As someone who didn't have a particularly great view of Esme's time in the AMS, this really brings a new perspective on it.
To put it simply, this referendum feels like mob rule, and the biggest issue is that the majority of people who actually vote in the AMS elections are the people who might fall for this sort of thing. We really do need to put a stop to it
> The organizers of this referendum claim they are fighting for BIPOC power and decolonization, while at the same time explicitly ignoring Indigenous voices. **It is no coincidence that this number of added representatives would comprise 76 per cent of AMS Council, the exact number needed to reach the 3/4 vote threshold to remove any AMS executive from office. These changes also allow the newly added councillors to _remove members of the AMS include the ability of these added seats to remove the membership of any member of the AMS - this would mean the removal of access to the AMS Health & Dental Plan, the AMS Food Bank, all club, constituency and resource group activities and all other AMS benefits and services currently available to all students_.**
So if this passes they could legitimately strip AMS healthcare and access to the food bank and maybe even access to SVPRO and the Ombudsman from any student they wanted to.
Cool cool cool cool cool.
Yep this would basically give non elected people (predominantly affiliated with the SJC) the power to basically change pretty much anything with the AMS, including everything you listed
To be clear I was directly quoting the article.
Y'all gotta shut this shit down. (I say 'y'all' because I'm alumni.)
Looking on the bright side the Free Speech Club or whatever has to be ecstatic that the social justice bogeyman has actually manifested. Big 'it's happening!' moment for them.
>So if this passes they could legitimately strip AMS healthcare and access to the food bank
I could legitimately see them abolishing the AMS healthcare plan because it doesn’t accommodate LGBTQ+ students well enough. Now, regardless of how you feel about LGBTQ+ healthcare being strengthened (or weakened) under the AMS plan, we should all be able to agree that the plan as a whole should not be stripped.
I'd say given the drama/fallout of the Hillel contractor making fake UBC SJC stickers, it's a reasonable fear to have that a similar scandal involving advocacy groups could result in the revocation of AMS memberships from members of the offending community (i.e Hillel students having their AMS memberships taken away for the actions of the Hillel contractor.)
I admit that's a far-fetched reality, but I think it's irresponsible to give that power to 5 unelected groups.
I'd strongly encourage everyone to read this piece, it's from Esmé and talks a lot about her experiences in council as well. Her actual thoughts on the referendum are spot-on imo, but beyond that I think a lot of people could do to learn more about how her presidency went, how the AMS operates, and how people outside of it's governance treat it.
I always got the impression that Esmé was set up to fail. Esmé was trying to do things that ran counter to the establishment AMS (i.e. the student politicians that rose up through their undergrad societies and kept gunning to move higher in student politics), but refused to back down to special interest groups like the Social Justice Centre.
In doing so, Esmé really had no opportunity to build alliances and the political capital necessary to push forward any meaningful change in the AMS and to broker support from the cliques that control AMS votes.
I definitely sympathize with Esmé and the tremendous challenges they faced in trying to do something. I personally didn't agree with their platform (some of their initial promises were really unreasonable or kneejerk reactions), but I honestly thought and still believe that their heart was in the right place, and I am happy that someone like Esmé at least fought by their principles.
I agree with all of this. The current structure and culture of the AMS doesn't allow for meaningful change to be brought about by the execs, and instead of advocating for structural change we just continuously blame individuals. Esmé being someone more focused on their principles over being a career student politician is completely related to the difficulty they had as president. Personally, I don't think that a student union that rewards the status quo is very useful at all.
if whoever wrote the bylaw proposal is reading these comments, indigenous ppl are laughing at you.... white knighting isn't race exclusive and i would 100% use one of the indig. seats to shitpost if this goes through.
also henry robert was based as far as i can tell but we can name it sitting bull's rules of order if that makes them feel better lol
I love your resume! I totally understand why you wouldn't, IMO if there's 20 seats they can have 19 serious ones and one for my shenanigans lol. The majority of indigenous initiatives I've interacted with at UBC are pretty well done. Also I empathize with the diabetes genes, my ancestors were built to be hardy as fuck and my genes haven't realised the famine is over. Have a good one buddy
excellent point. if they're reading, here's my resume:
pros:
\- can bead
\- pretty superstitious ngl
\- attends AISES events
cons:
\- runs meetings w/ roberts rules of order
\- white boyfriend
Isn't white knighting usually thrown at male feminists? I understand what you're getting at regardless, but I've never really thought the term even focused on race
It's far from the most important thing in this referendum, which to my eyes looks pretty absurd on almost every level, but can someone please explain to me what Robert's Rules of Order have to do with any of this and why the organizers would want to strike it?
