Nov 30
Blake Frederick and Tim Chu, this is just gross. Trying to manipulate the student body by continually mentioning “lower tuition” and “free education” is despicable. Your audience is educated. Don’t patronize us with such a pathetic attempt of deception.
Reply
Alison Brown Nov 30
It is great that you lobby for lower tuition fees. That’s really important. But, that isn’t the point. If you don’t want to do it though and with the AMS council (and you clearly don’t), then resign. You can file complaints etc. without being AMS executives.
I voted for you both. I think we agree generally agree politically. But you were elected to work with and through counicl. You must accept that this required compromise.
But, you wont accept that. Which is why you must resign.
Reply
Dante Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
You go, Alison!
Reply
Rebecca Dickson Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Well said, Alison.
Reply
Alex Monegro Nov 30
Blake, you forget two things when you mention that a small group of students is trying to get you impeached:
-You won by a margin of less than 0.01%, so stop acting like you represent the grand majority of students
-Council is made from elected officials from all faculties and represent a much more diverse set of students than the few first years that garnered you a victory over me
You need to get over yourself in thinking that you are the non plus ultra of student representation and that you solely understand what student’s needs are. If you had as strong student support as you claim you would have no issue rallying students to your defense. If we take this as the only objective measure of if you do or do not represent students, I would argue you resoundingly do not.
Reply
Em Nov 30
“We filed the complaint without approval from AMS Council . . . ”
Welp. THAT is what people are angry about. It’s not that they would love to pay more for their tuition, and it shows how desperate that Misters Frederick and Chu are that they would try to spin it this way.
Reply
blake’s a G Nov 30
Long live BLAKE Fredrick, finally we’ve elected an AMS president, who has the might to stand up and fight for what is right.
Reply
Steve Nov 30
AMS Councillors have a superiority complex. They dont really reflect opinions on campus. There just a bunch of political hacks who are part of a social clique on campus. Roughly 300 people vote for them. They like to think they speak for students, but really they only speak within their clique.
Reply
John P Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Couldn’t have put it better!
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 3:39 am
If AMS Council has a superiority complex, then Blake and Tim must think themselves to be the ultimate Gods to try to pull something like this. I would say that a collection of Councillors who spent hours going through feedback and asking students _at large_ to submit comments are much more representative of a student population than 2 individuals who, without consulting anyone, decided that they know best and are apparently the most brilliant and intelligent people in the world. All of your arguments apply to the very people you’re trying to defend- and more so, far more so, than to the rest of AMS Council.
Reply
Edmund Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Roughly 300 people voted for them? About the same as the amount of friends they have on their facebook, eh?
Reply
Nick Zarzycki Nov 30
“we must not forgot about those students… who did not even make it to university at all because they simply could not afford it”
You were elected to represent UBC students, not young-people-who-could-have-been UBC students.
Reply
Amanda Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Wow. Just wow. Did you really just say that? I am forever surprised by how comfortable privileged people are with their privilege.
Reply
Nick Zarzycki Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Hi Amanda,
I come from a low-income family, work part-time to finance my education, and commute 2 hrs every day to campus. I have financed 100% of my education, by myself, through work, grants and scholarships. I would not consider myself ‘privileged’ by any stretch of the imagination.
The point that I was making was that Frederick was elected _by UBC students_ to represent the _interests of UBC students_. Do you disagree with this fact?
Reply
Amanda Reaume Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Nick,
There are a lot of privileges that are not connected with socio-economic status and I find it very unfortunate that you don’t realize that.
Given the context of the sentence you took that from, what it appears you were implying was that Frederick and Chu should not speak about access to education and those who are unable to access education. What you seem to be implying was that our student government should not work to ensure that all students who are qualified to come to UBC and earn a degree here should be able to do so.
Have you not heard of students who are gay or lesbian who upon coming out to their parents are cut off from financial support and yet are unable to access loans since their parents make too much money? I have. I have known those students personally. Should council not speak for them? Have you not heard of disabled students who have had to end their education or not begin it because of the rules around student loans? Disability is a barrier to access to education and I am also a passionate advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many of the cuts that Chu has been fighting against have been around students with disabilities. He should be commended for his work on this front. Given council’s position on the disability seat, it appears that council does not represent those students very well.
I wanted student representatives who supported the ability for all students to receive an education. I think that a diverse student body benefits everyone as students who have barriers to education have a lot to teach those of us who do not. I voted for those representatives that specified support of those issues in their platforms. So, if you are wondering who Tim and Blake stand for… they stand for me. They stand for a lot of people who I have spoken to over the last few days who do not want to have their heads lopped off in the midst of this witch hunt but who also do not want council to recall our elected officials.
If we can ignore the voices of the most oppressed people in our society, what kind of student society, or university, or country, or world are we creating. How can we not as a student society think about the students who are not there because of institutional barriers. If we can recall people for taking important and decisive action on access to education issues when they were elected on platforms specifying they would do so, what kind of legitimacy do we have as a student society? Censor them for not going to council first, fine. But stop suggesting that they don`t speak for students. They were elected for a reason.
Alex Lougheed Nov 30
AMS current policy opposes any tuition increases above zero real dollars (i.e. an inflation adjusted flat tuition). AMS current policy also states the provincial government should be contributing more towards their proportion of the overall cost of an education. Overall, this means the AMS is asking the government to decrease the student’s proportion of the overall cost of an education.
