Home Blog Page 1282

Chris Brown beats Leukemia

By
EIC
-
2

Unpopular music artist batters slightly more popular bone cancer
By Gary Lim

HOLLYWOOD — Famed American rap artist Chris Brown made headlines early last week after viciously beating the autoimmune disorder leukemia into remission.

Eyewitnesses reported the 23-year-old rap artist was spotted inside popular LA medical center Cedar-Sinai prior to the incident, where Brown has been seen binge drinking beforehand, downing an entire 40oz bottle of barium contrast dye and a cocktail of antibiotic drugs.

Brown’s fight against the bone cancer stems back to a Twitter feud in 2011, when Brown’s oncologist Dr. Lieventhal openly called the grammy-winning artist’s T-cell count “abnormally high and warranting a lymphatic biopsy” to which Brown responded by calling Leukemia “a punk-ass honky blood cell bitch” on MTV’s TRL and coughing up a few specks of blood into a handkerchief.

Since then the crippling illness and Brown’s immune system have been at odds, surfacing in entertainment news each time a withered and emaciated Brown appeared in public.

The feud finally came to a head last Friday when following the end of a nine-month-long stint of radiation treatment and the implantation of a chemotherapy pump, Brown confronted the hematological malignancy, severely injuring the cancerous masses of tissues in his bone marrow and, according to doctors, allegedly punching the disease into remission.

Upon learning of his disease-free state, an ecstatic Brown was reported to have immediately struck a hospital orderly, Inderpal Shankar, 34, in the face, violence being Brown’s only way to express emotion.

SFSS passes bylaw changes

By
EIC
-
0

sfss bylaw

Last week’s special general meeting made quorum, the first time in years

By Alison Roach
Photos by Mark Burnham

Last Thursday’s SFSS special general meeting (SGM) was the most attended in years, drawing the full quorum of 240 students needed to make changes to SFSS by-laws. The motion to amend the society’s bylaws passed, and will go into effect May 1, 2014.

“I don’t think since 2006 or 2008 has the SFSS actually had a quorate general meeting,” said SFSS president Lorenz Yeung, who chaired the event. The meeting was called to order an hour after it was scheduled to begin.

The proposed bylaw changes were voted on as part of an omnibus package. A motion to break up the bylaws and vote on them piece by piece was made, but quickly defeated. The omnibus package included changes to 15 of the 22 existing bylaws, as well as the creation of a new one.

Discussion was also cut short twice, as an audience member called the question and forced a vote to adopt the agenda, and later to pass the bylaw changes. Going through the omnibus package proved lengthy, and was cut off after by the student attendees after bylaw nine.
The changes ranged from small language changes to different terms, such as the renaming of SFSS Forum to the Council. Major alterations included the elimination of the board’s internal relations officer position, to be replaced by an executive director. The member services officer position was also split into two separate offices, one focused on community, and the other on administration.

Another major change was the formal creation of Faculty Student Unions (DSUs), under the new bylaw. Though DSUs such as the Society of Arts and Social Sciences (SASS) and Business Administration Student Society (BASS) have been operating on campus for a while, they haven’t been recognized by the SFSS as FSUs.

Yeung explained: “The intent of this bylaw is to introduce another level of — you could call it governance . . . in between the board and departmental student unions. Currently the board directly manages and provides funding for departmental student unions.

It makes it difficult for those in the same faculty to hold campus-wide events.”

The new bylaw allows these FSUs to be formally established by referendum, and would then in turn recognize and represent DSUs in the faculty.
The motion to amend the bylaws passed by a wide margin, opposed by only a few members of the audience who had previously wished to sever the bylaws, and discuss each in detail. Afterwards, Yeung closed by saying, “Thank you, everyone. We made history in the society today.”

Ask questions, get Moe answers

By
EIC
-
17

A rebuttal to last week’s opinions piece, straight from the man himself

By Moe Kopahi

Mr. Joseph Leivdal, thank you for taking your time to express your opinion (“The SFSS needs Moe accountability”, April 2,
2013) in regards to the SFSS, SFU senate and me. I will address your concerns one by one.

