The Academicist

Online Voting is a terrible idea... for now

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:31:00 -0500

This is only my opinion, not that of anyone else, ok?
We good? Good.

Hi folks,

So look I’m going to start this by stating three things you should know before we start:

I am a firm believer in paper voting systems.
I do, however, believe that one day there will be e-voting - but we’re no where near that day with current technology.
I also think that most of the statements made around Online Voting at UofT lately - pro and con - are absolute garbage.

Alright, so that’s out of the way!

This is going to be more of summary than my own argument - folks in the computer science sector do much better than I could, ok?

The Broad Context.

Folks at the University of Toronto have been arguing about the effectiveness of online voting for a quite some time. In particular, the Undergraduate Students’ Union - then SAC - has already once crossed and crossed back over that particular bridge. This decision was conflated with issues around voting for the Governing Council - which remains online - and student outcry, at the time, around how said system was handled.

In fact, back in 2004, when the system was still operational there were a few notable concerns about accessibility, literacy and other forms of access (like the noted Chesnut residence fiasco of that year). Funny enough, the spiritual predecessors to the current UTSU opposition have been pretty against this status quo (and, assuredly, the same inversely goes for the nearly a decade ago predecessors of the current UTSU exec). And you know how online voting is pretty utopic but, you know how folks often play dirty in elections? Yeah, still happened. UTSU/SAC elections have been an ungodly shitshow since time immemorial - no system will ever, ever fix that.

Just so we’re clear. Don’t make me dive into the archives to prove it, because I will goddamn it. Because, opposition, if that is part of your shtick on this issue, you people are in a never-ending dreamland.

Oh? Did I go off script here? Erm, ok, summary.

So, several years after the switch back to paper and the death of ole’ SAC and its rebirth as UTSU, this debate began anew! Mainly because the Administration created ‘voting.utoronto.ca’ which was nice and all, but still inherently flawed - which I’ll get to. Folks seem pretty mixed about it - again, even those who would be on the ‘Change’ side of things.

And then we get - pretty much to March of last year. The Scotts - Corey and Michael (one of which is my current counterpart over at UTSU, the other a member of my org) - both take relatively principled positions in this discussion. Both acknowledge the inherent flaws of online voting while each cite their sides’ noted benefits or the failure of the other. But ultimately, the important part comes not from what either say here - its common rhetoric - but from the example Bredin notes. Issues at Trinity and Rotman have seemingly been forgotten in recent discussions, while I question the validity of any ‘scrutineering’ that doesn’t include folks very adept at tracking and finding electronic fraud. Just sayin’.

But the article does raise another example I would like to look at…

Western University, or The Actual Problem for Students’ Unions.

So, what folks at UTSU and its opponents like to rag on about is administration control of the electoral process and that’s not entirely without merit… but it is really, really unlikely. The Administration at UofT is openly disinterested in diving too deeply into internal student politics and systems - we all know this, it would create too much chaos and give us the biggest piece of leverage we’ve had on them in decades. Besides, this doesn’t address the firmer issues. I mean, if that is your fear, saith the Opposition, why don’t cha’ just run a system yourselves? And that’s a damn good question. Why is it being asked? Because you boxed yourself into a corner. Ok, great.

But, the actual problem isn’t who is messing with your elections, but rather that your election system can be messed with - easily. In the case of our friends over at Western, one Keith Horwood hacked student elections there… because he could.

In Macleans, Horwood had this to say:

“My brain just exploded,” he says in the video, referring to when he ﬁrst realized the security ﬂaw. “It was like somebody had just put the world’s coolest toy or the world’s most attractive woman in front of me and they were like, stay away,” he says. “And you know what? I couldn’t.”

Yeah, this is what an actual threat looks like. Not some administration gaming the system from on high - but actual security breaches perpetuated by people who can and may not do so solely to alert others. If you’re wondering, that cost Western Undergrads a cool $14,087.

Similar cases are noted in that same article about the UBCSU and Queen’s AMS elections - one with some even more malicious, if simple hacking and one with poor, automatized voting lists.

But why should we stick with just Canadian examples!

As the Open Rights Group of the United Kingdom notes:

At London Metropolitan University’s SU, paid staff took the place of elected students in office between July and December 2008 because the incidence of online voting fraud had been so great. The election was eventually rerun in November. Around the same time, detection of online voting fraud at the University of Essex Students Union resulted in the instatement of a new President there. These two cases were only detected after complaints were made, and could only be identified because fraudulent votes were cast from a small number of computers. Because fraud is so hard to detect, many more incidents could have gone unnoticed.

As well, the ORG also warns of ‘guided voting’:

The traditional door-knocking approach takes on a new dimension when candidates and/or their supporters can “guide” voters through the voting process. There is nothing to stop a candidate / supporter watching over a voter, suggesting other votes that they might like to cast. This is especially insidious when, through membership to a particular party or group, a voter is under pressure to publicly conform to certain voting expectations.

University halls of residence house thousands of students in close proximity, all with network access. A single day’s concerted campaigning drive, with the emphasis on “guided” voting, could elicit more votes than a consistent month-long campaign though which candidates meet their constituency and refine their policies.

Yet, the issues noted in the United Kingdom and in Canada are not the sole instances of this type. Similar examples can be found throughout Europe, but those noted above serve as but a clear taste of the issues common with these systems. Ultimately, the fact is that either by way of purposeful fraud or – even more likely – a moderate test of skill for a person with capable enough computer science skills, student unions and our elections are the exactly right manner of low hanging, vulnerable fruit.

We are not seen as something too difficult to overcome, yet enough of a challenge to having something to talk about. Higher risk targets – while carrying more political weight in the world – may not be viable for those who are simply acting for their own amusement or to test their skill. I mean, even someone like Horwood isn’t punished so severely in this case as he would be in other, akin circumstance on larger targets.

