In last week’s opinions piece [“The SUB is a scam”, February 27], author Joel Warren refers to the current SFSS board as “self-interested and ideologically-aligned”. This is not the first time that the phrase ‘ideological’ has been thrown around as a dirty word at SFU. ‘Ideological’ was an attack extensively used against the current SFSS board during the recent lockout of their staff, and it has also been fuel in the past for those that opposed organizations like SFPIRG or The Peak.
The issue of the lockout, and now the SUB, are good examples to illustrate that we are an ideologically divided campus. There is, as Warren would put it, the ‘progressive-minded’ on the one side, and what I would like to call the ‘fiscally-minded’ on the other — otherwise known as the political left and right, respectively. This divide is likely fostered by the tension between the ‘radical campus’ academic departments that remain at SFU and the inclusion of more ‘practical’ departments — such as business. Then there is also the majority of SFU students who fall somewhere in the middle (and even more that don’t follow the issues of student politics).
At SFU, if you appear to be so much as leaning towards one of these political mindsets, then you run the risk of alienating the other end of the spectrum and welcoming attacks of being branded as ‘ideological’. CJSF, the campus radio station, for instance rebranded its Peak advertisements from “Your social justice + indie music station” to “Your arts & culture + experimental music station” after then-arts editor Clinton Hallahan published an editorial about how the words “social justice” were alienating due to their political implications. Similarly, Ryan Beedie (of Beedie School of Business) started an alternative campus publication during his undergraduate career to allegedly counter The Peak’s then-alignment with the political left.
‘Ideological’, to me, is an empty attack. All it means is that you recognize that your beliefs are different from someone else’s — because ideology only becomes a problem when there are disagreements. It does not signify anything inherently wrong with a person or organization, just their difference. Plus, ideology is fluid. For instance, the SFSS’s ideological leaning is likely to change with each election and turnover of board members. The issue, I suppose, comes from when an organization is supposed to represent you and your beliefs.
Furthermore, I think that it is unfair to somehow blame the current board for being “ideologically-aligned”, as Warren has. We all had an opportunity to run in the elections last March, and we were all provided the opportunity to vote. Regardless of whether the current board is actually “ideologically-aligned” or not, we put those people into power; if you want a more diverse board, then you should elect one. This idea follows for all campus organizations: The Peak, SFPIRG, and CJSF — among others — all have an elected board of directors that students can get involved with, and all clubs and DSUs have elected leadership positions as well.
As Warren has argued, more people involved in decision-making might naturally create more diversity in student politics. However, it also might not, and it could even be detrimental to decision-making to have so many ‘cooks in the kitchen’. Instead, I think that it would be much more effective to encourage more students to get involved with on-campus organizations in order to create a larger and more diverse pool of candidates to choose from come election time.
If doing the actual grunt-work of running a campus organization doesn’t appeal to you, there are still other options. Student politics is no different from any other politics, and in a democracy, it is difficult to please everybody. However, you still have your voice. If the SFSS board, or any other organization you pay student fees into, isn’t representing you, then you should let them know in a way that is constructive. Go to their office, write an editorial in The Peak, and attend meetings — do anything. Just, please, do not throw the word ‘ideological’ around like it actually means something.