This is also what Blake and Tim are asking for, except it’s a learned policy based in economics, history and current BC politics, instead of an idea out of touch with the status-quo.
The last time tuition was net lowered (during a freeze), quality of education dropped significantly because the government did not increase their share of the bill, starving our Universities. That was bad, and made BC fall behind other provinces in advanced education.
The argument for accessibility is handled by increasing the ability of students to get grants and bursaries out of need–something the AMS has always lobbied for, and actively encourages lobbying for. You’ll note the campaign the executive recently ran to oppose cuts to many grant programs was authorized by the council Blake and Tim claim has “lukewarm interest”.
What doesn’t get authorized, and instead gets stopped, is blatantly partisanship. http://ubyssey.ca/news/?p=8405
It’s one thing to demand an idealized world. It’s another to embrace realpolitik, recognize the limits of your overall power, and play the game established. One of these is more effective and passing an agenda with government.
Reply
helen Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 5:04 am
i never thought i’d agree with lougheed over frederick, but: well put, lougheed. thank you. frederick and chu, don’t make this about anything other than it is, the fact that you both made a mistake that needs to be accounted for.
Reply
Anon Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Realpolitik, eh? Looks like someone’s learning something from Rationality and Power.
Reply
ainge Nov 30
It’s one thing to demand an idealized world. It’s another to embrace realpolitik, recognize the limits of your overall power, and play the game established
college kids used to be way cooler, man.
One of these is more effective and passing an agenda with government.
one of them is also great for deluding yourself into thinking that you’re effecting change when you’re actually perpetuating the status quo. oh jeez, i think we are talking about the same one! if i’ve got egg on my face, i hope it’s century egg. mmmm.
Reply
Nick Zarzycki Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
A status quo in which low-income students such as myself can get access to higher education through grants and bursaries? ZOMG NOES PLZ HALP WITH PSEUDO-MARXISM.
Reply
Matthew Naylor Nov 30
If anyone is wondering, the “deplorable” policy that drove Blake and Tim to circumvent their democratically elected Council is as follows:
“The Alma Mater Society acknowledges the financial pressures of inflation on the cost of education and tuition levels. The Alma Mater Society shall therefore oppose any tuition increase that is in excess of the British Columbia Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), whichever is lesser.”
The hilarious thing about this is that they never bothered to even ask Council to change its policy, let alone initiate this complaint. They don’t have grounds to say that Council has disagreed (though I personally believe that Council both would and should). They do have precedent for Council pulling things back when they contravened Council policy. It is obvious now that they did not learn from their mistakes.
There are a number of other things wrong with this letter, but I’m up too late to write about them, so check the Tribune tomorrow, and I’ll throw something up.
Reply
anon Nov 30
Minor note: the possessive of AMS is AMS’s.
Reply
anon2 Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Not to have a grammar thread going, but correct me if I’m wrong: AMS’ – no second s.
Reply
Spencer Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Common mistake. The possessive of a plural is the lone apostrophe without the ’s’ but the possessive of the singular, in all cases, is the apostrophe with the ’s’.
ie. The possessive of ladies is ladies’. The possessive of James is James’s.
Reply
Jonathan Lerner Nov 30
Blake and Tim have embarrassed UBC on an INTERNATIONAL scale with their appeal to the UN. Now is the time for real change – the resignation of these two clowns!
Reply
Neal Yonson Nov 30
I’ll try not to duplicate other commenters’ points, so, for students who have not heard about Policy 71, let me introduce it to you. This is a university policy which is about consulting with students regarding tuition fees.
http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/policies/policy71.pdf
Blake and Tim have definitely read this document, or at least gotten the gist of it, because Blake complained very loudly last year that the tuition consultation carried out by the university was inadequate (something I would have agreed with, though not so loudly). As a result, he has been holding meetings with UBC VP Students Brian Sullivan and the GSS President to discuss how to better carry out consultations this year.
If Blake’s main rationale behind this was to bring student attention to the issue of tuition fees, it needs to be pointed out that he was already involved in designing a process, in collaboration with the university, to do exactly that!
Blake’s involvement in this completely undermines any possible rationale for why it was necessary to go behind council’s back: council knew that he was meeting with UBC regarding policy 71 and was not opposed to that.
And now that we are going down the list of university policies, the next is Policy 72, which starts off with “No Eligible Student (as defined by Policy #72) will be prevented from commencing or continuing his or her studies at the University for financial reasons alone.”
http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/policies/policy72.pdf
In the article, Blake and Tim state “we must not forget about those students who had to drop out of university due to a lack of funding or students who did not even make it to university at all because they simply could not afford it.”
If there is a student out there in that situation, that is unfortunate. The university also agrees and has instituted a policy to deal with that. I would be outraged if there really was a person out there who could not continue their schooling for financial reasons and that the university ignored despite Policy 72. But does such a person actually exist? There’s no evidence for such a person. Tristan Markle was chosen to be part of the UN complaint because he had the most compelling story to tell, but he was still able to commence, continue and finish his studies at UBC.
Reply
Amanda Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
There are actually many students in that situation. If you don’t know any perhaps you should start evaluating critically who you make friends with and how. People who are on the margins are often working so many jobs that they don’t get to participate in the extracurricular aspects of student life like participating on council.
