USI is dead. Long live the student movement.

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Monday November 28, 2005 21:26 by Jane Horgan Jones

Time for a frank debate on the future of USI.

It is time for a full, frank and honest debate about USI ; both the future of the organisation itself, and more locally, UCDSU’s continued involvement within its structures. Serious questions are being asked about the direction of USI and whether UCDSU is a union that wishes to remain associated with that direction.

I would like to state from the outset that I believe, and always have believed, in the idea of a national students’ union. Third level education in Ireland has traditionally been sidelined, underfunded, and overlooked, and there is definite need for an organised national movement of students to oppose these constant threats to our collective futures. For these reasons, it is with a heavy heart that I have come to the following conclusion.

USI is no longer that national union we all envisage. It has not been that national union for quite some time, and it will not be again.

As a member of any organisation, it would be ridiculous to remain involved simply because of what that organisation theoretically could be. There has to be a line ; disagreement is possible to a certain extent, and if an organisation decides to meet on Tuesday whereas you want to meet on Wednesday, then that can be overlooked in favour of the bigger picture. But when an organisation departs so dramatically from what your idea of what that organisation should be, and when the reasons you had for joining and supporting that organisation have been all but destroyed, then it is time to leave and rebuild.

This article will deal with the current situation in USI as I see it under a number of different headings ; the lack of democracy in the organisation, the substantial costs involved in affiliation, the unwillingness to be a truly “national” union, and the behaviour of individual officers last Saturday.

I want to be part of a democratic organisation. I do not wish to be part of an organisation that has no respect for 50%+1 votes by its membership. The Article 4 Constitutional Amendment, passed by an overwhelming majority on Saturday, dictated that motions which do not “directly affect” students now have to receive a 2/3 +1 majority of those voting to be passed. I understand and respect the positions and views of those who feel that education and welfare should be the sole focus of the national union, but I have nothing but contempt for those who believe that these aims should be achieved by removing the right of any USI member to bring a motion to Congress and have it voted on in the same way as any other motion, no matter what its subject matter is.

Beat us on the issues, and beat us on the arguments, but beat us through democracy and not by this sneaky, reprehensible amendment.

The completely unworkable nature of this motion also seems to have escaped those who voted in favour, and will ruin the work of National Congress more so than these people believe an international or national affairs motion ever has. There is hardly any other phrase more open to interpretation than “directly affecting students”. I would argue that any issue which gets students out on the streets, lobbying their TDs, bringing motions to their own SU Councils and giving up their own free time to campaign on is directly affecting these students. Otherwise, why would they bother?

The example of the bin tax consistently used by Tony McDonnell on Saturday as a “non-student issue” is also completely laughable. Every student who lives away from home has to personally pay the bin tax. I have to pay the bin tax. One of our class reps in severe financial difficulty has to pay the bin tax. It is a completely valid position to argue that the bin tax is an issue which affects an inordinate amount of students, and should be something USI are campaigning on. But Tony McDonnell thinks it isn’t, I think it is….who knows what Steering Committee (who are not students, but who hold the power to decide on what “affects students” or not) will think?

I refuse to be part of an organisation in which value judgements on what affects students and what doesn’t are made by people who are not students. It is ridiculous that this situation is deemed acceptable by so many in USI. If the INTO or ASTI suddenly decided that decisions about what issues they should be active on should be decided by the farming unions, then it would be equally as bizarre as the current situation in USI.

The most galling thing about the lack of democracy in USI is that we are paying a shocking amount of money for the privilege of being members of an organisation which has such contempt for the democratic process and believes in the stifling of debate.

For those of you who might be unaware, UCDSU pays annual affiliation fees of over 92 thousand euro to USI. This is enough to pay for not one, but two sorely needed councillors, every year.

