University of Ottawa Paper Fulcrum Boycotts National Defence Advertisements

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Who cares?...I'm sure some other publication will be happy to the accept extra revenue.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, I am in the crowd that think it is a vocal minority enforcing CENSORSHIP, outside of the papers mandate, on the paper.

I listened to Lowell Green's Talk Show on CFRA 580 and found it interesting.  Many callers were business owners, who had heard this and are now pledging to boycott U of O a la the Berkeley incidents with the USMC and American business owners boycotting the City of Berkeley.  Another caller mentioned that he worked for a company that posts advertisements on Campus, and he has noticed that all the CF Recruiting Posters and Ads on Campus were usually defaced. 

We can wait now to see if the Student Body of the U of O is of the same mindset as that of the U of Vic, when a similar "Protest Movement" made similar proposals.

On another note, the French Language paper on the U of O had previously made a "Anti-military" decision to not use CF Recruiting Ads in their paper, with no notice by outsiders. 

 

[leroi]

They could write their Letters to the Editors complaining indeed about the tyranny of the majority stepping on the Rights of the CF to advertize ...

But, I'm not so sure that the silent majority will do that. Writing takes time and effort. They didn't have the time, nor did they make the effort to defend their own Rights by voting; what makes you think they'll expend even more energy to write?

We can ***** and complain all we want.

To serve as an education device and as a forum for differing points of view and world
scopes; and· To do all such things for the attainment of the above-noted objects in such a manner that
is in the interests of University of Ottawa students.The Fulcrum Publishing Society recognizes that they are not solely a “corporation”, but rather
they are a “society” that will always act in manner that puts the welfare of University of Ottawa
students first.

You bolded your bit, now I've bolded mine.

The University of Ottawa students (at least the ones who bothered to get off their asses and vote) exercised a vote either for or against. It was in students interests to attend this meeting and vote. Some didn't think so -- and didn't vote. That's democracy.

If all the Conservatives and all the Liberals stay home next election and don't vote and the NDP voters all turn up and put NDPers in seats across the nation with huge majorities --- is that "censorship?" No, it's democracy ... and the lazy ones get to pay for their own personal transgressions.

You can't blame the hippes etc for the election outcome because they get out and vote, but the other side doesn't.

This issue surfaces at the University of Guelph's student newspaper, The Ontarion, almost every year. Fortunately, for Guelph student's the debate takes place before the vote and a comprehensive effort is made to ensure the entire student body is informed on the issues.  The debate usually takes place before the final exam crunch, too.  Anyone who works, services or attends university knows this: March is a frenzy of activity and April, exam month, the cruellest month--stress and suicide, folks.

Therefore, you will not get a majority to attend at this time of the year.  The organizers of this vote will know that. The Fulcrum has gone against it's own mandate of doing "all such things in such a manner that is in the interests of University of Ottawa students."  The debate occurrred post facto and while the vote may have been democratic it was deliberately structured to the advantage of the vocal minority.

I say it's a subtle form of censorship and worse: an affront to the student body. Embedded in this decision is the idea that because University of Ottawa students cannot critically think for themselves it's better not to expose them to choices like, whether or not to serve their country. The underlying hypocrisy and disdain for the majority's ability to make their own decisions is tacitly implied which should concern Ottawa U administration as well as the entire student body.

I don't think it's fair to compare an honourable institution like the Canadian Forces to a commodity like a magazine either--IMHO. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

I hope Ottawa U students will get out and write those letters; but finish your exams first. Returning 2008-2009 students need to pay closer attention to things like this in the future: a glaring example of political sleight-of-hand designed to stifle opposing voices.

(A full page CF recruitment advertisment was placed in The Ontarion recently and I'm glad; I have faith that University of Guelph students will excercise the critical thinking tools they've been learning and make their own informed decisions.)

Caveat Emptor, everyone!