I have a friend who might have to drop out for financial reasons. She is a student with a disability who has a persistent disease that has required her to get hospitalized twice over the last two years. Canadian Student loans have rules regarding how many courses you can withdraw from before they make you ineligible for student loans in the future. This is a student who is far and above better than most UBC students. She gets A+s in all her classes and greatly contributes to all classes that she is a part of. I have learned a great deal from her and my educational experience would be cheapened if I had not had the opportunity to study with her. When she graduates, her disability might make it difficult for her to repay her student loans and she worries about a lifetime of debt. However, she is incredibly productive and contributes to society in very important and material ways.
These individuals that Tim and Blake are standing up for do exist. Perhaps you should open your eyes to that and actually meet people who don’t come from the same background as you and get to understand their stories. Perhaps then you won’t be so likely to dismiss their existence.
Reply
Spencer Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Amanda – If your friend is fearful of the effect of her debt, she should be aware that the government has introduced a new program called the Repayment Assistance Plan. It caps the percentage of a borrower’s income that goes to student loan payments and waives any remaining debt after 15 years.
Currently the Government of British Columbia has not signed onto this plan so it will only cover her Canada student loans and not her British Columbia student loans. I do not believe the AMS currently has a policy stance on this matter.
Anyway, this wasn’t germane to your point but I just wanted your friend to know there are substantial protections for those that find themselves in marginalized situations.
Reply
Amanda Reaume Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Thanks Spencer! I will let her know. However, right now she is worried about being able to complete her education as even loans that take into account her disability have rules that you can only withdraw from a certain number of courses in the entire course of your degree. She has already reached that threshold and if her disease flares up again and she has to be hospitalized, she will be ineligible for any further loans and therefore being unable to complete her education but still required to pay back her loans.
Off topic…. but…it truly is unfortunate that the council has refused to allow a non-voting seat for people with disabilities. I can’t say that I would have known this was a problem had I not been friends with a person with a disability. My friend also can definitely not lobby her faculty representatives as she is just trying to get by.
Spencer Reply:
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Hi Amanda – I haven’t heard of that particular danger. Your friend should get in touch with the National Educational Association of Disabled Students (www.neads.ca) and get another perspective on how the rules impact her or to raise awareness about these issues in particular.
NEADS and CASA regularly consult one another on issues affecting students with disabilities and they’re a strong organization that does a lot of good.
Cheers,
Spencer
brent Nov 30
Regarding the policy issue…
I’m not an expert, so I’m just throwing this out there… but couldn’t the UN complaint technically be in line with AMS Policy? I mean, if worded correctly? If it was mostly just a PR stunt… And the UN policy may say “working towards progressively free education,” but the idea behind it is equity, access for all. Whether or not you think BC tuition should increase with inflation or be free, we can all agree that the governments can do WAY more to make higher education accessible to everyone, which is totally in spirit with the International covenant.
I personally think it was a good idea, and I’m proud of them for being bold enough to try it. I don’t think its embarrassing in any way. It’s only embarrassing because students are acting embarrassed. I don’t think anyone else really cares, to be honest.
What Blake and Tim should have said…
Now obviously Council is really upset (as are a lot of students), and have lost trust in Tim and Blake. Tim and Blake should have just apologized for trying to go around the AMS’s democratic process and for not being transparent.
I have a feeling though, that even had they genuinely apologized, it wouldn’t have mattered. Council seems to be out for their heads…
I really wish people could step back and be less dramatic about this. I know Tim and Blake weren’t being transparent, but the executive are given a certain amount of authority to act on the platform they were elected on and students expect them to get stuff done! I don’t think the UN complaint is SO out of line with AMS policy that it represents some sort of rogue Presidency. If a President did something that was even more out of line with AMS policy, but didn’t particularly bother AMS Councilors, would Council have gotten as up in arms? Would they scream in disgust about the undermining of the democratic system!? I really doubt it… everything’s political, especially neutrality.
On democracy and the AMS
The biggest problem I see with whole debate is the claims to legitimacy: “I truly represent the students.” “No, I represent the students.” etc
Representational democracy is already a completely imperfect system when it isn’t accompanied by deeper structures of democratic participation. But to boot, the great majority of UBC students are extremely disengaged from the AMS, student “issues” more generally, and most politics altogether.
So it seems really problematic to me when the debate hinges on “whose opinion best represents students.” That argument only works if the system isn’t entirely broken.
Reply
Lo Chan Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
You missed the point of why peeps are angry. It’s not so much that the complaint was worded wrong or that it’s out of line with whatever policies, it’s more that the UBC AMS now looks like absolute morons for whining about tuition when the UN is dealing with world hunger, right to clean water, child soldiers, war criminals, and so on and on.
If you think it’s a matter of bravery that this wasn’t filed earlier, or that no one cares, I suggest you reread all the comments, um, like, everywhere.
Blake and Tim were given the authority to do things within reason, things which are not moronic. They chose to act like morons. Therefore, the students choose to impeach them. That’s pretty much the way of the world.
Reply
Noelle Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Ditto to all of these comments. Exactly.
Reply
Brian Lynchehaun Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Whining about tuition makes the AMS look like morons because the UN *doesn’t* care about tuition?
