A Commentary on Campus Politics

By Sam Greene

Cooperation between the campus-wide University of Toronto Student’s Union (UTSU) and College student governments appears to be deteriorating. The campus divide over Frosh kits seems to be symptomatic of a more general breakdown of cooperation between college representatives and UTSU.

A recent article in the Varsity reported on the five Colleges who opted out of buying Frosh kits provided by UTSU. Trinity College Orientation Week Chair Sachin Kumar arranged for alternative kits to be produced for students from St. Michael’s College, University College, Engineering, Innis, and Trinity, with Woodsworth College arranging for their own.

Kumar provided several reasons for producing alternative kits. He said that UTSU’s packages lacked materials that promoted U of T unity and spirit (the T-shirts in UTSU’s kits are emblazoned with the UTSU logo, whereas Kumar’s are marked by U of T’s) and contained literature supporting activist political causes.

He also criticized UTSU for charging other student services, like the University Office of Student Life, the Equity Office, and the Varsity – all of which, like UTSU, are funded by student fees – for the right to include materials in the UTSU Frosh kits.

“We don’t think it’s fair that a student’s union, which has earmarked a portion of our student fees, is charging other groups and associations that are also earmarked a portion of our student fees to advertise,” said Kumar.

Kumar’s overriding concern was that UTSU was unwilling to accept input about the packages from college leaders. He claims that UTSU’s repeated refusals to respond to criticism was the real trigger.

UTSU proceeded to refuse requests made by the colleges that opted out of UTSU kits for clubs information sheets, which UTSU uses student fees to create.

The reasons for their refusal remain opaque as UTSU President Danielle Sandhu did not respond to a request to comment for this article.

The breakdown of cooperation between college representatives and UTSU extends further than the divide over Frosh kits.

Newly elected Trinity College UTSU Board of Directors representative Michael Scott, UTSU Board of Directors representative for Trinity College, put forward numerous proposals for basic transparency reforms at the UTSU this summer, but each of them was either rejected or shunted off to committee.

James Park, Trinity Head of College and former UTSU Orientation Week Coordinator, feels that representatives from Colleges such as Trinity are often isolated and irrelevant to the decision making processes of the Union’s Board meetings.“The executive of the union argue that the students can voice their opinions through the annual elections and their representation on the Board of Directors,” said Park. “In practice however, their constitutional bylaws and overwhelming representation… [overturn] the majority of ideas brought forward by the independent College Directors,” he continued.

A non-binding referendum conducted during last year’s Trinity College Meeting (TCM) elections revealed that more students supported defederating from the UTSU than opposed it. The TCM’s decision to strike CRITUR – the “Committee Responsible for Investigating Trinity-UTSU Relations” – illustrates a growing movement to find alternative ways for the college to engage in campus-wide governance.

It remains to be seen whether the St. George Round Table, which is composed of the Presidents of College Councils (including Trinity’s student Heads of College), could provide such a means.

Regardless, it is becoming increasingly clear that stronger, campus-wide leadership is necessary to defend students’ interests. The failure of UTSU’s campaign to stop the implementation of flat-fees was a significant setback for many students. This failure may be partially attributable to the tactics the Union employed; it is unlikely that the UTSU executive garnered much support from members of the Governing Council when protests at Simcoe Hall during a Council meeting – in which UTSU Execs were involved – ended in the injury of a Campus Police officer.

Yet perhaps more importantly, deep divisions over the legitimacy of campus-wide student leadership weakens student advocacy to University administrators and policymakers. Whether providing kits to Frosh or advocating against flat-fees, the campus-wide union would profit from the support of Colleges, while the Colleges would benefit from the union’s strength in numbers.

Ultimately, the resolution of those divisions will be contingent on a willingness to compromise, both on behalf of the UTSU, and on the part of student leaders at Colleges like Trinity.