You stated that, “The cover of a recent issue of The Peak shows newly elected SFSS President Khan revelling in his victory.” I find it hard to understand how this line is linked to the rest of your article. However, just for your information, the person behind the president is me, celebrating the results of the election and all the hard work we had put in campaigning and as board members over the last year.

You asked “where is the voice against increasing tuition coming from? Student fees? Budget cuts? Things are looking bad when all we see from the SFSS on these issues is an article and an email.” I agree that increases in tuition fees hurt students. But advocacy committee falls under the portfolio of the external relations officer, which is not me. I am the applied sciences representative.

“I bet you didn’t even know that Senate is debating the top-down integration of learning outcomes in curriculum, restructuring the very core of student experience at SFU. You would if the SFSS were doing their job,” you said in the article. I bet you didn’t know that the SFSS does not interfere with academics of SFU, which is the responsibility of senate. Check out their mandate.

You also quoted me on Facebook as saying, “If it was about equality, it wouldn’t be called feminism.” This sentence is just a tiny fragment of the conversation you are referring to and has been highlighted out of context. All it means is that in some cases, the definition of feminism has been modified to achieve a certain goal. I said this through my personal experience, and not as the incoming MSO.

You take issue with the fact that I was voted in with 1,962 votes on a 23 per cent voter turnout. I agree on the issue of lack of student engagement at SFU, however, we have been doing our best to get students involved. As far as the issue of votes cast for me is concerned, I was elected by 1,962 people voting in my favor.

If you claim that just bec a u s e n o t e n o u g h p e o p l e voted, the election process is somehow flawed, or that the
legitimization of the incoming directors should be questioned, then you are directly negating and undermining democracy and the time and effort of those active members of our community that actually voted in the last election.

Finally, you stated that “the Women’s Centre not only offers alternative resources to individuals of all genders, but also organizes a variety of events on a regular basis that serve the interests of our diverse student body.” While I completely agree with the quote and the importance of the Women’s Centre, I still stand by the fact that there needs to be more communication between the Women’s Centre and the SFSS and vice versa. Both parties should make an effort to resolve this issue.

As a general note to yourself and all SFU students: thank you all for participating in the SFSS elections in March. I highly recommend you to be involved with the SFSS, as it is a wonderful and productive experience at SFU. After five years of university experience and involvement, I have found that the best results come from working together for a common goal. Solving student issues and voicing their concerns is one of the SFSS mandates.

If you have any concerns, you should feel comfortable to contact us directly and work as a team to improve the student experience at SFU. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns: [email protected].

The opinions in this article are my own, and not necessarily the opinions of the SFSS.

SFU architect’s Vancouver home faces demolition

By
EIC
-
0

arthur erickson

Arthur Erickson is renowned for designing distinguished buildings around the world

By Kelli Gustafson
Photos courtesy ofJason V / Flickr

Recently, The Globe and Mail reported that the late Arthur Erickson’s cherished Vancouver home is facing potential demolition. Arthur Erickson, who passed away in 2009, was one of Canada’s most recognized architects.

Erickson, a Vancouver native, attended UBC and later McGill University, where he obtained a degree in architecture. Erickson’s career was launched when he and a colleague, Geoff Massey, won a contest to design Simon Fraser University in 1963. The university’s design led to international acclaim for the building and the architect behind it.

After designing SFU, Erickson went on to design the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC, UBC’s Museum of Anthropology, the San Diego Convention Centre, Vancouver Art Gallery Renovations (1979), Robson Square, and many more world-renowned structures. Erickson was also the first Canadian to receive a Gold Medal from the American Institute of Architects in 1986, the highest honour the institute bestows.

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Arthur Erickson Foundation was formed to aid Erickson as he filed for personal bankruptcy. In 1997, Peter Wall, a property developer in Vancouver, provided financial assistance by issuing a mortgage towards Erickson’s property in Point Grey. Fifteen years later, Wall recently asked the Arthur Erickson Foundation to repay this loan with its due interest, totalling to an amount of approximately $580,000. Putting the money towards his company, Wall Financial Corp., he has recouped the mortgage principal and interest.