At another time, I may dive a bit deeper in that area, but this is meant to be pretty broad. So, lets move to the specific issues.

Security! Security!

Security is an oft-heard concern on this area, but one rarely hears – at least in the current discussion – a good, reliable source for such data. Well, I give you ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections), an academic research unit funded by the National Science Foundation which has the sole purpose of investigating new, reliable ways to innovate in elections processes. Surely, surely such a body must be in favour of online elections? I mean, that would only make sense, would it not?

Well, no. In a report to the United States Department Of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards on the subject of utilizing online voting in trade union elections, the ACCURATE team instead stated that:

[R]emote voting over the internet in government elections has been limited to a number of special instances, often partisan primaries, and in each case it was never used again. There are no guidelines available for remote internet voting and it is the consensus of technical experts that remote internet voting is highly risky for any election process that requires strong voter secrecy, auditability and voting free from undue influences such as coercion and vote-selling.

ACCURATE’s initial definition is fairly clear in its meaning and intent, the team continues with further analysis of the technology at large and, in particular its remote use.

Advantages of electronic voting technologies include speed of tabulation, preventing overvotes and undervotes, accommodation of voters with disabilities and language difficulty as well as greater flexibility with the physical location from which the voter chooses to cast their ballot. Disadvantages include large numbers of security vulnerabilities, especially those useful for planting malicious code, but in the case of internet voting, vulnerability to denial-of-service attack, server penetration attack, and many types of insider manipulation and abuse. This is in addition to disadvantages associated with lack of observability, technology that has a much shorter life cycle, proprietary technology that can be difficult to prove will function properly, usability problems, and lack of voter verification leading to lack of auditability (meaningful recount capability).

While I disagree with ACCURATE on their point on accommodation of disabled voters – a point I will get to soon enough – their overarching view highlights the key security issues which would affect organizations of a similar size and nature as our own student unions – these are political bodies which require degrees of clarity which – as of yet – are not attained by technology.

This isn’t to say some of these issues are completely closed and will never be addressed – there are a number of theoretical and early stages models which may, in the long-term, re-open this debate. But, in the ‘now’, there seem only to be clear examples which highlight – in varying scales – the matters raised above. Equally, experts from across various fields seem to be in some agreement on this matter, as noted at a recent conference at Princeton.

Yet, let’s look at a larger example of these matters in action. In their paper, “Attacking the Washington, D.C. Internet Voting System”, authors Scott Wolchok, Eric Wustrow, Dawn Isabel, and J. Alex Halderman detail the exploits of Halderman and his team of students as they took part in an exercise to test the robust and boasted-about online elections system implemented by the District. The result?

Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days—and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue.

So, let’s recap: A small team of university students take down a system invested into by one of the more noted governmental bodies in the United States (although not a state itself) within two days. Now imagine for a moment, how easy it would be to subvert the comparatively less secure methods of online voting used by your average university or union – simply due to the money and time needed to perfect such a system. Are we so self-assured, so bold to claim we could hold up better – even when we know that we really are a more likely, less risky target to approach for those looking to aim lower than some political machinations? Such staggering lack of foresight would be notable.

These results and more have been enough to set some of the tone for many larger bodies in North America looking at online voting. Both California and Ohio have recently conducted reviews which found major issues with their electronic voting schemes which are not remote in nature, with such ideas blatantly disregarded entirely. In British Colombia, meanwhile, in its recent discussion paper on the topic notes a similar trend in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany. Equally, said discussion paper closes with a call for further and continued investigation of the technology before any attempt to implement it.

If these larger governmental bodies – a clear majority compared to the few that unbridledly embrace online voting – are willing to take pause and assess in the long-term regarding online voting, then how can we expect it ‘now’? If we were to do so, we ignore clear evidence, experience and concern which points to caution. Yet, folks claim that two particular benefits often outweigh prudence. So, now I’d like to take a look at the first.

Queens AMS: A case study in online turnout.

Alright, so let’s pull some information from the Queens’ Journal which might shed some needed light on the sheer variability of this matter of increased turn-out.

By Lauri Kytömaa, Queens’ Journal.

In spite of the fact that the writers of the Journal get in a few digs at UTSU for their comparably low turn-out and indeed that of other unions, the above graph should provide some needed context. What the author does play down slightly in the text of the article is the differing cultures in both unions – as evidenced by AMS’ consistent turnout rates and the differing sizes of both organizations which might also contribute to the organizations’ differing turn-outs for these elections.

So to breakdown some of the key pieces here:

AMS’ highest voter turnout was in 1991 with 45%.
In the year before online voting was enacted in 2009, they settled with 37%.
In the year after online voting was enacted in 2010, they went up to 40%.

Alright, so there is an increase after the online system was enacted. But what happens next? Well, as noted previously, Queens’ AMS suffers from an online voter registry problem, sending election calls and access to alumni, while leaving some students in the cold. Thus, the subsequent data from the Journal reflects a different than expected picture.

AMS Voter turnout for 2011: 24.85%
AMS Voter turnout for 2012: 33.78%

So what are we to make of this example? Well, overall AMS remained very consistent through the late 90s and early 00s – with and without online voting! Even the increase of 2010 was a mere three percent, while the largest drop in voter turnout is tied directly to the failures of the online voting system and the distrust it spread. Overall, the impact of the voting change – aside from the 2011 incident – was negligible to the wider history of their elections.

Similar ambiguities litter the literature on the subject – with the most positive being able to verifiably be said in cases from Sweden and the United States is simply that the data is at best, inconclusive. So then, with the risks of this manner of system known, are we – as students – willing to take such actions for a meager three percent? Yet, this is only one of two very troubling claims attached wildly to online voting. The other remains a bit more personal.

Accessibility for whom?

