In the aftermath of the Feb. 17 meeting of the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) council, much of what actually happened that night has been lost in translation. Some councillors, unfamiliar with seeing a large student demonstration up close and personal, especially one directed towards them, no doubt felt fear and frustration. Others have seized the opportunity to cast student demonstrators and those who supported the campaign of Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) as extremists bent on terrorizing CUSA to accomplish nefarious objectives.
In reality, SAIA’s grassroots campaign simply asked for CUSA’s support in lobbying the Carleton Board of Governors to divest pension funds from four companies complicit in war crimes in occupied Palestinian land. Further, these “extremists” were no fewer than 24 student groups and almost 3,000 individual students who wrote letters and signed petitions to their CUSA representatives. These “extremists” are students who reflect Carleton’s diversity, seen every day in class, working for CUSA and Aramark, supporting clubs and making the most of their Carleton experience.
Naturally, none of this means that CUSA council has an obligation to endorse the campaign, and certainly doesn’t mean the campaign is without its detractors. However, it does mean that CUSA representatives have the responsibility to allow the membership access to the democratic process of their council and not actively obstruct student activism.
Unfortunately, the opposite occurred. Student demonstrators, while totally peaceful throughout, were rightly upset and loudly voiced their opposition. This part of the meeting was rigged and, with the help of council chair Brent Farrington, council’s rules of order were twisted to prevent presentation, debate and voting on the motion.
Though SAIA’s campaign endorsement motion was submitted a week earlier, the meeting agenda was ordered to place another motion, one written later by CUSA executives, directly before it. This “CUSA motion” was vague and innocent enough and, while it took advantage of the work done by SAIA’s campaign to promote socially responsible investment (SRI), it was opposed by few and supported by SAIA.
However, unbeknownst to most councillors, the “CUSA motion” was but a pretense to allow Farrington to declare the motion to endorse SAIA’s campaign “out of order.” SAIA’s motion, he claimed, was now “redundant” because a motion concerning SRI was already passed.
Thus, with a bureaucratic manoeuvre, and — quite obvious to those paying attention — one planned from the start, students were deprived of their ability to submit a motion, speak on it, and have CUSA representatives vote on it.
In the end, none of the hundreds demonstrating, including the mover, Reem Buhaisi, were permitted to utter a word about the motion. To many councillors at the meeting, it may have seemed like a normal ruling of the chair and not a ruse to silence students, and a majority voted to uphold the chair’s ruling.
This disgrace makes it urgent and necessary to point out two things. First, students who know they need their union taking principled stands when the members demand it cannot let bureaucratic trickery push them to write off or withdraw from participating in the students’ union.
Second, while CUSA has a proud history of working with students’ unions around the country, I declare with confidence that the actions of the CUSA executive and council chair in obstructing this grassroots campaign are not representative of the Canadian Federation of Students and the student movement as a whole in Canada.
If students want to ensure that CUSA will make room for, and not obstruct, student activism in the future they must continue to build strong, independent campus groups to exert pressure by mobilizing CUSA members and, just as importantly, vigorously involve themselves in working in the students’ union and keeping it responsive to students.
After all, CUSA is its members’ union and we cannot let it become a lost cause.