“I looked after him when he was alive. The lenders basically would have foreclosed on his house,” Wall said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “It never was a gift. I always said that. It was basically a loan.” The foundation has been forced to secure a fresh mortgage on the property with local credit union Vancity, with the first monthly payment due mid-April.

Phyllis Lambert, chairperson for the foundation, told The Globe and Mail of possible ambitions the foundation has for Erickson’s Vancouver home; it could be turned into a museum or possibly a venue for poetry readings. The foundation is discouraging talks about demolition, and hopes to carry on Erickson’s legacy by advocating keeping this Vancouverite’s beloved home intact.

The home itself is a small, one-story cottage, located in the community of Point Grey. Erickson purchased the home back in 1957 for $11,000, while today the property is valued at over $3 million. For tax purposes, the house that stands on it is valued at a mere $6,300. The quaint cottage is spread over two lots in the coveted neighbourhood, and would no doubt be eagerly be snatched by developers if it became available.

While Erickson lived there, the home acted as a host to many notable guests, including former Canadian prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. “This was the locus of creativity for Canada’s most famous architect,” said Donald Luxton, president of the Heritage Vancouver Society, as reported by The Globe and Mail.

Faced with the possibility of Erickson’s home being demolished, many SFU students expressed concern and disapproval.

“I would be sad to see his house taken down,” Alex Lukac, a 3rd-year kinesiology student, told The Peak when she found out that Erickson’s home might soon be facing the wrecking ball. Lukac also expressed her fondness for the design of SFU. “I love the way Erickson uses stairs and cement in creative ways and manages to make each building he creates unique.”

Amy O’Brien, a 4th-year biology student, shared Lukac’s appreciation towards Er ickson’s design of SFU, and added, “It seems unfortunate that his home might be destroyed . . . it was a place where he spent so much of his time, and it almost would appear to be disrespectful to tear-down such an iconic architect’s home.”

SFSS tries to resurge discussion on gondola project

By
EIC
-
0

gondola

Despite criticisms, SFSS holds gondola project contest

By Amara Janssens

The SFSS is hoping to bring the proposed gondola project for Burnaby Mountain back into public dialogue. “I Like It On Top: Project Gondola” is a media contest inviting students and members of the Burnaby Mountain community to submit videos, photos or articles for a chance to win one of three cash prizes, valued at a total of $2,000.

According to SFSS External Relations Officer, Meaghan Wilson, “the whole point of the competition is to raise awareness.” Wilson noted that the Broadway corridor and Surrey rapid transit lines are hot topics in the media right now, while there’s a lack in gondola project coverage.

The SFSS hopes that “I Like It On Top: Project Gondola” will help push the gondola project forward and “make it a priority within TransLink, because it is currently on the backburner,” Wilson stated. “We feel as the SFSS that it’s necessary to implement a more efficient means of transit for our students.”

As much as the SFSS hopes to increase awareness for the gondola, TransLink is firm that this project won’t be seriously looked at for many years. “As with all expansion projects, our existing funding does not allow us to pursue this project at this time, but it will be considered for inclusion in future plans, along with rapid transit in Surrey, Broadway and many other regional needs,” Darek Zabel of TransLink Media Relations told The Peak.

In 2010 and 2011, TransLink hired the engineering company, CHM2 HILL, to conduct a business case analysis on the feasibility of the gondola project. According to the business case, the gondola would cost approximately $120 million to build and approximately $3.5 million to maintain every year. “The study concluded the concept had considerable merit,” Zabel stated. Among the benefits, Zabel noted an increase in transit trips, quicker commute times, and a reduction in “greenhouse gases by replacing a portion of the busy bus service to Burnaby Mountain,” to be favorable.

“When you look at the cost that TransLink spends just to employ their bus drivers, they would save a great deal,” Wilson surmised. “You look at the buses and they are not meant to be running up and down a mountain,” she continued. “There would no longer be any more snow days at school.”

Despite these benefits, the project faces opposition from neighbours, particularly in Burnaby’s Forest Grove community, where one of the proposed gondola routes would pass over. “The number one line or number one route that Translink has proposed would be from Production Way Terminal to UniverCity,” explained Wilson.

