With the Howard government now having a majority in both houses, it will finally have what it must see as a clear run to the implementation of voluntary student unionism (VSU). This policy, which has been floated and rejected before, is a favourite of this government, many of whose members sharpened their political claws in the arena of student politics themselves.
The key element of VSU is its intent to stop student fees being used to pay for "political' activity". However, it starts to appear nonsensical the moment a definitive meaning for "political activity" is sought.
Why? Because every relationship is political in nature. Regardless of who the players are within the relationship it will have at its base a power relationship. In some cases,
although each player has a different kind of power, the relationship is relatively equal; yes, the man in the corner shop has the power to overcharge on most of the things he sells, but you have the power to cease using his services.
For a student who is seeking clearance to carry out research by a university ethics committee, you cannot simply withdraw your patronage. The student cannot just pick up and go to a different committee if they are treated unfairly. They know that the committee has the power and they need to fall into line in order to obtain the clearance that they require in order to proceed with their work.
This legislation, with its narrow definition of "political", seeks to dismiss the central role student unions play, to make them appear frivolous. The real work of student unions is not about cheap beer and sausage rolls. It is about ensuring that students stand a chance in an arena where teaching is often
seen as getting in the way of the "real" work of academics, which is research. In a hostile environment such as this, where students are seen as an impediment, the unions supply much needed ballast to even out the power distribution.
At all levels, from dealing with unhelpful staff in the
student services sector right through to trying to find a PhD supervisor who will nurture and guide rather than bully and intimidate, these processes are political. Asking for a remark or a review of grade imply that the lecturer has made a mistake. By the simple act of questioning a lecturer's mark you are challenging their power.
I give all these examples to make one point clear — the government can change the legislation that governs student organisation once a week and twice every Sunday if it
chooses to do so, but it will never be able to stop student unions from being political bodies.
As advocates, we are making it clear to all involved that the playing field is not level, and our presence or our
intervention is our way of ensuring that the playing field is not tipped so far in favour of the administration that students simply fall right off the other end. Is that political? Of course it is, and nothing the government
says or does will change that.
Julie Sloggett
[Julie Sloggett is a member of the Green Left Weekly-Socialist Alliance editorial liaison board.]
From Green Left Weekly, August 17, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.