On Oct. 19, Carleton students voted on the question of whether or not their students’ association—the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA)—should continue its membership with the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). About 52 per cent of those who voted chose to remain with the CFS.
The campaign was marked by vigorous campaigning conducted by both sides, to persuade students to their side in what is being dubbed as the “most important referendum” in Carleton’s history. Regardless of the result, the referendum highlighted two sides—CUSA and the CFS. Although they are distinct organizations, one can also observe how this referendum was an example of the classic battle between the political left and right on campus.
First, if we take a look at each organization’s main arguments, we can draw some striking conclusions. The “CU Later CFS” campaign argued that the CFS financially mismanages student money as a result of their hidden bank account scandal, hires non-campus professional campaigners, and provides ineffective services.
The CU Later CFS campaign argued that because of these reasons, the CFS is an ineffective, inefficient, and corrupt organization. The arguments made by this campaign closely resemble those that are made by fiscal conservatives, who generally believe in lower taxes, financial responsibility, and minimal debt.
An example regarding the resemblance of this similarity is how the CU Later CFS campaign claimed the cost of membership is too high for the services the CFS provides Carleton students, which is similar to fiscal conservatives’ belief in lower taxes. This is just one of many examples which show the ideology between the CU Later CFS campaign and fiscal conservatism are strikingly similar.
Conversely, the Vote Yes CFS campaign argued that the CFS is the largest student union in the country who, according to its website, “does advocacy and lobbying of student issues and demands to the federal, provincial and municipal government.”
The Vote Yes CFS campaign argued, among other things, that continued membership allows students to access services such as the International Student Identity Card (ISIC) and the National Student Health Network. According to the Vote Yes CFS campaign, the organization has had several victories in the areas of daycare, transportation, and government financial assistance for students.
The arguments made by the campaign and the ideology of the CFS can be closely resembled to socialism and social progressiveness, which generally believes in more social assistance, advocacy for minority groups, and greater unionization. Considering the CFS is a national student union which advocates for socially progressive causes like lower tuition, one can see how this is comparable to the socialist belief in expanding the welfare state.
On a more local level, we can also evaluate the political composition of each campaign, based on the endorsements they received from various campus clubs and societies. The Vote Yes CFS campaign garnered an exhaustive list of public endorsements from clubs and societies at Carleton. The majority of these endorsements were from politically left-leaning and social advocacy clubs, such as OurTurn Carleton, the Institute of African Studies Students Association (IASSA), Carleton University New Democrats, and the Carleton University Graduate Students’ Association (GSA).
Evaluating the mandates of these and other organizations show a common thread of the same socialist quilt. Conversely, the CU Later CFS only received one endorsement from a Carleton club—from the Carleton Campus Conservatives. As our campus demographic continues to change, so too will our general political ideology. The CFS referendum served as a litmus test that showed us which side of the political spectrum is currently the most prominently adopted on our campus, and allows us to predict in what way that paradigm may shift in the future.
Whether you voted because you hate CUSA or because you agreed with a particular campaign, this referendum revealed how divisive our ideologies are on campus and that no matter the topic being debated, our student body will always huddle in their political corners—where one will always prevail over the other.