According to Citizens Opposed to the Gondola, the creators of the website nogondola. org, the gondola “threatens to cause further delays to the Evergreen line, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and disrupt the peaceful Forest Grove community.” Further concerns are around noise from the gondola as well as privacy for the residents. However, Wilson questioned the negative claims made by the group, stating that the gondola would be much different than the tourist models found on Grouse Mountain.

“This model would be all blacked out and you would only be able to see at the horizon level,” Wilson explained. “Students would not be able to go look down into their backyards, this would be obstructed.”

Wilson also questions the noise concerns raised by the citizens, stating, “From my understanding, the Forest Grove community is right by Gaglardi Way, which is a major thoroughfare up Burnaby Mountain, so it’s a very noisy route with buses rattling up and down.”

At the time of print, Citizens Opposed to the Gondola could not be reached for comment.

Front-door-only boarding is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard

By
EIC
-
3

front door

By David Proctor
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

In a strange way, this is a difficult subject to tackle: how do you argue a plainly obvious point without coming off as condescending? This is a university newspaper; I would assume (and hope) that our readership is brainy enough to realize on their own that allowing boarding only through the front doors at the central Burnaby campus bus stop is a stupid idea. I would hope the same thing about TransLink’s bureaucrats, but ever y day I go to catch the 145 home, and every day that moronic handscrawled sign remains.

In theory, every policy is designed to address a problem, but that element seems to be missing from this equation. The obvious explanation is that this is part of a crackdown on fare evaders, but the centre of SFU Burnaby seems like the single worst place to lay this trap.

Who uses this bus stop? Obviously, it’s mostly students, who I hardly need to remind you are participants in a compulsor y U-Pass program. Are they targeting people like me, who work up here? If so, that’s stupid — I need to have a monthly bus pass to get across the Skytrain unmolested, and I would need one to board the bus up the mountain if I lived on a different route. Maybe the stingy scumbags of UniverCity are the problem? If so, what’s preventing them from boarding through the back door at the Cornerstone loop, which is closer to their homes?

Even if all of the handful of remaining riders are dodging their fares, it sounds like TransLink is saving a rounding error’s worth of money with this rule. Am I to believe that these savings outweigh the number of buses that are passing me by with plenty of room in the back? We can scream and bitch until Christ’s return about people who don’t move to the back of the bus, but wouldn’t it be easier to simply open the back doors so I can squeeze in on my own?

Here’s an important question: are the savings on fares greater than the cost of fueling an extra bus and paying an extra driver to come pick me up when I’ve been left behind?

But wait: it gets dumber! Regular users of this stop may recall a woman in a reflective vest who, as far as I could tell, was a TransLink employee being paid to pace around this bus stop and remind me that I’m not to board through the back door. In an apparent fit of basic financial management skills, this service no longer appears to be offered.

We’ve all heard the sob story that is TransLink’s precarious financial position, but this is just a bad way to tackle it. It reeks of a culture in which do-nothing bureaucrats need to do something, anything, to justify their paycheques. (I should know; I was a do-nothing bureaucrat at a crown corporation for the better part of a year.)

It’s the same culture that spends $100 million installing fare gates in Skytrain stations in order to avoid $14.5 million in annual losses to fare fraud. It’s the same culture that hires police officers with guns to check peoples’ tickets. Does anyone really expect that Translink will lay off any of these armed cops when these fancy fare gates start doing a significant chunk of their job?

Translink’s funding problems are partly the result of underfunding, and largely the result of poor management and prioritization. We should all have the brains to see that leaving me in the wind and rain as a three-quarters full bus passes me by is not going to make the slightest dent in those profound and systemic problems.

Burnaby campus thief arrested

By
EIC
-
0

The subject was caught in the WAC Bennett Library

By Leah Bjornson

An arrest has been made in the string of thefts that have ravaged Burnaby campus during the last semester. The arrest comes in the wake of a spike of thefts that occurred on campus over the past few months, with 40 incidents occurring between Jan. 1st and Feb. 27th alone.

An SFU employee discovered the student in an office area in WAC Bennett Library two weeks ago. The person in question appeared suspicious, and so the SFU employee requested the subject remain in the area while Campus Security was contacted. Campus Security brought the subject to their offices and RCMP attended to secure the arrest.