But the UN *does* care about tuition. Why is “the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” irrelevant?
I agree that it’s *less* relevant than, say, people dying of AIDS, sure. But why is it ‘acting like morons’ to say “hey, UN, that thing you care about, that Canada agreed to? Take look over here.”
Reply
Brian Lynchehaun Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I completely agree with you.
Reply
Ali Nov 30
I don’t want Frederick or Chu to resign. What I want, as a student who voted for both the current President and VP External, is an acknowledgement of the arrogance involved in evening thinking they had a right to submit a complaint to the UN. Their line is about the priviledge and financial ability involved in accessing higher education, what about the priviledge needed to even have the ability to submit a claim to the United Nations? Think of all the poorer countries, or even poorer interest groups in Canada, that don’t have access to the funds it requires to have their causes heard. This whole debacle reeks to me of wealth and priviledge.
I also agree with Karen Lee. The rhetoric being used here is truly deplorable. Way to manipulate your constituency, guys.
Finally, complaining to the UN over high tuition fees is like complaining to Premier Cambell because you failed your first year calculus exam. It’s a dramatic gesture, but not only is it NOT symbolic or effective but really it’s just a waste of time, energy and other valuable resourcces
Reply
JL Nov 30
“because we cannot continue to sit idly and break our promise to students by not standing up for their right to education.”
dude. You are right! i promised a friend i was gona go see the DJ TIESTO concert! I am gona quit my Coop job in HongKong at the power plant and fly back for it! . . . Wait everyone would think that to be the most retarded course of action, ever… wait, secound most.
Stop acting as if everyone that wants you to resign is doing so because we do not want the financially struggling populace to attend higher education. The only people delusional enough to think that, are your supporters on in facebook group. You have embarassed us internationally; my coworkers are laughing about this story; I am in Hong Kong. You deceived the council knowingly. now resign.
Reply
Michael Nov 30
As a fee paying member of the AMS, I am absolutely embarrassed by an AMS Council that is trying to get rid of a President that we elected to stand up for us. And I don’t just mean standing up to the provincial government when tuition increases, but also standing up against the status quo in the AMS. Council is the real problem here – they don’t represent students. I’ve never seen any attempt by any of my representatives whatsoever to try to get my feedback. Rather they seem content to sit around a table for 7 hours every second Wednesday and pass motions that regress the AMS into a tired and old organization full of arrogant hacks.
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 3:56 am
Michael, I have to point out a couple of mistakes you made in your post. First of all, AMS Council does support tuition reduction. But they support it by acting democratically, by not cutting off ties with the very people who could actually make this a reality. See Neal Yonson’s post above for more details.
Secondly, AMS Council wants to do get the President to resign exactly because he’s _not_ acting democratically. If he had bothered to talk to them, to ask students about their opinions- that would be democracy. What he did was make a unilateral decision that was not supported by most students. The President must be accountable to Council to prevent him/her from acting unilaterally. It is conceivable that a person who wins can still make mistakes in judgment. Council is there to make sure that doesn’t happen. The reason people are upset is because this is a flagrant violation of democratic principles that Blake and the AMS supports and relies on. If someone just decided to take action in an official capacity every time they were unhappy about something, the result would be complete disorganization of goals. People have more power when acting together- what has happened will undermine the goals Blake is fighting for because he has raised opposition to himself due to the nature of his actions.
I’m not sure why you think Council doesn’t represent students, given that people vote for Council members in their own faculties, and often the turnout in these elections is greater than that in AMS exec elections. The entire process is designed to be democratic. To say that 1 person is more representative of the student body than all of Council is a bit odd considering everything.
Reply
Josh Nov 30
Well put, Michael. I’m shocked that council would take such an extreme measure on this. Rising tuition fees is the issue here, not executive members ignoring sacred AMS protocols. Is council so sure it represents the student body? At least Frederick and Chu have the gumption to do something about what they believe it.
Reply
Mike Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Rising tuition costs not pegged to inflation is an issue, which is clearly not the case. It comes down to this: quality education (if the quality professors aren’t getting reimbursed by an amount at least equal to inflation, would all of them mind a wage freeze?) at a price, or low quality education at a low price? Go to some of the newly “named” universities then if you want cheap education.
Frederick and Chu may have done something about what they believed in, but not within the proper channels available. It’s analogous to those advocating violence during the 2010 Games … sure they’re trying to convince everyone else that they really deserve housing … yet they’re willing to go beyond the boundaries of simple protest and use vandalism, violence and other methods to get their message out.
I’ll summarize the issues here.
Tuition increase: important issue? Yes, only if you believe that tuition pegged to inflation is somehow “illegal” (when everything else, including your wage, goes up along with it) and paying such low, low tuitions compared to the rest of the Western world is somehow preventing you from obtaining an education.
AMS President and VP External acting outside their given power? No, probably not, at least not until those who know the AMS codebook inside out says otherwise … but
AMS President and VP External acting immaturely, wasting resources, breaching the trust of Council, and embarrassing the general UBC population? YES. Because rising tuition costs of a highly-ranked university with comparatively low tuition is one of the main concerns of the UN when some people don’t even have schools to go to. Going behind the backs of council and hiding behind the AMS and UBC entities to promote what THEY think is unfair is not ethically correct. Attending a NDP convention instead of facing the students they supposedly represent is cowardly. If you had a prior commitment on that night, then don’t say you will be at the emergency meeting and then not show up.
