Re: “Give the U-Pass a chance”
Sept. 2 – 8, 2010/

If they weren't trying to justify their participation in an unethical program, one could almost feel sorry for U-Pass apologists. After all, it can't be fun having to trot out the same old, facile arguments over and over again, none of which stand up to scrutiny, and all of which have been repeatedly and irrefutably rebutted.

Sadly, Kayla Calder decided to do just this in her article “Give the U-Pass a chance” in the last issue of the Charlatan, so I find myself with the tiresome task of having to point out the same factual and logical errors.

Calder opens with the weak defence that there are worse things the university could be doing. True, but it is hardly a justification. Very rarely has any university actually done the worst possible thing. However, she loses this weak point when she suggests that charging higher tuition would be worse than forcing students to buy a bus pass. This is not so. A student who pays higher tuition can expect some return on his investment, in the form of a higher level of education, smaller class sizes, better equipment, etc. A student who is forced to buy a bus pass but doesn't take transit receives no return on her investment at all.To quote from the editor of Macleans OnCampus, Carson Jerema said in his excellent editorial on the U-Pass, “Why Not Use Tuition to Fix Potholes?”, “…isn’t it odd that when tuition is being raised for purposes weakly related, if at all, to a university education that student unions are so supportive, but when tuition increases are proposed for more direct educational services, they fly off the handle?”

Calder's next series of arguments start with the fact students who walk will now have the ability to take the bus when it is raining or cold, students will have the freedom to explore Ottawa, and how students can take the bus home from the grocery store. These are not actually arguments in support of the U-Pass, they are arguments in favour of a transit system. Nobody is preventing students from taking the bus whenever they choose. We just don't think they should be forced to do so. There is a health crisis in this country. Over 50 per cent of Canadian adults are obese. This is the first generation of Canadians whose life expectancies are shorter than those of their parents due to sedentary lifestyles. Meanwhile a recent study has shown that people who walk or bike for transportation are less likely to be obese than those who don't (no shit). So then why is the university providing incentive for students to live sedentary lifestyles? She also argues the bus is prohibitively expensive for students, mentioning that a return trip on the bus costs $6.50, which she notes is the cost of a “shot at LeBop on Saturday, why waste it?”

Once again this is not an argument in favour of the U-Pass, it is an argument in favour of cheaper transit. Sadly, by entering a binding U-Pass agreement with OC Transpo, the student bodies of Carleton and U of O have squandered any bargaining power they might have had to bring about a real discount for students, like the 50 per cent discount currently being considered for seniors, which is being achieved without forcing non-transit using seniors to purchase bus passes. And for the record, you could buy 48 six dollar shots at LeBop for the price of a U-Pass.

Calder says the U-Pass will give students the freedom and motivation to explore their city. There are wonderful recreational paths running right past campus going to every corner of the city. People need to realize that cycling and walking are legitimate forms of transportation and should not be overlooked. Also, yes, it is nice for students to be able to explore the city, but then, other things are nice too, like lobster dinners, or Prada handbags. This doesn't mean they should be subsidized by your fellow students. If you want to explore the city, buy yourself a bike, or a bus pass, or a pogo stick for all I care. I don't see why hard-working, non-transit-using students should have to fork out $300 so Calder will have the motivation to take a whimsical excursion to the Tulip Festival.

Then Calder provides a well-intentioned plan about providing free parking to students who live outside of OC Transpo's service area. While this would indeed go some way toward correcting the injustice done to these students, and is eminently more constructive than the standard “let them eat cake”-esque CUSA response that they can use the Park and Ride, the U-Pass fees go to OC Transpo. Parking fees go to the university. Who will make up the revenue shortfall if the university starts giving out free parking passes? I'll give you a hint — it won't be OC Transpo.

Then we have the very commonly used argument that many students don't use services they pay for like the gym, so how is the U-Pass different? Well, the athletic facility and the library are services provided by the university, so the university is justified in levying fees for their upkeep. OC Transpo is not a service provided by the university; it is provided by the City. This is not a service fee, it is a tax for a municipal service collected by the university. The constitution of our country outlines fairly clearly what bodies may levy taxes, and universities are not on the list.

Calder says that other universities have U-Passes and the students don't complain. Actually, many do. In fact, Queens abolished their U-Pass program because the students found they were not getting good value. Sadly, we've failed to learn from their experience. Also, it's one thing when you enter into a contract with the university knowing there is a requirement that you buy a bus pass in order to be allowed to graduate. It is quite another when you enter into a contract thinking if you pay tuition and maintain certain grades, you will get a degree. Then, after you've invested thousands of dollars and years of your life, the University suddenly stipulates that you have to buy a very expensive bus pass in order to graduate. This is pure and simple extortion, and might possibly constitute breach of contract.

Finally, Calder says some day we will all thank the 70 per cent of students who voted yes. First of all, it was not 70 per cent of students who voted yes  – it was 70 per cent of students who voted, which actually constituted about seven per cent of the student population. This is hardly a quorum by any definition. I don't think Calder should hold her breath in anticipation of all the gratitude that will be flowing her way. I could give scores of examples of real hardship caused by the U-Pass, like the single mother of three who has to live outside of OC Transpo's service area because she can't afford to live in the city, has to drive an hour and a half into Ottawa, drop her kids off at daycare, drive to Carleton to attend class, drive back to daycare to pick up the kids, and drive an hour and a half home – a routine that would take the whole day if done by bus. I doubt that woman will find much solace in the fact that she is subsidizing Calder's transportation, even if it does mean that Calder and her friends will have more cash available to do shots at LeBop on Saturday night.

— Charlie Taylor,
fourth-year journalism,
mayoral candidate, City of Ottawa