WUSA SGM: A Difference of Opinion
For more information, check out our article entitled: Changes to UOW Student Union Constitution.
I didn’t leave the meeting confused; I left it angry. I was going to rant about the state of student politics: words tossed like grenades, people shouting over each other, not adhering to agreed-upon rules, ad hominem attacks to the degree of denigrating the contents of a member’s bedroom. A strange thing to be hearing about during my first in-person interaction with the WUSA council. But then I threw my mind back to the coal-brandishing, insult-throwing politicians of Australia, to the ALL CAPS TWEETS made by a certain orange someone, and to the rise of the far-right in Europe. I threw my mind back to all the role-modelling in the wonderful world of late-stage capitalist democracy. So who am I to judge these newcomers for replicating this culture of disrespect? For not listening to their opponents except in order to tear down negligible details instead of focusing on the issue at hand? They don’t know any better. The most comedic turn of this scenario is that no one disagreed on the major points of the constitutional changes, as reported by Emanuele.
What did they disagree on, you might ask?
To be perfectly honest, I didn’t know about the meeting until about half an hour before it started. For a meeting about changing the constitution it seemed woefully unannounced, and this was reflected in the number of people attending (less than 50 at a rough guesstimate, plus a handful online).
Upon entering the room, I was immediately bombarded by friends in the Socialist Alternative party (SAlt) who handed me printouts of the proposed constitutional amendments – specifically the ones they found problematic – and I was basically told all I needed to know is that one of the amendments would enable the president to strip freedom of speech from anyone who was found to be “discriminatory.” Or something like that.
When given the chance, SAlt argued as much – providing thought experiments like, “What would happen if a right-wing party was elected and were able to exercise their own brand of censorship?” The NSW Labor Students (NSWLS) fired back: there’s checks and balances in place, they claimed, to prevent an abuse of power.
Unfortunately, SAlt shot themselves in the foot with this approach. For the liberal-minded individual, it certainly would be bad if conservatives had power. However, if a left-leaning party such as the NSWLS were able to introduce this amendment, what would prevent a different party from doing the same thing? And wouldn’t we have bigger things to worry about than a student union constitution if that were the case?
Okay mate, so they had it wrong. What should they have done?
In such a heated situation like this meeting was, it can be hard to create cogent arguments on the spot. My first suggestion would be a bit more preparation. A quick comparison of the two sides shows that NSWLS had prepared statements and mostly solid logic, while SAlt spoke off-script and ended up repeating themselves quite a bit. A shame considering the limited number of speakers and allowed speaking time. While I can see why this limitation was put in place due to the expected lack of preparation on SAlt’s part, it speaks to the censorial nature of the current regime, no matter how liberal they claim to be.
That leads directly to my next suggestion: what could have been argued against the amendment (in my opinion). The message hidden behind the amendment, the thing that really pissed me off, is the arrogance of the leadership. It’s said that power corrupts, and I see this as a perfect example. Why does the president need unmitigated censorship over publications? Does he not trust the people working and writing for him? Does he think his opinion is more important? More accurate? More… true?
Is this really a problem? Do you even know this president?
No, I don’t know him, and to be fair, he seemed like a decent guy in a shit spot, and he wasn’t the only person who worked on the amendments. I would probably appear irritable or arrogant too if every move I made was shouted down.
However, my experience when speaking to someone in the NSWLS leadership after the meeting might shine a light on this disconnect. We were discussing the matter of freedom of speech and once again went down the incorrect road of thought experimenting:
“What if people started protesting against abortion?” they asked.
“What if they did?” I replied.
The immediate disgust my question evoked was clear, and rightly so, for any of the left-leaning folks. However, I didn’t receive an answer to my question. The disgust at the topic shut down any conversation about why it might be a bad thing. I was censored over a topic I didn’t even pick before I got to make my point.
Alright, alright, what is your point?
An opinion is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to have one. But I think we can all agree that some opinions are less savoury than others. On the other hand, a solid argument is often just an opinion with strong research and deep thinking to back it up - evidence, deductive logic, etc. A move like this amendment reifies unjustified opinion at the level of argumentation without any oversight - we can’t see what or why things are being censored behind closed doors, and knowing it’s being done based on one person’s “opinion” is a major problem.
If you wonder how I was able to approach this in such a way and are interested in learning more about how to support your arguments, then check out a philosophy subject or two. ‘Logic: The Art of Reasoning’ is a great place to start. And don’t shut down uncomfortable conversations if you want to be involved in politics, that’s where the most important work is done. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