 

[rfishbook]

I hope I can clarify this debate a bit. The Fulcrum is an autonomous corporation and is linked to the University of Ottawa and the U of O student government in spirit only. We receive about half of our funding through a levy of $2.80 per full-time undergraduate student per semester, and $1.50 per part-time undergraduate student per semester. The rest comes from advertising and other misc. revenue.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the Board of Directors and Editorial Board of the Fulcrum opposed this boycott list. In fact we oppose on principle all boycotting of advertisements for anything other than discriminatory or libelous material. We fought as strongly as possible against the boycott, and believe that students are more than capable of making up their own minds on how they feel about the military and that no advertisement has the power to change their convictions.

I absolutely understand that there are people out there who disagree with this decision (I am one of them), but I hope that no-one disagrees with the process through which this decision was reached. We held a democratic meeting which all members of the corporation (all current students) were invited to attend through advertising and other methods. At this meeting a majority of students voted in favour of the boycott. I will admit that 200 out of some 30,000 students is not the best example of representative democracy; However, we can not force students to use their democratic rights only inform them that they have that power.

In regards to the issue of this being against the statement of principles in out bylaws, it is a matter of interpretation. The mandate is to serve all U of O students as best we can. In this case a majority of students put through a vote on how we can best serve them. In the case of our advertising policy not having provisions for boycotts, the advertising policy was updated at the meeting but does not go into effect (nor does the boycott) until the end of this publishing year and is thus not posted yet. In terms of this being censorship, I agree, however it is no more censorship than forcing R rated movies to be played past 11 O'clock at night. If censorship is agreed upon by the society in question then it is legitimate.

Democracy is an ever changing process and I am sure this decision will be revisited many times in the coming years. The decision can be repealed at any meeting of members, but can just as easily be reaffirmed. In either case, I hope that many more students will come out to discuss and debate the issue and that we will have a strong and representative voter turnout. Regardless of what decision is made and how I personally feel, I will continue to respect any decision made in a democratic fashion.

Rob Fishbook
President
The Fulcrum Publishing Society

 

[armyvern]

Vern, in the context of the students of the university the Fulcrum is publicly funded.  The Fulcrum gets its revenu from a levy from the student body.  So part of the students' tuition fees goes to cover the cost of running the newspaper.  Maxim magazine, Ladies journal  has a direct cost. Meaning I pay to read it, if I don't like what's in it or what it is saying I don't have to buy it or buy what the advertisers are selling.  The Fulcrum is paid for by the student population whether they want it or not.  So all students have to "buy" the Fulcrum whether they like it or not.

And, all those students paying that fee were allowed to show up to vote ... but didn't. That's the whole point. Now they won't see those adds, will possibly lose out on what could have been an excellent career choice ... because they chose not to exercise their right to vote.

The original article states that notices went out to the student body apprising them of the issue being faced, told them a vote would occur, and encouraged them to attend.

It wasn't that only "5% of radicals showing up and happened to push their agenda through" --- the notice went out to the student body as did the subject matter of the vote; so only the radicals showed to actually vote en force ... whose fault is that?

 

[armyvern]

I don't think the Fulcrum gets any government money.

Niteshade, just because it was done legally doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.  Regulating bodies legally censor all sorts of stuff, porn on daytime tv, swearing, violence etc etc.  And it wasn't the university regulations it was the Fulcrum Bylaws, which they followed.  But read the bylaws on the Fulcrum advertising policy.  In no way did the CF violate any of the terms.  Using the boycott rules, a small minority has imposed on the student body (who pay whether they want to or not) a view on a supposedly independant newspaper.  The Fulcrum has taken its stance and can no longer claim what it says in it's mandate.  This vote clearly and loudly says that it is against military recruitment on Campus and in its publication.  It cannot be viewed as a balanced representative of the interests of the students of Ottawa University who have no recourse since the by-laws have no provison for removing an organisation from the boycott list. 

Voting something out is not boycotting it. The minority won ... because the minority showed up for the vote. The "majority" didn't show, despite knowing it was going to happen. They didn't lose anything they weren't willing to exercise their right to vote to keep in the first place.

I don't agree with the policy either, but heck ... if the people who are losing out by it don't feel it affects them enough to exercise their rights to keep it ... that's their choice. That majority exercised their right to "not vote", the outcome is due to that choice made by them. It's certainly not because The Fulcrum itself censored anyone, or any add, nor is it due to "radicals" voting. The people to blame are squarely the ones who did not feel that this right was important to them --- for they are the ones who could have made the difference had they exercised that right to vote.