“This was a perfect example of community partnerships working together for crime prevention.” said Katey Scott, Communications Officer for Safety & Risk Services at SFU.

So far in 2013, the library and the Lorne Davies Complex have had the highest rates of reported personal item theft — more than the rest of the Burnaby campus combined. A reason for this statistic might be the increased number of items left unattended while students study or search for material in the library.

“Theft of opportunity [which occurs when owners leave their items unattended] is the most common type of crime that occurs at SFU,” commented Scott. “Thieves are looking for small portable items that are high in value such as cell phones, laptops and tablets. This type of theft is actually quite avoidable . . . individuals can combat [it] personally by not leaving items unattended — not even for a second.”

This semester, there have been two incidents where Campus Security has detained, and Burnaby RCMP have come onto campus to arrest theft-of-oppor tunity perpetrators. These suspects were either caught in the act of stealing, or provided reasonable grounds for the RCMP to arrest them. Campus Security was contacted immediately in both of these incidents and were able to locate and detain the suspects until the RCMP arrived.

While Campus Secur ity statistics show that thefts have steadily increased over the past few years at all three SFU campuses, this is not just an SFU problem. The majority of universities across Canada and the United States have seen an increase in theft incidents.

In an era where ever y student seems to have a cell phone, a laptop, an iPod, and a number of other small and easily stolen gadgets, this statistic seems fitting, especially during exam time when students are more focused on their books and notes than on their personal items. To mitigate the increased number of thefts at SFU, Campus Security is launching an educationalcommunity outreach campaign, “Leave it, Lose it.”

The “Leave it, Lose it” theft prevention awareness campaign aims to educate students, and other community members, by providing theft prevention tips and highlighting SFU resources available to them in trying to avoid becoming a victim of theft,” Scott explained. “In addition, we want to ensure that students know to contact Campus Security immediately to report suspicious behaviour, or if a theft has occurred.” Such vigilance is what made the two arrests this semester possible.

At this time, Campus Security is not aware what will happen to the student, as the file now sits with the RCMP.

Canvas enters next stage of implementation

By
EIC
-
0

canvas

Eight courses test-drove the LMS platform this past semester

By Alison Roach
Image courtesy ofSFU.ca

With the end of the semester approaching, the first stage of the Canvas implementation program is drawing to a close. Canvas is the learning management system (LMS) that has been chosen to replace WebCT, and was tested by eight SFU courses this semester as part of a pilot project. This summer, implementation will expand, and up to 5,000 students will use the platform.

The eight courses selected to test the program were chosen for their variety — the course cover a wide range of faculties and class sizes. The pilot courses are an upper division business course, a upper division communications course, a graduate criminology course, a 100–level and a graduate education course, two upper division english courses, and an upper division philosophy course. The largest of these was the communications course, with 50 students.

“These [faculty members] are people who volunteered, and were picked in some cases because we knew they might have some challenging situations to deal with,” said Lynda Williams, a learning technology analyst and manager at SFU’s Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC). The Learning Technology group at the TLC has been providing support to these test courses throughout the semester, along with SFU IT Services and the Institutional, Collaborative, and Academic Technologies group (ICAT ).

Preliminary reviews of Canvas have been mixed, but positive overall. “Some of the very reasons people love Canvas are reasons that other people don’t like it,” said Williams. The LMS itself is highly customizable, allowing faculty to add different Learning Tools Interoperability apps (or LTIs) in order to integrate different types of enriched media into their respective Canvas pages. An instructor can pick and choose which LTIs they wish to use. ICAT is now working to see which LTIs will be formally supported by the university, largely dependent on which functions will be most used by faculty members.

One of the biggest selling points of Canvas is its frequent update cycle. The platform is updated approximately once every three weeks at the moment. Williams explained, “Canvas is plastic, in a way that no other LMS that we’ve used is.” Williams emphasized that Canvas evolves continuously, and things users don’t like about the program may be solved with the next update.

