The SFSS is having its elections this week, with voting taking place online from March 20 to 22, and by now, most candidates are in the swing of their campaigns, telling everyone they support this or oppose that. However, despite this fervor in campaigning, many first-years are left asking what good it is to know someone’s platform when one doesn’t know the actual roles of the positions which each is aiming to fill?
The entire electoral system in the SFSS seems oriented to those who already know the workings of the SFSS and its operations, or in other words, not first-years. Though candidates have been quick enough to point out their platforms, however vague, there has been very little effort to inform each student of the roles that will be taken on by each position, no matter who gets elected to them.
Though one can find the job description of each role online, if one looks for a while on either the SFSS website or the site for the SFSS elections, the SFSS and those running for office therein have not partaken in any significant endeavor to make these known, with candidates instead focusing their attentions to making posters to put all over campus, or videos on YouTube.
This forces first-year students to look at each candidate’s platforms without the aid of contextual knowledge of each race’s position. This is something that should be seen as detrimental to the operations of the SFSS, and would be in its own best interest to address.
In fact, this is particularly the case because it not only creates first-years who don’t know the process in which they are participating, but creates a new series of second-years who won’t know the process next year. If we want to make sure that more students are voting in the future, the SFSS needs to make better efforts in the future to engage first-years. One way in which this can be done is by addressing more issues currently pertinent to first years.
One example of how this is not being done is the current debates over the finances of the Highland Pub. Although the finances of the SFSS are relevant to all students, the fact that the debates are centering over those of the pub largely excludes many first years from any significant interest, as most are still underage. This means that any changes that are made to the operation of the pub will not have an immediate effect on many first years, a significant limit to any enthusiasm they could muster towards the matter.
Furthermore, a fairly small amount of attention seems to have been paid to informing students on the impact that the student union building (SUB) and its related costs will have on those of us still in our first year here at SFU. The project will add significant costs to tuition for students at SFU, something which will be most pronounced for first-years, who, of current students, will be forced to pay the most. However, most attention seems to have been paid towards selling the project to students, rather than educating, which was admittedly mildly predictable, with the information sessions being put on by the SFSS, the organization responsible for the project. The SFSS should commit to not only listening to students, but also to ensuring that they are fully informed on the issue in order to formulate educated opinions, based in knowledge of what the project will mean for both them and for SFU.
It’s time that the candidates recognize that student elections are only truly open when people voting know the implications of their votes, and that comes with education. Let’s hope the candidates we elect this week recognize the difference between education and handing out campaign posters.
