I don't normally confirm Godwin's Law this early in a post, but I couldn't help it this time.
As many of you are aware, the Wilfrid Laurier University Student's Union has rejected the application by the Laurier Freethought Alliance (LFA) to affiliate as a campus club.
The reasons? Apparently, the union decided that a group dedicated to promoting "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" is offensive. Never mind that they already have quite a few religious and racist organizations that are offensive to intelligent people.
The real question is why does a union (that all students are forced to be a member of and support through tuition fees) have this much power? The presence of overzealous school unions that flaunt their left-wing politically correct bullshit isn't anything new (every university seems to have them) but it is interesting how much power this one has wrestled from the students and the administration. They have even managed to obtain financial control over the individual campus clubs. This is obviously a case of a new group not fitting into the socialist utopia that the union has created for itself and should thus be prevented from freely expressing itself.
Although I am sure the organizers of the still-unofficial LFA will continue to fight to get official status (and the funding that comes with them, courtesy, of course, of the tuition-paying students and taxpayers who have no control over how the money is being spent), I wonder if we should be looking at the bigger picture and attack the unions themselves.
What is the purpose of campus unions? Throughout my university years at Ryerson, $300 a year of my tuition fees went to my union. When I asked to opt out because it violated my freedom of association clause set out in the Charter (contrary to popular belief, the Charter can sometimes be used to fight liberal ideology, although I don’t know of any successful cases), I was told that I couldn't be a student unless I was part of the union. The union then went on to fund protests of the Iraq war, gay marriage, NDP candidates who supported lowering tuition fees, and other ridiculous non-academic ventures (like prayer space for Muslims, even though there is a Mosque across the street).
I encourage all university students to look up how much money they contribute to their unions and to compare that to what the union actually accomplishes. Remember that the Canadian Federation of Students is rolling in the cash they have stolen from hard working students who are trying to learn the skills required so that they never have to be part of a union.
For more information check out The Frame Problem for a list of other blogs supporting this cause.
9 comments:
how about a 4 million dollar building that no one voted for?
or a 3 million dollar multifaith centre, for that matter. Student Unions should be completely abolished at every scholastic institution, they waste the money we don't have in the first place for things that single-digit percentages of students can actually use....however, this Laurier issue is one of the worst things I've ever heard of any union doing by far. And that really is saying a LOT.
I think that you shouldn't comment if you don't even know how to spell one of your prime minister's name correctly. It is Wilfrid Laurier University, NOT Wilfred.
Thanks, I fixed the errors. I was too focused on the bigger picture to worry about technicalities.
yeah, I apologize. Really, I think you get the point...but whatever. The issue is much more important, sorry.
Did you even read Godwin's law? It says the longer a discussion goes on, the more likely someone brings up the Nazi's. Nobody brought up the Nazi's! Not even you. How pointless!
All that was confirmed here is that a couple of bloggers with no real sense of the big picture can make a situation worse than it needs to be.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with the big picture then since you claim to know more than the rest of us? (Your profile was not available)
While Godwin's Law refers to Nazi's, calling one a fascist is an acceptable substitution.
Thanks for providing more evidence that you didn't bother to read the Wikipedia article you linked to, and only mentioned to appear clever. Godwin's law specifically refers to a comparison to Hitler and/or Nazis. There are tons of fascists in the world, but bringing up Hitler, who masterminded the final solution, is inflammatory and often not appropriate.
Your post was more towards the pointless side, as the student group involved had already issued a cease and desist request for the negative publicity, as they acknowledged it would have been better settled with a little negotiation. Political correctness is frustrating and pointless, but the knee jerk reaction by a few immature bloggers and their audiences simply irritated the people who would likely have given in with a simple clarification of the terms in the application.
Are you sure you know what Iconoclast means?
You make good points. I know Godwin's Law specifically referenced Hitler, but people always bring it up when I accuse them of being fascists so I was using the practical definition rather than the theoretical. In retrospect, I probably misused the term anyway.
Most blog posts are pointless, but as we have seen in this case, they are effective at getting results. By quickly spreading the news across the blogosphere there will probably be a new group at Laurier because of all the bad press that the student union is facing. The new student group has a lot more bargaining power now that the union knows how many allies they have and I disagree that the new group would have passed the union’s censors with a few simple wordings since the wordings were quite clear and adequately described what the club wanted to promote.
My post was different because I was trying to focus people’s attention beyond this one incident towards the bigger problems we face regarding student unions. Most people disagree with me and that’s fine. I just try to add a different perspective where there is none.
‘Iconoclast’ is roughly described as one who attacks people’s irrational beliefs and traditions in an unpleasant manner. That adequately describes me. Besides, all the other good names were taken.
"‘Iconoclast’ is roughly described as one who attacks people’s irrational beliefs and traditions in an unpleasant manner."
While you are right that iconoclasts smash images and tear apart religious dogma, and that they often do so brashly, brashness alone does not make an iconoclast. Hitchens' comes across as an ass, until you listen closely and realize that he makes careful and thoughtful arguments.
Careful and thoughtful arguments are what smash idols; brashness just gets a little attention. Brashness without thoughtfulness makes you look foolish.
The problem with most student unions is an unhealthy pre-occupation with political correctness, that ultra-inclusive touchy feely nonsense that doesn't allow for meaningful criticism of anyone. Fascism is the polar opposite, a centralized and utterly intolerant form of dominance by a single minded authority which oppresses all individualism. When you conflate the two ideas, you lose credibility.
Similarly, had you read the news coverage of the black school issue, you wouldn't have bandied the terms "racist" and "segregation" around. The program hasn't been defined beyond the notion that some effort will be made to keep black youths in school that are at greater risk for dropping out. A final report in May will determine what that effort will look like, and it may or may not involve a segregated program. Reactionary nonsense on your part and the inflammatory use of words which are not appropriate to the situation really don't make you an iconoclast.
If you want to be an iconoclast, try pointing out that the problem with inner city youths dropping out of school is more likely that the entire school system is broken beyond repair, and that separate programs which promote black culture is only a band-aid. Mention that schools fail to prepare students for life, for careers, for higher education and that it's a wonder more students don't become disillusioned with the pointless hoop-jumping exercises. If you are really a libertarian, assert that individuals shouldn't have to suffer through 14 years (Pre-K through Grade 12) of nonsense before they can get on with learning something they care about. That would be iconoclastic. Throwing the words "racist" and "fascist" around is just so much worthless puffery and attention seeking.
Post a Comment