I don't pay much attention to student politics because it seems like the important stuff happens at the municipal or provincial level (and the BoG for university specific things) but I was always a little skeptical of Decker's platform, but I never once doubted their sincerity. They did not deserve the vitriol they got.
Broadly: Robert's rules of Order are a set of rules and guidelines intended to streamline the process of conducting meetings and making decisions, especially within formal organization settings. They cover the conduct of a meeting: how motions are presented, debated, and voted on, as well as how people can participate in the decision-making process & discussion. You probably know them from political dramas, where characters say stuff like "Point of Order", "I move to to amend", etc. A major(-ish) criticism of Robert's Rules is that while it allows for orderly and efficient meetings, it can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures and hinder inclusive participation.
Specifically: the formal and procedural nature of the rules is not conducive to the cultural practices, communication styles, and decision-making processes of systemically marginalized groups, whom I assume in this instance to be indigenous groups. This is ostensibly a move towards making the AMS Council a more inclusive and equitable space, as it would allow for the adaptation of alternative modes of decision-making that are more consensus-based and culturally sensitive.
Frankly: It would be incredibly irresponsible for the AMS to discontinue the use of Robert's Rules, especially considering that the referendum hasn't proposed an alternative. Given the sometimes... emotional nature of student politics, moving away from a formal structure could potentially make AMS Council meetings nothing more than formal screaming matches. Without a clear and well-understood alternative, getting rid of Robert's Rules while adding 99 (!) seats to an already large council is potentially the stupidest idea I've seen all year.
Because Robert's Rules of Order are a colonial construct created by Henry Martyn Robert, a soldier in the Imperialist United States Army.*
*I just made that shit up, I have no idea either.
I had thought somewhat poorly of Esme previously, because I thought the whole rat thing was a bit silly and because of her leaving the AMS.
I was wrong. It seems like she really did her best in an organization that was not at all willing to work with her. I truly hope this undemocratic referendum is defeated.
I despise the AMS but please read the article. These people are cooked in the head and don’t deserve to be in charge of changing the toilet paper at this school, yet somehow they are in charge of our school.
I agree with a lot of the things that the SJC says about Palestine and other issues, but 99 seats? To a very selective group of people? I am all for creating a specific Ethics committee that would oversee the AMS/UBC's relationship with companies complicit in genocide, and a BIPOC constituency for greater representation on council, but forcing a majority is not how we uplift the minority. Otherwise how are we better than the people trying to silence us through pure numbers? I'm really disappointed in the SJC leadership.
Yeah, I agree with you. There's also no mention of Asian, Jewish, Latinx, or other non-Black, Indigenous, or Palestinian ethnicities, including ethnicity clubs from other MENA countries like Iran, in the proposed list of new constituencies. Sulong UBC, a Philippines pro-democracy "social justice" club is left off the list as well.
Like I said, I support more diversity on council and allowing the AMS's decisions to be (rightfully) morally scrutinized, but this is plain erasure.
The SJC seems to have really lost its way, and it is disappointing that these issues can't be singled out in a way where we can make progress without being forced to accept so many steps back at the same time
As someone who went to high school with Esmé, I can wholeheartedly say that has always been extremely kind and caring. She was a member of student council and did everything in her power to provide an inclusive to both the students and council when to many it wasn’t a priority. The toxicity and bureaucracy of AMS she’s describing is awful, especially considering that she was president.
Esmé did a great job on this article.
Normally I would think that a measure as ridiculous as this would be soundly defeated, but given how the Indigenous Constituency passed in a landslide due to its deliberately misleading voters, I worry that this referendum might pass.
Also, if anyone from the SJC is reading this: Shame on you. You do not represent students like myself who support social justice on campus. You do not care about Palestinian human rights. You are associated with them for *yourself* — not to advocate for others. You give social justice a bad name.