True enough, sabbatical officers get training from USI for a week during the summer, and this is quite useful. But the unbelievable thing is that this costs us an EXTRA 2,500 euro, on top of our affiliation fees. Not even training, which should be such a basic component of the services provided to us by USI, is included in our affiliation fees. And despite this, despite the fact that it’s not because of our affiliation fees that we’re allowed to attend training, USI still refuses to allow non-affiliated colleges to attend, which might go some way to encouraging them to rejoin and make USI a truly national union once again. Instead, they insist on remaining a cliquey elite club, blind to the bigger picture of getting these colleges back in again, a tight fisted and blinkered version of what should be a welcoming and inclusive national union. A motion passed at last Congress even refused to give these colleges the training material which was circulated at UOS.

I do not want to be part of an organisation so short-sighted that it cannot see the benefits in making serious efforts to show unaffiliated colleges the benefits of being involved. And for those who say, “But if we let them come to training, why would they bother rejoining at all?” then all that tells me is that you believe the only worthwhile thing USI does all year is training. Which may well be true, and begs the question…why are we still beating our heads off a brick wall here?

I’m going to deal now with the events of Special Congress on Saturday, and why it copper fastened for me the reasons why I find the idea of continuing within USI so reprehensible.

UCDSU had voted democratically (50%+1 might I add, not 2/3+1) to oppose the motion on Article 4. I was always under the impression that this was our right to do so, and that we could exercise this right without fear of ridicule, jeering or abuse. How wrong I was.

Members of the UCDSU delegation who spoke against Article 4 were consistently heckled and laughed at by members of other college’s delegations. No apologies afterwards were forthcoming, there were no requests that these offenders be ejected, and there was no shame at all or realisation of how offensive that is to a speaker who has every right to oppose or support any motion at Congress. However shocked I was by those events though, the actions of the USI President in his closing summation on the motion were even more despicable.

I refuse to be part of an organisation where the President feels it is acceptable to call an entire affiliate delegation, not to mention his own officer board, “careerist hacks who only want to further their own political ambitions”. Our crime? Simply opposing a motion that he supported. Even more disturbing than his comments however, was the reaction he got from the floor. The applause was so loud that I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t stand up for him. Why are we paying 92,000 for the privilege of being insulted and laughed at? Are we complete morons or just consistently blinded by some ideological vision of what a national union should be, even when USI is so blatantly not that union? It is rotten, corrupt and devoid of any of the components which should be present in the national movement of students.

I unreservedly stand by Ciarán Weafer and his actions on Saturday. If someone can point out to me any difference between what he did and what Tony McDonnell did, then please go right ahead. Why is it that Tony can call over 40 members of USI careerist hacks, but when he is called one himself, the offender is ejected from the hall? Silent protest is a common occurrence in Dáil Eireann, in the Scottish Parliament, in debates everywhere. Ciarán’s protests were a lot less disruptive than those of the delegates who thought it appropriate to heckle and laugh during speeches made by the UCDSU delegation, but as I’ve said, there were no apologies for those interruptions, nor were those delegates asked to leave. Last Saturday was entirely different to last March. Tony and Ciarán did exactly the same thing, but Tony was applauded, and Ciarán was ejected.

“It showed not only contempt for the presdient of USI, but contempt for the rest of Congress and the rest of the UCDSU delegation”

What about the contempt shown for the UCDSU delegation and their democratic mandate by the USI President? Selective memory is a dangerous thing.

Lastly, the comments made by Tony McDonnell about SIPTU workers were disgusting and inexcusable, especially considering the free protection given by SIPTU to every member of USI. To say from an official platform that the reason our education is underfunded is because of SIPTU workers claiming benchmarking increases is completely unacceptable. I would encourage SIPTU to pull out of the current arrangement as a result, and have written to Jack O’Connor the President of SIPTU about this matter. It is an attack on the ordinary workers of this country for claiming the entitlements agreed on by the government and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

The next few months are crucial for the future of USI. UCDSU must decide what part it wants to play. Already there is talk of disaffiliation in most of the other large colleges, and two sabbatical officers (Deputy President and Education Officer) have resigned today as a result of last Saturday’s events. I believe in the concept of a national student movement as much as anyone, but I do not wish to make this rotten and undemocratic organisation relevant by remaining a part of it, and I won’t blindly stay on no matter how much the actions of the organisation and individual officers compromise my principles just for the sake of it.

USI is dead. Long live the student movement.