This claim is always one which tends to get on my nerves, greatly, especially as it is parroted by organizations like the AODA Alliance. While I generally love the Alliance’s work, in this case they and others wilfully mislead the wider populace into believing that Internet voting is some manner of cure-all solution to issues surrounding voting and disabled persons. However, while some of us may have access to adaptive technologies robust enough to do some of the web-workload to make these spaces accessible, the reality is that the web is not perfected for such tasks as of yet.

In particular, this argument relies on two planks. One, is the availability of enough, robust adaptive technology to deal with any hiccups in the process – which separates by class members of the disabled community. Second, it ignores the fact that the Internet has a particular set of standards for accessibility – the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative – which is often very difficult for developers to reach. To give some context, most social media platforms – including the one you’re reading this on – do not yet reach the desired A to AAA level of the standards (though, many are making more and more strides to try). These standards are the only which are well viewed within the community and, indeed, are the only which adequately deal with all factors which might impede one’s use of the Internet. Even governments, universities and other public bodies have difficulties in this area regularly. It would require great levels of testing, preparation and care before any online portal for voting could fully meet these standards at their higher levels and be truly accessible. This is not to claim it impossible – surely, these things will grow in ease, in time – but it is not the magic fix some seem to claim such actions could be. So then, if larger bodies still have issues with meeting this level, then how might we hope to for a students’ union election? How would we do so swiftly enough to ensure our claims of access were not hollow? This I cannot imagine or answer.

The Internet is for… transparency? For… the future?

But all of this isn’t to say the Internet is a void of contextless numbers and data, incapable of aiding in the process of transparency and fairness. I always find it interesting that the advocates of online voting seem to agree on this point with me, often in spite of ignoring the evidence noted above. With the limitations of this technology and its compromising of this principle in a voting context, one must look to other ways Personally, I am a huge fan of publishing audits and minutes in full online – a process in which nothing is harmed but information can be gleaned that could positively inform one’s choices and views with regards to the operation of their Union.

This isn’t aided by processes that place space between the Union and members. This isn’t aided by mechanisms that allow for increased coercion and odd manners of delay – one day, I’ll get into the MUN and OISE examples of this, but… not today.

Ultimately, I think we will inevitably find ways to overcome these issues in overall electronic voting, if not remote voting. There are many, many proposals to deal with both manners of e-voting.
But, the future is not today. While we might clamour for things ‘now’, we should be more prudent and we should take our time to study all of the methods and results that come our way first. There are many other election reforms – from ballots to methods of distance voting – which may yet be more possible to implement sooner. In all who would consider such things – including you, UTSU – do take things with caution, please, but do not shut your doors to innovation.

Both the path of rashness and the path of conservatism, in this case, can only be folly. Instead, let’s take our time, improve as we may, and let technology catch up to our ambition.

All the best,
- Brad.

OH, HEY JOURNAL.

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:13:08 -0500

OH, HEY JOURNAL.:

So, putting aside my political discussions for the day…

We launched Critical Intersections in Education today. One of the key projects that I’ve begun since starting at OISE, this issue has been. Like, I mean that extremely literally: Putting the groundwork for and working on this issue - in whatever form I’ve been doing so - has defined what I do here.

Would I have grown my interest in Open Access/Data/Source without it?
No. And if not, I don’t know where I’d be in pushing for this as a critical component to discussions on free education and the future of academia.

Would have I met two conjoined groups of academic people that have deeply impacted my life?
No. The folks that make up the Organizing Committee and Inaugural Editorial Board of CiE are huge parts of my life, a lot of them in ways outside of those bounds. Each of these folks I consider good friends, even if having been somewhat apart.

Would I be an Executive at the Graduate Students’ Union?
No. Without this role, I’d have never met the folks who’d be most supportive of me in this task and remind me - through their own tireless work - of the things I wanted to fight for. But, in another way, the journal was my first real step back into the level of involvement that I was known for elsewhere. Before that, I was careful to limit what I was doing, even while involved.

And while I can’t claim to have done the most work on this - I really, really haven’t - I feel all the same that I need to reflect on my good fortune. Can you believe that all of this came about by chance? It really did. I was walking by one day, unaware, and was just blowing some time. Folks said ‘You know, you should stay and check this out…’

One of the best decisions I’ve ever made.

Thank you friends.

And thank you to all of our wonderful authors and reviewers - you people are champions.

… Good night, friends.

dvdp: just a quickie..wish you a very good 2013!

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:54:21 -0500

dvdp:

just a quickie..wish you a very good 2013!

OH HEY, IT’S NEW YEAR’S EVE. I hate New Year’s...

Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:37:00 -0500

OH HEY, IT’S NEW YEAR’S EVE.

I hate New Year’s Eve. It’s one of those days every year where I perpetually fail to pull my social life together just enough to end up being somewhere I wish to be and instead end up home. However, I’m actually not crabby at all about that this year for some reason, as I’m usually quite the grump while entering the new year.

All that being the case, I figured “Hey Brad, this was a pretty solid year-that-was, so why don’t you write about it… instead of all those other things you said a month ago you were going to.” That is a good idea.

So, here are a few great things and not-so-great things about the past year.