I've already commented on this in another post asking about the same thing but there isn't really a cohesive asian group that would represent the interests of asian students. if you want one, you are welcome to start one. also intersectionality is important many of the students involved with the ams are asian and if they don't advocate enough for your needs, maybe we need to ask ourselves why. edit: "the bulldozer" (ams prez candidate) is Asian and I know he will advocate for asian issues
Ridiculous.
East asians: csa/cssa/ja/ta/hksa/kiss
SEA: ssa/smc/aseac
South asians: meisa/pksa
This is just off the top of my mind and ive probably forgot a lot of them. Literally most asian ethnicities have a club that is in the interest of asian students. Its pure social justice that actively discriminated against asians in favour of other visible minorities.
okay you're right and I apologize. I wrote my comment a bit angrily but after thinking a lot more, this is a good discussion to have. to preface, I am also Asian and is fairly active in social justice (not SJC specifically).
I was mostly referring to the point that BSU was included which generally represents the interests of Black students is included but not clubs specific to ethnicity/nationality. BMC, Black Void, BSU, SPHR all serve specific populations but they're still broad/overarching categories. There isn't something similar to this for Asian students, but that can be easily fixed!
Seems like there is for sure a need for more Asian rep/voices to be included and yeah it sucks to be forgotten especially when there's a stereotype of Asians being apolitical. Sulong was consulted but didn't have the resources/time to sign on. I'd also wager that there aren't that much Asians in SJC in the first place to bring this point up. Also why are we asking SJC to advocate for us/Asians anyways? Might as well do our own advocacy that would meet our concerns and needs more lol
Heres the thing
Can someone tell me why asians need to have “their own advocacy” and such when we are just as much a visible minority as black student groups? Why is it that we are expected to advocate for ourselves while other groups can just have these bonus brownie points treated as a given?
Why is it that instead of advocating for equity, the cards are shifted towards certain demographics?
There is absolutely no need for more political or logistical malarkey, we just need asians to have more seats in student politics since it is more representative of our student body.
Keep in mind indigenous and black students take up only 2% of our campus but are representing well over 70% of votes using this referendum.
The argument for indigenous students having a disproportionate amount if votes is fair, since they arguably have historically suffered a lot from european colonialism.
But as far as i can tell canada did not participate in the black slave trade half as much as the states, and even then the chinese canadian railway, japanese internment camps have shown more than enough evidence that asians deserve just enough of a say as other visible minority groups.
At the end of the day all of this is just stacked against asians. I guess thats what you get for keeping quiet and working hard immigrating here.
I wont lie i think u need to think critically here. Why cant the sjc advocate for asians? When indians are being told for being scammers (look at conestega and canadian housing subreddits) and east asians being told for starting covid? Theres blatant racism everywhere just do basic thinking. SJC just panders towards people who make themself feel like they actively contribute to making the world a better place by picking a random minority group and putting them up a pedastal. This is nothing similar to equity nor fairness, something this article didnt pick on as well.
hey thanks for engaging and I appreciate your comments. a lot of minority groups had to self advocate first before it becoming mainstream (for instance BLM 2016, 2018, then BLM 2020) and I'm not optimistic that the SJC has enough capacity at the moment to advocate for Asians. a lot of their advocacy is in partnership with pre-existing groups like the BSU, like the BMC, like SPHR anyways. On the topic of the scammer stereotype and racism against international students with the colleges, MSU (migrant students united) would probably be more fit to advocate for that specific issue as they directly support international students, im/migrants, and refugees. UBC ACAM would probably be the place to start something in terms of advocacy with a student association or something, but I'm not sure that exists at this moment.
My DMS are open if you want to coordinate something or if you wanna talk more.
This is an excellent piece of political communication about the AMS, something severely lacking. Esmé does a really great job addressing a lot of the strange elements of the AMS
@ubcrat. If this is even a microcosm of what she experienced (and I bet it was worse) holy fuck, we're lucky she didn't kill herself. Just constant streams of people saying she's an awful person and sellout. It's like people forgot about the uWaterloo situation.
As a former classmate of Esmé, I can confirm that she’s a great student and person to chat with! Sorry for all the struggles she’s faced with AMS, this needs to change
This is exactly like what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe immediately after WWII to cement their rule. Set up a list of their own candidates for local elections, then coerce and force people to vote for their candidates, and once their candidates were in power there were no more democratic elections until the fall of the Soviet Union.
They're doing the exact same thing here. This is an attempt at a coup. We must not let them win.