Running the program does put heavy strain on SFU’s IT department, as SFU is the only institution in Canada currently running the open source program. Canvas also has to be run on the university’s own servers, due to a piece of BC legislation that restricts the university from sending information to the Cloud: the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or FIPPA.

FIPPA restrains post-secondary institutions from sending information they have gathered from their work with various parties to the Cloud without specific permission. So programs such as Google Docs or Microsoft Evernote are unusable, because FIPPA stipulates that all information must be stored on a server in Canada. Williams stated that obtaining permission from students is cumbersome.

“This is something that a lot of post-secondary institutions in BC are getting more and more agitated about,” said Williams. “Why are we being held back by this legislation that’s there to protect privacy, but as an unintended by-product of good intent, is actually crippling educational technology for postsecondary institutions?”

FIPPA also means that SFU cannot make use of the other most attractive feature of Canvas: its mobility. Designed to be app-friendly, SFU is unable to use this aspect of the LMS.

“Canvas is an intrinsically smart, savvy, mobile intended LMS. It comes with an app, and if you run on the Cloud you can have the app,” said Williams.

The lack of an app has proved to be the biggest frustration for students in the pilot courses, according to Professor Mary Ann Gillies, and Senior Lecturer Nicky Didicher, both in the department of English.

“One of the big selling features of Canvas is that it’s accessible, but we can’t get the cloud version because of legal issues, and that means that the version we have will not work very well on tablets, or android, or Blackberry, or smartphones,” said Didicher. “For people who aren’t using laptops in the classroom but want to use handheld devices, this is a bit difficult.” Gillies, who teaches from an iPad, echoed this frustration.

Despite this drawback, both Didicher and Gillies reported that students did like Canvas better than WebCT, and most frustrations came from what they had previously been used to on the latter. The native discussion board for instance is quite simple, and does not allow for sub–topics. But as Williams explained, there are four different possible LTI plug–ins that could replace the discussion board with a different model.

“ With Canvas, the shell is there, you just need to add things. It’s pretty flexible,” said Gillies.

Things that students did like in Canvas were that it was possible to open two tabs or windows, and the browser’s back function worked, both problematic in WebCT. Canvas also includes a more complex gradebook that allows students to monitor exactly how well they’re doing in the course, and to calculate which marks they need to achieve a certain grade.

This summer, the Canvas implementation will expand, with up to 5,000 students using the platform, including those in distance courses. By fall 2013, half of LMS courses will be delivered in Canvas. The process of supporting faculty and students throughout the implementation will continue until the LMS has been completely implemented.

“We deeply respect the issues that instructors are having with things that cost them time and trouble, and we’re doing everything we can do to help those issues,” said Williams.

“We’re juggling with knives and we’re running while we’re doing it.”

BC looks to reform higher education quality assurance

By
EIC
-
0

Instead of four separate evaluating bodies, the province has proposed a new, one-body system

By Devan C. Tasa

KAMLOOPS (CUP) — The provincial government wants to streamline the process in which the quality of education from postsecondary institutions is verified.

Currently, there are four separate bodies that evaluate and monitor the quality of education in BC, depending on the type of institution. BC has 11 public universities, 11 public colleges, 15 private degree-granting institutions, 330 private career training schools and 13 private theological institutes.

The province wants to have a single evaluating body that is easier to understand and has clear processes and reporting requirements, while still accounting for diversity between different institutions.

This single quality assurance system would look over all post-secondary institutions, including ESL schools, which were previously deregulated in 2004. Currently, the bodies in place are the Degree Quality Assessment Board, Private Career Training Institutions Agency (PCTIA), Industry Training Authority, and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology.

“Under the proposed quality assurance framework,” said thenminister of advanced education John Yap in a press release, “students can be assured of the postsecondary education institution they attend, the education promised will be the education delivered, and the credentials earned will have value when they seek employment to choose to pursue further education.”

The proposal is still in the discussion stage. The provincial government has issued a green paper with a proposed quality assurance framework as a basis for discussion. John Yap stepped down just one hour after the green paper was released.

“A grounding principle is that the rights and privileges of institutions will be respected,” wrote Dan Gilmore, communications manager for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology, in an email. “Under the proposed quality assurance framework, institutions that have mature quality assessment processes and practices will have greater independence from external oversight by government.”