Last of all… is this what you really want from the AMS President and VP External? Maybe you like dishonest, unaccountable politicians holding office. Who am I to judge?
Reply
Lo Chan Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
It’s true, most of us haven’t the guts to make fools of ourselves on such grand a scale. I too am personally shocked that more people in history aren’t recognised for being delusional imbeciles.
Reply
Kyle Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Cute, Lo Chan, nice response. But you don’t address the core issue, do you? Why isn’t the tuition increase, and associated student debt, the center of this discussion? Ah, right. Because the current AMS council is so cautious about offending the powers-that-be (the UBC administration, the provincial and federal governments, gasp!) that they aren’t willing to give their executive some wiggle room to maneuver within the political sphere. Well done, AMS Council! Way to muzzle democracy! Onward, to fascism!
I agree with Josh above, it appears that “sacred” AMS protocols have been broken. Take a look outside of UBC for a change, folks, the rest of the world thinks that Blake and Tim have done something decent.
Reply
Mike Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Er…what?
Yes, breaking all relationships with the “powers-that-be” is the perfect way to get what you want! Insult the higher-ups for wasting money…but god forbid anybody challenge about wasting money on a frivolous complaint at the expense of UBC students’ money. No to peaceful discussion! Yes to anarchy! (We are going down slippery slopes, right?)
Get over yourself that the tuition you pay to come to UBC is somehow the worse in the world and deserves utmost recognition among other issues such as poverty, dictatorships, and human rights.
Disgruntled Nov 30
For thousands of dollars, what the hell did Pivot Legal do???!!!
Reply
Commodore Cuddles Nov 30
I keep forgetting that AMS Council isn’t elected … they’re all cogs in the NaylorHackMachine.
Reply
S Nov 30
I am very glad that Tim and Blake took it upon themselves to take action on tuition fees. They generated better media attention on this important issue than the UBC AMS has in a long time.
I hope that the AMS council is not foolish enough to attempt to remove them without going to a referendum that involves all students. I am convinced that despite a vocal minority, the silent majority would vote in support of Tim and Blake in a referendum.
Good work Tim and Blake! I’m with you!!
Reply
Commodore Cuddles Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Silent majority? Seriously? You probably want to avoid drawing parallels to Nixon. At least Tricky Dick had the decency to resign.
Reply
Ivy Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Really? Everyone I’ve talked to – people who usually don’t even care enough about student politics to vote in AMS elections, meaning that they’re part of the vast silent 90% majority of UBC students – they want to impeach Blake and Tim.
I do have to congratulate Blake and Tim for increasing participation in student politics, even if it’s not the way they intended at all.
Reply
On Tuition Prices Nov 30
While commenter Alex Lougheed hit the nail on the head about the effects of a tuition freeze on the quality of education. Let us consider the following:
Who benefits the most from a university education?
The answer of course is the individual. If it is the individual who is to benefit the most from a university education, should they not be asked to contribute to paying for said education?
As I (and you all) pay what is below the national average in tuition prices, to go to one of the best universities in the world; I cannot help but feel that I am getting a fair deal. Regardless of how I feel, let us analyze the logistics of “free university education” the ultimate goal according to Blake and Tim’s complaint.
For the sake of argument, let us say that there are 45,000 students at UBC and they pay approximately $6000 a year to attend here. (I recognize that International Students pay up to 4x more). Including international tuition fees, this amounts to over $300 million dollars per year in fees. (This is also disregarding summer/correspondence tuition). As Blake and Tim are complaining to the government, perhaps they are insinuating that the government should pay for this difference.
How much has the government (fellow British Columbians and Canadians) already put forth for my education? It is estimated that BC spends $5.8 billion on elementary and secondary education in BC. (From official BC government Budget) With approximately 350,000 people in the 5-18 age range in BC (Census Canada), we can say, for arguments sake that the government spends about $16,500.00 per student per year. (This number should actually be higher as some do attend private, home school or not at all)
So, by the time I’ve gone through K and 1-12, the government/society has spent/invested in me approx $215,000 without me having to pay a dime. Now as was my choice and preference I decided to attend UBC nevertheless, the government/society once again came to provide assistance to the tune of ~$9,000 a year per student. (Numbers from CFS-BC 2009 Report on BC Budget) Not only has the government provided some $9,000 per year in funding, they have offered to provide loans at generous terms so that I may be able to cover my portion, let’s say $6,000. So, when I graduate in May 2010. I leave with a world class education, one that has taken me from a child of 5 to an adult of 22 and it has cost me $24,000 however, it has been funded to the tune of $250,000. I have been asked to contribute less than 10% of the costs of my education. This to me, sounds like a pretty fair deal.
To me, it sounds incredibly selfish to want society, taxpayers, people who receive little perceivable benefit to my education/training to foot the entire bill. Why should a logger in Prince Rupert, a barista in Vancouver, or a farmer in the Okanagan pay more for my benefit? The Government of BC, like the Government of Canada is facing massive deficits and we are asking to pay even less than 10% of our education costs? People are out of work, issues of the environment, Canada has international commitments to rebuilding and stability overseas and yet we demand to pay less/nothing. How is this not selfish?