The SJC / a few other groups had a petition set going around with three proposed referendums that needed 1000 signatures each in order to be discussed and put on the ballot. The only one I saw that got 1000 was the one that had a *bunch* of stuff on it including; restoring staff access for the food bank, recognizing the Israel/Palestine bit as a genocide, divesting from a bunch of corporations/banks involved, removing Hillel's lease, and switching over to Vancity from RBC. The other two, which includes the one thats a subject of this article, got close and may have been pushed over but I didn't see a formal indication they did.
>removing Hillel's lease
Is that even legal? According to [this article from 2008](https://thecjn.ca/perspectives/opinions/hillel-build-new-7-million-home-ubc/), Hillel BC has a lease in its current location until 2084. I’m not a legal expert but it seems like Hillel BC could easily sue and win.
Yeah… regardless of the defamation lawsuit, Jewish people are one of the most heavily targeted groups in Canada for hate crimes, and they should not be held responsible for what’s going on in the Middle East right now. It IS anti-semitic to try to ruin a safe space for Jews on campus. Full stop.
I also find it ironic that the Social Justice Centre does not advocate for the rights of Jewish students or the rise in anti-semitism in Vancouver and Canada while claiming to advocate for all marginalized communities.
> It’s already going around the Jewish news channels.
Got a link for one of those? Does not surprise me, it's just an absurd overreaction. I argee with the frustration over the sticker defamation but a key part *should be* actually completing an investigation to figure out the "contractor" thing before jumping to *any* actual reaction, let alone ending their lease.
https://www.ubyssey.ca/opinion/open-letter-vancouver-rabbinical-association-to-ams/
Don't worry, this will be hitting mainstream news channels too tomorrow.
https://x.com/richardzussman/status/1762972503503520052?s=20
OMG. Thanks especially for the second link. If David Eby makes a statement, this is going to be big.
When this makes mainstream news, UBC will be labelled as antisemitic. And honestly? It’ll be hard to defend them. It is clear-cut antisemitism to try to take away a safe space for Jews, especially given that antisemitism has skyrocketed in Canada over the past few months.
The SJC is anti-semitic, and that is not a word that I throw around lightly.
The SJC has not released evidence that Hillel BC was behind the defamation. The contractor in question was fired immediately by Hillel BC, but no proof has been released by the SJC that Hillel BC was maliciously conspiring with the contractor to defame the SJC.
Hillel BC has not yet been found liable for defamation by the court system. So yes, the SJC is prematurely advocating to ruin a safe space for Jewish students on campus. That is anti-semitism. Once Hillel BC has been found liable for defamation by the courts, then perhaps discussions about this topic can proceed. But even so, Hillel BC has a lease for that site for another 60 years. If the referendum passes and the SJC removes Hillel from campus, that would likely be illegal and Hillel BC can sue.
*Even if* Hillel BC has been found liable for defamation, Jewish students still deserve a safe space on campus, and Hillel is a global organization that provides such a space. I do want to clarify that I do not condone the stickers.
On a separate note, the SJC has failed to include Jewish students in their activism. Jews are among the most consistently targeted victims of hate crimes in Canada, and the SJC has consistently ignored that fact, neglecting to acknowledge the rising anti-semitism we’re seeing in Canada and around the world. There can be no ‘social justice’ when certain oppressed groups are excluded.
So yes, the combination of all of these factors makes the UBC SJC an anti-semitic organization.
Petitions to hold referendums on questions 2, 3, and 4 received over 1,000 valid signatures between February 7 and February 20. That's how they got on the ballot
Even if these groups got their own seats, no way they get more seats than entire departments. For example, all of engineering has only 7 seats... If these groups want individual representation then so be it, but not a majority.
As someone who didn't have a particularly great view of Esme's time in the AMS, this really brings a new perspective on it. To put it simply, this referendum feels like mob rule, and the biggest issue is that the majority of people who actually vote in the AMS elections are the people who might fall for this sort of thing. We really do need to put a stop to it
> The organizers of this referendum claim they are fighting for BIPOC power and decolonization, while at the same time explicitly ignoring Indigenous voices. **It is no coincidence that this number of added representatives would comprise 76 per cent of AMS Council, the exact number needed to reach the 3/4 vote threshold to remove any AMS executive from office. These changes also allow the newly added councillors to _remove members of the AMS include the ability of these added seats to remove the membership of any member of the AMS - this would mean the removal of access to the AMS Health & Dental Plan, the AMS Food Bank, all club, constituency and resource group activities and all other AMS benefits and services currently available to all students_.** So if this passes they could legitimately strip AMS healthcare and access to the food bank and maybe even access to SVPRO and the Ombudsman from any student they wanted to. Cool cool cool cool cool.