GREAT:

Feeling at home.
Starting sometime in early 2012, I finally began to feel like I fit in Toronto and since that time, I’ve really taken a bit of root there. Working on several projects (including some stuff I’ll mention and other things like Critical Intersections in Education) have likely helped in that, but overall, I’ve found a niche there where I seem to fit. Also, it seems like other parts of my life there are fitting into place and I might just be settled in for the long haul there if my PhD applications are successful…
Solidifying direction.
And really, that’s the next big thing for me. Near the first quarter of the year, my vision for my work in the History of Higher Ed seems to have solidified and I’m extremely certain now that I want to make the leap into a PhD. While the corruption and problems of academia drive me to the point of near-illness, at times, I’m getting a thicker skin about it. Not so much toleration though, as I expect to fight many of these things for a long time. Still, starting with an analysis of the formation of the University of Toronto’s Governing Council through seems like a good point for my academic life.
Getting back in the fight.
The UTGSU Election a few months back and the subsequent months of serving at the UTGSU Internal Commissioner have completely re-energized my passion for students’ issues and activism in general (while simultaneously really testing my skills in other ways). I missed this, for all the struggle it can be. Still, we’ve accomplished a lot in the past months and still have a lot more to go. In a year from now, will I still be able to make this kind of update? I actually hope so. One thing I’m sure of is there are issues we’ve been working on that were bigger than our own ambition and I’m not done with them yet…
Being inspired.
Between the Quebec Student Strike and Idle No More, I’ve been very inspired over the past year to get out and keep up with all the active things I’ve mentioned above. Both my academic and union work feed into the zeitgeist I sometimes feel caught up in - though, that itself will never be enough to lead in full to action. These are interesting times, I feel lucky for that. Equally, I work around a lot of damn amazing people and a lot of you inspire me too. Thank you, so much, for being as you are and working along side me.

NOT-SO-GREAT:

Being distant.
But all this being away from family, does have its downsides - often stark ones. While last year, I had missed the wedding of my lovely cousin, this year was met with an occasion lacking in joy. One of my uncles on my father’s side of the family died recently and I missed his funeral. I still struggle with that and feel incredibly guilty. Even in writing this, sitting in my parent’s house, those feelings resurface and is something I need to figure out for myself.
Standing at-odds.
Yes, I’m going to write about the Federation. Look, I know folks might have felt my reaction to the National AGM was heavy or out-of-line, but its not often one feels a fundamental of their work and a long-term relationship with a organization shift so dramatically. Before the AGM, I was certain of a lot of things in spite of a growing cynicism about aspects of it. Afterwards, I feel beyond cynicism and towards distrust. All I’ve said about the need for reform stands and I hope we achieve that still. I refuse to give up on that, in spite of things, and won’t halt until we achieve better.

But looking ahead, I’ve got a busy year. Finishing my thesis, getting involved in messaging on some pretty heavy and controversial issues and the work itself carries on. Meanwhile, my own life seems to be settling down to the point where routine and circumstance feel comfortable again as they hadn’t a year ago. I look forward to the coming year - its adventures, triumphs and trials. Hopefully, I’ll continue to keep folks near that I can spend these coming times with. Hopefully, things will keep on rolling and life will bring new experience - good and ill. Hopefully, I’ll be in as surprisingly as good a mood as I am this year, next year, haha.

In any case, if you’re reading this, I hope your New Year is wonderful and I hope to see many of you soon. All the best, folks.

Note: My opinion, not that of others, etc. From the UTGSU AGM,...

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:40:00 -0500

Note: My opinion, not that of others, etc.

From the UTGSU AGM, last night.

All in all, really pleased with how the AGM and Council meeting went last night, including with that surprising BDS motion. Ultimately, if you were in favour of the motion or not, the central victory here is that the Graduate Students’ Union, University of Toronto has shown itself to be willing to directly address the concerns and issues of its membership. I’m also, admittedly, very much in favour of the motion itself and was proud to see students so universally engaged with the topic (and with an overwhelming number in favour).

While at the Council meeting, the Union voted in favour to restrict its membership to groups of graduate students, after decades of being technically open to undergraduates and to individuals. Thoughtful questions were raised about lapsed membership and Councillors well considered all such changes.

Photo by Michelle St-Amour.

The Union's Inspiration - A Reflection on The 31st CFS AGM.

Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:35:35 -0500

Note: This is my own opinion, not that of any other, my students’ union or of any of my fellow delegates from this particular event. Read accordingly.

So, I’m home from #fcee12 folks and I’ve never felt worse about our work or regarding those who act with aggression to stand against reform. I’ve always heard it said that folks felt extremely isolated or caricatured when raising concerns. But I never believed it so. I believed in our space, our openness to respectful discussion and debate. But after five days, I can’t really say that anymore. What I do know is that my convictions are shaken, the movement I have devoted my life to is not as I believed it to be…

I wrote the above on Twitter a few hours ago and promised some follow up, so here it goes. I really struggled in writing that, as I am in the moment in writing this and whatever follows. It pains me to feel as I am and this is not the sting of defeat, even as many of my local’s motions were not accepted at the CFS’ just ended AGM. Nor is it because I deny the basic principles of the space in which we inhabited for a week - locals voted, decisions were made and I accept those decisions.

Reflection on the Meeting

But, what is apparent is that I was wrong about one of my basic presumptions of our discussions.

How so? Well, I believed that if a group of people carried themselves with a level of respectable dissension and a differing opinion, there might be a chance to avoid hyperbole and the sting of personal attack. I believed so on the basis that we were not and are not the enemy - one of our members was pretty fresh to the movement, while the other three of us had, to varying degrees, worked closely with the organization as a whole in the past. The last Ontario AGM had been a bit sharp at times and many weren’t happy with us, but overall I had not felt particularly alienated - so again, there was some hope in my mind.

But what took place over the last five days and the overarching treatment of our local and even more significantly the behaviour towards other locals, like the Dawson Students’ Union, was something I hadn’t fully prepared for. While for much of the week, one might have engaged with the surface pleasantries of a simple hello, it was clear from the moment we arrived that others kept some distance from us. It was often said by other folks over the years, but I hadn’t totally bought the idea that word might travel or ideals of who particular people were became sowed. Rumour had it that folks were being told we were right-wing in orientation (which, if you know us, is pretty hilarious) before the meeting was held. This, if you know the organization is pretty much the signal to shut out said members and in recollection of a past AGM, such word had gotten to my then local about certain members.

Ultimately, this led to a number of periods throughout the week where dissenting locals were treated to ad hominum attack; wild assertions on issues such as our commitment to staff, First Nations people and a host of other concerns; summary dismissals of entire concepts, like general assemblies… I could really go on for awhile. Even extremely well meaning and well researched ideas for inclusion seemed to be met with extreme and undue resistance and assumption of some ultimately negative motive - with one notable exception I’ll get to near the end.