 

[George Wallace]

Rob Fishbook
President
The Fulcrum Publishing Society

Just a few questions, the answers of which may clear up some misconceptions or questions others may have.

1.  You say you advertised this meeting, but did you advertise the agenda of the meeting?

2.  Was this "Motion" planned in the meetings agenda, or was it one from the floor, too which the majority of the Student Body would have had no knowledge of?

3.  Do changes to the Bylaws not need to follow a formal process, or do you just allow instant changes to be made through motions from the floor?  Is there not an allotted period for discussion of such motions to create changes to Bylaws?

4.  What are the Principles that your are following for your Bylaws, and meetings?  Are they so lightly worded and constructed that Special Interest Groups of any nature, can overpower a quorum and force changes that are unacceptable to the majority?

 

[armyvern]

The original article answers most of your questions George. The topic was on the agenda for the AGM of The Fulcrum, it was advertised, debated by attendees prior to the vote, and the meeting was one of the best attended AGMs in The Fulcrum's history. One side mobilized their supporters better than the other.

One side showed up to cast their votes ... one didn't show up with enough members to outvote the others. Apparently, most of the "silent majority" (and we are making assumptions that the majority of those who didn't attend would have voted against this motion) had better plans for the evening that they felt more important than exercising their right to become informed and cast their vote as appropriate.

Voting people. It's your RIGHT. Exercise it. Because when you don't --- stuff like this happens.

 

[Remius]

Voting something out is not boycotting it. The minority won ... because the minority showed up for the vote. The "majority" didn't show, despite knowing it was going to happen. They didn't lose anything they weren't willing to exercise their right to vote to keep in the first place.

I don't agree with the policy either, but heck ... if the people who are losing out by it don't feel it affects them enough to exercise their rights to keep it ... that's their choice. That majority exercised their right to "not vote", the outcome is due to that choice made by them. It's certainly not because The Fulcrum itself censored anyone, or any add, nor is it due to "radicals" voting. The people to blame are squarely the ones who did not feel that this right was important to them --- for they are the ones who could have made the difference had they exercised that right to vote.

Vern they voted to boycott CF advertising, place the CF on a boycott list in an appendix in their bylaws.  It is a boycott by all definitions.  Their words.  

 

[armyvern]

Vern they voted to boycott CF advertising, place the CF on a boycott list in an appendix in their bylaws.  It is a boycott by all definitions.  Their words.  

Yes they did. With a free and open vote.

Your particular use of the term "boycott" infers that radicals pushed an agenda upon people to enact a boycott with no democratic input whatsoever; that wasn't the case. <--- That's what UVic did. That's not what happened with The Fulcrum.

The CF advertising wasn't "boycotted" by a minority imposing their will upon others who had no choice; it was enacted as policy because the majority of those who showed to vote -- voted that way. But, CF advertising is now not allowed --- because someone (a whole bunch apparently) didn't bother to show up and vote in an advertised, open, debated, and free vote.

Maybe at the next AGM ... some of those who didn't bother, will bother.

 

[George Wallace]

The original article answers most of your questions George. The topic was on the agenda for the AGM of The Fulcrum, it was advertised, debated by attendees prior to the vote, and the meeting was one of the best attended AGMs in The Fulcrum's history. One side mobilized their supporters better than the other. .

Actually it doesn't answer my questions.  I asked if this motion was advertised, not the meeting. 

While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which the new policy was proposed showed other sentiments among average students.

That sounds more like it was a motion from the floor, although it really isn't clear enough to suggest it one way or the other.

This just says the meeting was advertised on various means.  One would naturally think that the "Interest Group" added in their mailings a rallying call to vote for their motion.  The rest of the Student Body may have been totally ignorant of what was about to happen; hopefully not totally apathetic.  Then I will have to agree with your words on "Vote or loose it".