Obviously we’d all love to pay less, but as members of society we recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We understand what we are getting, the costs entailed and are prepared to address all of these factors.
The AMS position to oppose any increase above and beyond inflation is a strong stance that recognizes all of these facts. The AMS is protecting the needs of students.
To quickly address issues of accessibility, UBC and the Federal and Provincial governments already have very generous programs in place to ensure access to both those people who belong to marginalized groups in society and those who are financial unable but desirous to pursue a university education. If one wants to improve access, and reduce barriers to education, let us improve these programs. Work Study, Student Loans/Bursaries, UBC Financial Aid etc. Reducing or eliminating tuition will only hurt the funding for these projects, and most certainly all efforts of the university.
As per these reasons above I believe that the AMS position has represented the balanced concerns of students while checking shameful self-interest and greed. I applaud their efforts and hope that they can continue to ensure that if tuition is to rise, it is in line with inflation and done so at increments that are manageable.
The President and the VP External’s position is not a reflection of a balanced view, it is one that is guided solely by ideology and self-interest and holds no regard for the impact of the position on students, the University, our Government and Canadian society at large.
Reply
K L Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Thoughtful analysis. Thanks.
Reply
Jeremy Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Well put.
Reply
Kyle Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I find the above extremely reasonable. I commend the author for his well thought approach.
Reply
Kristen Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I’m glad that this university still fosters intelligent thought.
Reply
Brian Lynchehaun Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
“Who benefits the most from a university education?”
Society as a whole.
I cite as evidence the economic turnaround of Ireland in the 1990s. A large number of companies chose to invest in Ireland at that time for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the high proportion of university-educated citizens.
It seemed like such a useful thing to have, that the government *completely* paid for university from 1997 onwards.
Reply
Seb Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
While making no comment on your general point, Brian, there are a couple of things that should be noted.
Firstly, it is generally acknowledged that the main driver of investment in Ireland was the lowest corporate tax in the European Union so the correlation is not precisely related. Scotland has had free tuition for some time and has not had an experience analogous to the Celtic Tiger. It also hasn’t seen the gap between high income and low income students decrease.
Secondly, free tuition in Ireland isn’t exactly an accurate state of affairs. While “tuition” is free there are additional fees that add up to about 1,700 euros.
Reply
Brian Lynchehaun Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 1:32 am
I didn’t say, or suggest, that the correlation was “precisely related”. Please reread what I did say, thank you. Key phrases such as “number of reasons” and “not the least” should be paid attention to.
Furthermore, if you’d care to do a little more research, you’ll discover that the additional €1,700 was recently (within the last 2 years, I believe) instituted by the Universities, and that it’s quite contentious. As someone who briefly attended University in Ireland in the fall of 1997, my only fees amounted to a couple hundred Euro in line with UBC’s non-tuition fees (ie registration, society fees, etc).
But if you’d like to continue comparing apples to oranges (Ireland to Scotland), don’t let me stop you.
Uninterested Interested Party Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
How long has this Brian guy been going to school for?? Better be finishing up med school is all I can say(which would also explain the pain he feels about tuition).
Seb Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:41 am
Well, Brian, if the apples in my statement are “the effects of free tuition in Ireland” and the oranges in my statement are “the effects of free tuition in Scotland,” then you have to admit that you’re conceding that “free tuition” itself isn’t the driving difference. And if that’s true, then what’s your point?
Uninterested Interested Party Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 1:56 am
You just rapped the truth my friend. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
There are three ways to get free education(or near free, whatever these guys are arguing for):
1. Decrease the quality of the institutions. We have great schools here in BC (BCIT, UBC, SFU are all pretty world class in their areas of specialty) and it really would be a shame to see the quality of teaching, the number of programs offered and the overall up keep of the facilities decline for the sole fact that we, the students attending these great schools gave it up for a mere utopian fantasy.
2. Maintain the quality of the institutions and get the required money from somewhere else. The alternate sources could include more corporate partnerships, something I think we can all see the dangers of; or we could be looking at getting a larger share of the provincial budget, thus taking away dollars from many of the other worthy things that the province tries to aid(not that I support the Gordo crew, but we British Columbians get some pretty great help from our governments that others in the world don’t get). “On Tuition Prices” has covered the ethical concerns that we should all be considering here.
3. Maintain the quality of education and obtain money from higher taxes. This option entails British Columbians at large believing enough in the education of the youth to fork over the dollars. This would be, in my mind(and I could have missed some options, feel free to add if you have logically sound addendums), the best way to go about reducing tuition fees in British Columbia. This of course would be a monumental task to convince somewhere over 1 million people that we are worth it. Such an effort would require outreach to our local communities, to the people of the province and Canada. It would require tact and grace and a united front of all students.
So please, all you who believe in the word of Blake, who shelter him while he hides in a bunker, too afraid to own his errors, and those who just want to get cheaper tuition. Which option do you want? Whose money should put you through school? Which one of your neighbors/friends/family/ fellow Canadians is responsible for helping you achieve your goals and paying for your life experience, because when I ask myself these questions the finger always points back at myself.
Blake, own it.
Tim… reality will find its way to you someday, you’re a nice guy but you need to see what is there and not what you want to be there.