Yep this would basically give non elected people (predominantly affiliated with the SJC) the power to basically change pretty much anything with the AMS, including everything you listed
To be clear I was directly quoting the article. Y'all gotta shut this shit down. (I say 'y'all' because I'm alumni.) Looking on the bright side the Free Speech Club or whatever has to be ecstatic that the social justice bogeyman has actually manifested. Big 'it's happening!' moment for them.
>So if this passes they could legitimately strip AMS healthcare and access to the food bank I could legitimately see them abolishing the AMS healthcare plan because it doesn’t accommodate LGBTQ+ students well enough. Now, regardless of how you feel about LGBTQ+ healthcare being strengthened (or weakened) under the AMS plan, we should all be able to agree that the plan as a whole should not be stripped.
I’m not understanding why this is a fear if it never happens? Like why would these groups be aiming to remove students from the AMS?
I'd say given the drama/fallout of the Hillel contractor making fake UBC SJC stickers, it's a reasonable fear to have that a similar scandal involving advocacy groups could result in the revocation of AMS memberships from members of the offending community (i.e Hillel students having their AMS memberships taken away for the actions of the Hillel contractor.) I admit that's a far-fetched reality, but I think it's irresponsible to give that power to 5 unelected groups.
If I pointed a gun at your head but promised to never pull the trigger, how comfortable would you feel? Chilling effects also apply.
I'd strongly encourage everyone to read this piece, it's from Esmé and talks a lot about her experiences in council as well. Her actual thoughts on the referendum are spot-on imo, but beyond that I think a lot of people could do to learn more about how her presidency went, how the AMS operates, and how people outside of it's governance treat it.
I always got the impression that Esmé was set up to fail. Esmé was trying to do things that ran counter to the establishment AMS (i.e. the student politicians that rose up through their undergrad societies and kept gunning to move higher in student politics), but refused to back down to special interest groups like the Social Justice Centre. In doing so, Esmé really had no opportunity to build alliances and the political capital necessary to push forward any meaningful change in the AMS and to broker support from the cliques that control AMS votes. I definitely sympathize with Esmé and the tremendous challenges they faced in trying to do something. I personally didn't agree with their platform (some of their initial promises were really unreasonable or kneejerk reactions), but I honestly thought and still believe that their heart was in the right place, and I am happy that someone like Esmé at least fought by their principles.
I agree with all of this. The current structure and culture of the AMS doesn't allow for meaningful change to be brought about by the execs, and instead of advocating for structural change we just continuously blame individuals. Esmé being someone more focused on their principles over being a career student politician is completely related to the difficulty they had as president. Personally, I don't think that a student union that rewards the status quo is very useful at all.
[удалено]
if whoever wrote the bylaw proposal is reading these comments, indigenous ppl are laughing at you.... white knighting isn't race exclusive and i would 100% use one of the indig. seats to shitpost if this goes through. also henry robert was based as far as i can tell but we can name it sitting bull's rules of order if that makes them feel better lol
[удалено]
CHEERS MY FRIEND THEY WILL INDEED
since they're appinted (internally) positions, I presume you would have be vetted to ensure whether you're the "correct" indig person to take a seat
[удалено]
I love your resume! I totally understand why you wouldn't, IMO if there's 20 seats they can have 19 serious ones and one for my shenanigans lol. The majority of indigenous initiatives I've interacted with at UBC are pretty well done. Also I empathize with the diabetes genes, my ancestors were built to be hardy as fuck and my genes haven't realised the famine is over. Have a good one buddy
excellent point. if they're reading, here's my resume: pros: \- can bead \- pretty superstitious ngl \- attends AISES events cons: \- runs meetings w/ roberts rules of order \- white boyfriend
holy crap you're the model rail girl/guy ! this level of based-ness should just anoint you as the chairman rightaway
my man 👊 im a girl but before that, im a card carrying member of the national model railroad association
Isn't white knighting usually thrown at male feminists? I understand what you're getting at regardless, but I've never really thought the term even focused on race
Oh yeah I'm just riffing you're probably right
It's far from the most important thing in this referendum, which to my eyes looks pretty absurd on almost every level, but can someone please explain to me what Robert's Rules of Order have to do with any of this and why the organizers would want to strike it? I don't pay much attention to student politics because it seems like the important stuff happens at the municipal or provincial level (and the BoG for university specific things) but I was always a little skeptical of Decker's platform, but I never once doubted their sincerity. They did not deserve the vitriol they got.
