Before we start, this is important to note: Since this referendum proposes a bylaw change, the referendum needs 75% approval in order to pass.
Background
During the past year, a movement to get a non-voting seat on AMS council for students with disabilities had been slowly building. It was felt that there were barriers to participation by students with disabilities both in the structure of the AMS and the layout of the SUB. It was also felt that their councilors were not in touch enough with their issues, and because there was no one on council advocating for their issues, that change was not to come soon. It all came to a head on November 18, 2009, when the question was put to council about whether they’d like to create this seat. After an emotionally-charged debate, council decided 21-10 against creating the seat, causing advocates of students with disabilities to leave the room in disgust. Having been rebuffed by council, this set in motion a movement to bring this question to referendum, which brings us to where we are today.
For a bit of recent perspective on a similar initiative, the 2005 AMS elections also had two questions on the ballot to create new voting seats on council. It was proposed that one seat be for international students and the other seat be for aboriginal students. Both of these questions got a strong majority (73.0% and 67.3%, respectively) but ultimately failed because they did not reach the required 75% threshold. The Ubyssey has an article here, on Page 9.
The Question
Much like the question about tuition policy, this is an extremely vague question. As Alex said earlier this week, “The question does not specify wording to modify the bylaws, but instead naively states the bylaws should be amended.”
Once again, it’s a great example of the need for proactive referendum validation.
For the record, the 2005 referenda were structured properly, providing specific wording of the proposed bylaw changes.
Practical Considerations
The question gives no details on very basic requirements, such as: who would be eligible to hold this seat? Who would be eligible to vote for it? The original presentation to council last November proposed that it would be done by self-identification. It’s not clear whether a self-identification system would be acceptable under the Society Act.
Double representation is a problem. As was pointed out in Matthew Naylor’s side of the point/counterpoint regarding the non-voting seat, the structure of AMS council is a faculty-based proportional representation system. Faculties get a certain number of seats based on how many students they have. Under this system, almost everyone gets representation on council. The only truly under-represented groups are unclassified students, and those in the theological colleges.
If a disability seat were to be created, disabled students would then be doubly represented: once through their faculty and once through the disability rep. Although this is something that was brought up during the debate over the non-voting seat, it’s much more significant now that the new proposal is for a voting seat. Students with disabilities have said that their faculty representatives don’t represent them (although it’s questionable whether they have actually ever tried to contact their faculty reps, or are simply assuming a bias against them without factual basis). This has been a big issue within the AMS this year; who really represents students? Nobody can say for sure. But the argument that if your representative doesn’t hold the exact same views as you, you aren’t being represented is a dangerously solipsistic viewpoint to hold.
It brings up the extremely difficult tenor of this debate, summarized nicely in a profile of Natalie Swift that ran in yesterday’s Ubyssey. She said: “it’s hard, you get put in a position where if you vote no, you don’t care, but if you vote yes, it’s not necessarily the appropriate solution.” The people who have been bringing this issue forward have been leaning heavily on making this a divisive issue, accusing anyone who disagrees with being discriminatory and insensitive. This does not bode well for their ability to work with others, accept differences, and sometimes accept that things might not always go their way.
If this referendum ultimately fails but has a strong showing (60% < YES < 75%), it may give the movement for a non-voting seat the push it needs. It has certainly brought the sought-after attention to their issues. But that attention should be channeled in different ways other than being focused solely on a council seat.
Some examples of student societies across Canada with disability representatives were used as examples of why this seat is worthwhile. However, if you do the research (and of course we do), you'll find that basically none of the cited examples use a faculty-based council structure. For example, the University of Victoria Student Society Board has the following composition:
*4 executives
*10 directors-at-large
*5 constituency reps, representing Access, Aboriginal students, Anti-racism, Pride and Women's Centre
In the AMS, it's taken for granted that we have representatives for engineering students. What would happen if a bunch of students from engineering asked the UVSS board for a specific engineering rep, on the basis that no one was currently representing engineers on the Board? It would show a real lack of understanding of how their organization is structured. There's no judgment here on which council structure is more desirable, just to point out that making direct comparisons to other student societies is plainly misleading.
While removing barriers for students with disabilities is a needed and worthwhile cause, it's still not clear how creating a seat on council is a solution to the problem. What is worrying is that it appears there has been far more effort put into changing AMS structure than trying to understand it, then working within it. It's surprising frankly, given that there must have been people involved in bringing this referendum who could actually help them do work on the ground, through the back channels of the AMS. Most of the barriers faced by students with disabilities could probably be very effectively dealt with this way, without making the process completely bloated. Instead, by trying to create a council seat, what they are doing is creating something where they can pass the buck to, and have someone else do that work for them. It appears to be one of the less efficient ways of bringing about change.
It is funny that students with disabilities think they are underrepresented on AMS Council. The percentage of councilors that self-identify as disabled is higher than the percentage of UBC students registered with the DRC. In fact, I believe that the percentage of AMS councilors registered with the DRC is higher than the percentage of students registered with the DRC (DRC = Disability Resource Centre.
On another note, physical and mental disabilities are quite different. It is interesting that students think that one seat will allow both of these very different groups to be represented. This proposed policy is poorly thought out and hopefully will not pass.