Reply
UBC International Alumnus Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 4:59 am
When you consider the fact that UBC is a top 40 institution on global rankings, it is amazing that Canadians can get that education for 24,000$. Far more students are denied access to university education at all due to admission requirements than financial reasons. If Canadian government or the world saw higher education as a human right why are there admissions requirements.
Reply
Chanelle Nov 30
I think both Blake and Tim, as well as the council, are going to extremes. Rising tuition fees and appropriate representative democracy are both very important concepts, and neither of them should be subordinated to a lower level of priority than the other.
Given that Blake and Tim have used the name of the AMS council in ways that violated procedural obligations – not once, but twice (recall the bus loop affair earlier this term) – they should definitely accept responsibility for their actions. This is especially crucial given that they could cost students even more if they refused to resign – the impeachment process is excruciatingly long and costly.
However at the same time, I’d also like to see some more concern placed on the issues that Blake brought to attention with his decision to send a complain to the U.N. – rising tuition fees in conjunction with provincial and federal cuts to education funding/aid (and remember, not all of us are domestic students – there are international students who pay well over double, even triple, of our fees). Being able to acknowledge this problem while at the same time seeking accountability from the two rogue executives demonstrates to us that the AMS council also recognizes this issue as important to the student body that they represent. By losing touch with the reality of Blake and Tim’s statement regarding tuition fees in favour of putting all emphasis on the effort to lynch the President for bypassing bureaucratic and administrative tape, the AMS council becomes just as unrepresentative as those they seek to persecute.
Reply
Alex Nov 30
So Tim and Blake, despite being elected, do not represent the student body, and despite the fact that they technically followed procedural policy on the expenditure of AMS funds, should resign? On the other hand, AMS council DOES represent the student body and, despite haphazardly following AMS policy in doing so, has the right to ask for their resignation or force their impeachment? It seems that these double-sided arguments in regards to representation point to a democracy that is essentially an oligarchy.
This being said, it seems much more appropriate for Tim and Blake to undertake some form of politics, much avoided by the rest of AMS council, in an attempt to actually address an issue that students are united on, rather than spending their time ‘defending’ a system they at once denounce and celebrate. The air of self-righteousness that surrounds AMS councils actions is deplorable, and it seems that once again, student politics at UBC seems to be about students being pitted against students, and in the end, nothing truly political being done.
These actions, along with the vote against a non-voting disabilities seat and the motion on Wednesday that will attempt to remove the non-voting international student seat, prove to me that the AMS is comfortable in this paradox of representation that amounts to an exclusionary ‘politcs’ of inaction.
Reply
joey Nov 30
AMS council, what has Naylor and retinue done that benefits students directly. What initiative have they initiated? What kind of lobbying, activities did they undertake in order to deal with the tuition issues? Saturday, while meeting for asking the resignation of Frederick and Chu, what else did they do to deal with the real issues that affect students lives and abilities to study with no hungry stomachs nor go on sleepless nights because they don’t know where to turn for the next meal or shelter.
The students that met Saturday to demand that Frederick and Chu resign, need to get off Lady’s gaga kool aid.
Reply
Alison Brown Reply:
November 30th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
That is actually part of what bothers me about this situation. Many of our student representatives do a lot for us on the tuition issue and others. Some of them are just working in less flashy ways. It isn’t at all fair to say Frederick and Chu and the only ones doing anything.
Reply
Seb Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 12:11 am
Tim and Blake fired their federal lobby group, have chosen to avoid lobbying the provincial government, and have generally painted themselves as NDPers in order to convince Liberals of the merits of their ideas.
WAKE UP TIME AND BLAKE! It’s December 2009 and Ujjal Dosanjh is no longer premier!
It really doesn’t matter whether a person supports the NDP platform more than the Liberal platform. If you think public attention to the tuition issue will affect a change of government, the best time to do that is in Year 4 of the government’s mandate. Any sooner than that and people’s attention will move on to something else. These issues have to be dealt with strategically or you risk marginalizing them.
So what do you do during Years 1-3 of the mandate? Try and speak to the government on their own terms. In a parliamentary democracy where a majority has been established, you don’t get to pretend that the opposition has won. To do so is to systematically disadvantage the student voice by making students persona non grata.
THAT is why this was a bad idea. “Doing something” is not a sufficient reason when it diminishes your credibility. Credibility is all you have with government and it takes painstaking work to build it. Blake and Tim have created lasting damage to the AMS’s credibility.
If you want to see movement on student issues, pay a government relations firm and give them a three-year contract. It’s not that Blake and Tim exhausted all options for convincing government, it’s that the AMS is consistently bad at doing government relations. Blake and Tim just happen to be particularly bad.
It will take a pair of extraordinary successors to right the ship. Hopefully those people exist.
Reply
Uninterested Interested Party Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 2:03 am
You = volunteer?
Reply
Seb Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:46 am
Well, I work for a public affairs firm. Would pitching the AMS as a client be close enough? At least that way I don’t have to take a pay cut.
(And before somebody jumps on me, this is a recent state of affairs and does not reflect the $20,000 in debt that I developed with government and commercial loans to pay for my schooling).
Alex Corey Dec 1
The minimum wage in BC has decreased by 24.7% since the 1970s when adjusted by the Commodity Price Index (Workman, 2009). Youth disproportionately work at or close to the minimum wage, and have been expected to cover an increasingly large proportion of the cost of eduction through fees.