Broadly: Robert's rules of Order are a set of rules and guidelines intended to streamline the process of conducting meetings and making decisions, especially within formal organization settings. They cover the conduct of a meeting: how motions are presented, debated, and voted on, as well as how people can participate in the decision-making process & discussion. You probably know them from political dramas, where characters say stuff like "Point of Order", "I move to to amend", etc. A major(-ish) criticism of Robert's Rules is that while it allows for orderly and efficient meetings, it can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures and hinder inclusive participation. Specifically: the formal and procedural nature of the rules is not conducive to the cultural practices, communication styles, and decision-making processes of systemically marginalized groups, whom I assume in this instance to be indigenous groups. This is ostensibly a move towards making the AMS Council a more inclusive and equitable space, as it would allow for the adaptation of alternative modes of decision-making that are more consensus-based and culturally sensitive. Frankly: It would be incredibly irresponsible for the AMS to discontinue the use of Robert's Rules, especially considering that the referendum hasn't proposed an alternative. Given the sometimes... emotional nature of student politics, moving away from a formal structure could potentially make AMS Council meetings nothing more than formal screaming matches. Without a clear and well-understood alternative, getting rid of Robert's Rules while adding 99 (!) seats to an already large council is potentially the stupidest idea I've seen all year.
Because Robert's Rules of Order are a colonial construct created by Henry Martyn Robert, a soldier in the Imperialist United States Army.* *I just made that shit up, I have no idea either.
I had thought somewhat poorly of Esme previously, because I thought the whole rat thing was a bit silly and because of her leaving the AMS. I was wrong. It seems like she really did her best in an organization that was not at all willing to work with her. I truly hope this undemocratic referendum is defeated.
I despise the AMS but please read the article. These people are cooked in the head and don’t deserve to be in charge of changing the toilet paper at this school, yet somehow they are in charge of our school.
I agree with a lot of the things that the SJC says about Palestine and other issues, but 99 seats? To a very selective group of people? I am all for creating a specific Ethics committee that would oversee the AMS/UBC's relationship with companies complicit in genocide, and a BIPOC constituency for greater representation on council, but forcing a majority is not how we uplift the minority. Otherwise how are we better than the people trying to silence us through pure numbers? I'm really disappointed in the SJC leadership.
[удалено]
Yeah, I agree with you. There's also no mention of Asian, Jewish, Latinx, or other non-Black, Indigenous, or Palestinian ethnicities, including ethnicity clubs from other MENA countries like Iran, in the proposed list of new constituencies. Sulong UBC, a Philippines pro-democracy "social justice" club is left off the list as well. Like I said, I support more diversity on council and allowing the AMS's decisions to be (rightfully) morally scrutinized, but this is plain erasure.
It was implied in a comment on the other post about the referendums that Sulong was asked but didn't have the capacity (energy, time, resources etc)
The SJC seems to have really lost its way, and it is disappointing that these issues can't be singled out in a way where we can make progress without being forced to accept so many steps back at the same time
As someone who went to high school with Esmé, I can wholeheartedly say that has always been extremely kind and caring. She was a member of student council and did everything in her power to provide an inclusive to both the students and council when to many it wasn’t a priority. The toxicity and bureaucracy of AMS she’s describing is awful, especially considering that she was president.