Particularly, though, it seemed our collective sticking point was on the self-determination of the Quebec Component, a matter which is admittedly complex yet simple. The mire of lawsuits and referenda is - without question - a stain upon the Federation. It rots our honest attempts to move forward in other jurisdictions and it serves as a open, ever-bleeding wound. If we were honest with ourselves, collectively, we’d admit that these disputes have lasted beyond many of those who first fought them and has - in effect - created a Hatfields and McCoys atmosphere in much of the Federation. Those looking to reform, however, were not working to the end of harming our collective, but rather honestly looking to break the loggerhead which has existed over the past few years. I’ve learned a lot, for myself, on how to present such things and know now a better way to move forward on that file. Yet, the hostility on this issue seems largely misplaced: It would be better, for the collective, to move on from the past, cut our losses and look to address issues in the wider movement. More importantly it would also be critical for us to show clearer and more respectful dialog to allies in Quebec - including those who have left our organization.

But none of this level of self-reflection occurred. Rather, this debate was repeatedly rejected as illegitimate - as it has been in the past (even by me, not too many years ago). This isn’t to say discussion didn’t occur at times or was completely hamfistedly shut down, it wasn’t. While such chances were limited, when they did arise it was clear most didn’t really seem to know much of what it was about (even with explanations given) OR equated statements on these matters with arch-divisiveness and movement-breaking. The later was filled with the louder, long-term yet equally few voices that seem to dominate the National Conversation at large. The former was a mutual failing on all sides of these issues, but also reflective of the high turnover rate of these meetings.

As well, the resistance to certain passed concepts - like online minuting - were extremely problematic. As having been told, back in the day, in Newfoundland to remove our once online minutes for fear of enemies of the Union, this didn’t suprise me to stick with that example. However, again, the conversation was dominated by particular voices who spoke louder than all the others against, not all of whom are members. This is the fact which strike me, in writing this: The dissenting voices, we change. Some of us even re-evaluate our views as time goes on. But those loudest for the status quo? They remain, much longer.

The decorum of long-standing members of these bodies is actually something that troubles me the most. I mean, these folks ‘should’ be wise enough to be able to address things in a decent, well-thought and even-handed manner. But, there are a number of folks which consistently seem unable to avoid rhetorical flourish, hyperbole and domination of our shared space. Admittedly, folks in dissent also seemed to dominate at times as well - but there are fewer of us, supposedly, so one might be able to imagine why such a group might attempt to speak as often as possible. When one has the weight of the Federation’s existing model and ample communication’s front behind them, such things seem less than needed (particularly, when speaking as non-members).

Equally, the online discussion this year has been abysmal - but more so this year between delegates. Lots of calling out the ‘haters’ and offensively damning locals who care about simultaneously care about internal issues and external campaigns. Some folks who really would never speak so harshly to my or any other’s face, did so online and did so with abandon. Again, there would be a great diagram to make of those who’ve been here for over five years and the folks who’ve acted pretty inappropriately via online communications (even if doing so self-righteously). The Federation really lacks the structure to deal with such issues and it is left somewhat bereft for it. We seem incapable of presuming, even for a moment, that most members - even those wildly disagreeing - are of a genuine intent and deserve to be given such recognition.

This isn’t to say we handled things perfectly or that our presentations on these matters were sufficient in every instance. Folks were occasionally condescending or visibly angered – we didn’t always keep our cool and folks did say some things that were out-of-line. But, at least there seems to be a level of self-awareness with many of the folks I’ve spoken to. Equally, when approached on issues, clearly folks made admission to errors and looked for ways to grow as activists and people. This was true of many of those against our motions as well, admittedly, but there were a class of members and non-members who rejected and questioned the basic perception of offense if it was taken.

All in all, it was an unsettling experience. I had believed, very much, that there would be a will to move forward – beyond long standing problems in the organization – but it was not to be.

Some Positive Notes

We Are All Able is Finished! The new campaign, Reclaiming our Bodies and Minds, is going to be crafted and moving forward soon. As well, the naming of the Students with Disabilities Constituency was tabled, but the discussion there was really solid and we’re committed to moving forward on these matters. I might write on this later again.
Criminalization of Dissent Policy Passed! The Policy Review and Development Committee was pretty great – as usual – and some great Issues Policies passed. I only wish the collaborative nature of this group was carried forward in other areas of the General Meeting. Even if some find policy boring, folks here always seem more willing to amend and fiddle with policies in a positive manner.
As did Palestine! The motion regarding the statehood of Palestine and the recent conflict there was a solid declaration from the organization and I am proud to have been part of it.
Oh, the Homeland. Folks from Newfoundland and Labrador – even with things being as they were – stand as those most willing to still carry on with respect and with a positive attitude. Glad to have gotten to know a few of the newer folks and see those I know incredibly well once more.
And other friends. Having gotten a chance to get to know folks from as PSE places like Dawson or Kwatlen and a whole bunch of others, well it was frankly pretty great. I look forward to further work we might be able to carry out together and future AGMs where we can again put forward challenging ideas and take on the difficult tasks of reform.

Moving Forward

…Because, in spite of how I feel, I haven’t entirely given up yet. Rather, I know now what to expect in future and how hard such tasks will be – yet, it only solidifies my resolve. If anything, this AGM has been evidence that while my notions of the organization are shaken, my belief in making the student movement itself stronger, better and more open than before remains alight. To give up now, even after such a harsh experience, would be conceding victory to the status quo and I simply cannot allow this.

Does this mean I see the Federation as I once did? No. I cannot place my eyes in a tunnel-vision and I cannot view these matters in terms of some fully open space where ideas can be debated as equally valid or possible. Rather, this – for me – is the beginning for a larger project and none of us looking at things in this way should flinch in the face of such adversity.