The framework proposes five levels of maturity for postsecondary institutions. At level one and two institutions, where quality assurance processes are ad-hoc and barely existent, the government will review the institution. At level three and above, where quality assurance processes are organized and sustainable, the government will review the process and the institution will receive more autonomy.

The government also wants to apply a standard level of tuition protection for students across the entire post-secondary system. It proposes that all institutions submit a percentage of tuition revenue to a fund that will repay students their tuition if their institution closes down.

The quality assurance framework also has the potential to make it easier for post-secondary institutions to deal with student transfers.

Gilmore wrote, “Having all post-secondary education institutions under a single quality assurance framework, combined with the implementation of a qualifications framework, will strengthen BC’s transfer system by providing greater understanding of the requirements all institutions undertake.”

But that doesn’t mean that students will suddenly be able to transfer their courses to another post-secondary institution easily. “Individual institutions remain the primary arbiters of whether to accept transfer credit,” Gilmore wrote.

The green paper said it hopes a new quality assurance body will be cos-neutral. It expects to charge post-secondary institutions a fee every time it uses the services provided by the body.

Voting isn’t the democratic act it’s cracked up to be

By
EIC
-
2

voting

With most people choosing their least hated option, why does voting still matter?

By Joseph Leivdal
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

As the provincial election approaches, we will begin to hear the usual message about our right and responsibility to vote. This notion that our democratic responsibility can be fulfilled by casting a ballot for whomever we think is the lesser of evils needs to be reinterpreted, as the current way it is often presented — in terms of combating apathy and a denial of political alternatives — is dangerous.

Representative democracy assumes that the state has a reasonable amount of control over its social and economic destiny. However, capitalism has been so invasive that it operates regardless of borders and political boundaries.

This should not be a surprising statement. We live in a world where corporations are granted the rights of persons and market systems, they not only depend on globalized, cross-border operations but actually work to undermine political processes that prevent these operations. When a society that is founded on the ideals of democracy is materially dependent on the exploitative market, it’s bound to be full of contradictions.

One of those contradictions is the mythology of the democratic responsibility to vote. According to this myth, it is the
individual’s responsibility to change the system for the better, and channels people’s energies into a means for enacting a change (i.e. voting) that is fundamentally broken. Lucy Parsons, an American labour organizer and radical socialist, made the famous statement: “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”

Those most often at the buttend of this mythology seem to be the youth, containing one of the largest demographics of non-voters. The media perpetuates the myth by portraying youth as a generation corrupted by popular culture and individualism, with no concern for the collective destiny of the nation.

This dangerous statement confuses alienation from the political process with the fictional concept of “apathy,” while concurrently demonizing political dissent, a collective action, and individualistically reinforcing the responsibility to vote. When all we see is politicians who seem unable to tell unethical policy from their you-knowwhats, who operate within in a system that consistently betrays good-faith, it is no wonder that we can find better things to do than vote on election day.

However, while the harmful effects of the previously mentioned discourse must be criticized, we cannot miss the margins for the mainstream.

While we may feel alienated from the political system, and indeed it is often easier to imagine what the end the world would look like rather than a world outside the current system, your vote does make a difference in the lives of the most marginalized in society, who are rarely afforded a voice to demand recognition of their struggles; they struggle within the shadows. Witness the 373 per cent increase in homelessness in BC under Gordon Campbell.

There is something wrong with democracy, yes. The mythology of apathy and responsibility may be harmful, yes. While the difference between policy decisions by the NDP or Liberals or anyone else simply cannot end oppression and poverty, it does make a difference in the lives of the most unfortunate. An analysis of the broader trends and ultimate rejection of the voting system is not a privilege that those struggling to feed themselves and their children can afford.

Those of us who are more fortunate have a responsibility to those who are less fortunate, and so we should vote. But in a society that is by definition corrupt and unsustainable, that lies to us, degrades us, and demands obedience, the only democratic responsibility that remains is that of a radical confrontation with that very system.

1...1,2811,2821,283...1,422Page 1,282 of 1,422

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us:
[email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024