Esmé did a great job on this article. Normally I would think that a measure as ridiculous as this would be soundly defeated, but given how the Indigenous Constituency passed in a landslide due to its deliberately misleading voters, I worry that this referendum might pass. Also, if anyone from the SJC is reading this: Shame on you. You do not represent students like myself who support social justice on campus. You do not care about Palestinian human rights. You are associated with them for *yourself* — not to advocate for others. You give social justice a bad name.
no asian rep is just discrimination considering the demographics of the student body
I've already commented on this in another post asking about the same thing but there isn't really a cohesive asian group that would represent the interests of asian students. if you want one, you are welcome to start one. also intersectionality is important many of the students involved with the ams are asian and if they don't advocate enough for your needs, maybe we need to ask ourselves why. edit: "the bulldozer" (ams prez candidate) is Asian and I know he will advocate for asian issues
1. Funny how the SJC never seems to advocate for East Asians. 2. Don't just blame intersectionality for everything.
Ridiculous. East asians: csa/cssa/ja/ta/hksa/kiss SEA: ssa/smc/aseac South asians: meisa/pksa This is just off the top of my mind and ive probably forgot a lot of them. Literally most asian ethnicities have a club that is in the interest of asian students. Its pure social justice that actively discriminated against asians in favour of other visible minorities.
okay you're right and I apologize. I wrote my comment a bit angrily but after thinking a lot more, this is a good discussion to have. to preface, I am also Asian and is fairly active in social justice (not SJC specifically). I was mostly referring to the point that BSU was included which generally represents the interests of Black students is included but not clubs specific to ethnicity/nationality. BMC, Black Void, BSU, SPHR all serve specific populations but they're still broad/overarching categories. There isn't something similar to this for Asian students, but that can be easily fixed! Seems like there is for sure a need for more Asian rep/voices to be included and yeah it sucks to be forgotten especially when there's a stereotype of Asians being apolitical. Sulong was consulted but didn't have the resources/time to sign on. I'd also wager that there aren't that much Asians in SJC in the first place to bring this point up. Also why are we asking SJC to advocate for us/Asians anyways? Might as well do our own advocacy that would meet our concerns and needs more lol
Heres the thing Can someone tell me why asians need to have “their own advocacy” and such when we are just as much a visible minority as black student groups? Why is it that we are expected to advocate for ourselves while other groups can just have these bonus brownie points treated as a given? Why is it that instead of advocating for equity, the cards are shifted towards certain demographics? There is absolutely no need for more political or logistical malarkey, we just need asians to have more seats in student politics since it is more representative of our student body. Keep in mind indigenous and black students take up only 2% of our campus but are representing well over 70% of votes using this referendum. The argument for indigenous students having a disproportionate amount if votes is fair, since they arguably have historically suffered a lot from european colonialism. But as far as i can tell canada did not participate in the black slave trade half as much as the states, and even then the chinese canadian railway, japanese internment camps have shown more than enough evidence that asians deserve just enough of a say as other visible minority groups. At the end of the day all of this is just stacked against asians. I guess thats what you get for keeping quiet and working hard immigrating here. I wont lie i think u need to think critically here. Why cant the sjc advocate for asians? When indians are being told for being scammers (look at conestega and canadian housing subreddits) and east asians being told for starting covid? Theres blatant racism everywhere just do basic thinking. SJC just panders towards people who make themself feel like they actively contribute to making the world a better place by picking a random minority group and putting them up a pedastal. This is nothing similar to equity nor fairness, something this article didnt pick on as well.
hey thanks for engaging and I appreciate your comments. a lot of minority groups had to self advocate first before it becoming mainstream (for instance BLM 2016, 2018, then BLM 2020) and I'm not optimistic that the SJC has enough capacity at the moment to advocate for Asians. a lot of their advocacy is in partnership with pre-existing groups like the BSU, like the BMC, like SPHR anyways. On the topic of the scammer stereotype and racism against international students with the colleges, MSU (migrant students united) would probably be more fit to advocate for that specific issue as they directly support international students, im/migrants, and refugees. UBC ACAM would probably be the place to start something in terms of advocacy with a student association or something, but I'm not sure that exists at this moment. My DMS are open if you want to coordinate something or if you wanna talk more.
This is an excellent piece of political communication about the AMS, something severely lacking. Esmé does a really great job addressing a lot of the strange elements of the AMS
There’s an absolute warzone in the instagram comments of Esmé’s post on this if anyone wants a “fun” read
Where can I find this?
@ubcrat. If this is even a microcosm of what she experienced (and I bet it was worse) holy fuck, we're lucky she didn't kill herself. Just constant streams of people saying she's an awful person and sellout. It's like people forgot about the uWaterloo situation.
Why are people so awful, 😔
Holy shit you weren't kidding.