You have not addressed how the UofT deals with the disabilities seat in their student council. The vagueness of the wording is a problem, but as long as anyone can run for the seat, there is no problem, regardless of the proportional representation argument, which is full of holes in itself. The fact that we have a faculty-based system does not mean every group is represented, especially people who faced marginalization and discrimination of all sorts. Perhaps there should also be a Resource Groups seat. Or an Resource Groups advisory board who reports to council on a bi-weekly basis, bringing their issues to fore constantly, educating, influencing new projects, and passing important motions.
JH
Dont vote for the seat-it has not been well thought out. What is the difference btw a non voting seat and showing up to council as a guest. Why not a disability resource groups?
There is also alot of potential for this seatto be misused-how do know if someone has a disability? Is this another ploy from the radical left-Knollies???
Dont vote for the seat-it has not been well thought out. What is the difference btw a non voting seat and showing up to council as a guest. Why not a disability resource groups?
There is also alot of potential for this seatto be misused-how do know if someone has a disability? Is this another ploy from the radical left-Knollies???
Tammy are you being satirical? Just to be very clear, the students who were working to create the non voting seat on council for students with disabilities should in no way shape or form be labeled “radical left-Knollies”.
It is particularly frustrating to me that this has been brought forward seeing as Council is still working on resolving the issue of how to best represent students with disabilities. It’s unfortunate that most people are of the opinion Council outright dismissed this issue when it was brought up a few months ago. In fact, we carefully considered it and decided that the proposal might not be the best method and an effective fit with Council.
It was referred to a committee for revision, as well as the suggestion that it might be pertinent to wait for the review of systemic discrimination to be completed by the outside consultant. Why then is this being brought forward as a referendum? It tells me that whoever was circulating this petition was sadly misinformed about Council’s reaction and investigation into this issue.
The lack of any specific changes attached to this question further perpetuates my assumption of a lack of understanding by the authors. It is wholly inappropriate in my opinion to ask students to vote on a question this loaded without detailing the specifics of what it would change. I’m firmly of the opinion that no Bylaw changes should be brought to referendum without an itemized list of alterations.
UBC is made up of many different faculties and in each faculty there are always students who face unique systematic, structural and attitudinal barriers almost every day. Some of these students are us, with each of us having a different kind of disability. I, myself, am a hard of hearing person with a profound sensorineural hearing loss. In the AMS meeting on November 18th, 2009, Matthew Naylor pointed out that any concerns that we have can be brought up with our respective faculty representatives, but what does he (as an Arts Councilor) know about disability? How interested will he and other faculty representatives be in learning about and understand the academic and social challenges that we have to face every single day of our lives? As a faculty representative, he would be more committed to dealing with matters that are relevant to his own faculty. Why tend to the needs of one small voice that only makes up about 10% of the faculty population? Having a seat on the council will unify all persons with disabilities throughout UBC into one BIG entity, regardless of what faculty they are in.
Having students with disabilities united into our own group means our interests may be represented as one large voice, instead of through multiple small voices within separate academic faculties. It gives us a platform to have someone on the council that can actually relate to the challenges we have to overcome every single day of our lives.
Now you may ask, how would I understand what a visually impaired person need? And so I ask you this: in the Faculty of Arts, would the people in the Political Science department understand the issues faced by the Philosophy department? People with disabilities are not homogeneous group, but we all have a common cause. Moreover, despite the differences in the types of disabilities we have, we face the same challenges: discrimination, isolation, stigma, and so forth, and this is where education of public comes in.
Having a seat on the council will expose the issues faced by students with disabilities to the entire student body of UBC and give them the opportunity to realize that disability is “More Than You Think”. Lastly, with regards to a question posed about how involved will we actually be if we get a seat: do not assume something that you don’t know, because we care enough to make a difference.
Bowen, all of the reasons you have outlined point more to the establishment of a resource group than a voting seat on Council, and I could not agree more with all of them.
The majority of councillors do not understand, you are absolutely correct, but at the end of the day AMS Council is a final deliberative body, we make decisions on motions brought before us.
We rely heavily on the resource groups, the commissioners (people within each VPs office with specific jobs), and even certain clubs to bring issues to our attention, and to make decisions accordingly. Well thought-out motions and initiatives come before us, and we debate and decide – specific viewpoints are brought forward before this point.
This is why I voted against the motion last time it was brought before Council, because I saw no benefit to the creation of this seat. Not only was it proposed to be non-voting, but also it would create an awkward election system that would have any self-identifying students with mental or physical disabilities able to run and vote. We don’t have a voter list of self-identifying students with disabilities, nor do I think this is an appropriate registry for the AMS to create. And this is why a resource group would be far more effective.
The establishment of a resource group where students from all faculties, with any manner of disability or lack thereof can come for information, to voice concerns, and to motivate issues to bring before Council. On a week to week basis there will be little that a Disabilities Rep will do on Council, rarely do the motions we deal with have any specific affect on students with disabilities. It would be a waste of this person’s time, and not an effective way of addressing the issues.
So as you said, Bowen, as informed as anyone is, no-one can know exactly what barriers exist to students with disabilities without being in that position themselves, and at the final deliberative stage of AMS policy, this is not an effective place to try to make them understand. We need to create a resource group, that is well-funded and very visible, to ensure that students with unique barriers do not feel left out of the process.
Also, Bowen, you’re assuming that Naylor does not have an understanding of the issues affecting those with disabilities. Perhaps you should ask him how he identifies prior to making a glossy, ignorant claim?
http://radicalbeer.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/why-the-cmha/
Yegads, Neal Yonson is a pillox if I’ve ever read one. If he doesn’t have a disbaility he most certainly is no expert and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Pffft.
wait … sarcasm?