Does this mean that I still see the Federation as the only way forward? No. I cannot simply accept that our current mode and way of doing things – even within its most basic principles – are sufficient. Such means have not lead to all that they were once hoped to and perhaps there are other ways to see the end we all desire: A Public and Fully-Funded Post-Secondary Education System in Canada.

Does this mean I will abandon the Federation? No. To do so would only validate those critics who claimed we intended to only attack and burn down the Federation. I refuse to give satisfaction to those members and I will continue as I have, but knowing that I am not alone nor is this the only venue for our work.

I want to thank all of those who stood with our local’s delegates on many of our motions and, of course, the members of our delegation – Ashleigh, Erin, and Michelle. We did some good work this week and I’m incredibly proud of us all.

So, friends, even though I feel shaken by the experience – my resolve is stronger than ever. Perhaps, I will be better for this experience and perhaps, even if it doesn’t seem so, we all shall be in the long term. The issues of our organization hold back its growth and success in much of the country, yet while the fight continues to save it from itself, we must move forward in new ways as student activists and organizers. Those new ways aren’t fully apparent yet but in the coming months they surely shall be.

I look forward to these interesting, inevitable times in our movement. Recent events, like the student strike, stand as a demarcation between ourselves and our past of just a few years ago. This might not have been apparent in the choices made at the Federation’s AGM, but it is clear that the winds of change will continue to blow with or without action coming from within. The Student Movement is one which has evolved in this country over the past century constantly, I look now to those next steps, stages and forms.

So onward, in solidarity and hope amid dejection.

"Canadian history is more interesting than you think"

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:00:41 -0400

"Canadian history is more interesting than you think":

beatonna:

I was interviewed for this article, I think, because I make comics and jokes so I was supposed to bring The Good Times and laffs and stuff. I don’t think I delivered. We didn’t talk about Diefenbaker.

This seems like an argument, not for more accuracy, but for more ‘awesomeness’ in how our history is taught, and while I think Canadian history is endlessly fascinating, I rankle at the idea that what we really need to do is celebrate more awesome violent and terrible stuff and gaze out the window wishing we were cool enough to have had a civil war, too. Yeesh.

A quote: “Canadian history is full of oppression and genocide and forced labour and all the exciting things that other national histories have”

It’s not the notion that we should teach the unsavory aspects of our history that I disagree with, of course we should, everyone thinks we should. It’s not that I don’t think we’ve been presented with whitewashed narratives - too many Canadians think of something like slavery in Canada and puff up about how swell the Underground Railroad was without any clue about the life of someone like Marie-Joseph Angélique. And it’s not that I don’t think the underbelly of history is interesting, we all think that. It’s that those things are totally radical that strikes the wrong chord, and usually leads to some pretty terrible retelling of events.

I’m not a teacher or a scholar, but this article, it just didn’t sit well with me. I made it my job to poke fun at history in comics, sure, but schools and museums are a different ballgame.

And if you want museums to be interesting, for gods sake, stop cutting their funding for once and give them some money. They work with what they have, which is not much.

The One Where I Respond to Brandon Clim

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:07:00 -0400

Note: These views are my own, not those of my associates or any organization I am currently involved with, yadda-yadda.

@brad_evoy I read some of your posts on Tumblr. I’d like to know your thoughts on a piece I wrote about the #cfsfcee but not via Twitter 1/2
— Brandon Clim (@climbrandon) October 28, 2012

Why thanks, Brandon!

So yeah, rather than email a response to this article, I’m just going to blog it as I have found a brief bit of time to write one. Rather than make this some manner of takedown/total opposition article, I’m going to try and be as even-handed as I can with this one - even though Mr. Clim and I have (for years) had a great deal of banter on these topics.

Section One: Recent Events.

I think my first issue with Clim’s analysis of the situation, however, comes down to the ‘inevitability’ of a strike outside of Quebec in the minds of student activists. I really don’t hear this in talking to people, even those who wish for such things to occur. While I have heard the sentiment that organizing here in some fashion was a solid show of solidarity with Quebec, none seem to really be embracing some kind of dead-set certainty on these matters. I mean, as I’ve written about here before a strike is a means to an end, not an end - so I think Brandon has fallen victim to the same manner of talk that was really overwrought tonally on this subject that was common when the Quebec strike still raged hot.

I won’t dispute, however, the fact that it would have been great to get some video out of the Quebec Solidarity Tour - as that stuff would clearly have been great to repackage as educational and campaign-based materials. And really, I would love for all members to be able to engage with folks that a number of ours at UofT have been lucky enough to on a few occasions from Quebec.

Then there is the matter of the Ontario Student Solidarity Network. Oh, already defunct organization! How much hope I had for you. In all seriousness, the first meeting of this group was actually quite rambunctious and lively - I actually was able to Skype in and ask questions from my sojourn to Newfoundland. But, the wide group of folks involved with the group narrowed quickly to the point where it was largely, though not entirely, a meeting of the GTA student unions. The OSSN hasn’t met in any fashion since the start of the new academic year, nor do I think we’d achieve any kind of consensus to really have it act effectively, at the moment. So, I’d not even bother on that one anymore, Sir Clim.

As for the Student Strike Training Camp, we actually had more public stuff ready on that but didn’t end up getting it out and released on time (I wrote a press release, in fact). But, all in all, I think there were a few articles written about the event at the time and some time after - including a more light-hearted one for the Varsity. It got a lot less press than I expected it to, as folks from the media were there from what I understand (I, however, was not there - still in NL at that point). So, really, no one silenced folks on conveying info. back from the event - as that would have been counter to the whole project, really.