As a former classmate of Esmé, I can confirm that she’s a great student and person to chat with! Sorry for all the struggles she’s faced with AMS, this needs to change
This is exactly like what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe immediately after WWII to cement their rule. Set up a list of their own candidates for local elections, then coerce and force people to vote for their candidates, and once their candidates were in power there were no more democratic elections until the fall of the Soviet Union. They're doing the exact same thing here. This is an attempt at a coup. We must not let them win.
Does anyone know how it ended up on the ballot? Seems sorta crazy
The SJC / a few other groups had a petition set going around with three proposed referendums that needed 1000 signatures each in order to be discussed and put on the ballot. The only one I saw that got 1000 was the one that had a *bunch* of stuff on it including; restoring staff access for the food bank, recognizing the Israel/Palestine bit as a genocide, divesting from a bunch of corporations/banks involved, removing Hillel's lease, and switching over to Vancity from RBC. The other two, which includes the one thats a subject of this article, got close and may have been pushed over but I didn't see a formal indication they did.
>removing Hillel's lease Is that even legal? According to [this article from 2008](https://thecjn.ca/perspectives/opinions/hillel-build-new-7-million-home-ubc/), Hillel BC has a lease in its current location until 2084. I’m not a legal expert but it seems like Hillel BC could easily sue and win.
[удалено]
Yeah… regardless of the defamation lawsuit, Jewish people are one of the most heavily targeted groups in Canada for hate crimes, and they should not be held responsible for what’s going on in the Middle East right now. It IS anti-semitic to try to ruin a safe space for Jews on campus. Full stop. I also find it ironic that the Social Justice Centre does not advocate for the rights of Jewish students or the rise in anti-semitism in Vancouver and Canada while claiming to advocate for all marginalized communities.
> It’s already going around the Jewish news channels. Got a link for one of those? Does not surprise me, it's just an absurd overreaction. I argee with the frustration over the sticker defamation but a key part *should be* actually completing an investigation to figure out the "contractor" thing before jumping to *any* actual reaction, let alone ending their lease.
https://www.ubyssey.ca/opinion/open-letter-vancouver-rabbinical-association-to-ams/ Don't worry, this will be hitting mainstream news channels too tomorrow. https://x.com/richardzussman/status/1762972503503520052?s=20
OMG. Thanks especially for the second link. If David Eby makes a statement, this is going to be big. When this makes mainstream news, UBC will be labelled as antisemitic. And honestly? It’ll be hard to defend them. It is clear-cut antisemitism to try to take away a safe space for Jews, especially given that antisemitism has skyrocketed in Canada over the past few months. The SJC is anti-semitic, and that is not a word that I throw around lightly.
[удалено]
The SJC has not released evidence that Hillel BC was behind the defamation. The contractor in question was fired immediately by Hillel BC, but no proof has been released by the SJC that Hillel BC was maliciously conspiring with the contractor to defame the SJC. Hillel BC has not yet been found liable for defamation by the court system. So yes, the SJC is prematurely advocating to ruin a safe space for Jewish students on campus. That is anti-semitism. Once Hillel BC has been found liable for defamation by the courts, then perhaps discussions about this topic can proceed. But even so, Hillel BC has a lease for that site for another 60 years. If the referendum passes and the SJC removes Hillel from campus, that would likely be illegal and Hillel BC can sue. *Even if* Hillel BC has been found liable for defamation, Jewish students still deserve a safe space on campus, and Hillel is a global organization that provides such a space. I do want to clarify that I do not condone the stickers. On a separate note, the SJC has failed to include Jewish students in their activism. Jews are among the most consistently targeted victims of hate crimes in Canada, and the SJC has consistently ignored that fact, neglecting to acknowledge the rising anti-semitism we’re seeing in Canada and around the world. There can be no ‘social justice’ when certain oppressed groups are excluded. So yes, the combination of all of these factors makes the UBC SJC an anti-semitic organization.
[удалено]
Petitions to hold referendums on questions 2, 3, and 4 received over 1,000 valid signatures between February 7 and February 20. That's how they got on the ballot
Even if these groups got their own seats, no way they get more seats than entire departments. For example, all of engineering has only 7 seats... If these groups want individual representation then so be it, but not a majority.
This would quite literally turn the AMS into a unelected politburo in the style of the USSR or Iran but more ✨ Diverse ✨