Why should tuition be pegged to inflation, if my wages are not pegged to inflation?
Workman, T. (2009). If you’re in my way I’m walking: Assault on working people since 1970. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Reply
Seb Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 8:50 am
That’s primarily a statistical trick. If you take the minimum wage from 1968-2005 in British Columbia, for instance, and chart CPI vs. increases to the wage, the wage comes out ahead.
But implicit in Alex’s point is a novel idea – what if tuition wasn’t pegged to inflation but the minimum wage?
Reply
Nick Dec 1
What they could do is remove the funding that the AMS gets from student fees. Universities in Australia did that a few years ago and now don’t have nearly as many problems with crazy left-wing ideologues as they did before. That would help cut some money from the “ancillary” that students pay. And then the students who actually care about Student government could be the ones who pay for it. Probably the same 10-15% who voted…
Reply
Disgruntled Engineering PP Dec 1
The causes supposedly promoted by Mr. Blake and Mr. Chu were justifieable to a point. Indeed, the tuition fees have have indeed gone up, and any student would love to have them lowered. However, at what price? During the tuition freeze of the 1990’s, we had the lowest tuition level for any university in Canada; of the other hand, the quality of education suffered as a result.
Furthermore, as a politically-aware student, the policies of the President have run contrary to student opinion, to rather negative ends. He was a member of the AMS government in the previous year that led students to have no influence or official participation in the 2010 Olympics, a loss of face with the knoll stunt, and turned our University into a Berkeley-lite. This is not good governance. It is one reason why many students are apathetic to the student union for a long time….until now. The AMS VP-External and the President’s actions have dishonored the AMS, the University, but most importantly, they betrayed the will of the students they were supposed to represent. They must leave their well-paid position for the better of UBC.
One really simple way to reduce tuition: remove the AMS student fee from our student costs. If student are apathetic to the AMS, we should not be paying for something we don’t care for. Of course, the president would never promote that idea….
Reply
Uniterested Interested Party Reply:
December 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Alas, the AMS has done such a good job of creating services and businesses that the removal of the AMS would be extremely damaging to campus. Not only would it leave us with the current inadequate SUB, we would lose The Pit, tutoring services, the sexual assault support centre, cheap beer and karaoke at the gallery, etc…
The AMS council is what you are seeking to remove and in reality it is full of a bunch of hacks, but for the most part the council deals with very little money that doesn’t go directly to services provided by students and the Council often just spins its’ wheels. The AMS council is ineffective due to the one year turnover period of both the executives and councillors, and student apathy has created a clique environment in the council chambers. So until the average student is willing to look up from their books or their beers for a few minutes and think about what they want the AMS to be and who they want to represent them then the council will always be fairly irrelevant. You don’t gain much, you don’t lose much.
Reply
Baby Boomer Dec 1
The headhunting here is remarkable. It’s a shame that “angry peeps” have undermined a potentially successful strategy. I find it hard to believe that any member of society should be against subsidized education. People outside of the University see this “stunt” as a positive and gutsy move. Especially when contrasted with other subsidized activities, like wars, political campaigns and (I shudder) investment banking.
The actions of your President have stimulated debate and brought attention to an issue that would never be addressed without triggering incentives/disincentives for national/provincial policy makers (ie. votes or lack of votes). From reading the comments on this page, it would seem the squabbling and infighting has taken precedence over the important issue. In this sense, what could have been an effective tactic has been rendered an embarrassment. Not because of the complaint to the UN, but because you students are divided among yourselves and playing the blame game.
An educated population is not just something a country should be proud of, it is the key to economic growth. The Europeans know it. They have been in competition with one another, in tight geopolitical quarters, for thousands of years. They do not shackle their own with debt. In Canada, the University is a profiteering institution and students are the market.
I think your President has made a splash and that you students need to follow it up. Students who come out of their education 30,000 dollars in debt are facing an uphill battle. At the wage of any average bachelor degree holding Canadian, it could take 8 years after graduation to secure a mortgage. 10 if you live in Vancouver!
And, in response to that unbelievably sheltered person, who doesn’t believe that very intelligent and capable people can be rendered useless to society through social and financial marginalization, take a walk around main street, commercial or hastings and look at the cultures you have created. Cultures that you will be compensating financially for your entire Canadian life. A more accessible system of higher education could prevent a tenth of those people from becoming a drain on your standard of living.
Reply
tanja Dec 1
Whereas rising tuition fees do NOT constitute “a consistent pattern of gross human rights violation” and;
Whereas UBCs reputation for global citizenship is now a joke; and
Whereas Blake Frederick and Tim Chu are supposed to “have to consult with students on what it is that [they're] doing” and;
Whereas the aforementioned still don’t get that student outrage for this debacle has nothing to do with rising tuition rates;
Therefore be it resolved that the AMS
*impeaches their heinies (heinys?) should they not resign
*censures Tom Dvorak and Johannes Rebane for negligently signing off on the contract with Pivot Legal Society
*writes a lovely letter once these actions have taken place to the UBC administration, provincial and federal government announcing that the AMS should no longer be dismissed as sign-waving radicals as they are now ready to build a respectful and collaborative relationship with them
Reply