And with the Activist Assembly, while I will likely write on that another time, I took issue with the Varsity’s statement that “[c]ampus media outlets were not permitted to attend the sessions”, as I’m certain that another campus newspaper was present for the entire event - as I conversed with their reporter at one of the later sessions. That said, the usual exact recording speel for the workshop portions is fair - as folks tend to disclaim that in all manner of event in that kind of setting, not that the event had any particularly controversial or radical sessions… though it would have been nice for recording to have been done for the keynotes in particular.

One thing though:

None of the knowledge transferred during this two-day gathering could be transferred to any interested students if they were not able to be present for whatever reason.

I mean, this isn’t something that the organizers of an event like this can really ensure, even if the event was fully live-streamed and recorded. One would hope that even as this was not done, folks might use and relate this information to their own campus in their own workshops (which is the implicit point of half of these things, even if few ever do so). I - personally - conveyed my notes on this to our Council and have discussed a few of the issues raised in sessions I attended (on ableism, corporatization/academic freedom, departmental organizing esp.) in work we’ve been doing lately (though, I did attend sessions on topics we were already looking at).

Overall Thought: I don’t disagree that a lot of folks working on these initiatives haven’t done the best job communicating on these initiatives and, as you rightly note in the second section of the blog, the Federation has… well, mixed results on that side of things. But, some of the particulars were a bit off or not fully repersentative of the realities of the events held. As well, I feel the article embellishes the optimism/idealism of some to unrealistic proportions.

Section Two: C-c-c-communication!

As for Brandon’s first point here, I don’t disagree in the least - but I’d note that based on how the Federation is organized, they have trouble doing that grassroots level work and have since their inception. Locals have to take these things back and, it seems, a number don’t feel terribly impacted by these events enough to cover them in detail back home. Admittedly, starting with the last Ontario AGM, folks in my neck of the woods have looked for motion ideas directly from our full membership, feedback on proposed motions and posted all information we have on that nature publicly. After talking, for years, about these issues - I felt it was time to implement these sorts of things (particularly after a year of not-being-involved-as-deeply-in-my-union and stark reflection on these matters). While the content of our work on these levels seems to reflect these actions. Still, more could have been done at other levels to facilitate this.

But, I can’t disagree with Clim’s central criticism here - one oft repeated and, really, the central thrust of this article as well: The Federation doesn’t do enough to make itself available for scrutiny. The fact even folks involved with the organization have been known to surf sites like Clim-contributed studentunion.ca for quick access to documents should be sign enough for this to be the case. There was a time when I could push aside my considerable problems with the organization’s culture - but really these things have become unavoidable to address.

A lot of these matters, however, look to be coming to the fore at the November AGM. While the full motions package isn’t out yet, I know with some certainty that a number of issues of this tenor will be raised (including a few from UTGSU). For me, the irony of Brandon’s blog post and much of the discussion around Quebec Student solidarity rests on the fact a number of very contentious lawsuits are still moving forward and were even as money was given to aid groups of students who themselves were collectively being sued by the very organization providing the funds for other possible suits. It boggles the mind, when you consider it that way.

Overall Thought: Here I find much more commonality with Brandon’s post. These kinds of issues - particularly around online posting of documents but the larger, macro-issues tied to that even moreso - are sitting pretty plainly in the eyes of many. If anything was ‘inevitable’ coming out of these events and conversations, I think it would have to be the fact that these issues would need to be addressed or raised to stay genuine to any hint of solidarity with tactically different organizations than our own.

I’ve got a lot more thoughts on these topics and a lot more reflection on things as they stand in our current context in Ontario.

But, another day perhaps.

A Debt

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:55:43 -0400

Have you ever felt like you owe someone something? I mean, like inexplicably so. Well, I do. My own compulsion to be involved in life - including a juvenile sense of public life - seems to spring in part from this. Not to say, mind you, that I myself don’t feel I have - innately - something to offer by doing so or that I don’t have larger schemes and dreams…

But, that feeling remains. I’m not even sure anymore who I really direct these feelings towards, but know the why. I should - probably - have died soon after or during birth. I’ve been incredibly lucky to be able to do any of the things I have in my life or anything at all. The doctors told my parents I’d be affected in terms of speech and other manners in ways I haven’t been through my lovely disability (not kidding in saying that appellation either) which has given them a sense of gratitude for where I am in life and the kinds of things I do.

Yet, I still feel this ever-present debt. Not to a god - as even if I believed in one, it was an all-too human effort to preserve my continued existence. I suppose, in some ways, I believe such things are owed to the public - as it was a publicly-run system that allowed me to be here. How different I might think were the system otherwise? But, the same could be said no matter the circumstance I suppose.

Still, this concept that I owe someone (if not all) a debt in this way, influences how I see things. For example: Leadership in anything, really, should never be considered so. That’s for others to decide if it is so and, really, misses the point of what roles often called as such are supposed to do. I get nervous around people who want to be leaders, who call themselves leaders, who declare themselves and others to be a class of leaders. Those people usually don’t want to lead anything, but take for themselves. To me, roles confused for leadership should be viewed as service. Perhaps its the Catholic-Christian upbringing permeating through, but I really can’t square with the idea of taking on a role like that as anything other work for others, rather than as control of others.

Not to marytr myself here - because I’m full of faults, bad decisions, terrible habits and I’m sure most people could list such things to reach the Moon - but I just tend to view things this way and I think I do so in part because of my inexorable feeling of a life-debt. I serve in these capacities to pay back society for the wonderful and rare experiences in my life. Is it that I don’t feel I deserve it? Maybe… I mean, I’ve gotten extraordinarily lucky when it comes to a lot of the things I’ve been able to take part in.

I really don’t know and I guess it would take another to really dig that deep into my psyche - though this whole self-analysis thing is kinda my schitck

Factoid: Theology Graduate Students.

Sun, 07 Oct 2012 18:27:36 -0400

Hey folks,

So as per always when I talk about UofT on the blog: This is my view of things, no one elses and so - yeah, don’t mis-attribute.

Following a quick read of this article in the venerable Varsity, I noticed something - a common mistake to make but one that I find interesting. I don’t mean to be snarky, but the fact is that graduate students at St. Mikes are not part of the Graduate Students’ Union. It’s not something really dives into deep discussion over, but this is the case.

Now, our folks are always happy to comment on matters of this sort - because we care deeply about these kinds of issues, even if we have no official position on this that formerly possible strike - but the reality is that these students are members of our pals over at UTSU. It’s a bit weird, you might think - until you realize this isn’t just a St. Mikes quirk, but that the entirety of the Toronto School of Theology isn’t part of the GSU.

So, what’s up with that? Well, apparently, back in the day the GSU didn’t offer its own health plan - unlike UTSU - and students in Theology opted to stick with coverage rather than aim join the new union. When the GSU opted to have its own plan, however, the situation didn’t exactly change. Which is why the status quo remains as it is to this day.

Interestingly, this has shaped our structure to a degree as we often refer to the School of Graduate Studies Four-Divisional Structure (Humanities, Social Science, Physical Science and Life Science) which might have been more difficult to do with the TST in the mix and the multiple course unions from Theology that would have likely come out of that (and don’t fit neatly within that divisional structure).

I don’t really have much more of a point than that, I just find these things interesting indeed. I’m sure throughout the course of my thesis I’ll find even more stuff like this from around UofT.

The One Where I Write About Over-Centralization

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:43:32 -0400

Hey folks,

Well, I’m wanting to write about some commentary made in the local papers again and while that isn’t traditionally the thing one does while doing what I do - I’m gonna do it anyways. Remember, this is my own, personal opinion - not those of anyone else, yadda, yadda.

The Varsity, venerable student paper that it is, recently published a great article on the student strike and the nature of student unions in Ontario and elsewhere. This discussion clearly related, in the end, to the notion of Anglophone student union’s over-centralization. The article, Why Not Here?, serves as a good conversation starter on this topic.

But, a serial commentator on the site had this to say:

There also might just be some deep seated problems with the CFS, an organization which can be rather hostile to grassroots student organizing. Here’s a good book that chronicles some of those problems: http://www.studentunion.ca/sol…

The issue with this analysis here is that it ignores the larger issue of student union structures in all anglo-Canadian universities touched on in the article itself. Both CFS and CASA student unions - for example - fundamentally run on the same basic set of premises in terms of its division of services, advocacy and internal governance. Now this isn’t to say there are not differences, for example:

CFS has a wider interpretation of what issues advocacy entails, traditionally.
CASA does not have its own services-wing and private, for-profit corps often fill that void.
CFS is slightly more centralized than CASA, while CASA has relationships with some provincial bodies (like OUSA).
CASA uses a population-weighted model to determine how decisions are made, CFS goes by one-member local, one-vote.

However, even these differences become lesser in time as CASA branches into other areas of advocacy slowly and CFS tightens some stances on PSE and Education Funding out of what some might call a more idealistic stance (I am not those some, mind you). Moreover, these differences sit at a national level - in the sense of the orientation of these organizations towards organizing on a national scale - not on the matter of how many of these unions themselves are structured.

Fundamentally, all of these unions come from the same set of traditions in every majorly Anglophone province. While “Solidarity for their own Good” is actually a really solid history, mostly, that isn’t the intended scope of the work. Interestingly, I think that some of what Gregory rightly points out in his work (and even this commentators’ point here) could actually be explained by the nature of those common structures.

I could get into how these structures predate, by every measure, both the CFS and CASA, but that’s a whole other post. Admittedly, though, that article does an alright job of noting that wider context and so indeed must we. (Can you tell I’m a historian? Ha.)

So yeah, my core thought here:
A focus on the various national associations, as separate entities, misses the larger point - quite purposefully. There are some fundamental questions regarding how we organize, how we got here and what that means for the future of student unionism in Canada. Big questions, rather than petty - if longstanding - disputes, need to be resolved in discussing these matters.

Solidarity, my friends, on this Labour...

Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:09:26 -0400

Solidarity, my friends, on this Labour Day!

L’Internationale - Tony Babino.
(Ok, I like swing and big band stuff, folks - deal with it)

Francesco Francavilla wins the Internet for this riff on Clint...

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 13:00:30 -0400

Francesco Francavilla wins the Internet for this riff on Clint Eastwood’s clear display of weirdness or illness at the Republican National Convention last week.

beatonna: marlomeekins: a Kate Beaton approved comic! I made...

Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:03:35 -0400

beatonna:

marlomeekins:

a Kate Beaton approved comic! I made this for the wonderful Kate a few weeks ago and she loved it

haha Marlo is THE BEST and her comics rule! She can draw circles round all of us for real

The One Where I Write About the Varsity

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:03:22 -0400

What follows is an entirely personal opinion, not that of the Graduate Students’ Union, University of Toronto or any other related to it. Thanks! – Brad.

So, now and again, I read the Varsity – the mostly-undergraduate newspaper at the University of…

View Post

shared via WordPress.com

Working at the office to pass sometime… get it? #clever...

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:14:06 -0400

Working at the office to pass sometime… get it? #clever (Taken with Instagram)

Bought the Criterion Collection edition of The Battle of Algiers...

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:13:30 -0400

Bought the Criterion Collection edition of The Battle of Algiers tonight at BMV. Entirely pumped to watch it. (Taken with Instagram)

Awesome Rainbow over Robarts this evening! (Taken with...

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:38:00 -0400

Awesome Rainbow over Robarts this evening! (Taken with Instagram)

bear-in-a-foxhole: ohsoakimbo: that kate beaton sure gets around

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:54:59 -0400

bear-in-a-foxhole:

ohsoakimbo:

that kate beaton sure gets around

Good Morning, folks! Nikola Tesla - 8in8.

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:28:14 -0400

Good Morning, folks!

Nikola Tesla - 8in8.