Carvajal said that students were encouraged to attend the meeting through e-mails, Facebook groups, word of mouth, and the Fulcrum’s own advertising.

If this motion was not advertised at large to the Student Body, but only circulated in the "Interest Group's" tiny circles, then the Student Body should react and call for a retraction of the motion.

 

[Celticgirl]

Protesting the mission in Afghanistan is one thing, but I am seeing an ever-increasing anti-military sentiment in this country. What do these boycotters and protesters wish to happen? Get rid of the military altogether? What next? No police? No prisons? Have these folks not read Lord of the Flies?  :

With regards to this issue in particular, how many military personnel in this country have kids who will someday be attending university? After this boycott by U of Ottawa, how many of those folks and/or their children will decide to 'boycott' the U of Ottawa? I would venture to say "quite a few". From a business standpoint alone, this was a poor choice on the part of The Fulcrum.

 

[Gunner98]

George, Vern:

Perhaps the student body doesn't care about the advertising or the paper's politics.  If I understand the available info - The students are levied a fee by which a 'free' newspaper is produced.  If the agenda had included an increase in the student levy I think similar interest would be shown.  So, why not propose the boycotting of all advertisers and just ask the disinterested students to pay for the production of the paper. 

 

[armyvern]

Actually it doesn't answer my questions.  I asked if this motion was advertised, not the meeting. 

That sounds more like it was a motion from the floor, although it really isn't clear enough to suggest it one way or the other.

While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which the new policy was proposed showed other sentiments among average students.

“It’s every students’ newspaper,” he said. “And that’s one of the biggest assets of our student newspapers.”

He said that the boycott was necessary because, “many students, especially with hiking tuition and student debt ... are not hearing the whole story.”

Wood disagreed.

“While I respect the position of those opposed to running the ads, I do not think it was what was best for this university community,” she said. “I know there are students on this campus [who] support the military and consider it a viable career option, and I don’t feel it is the Fulcrum’s place to actively try and block their aspirations.”

Federico Carvajal, vp services for the Graduate Students’ Association, said that it’s not about blocking debate, but instead it is about avoiding one-sided arguments put forward by the military.

“The student population is one of the most strongly opposed to the Afghanistan mission,” he said but added that few of them can afford to take out full-page advertisements in a newspaper to promote their views.

Carvajal said he was proud to see the issue brought up in an open debate at the Fulcrum’s AGM. “It’s the first time I’ve seen such a huge turnout to the AGM of the Fulcrum,” he said. Wood estimated that approximately 180 students showed up to cast their votes at the AGM.

“The members were concerned enough about that motion in particular to come out in such large numbers,” Carvajal said. “It definitely reflects the majority of students.” According to Wood, however, the campaigning to bring students to the meeting attracted a very particular group.

“I would argue that the motions passed at this meeting regarding advertising boycotts reflect the opinions of a specific group of students that [was] well-organized and adept at mobilizing, and not necessarily that of the student body at large,” she said.

George,

When I read the entire article within it's context (my emphasis added) I get:

1) It was on the agenda (ie "the new policy was proposed" as an agenda item for vote at this AGM);

2) The fact that it was on the agenda and was advertised for vote is further re-inforced by thie next bold statement "concerned enough about that motion in particular to come out in such large numbers"; and

3) That the the agenda was advertised (enough were concerned to cause record attendance at the AGM as per article and bold above in #2), but that one side was better at mobilizing their supporters than the other to actually show up and vote.

So, yes --- perhaps the results do reflect the minority opinion on campus, but the majority had opportunity to exercise their rights -- but didn't (at least not in large enough numbers to outvote the "minority" "radicals".

So, with it agendized, advertised, debated, and voted upon --- the majority opinion won the vote. It just happens to be too bad for the "silent majority opinion" that they didn't bother to show; they have no one to blame but themselves for not bothering.

 

[George Wallace]

George, Vern:

Perhaps the student body doesn't care about the advertising or the paper's politics.  If I understand the available info - The students are levied a fee by which a 'free' newspaper is produced.  If the agenda had included an increase in the student levy I think similar interest would be shown.  So, why not propose the boycotting of all advertisers and just ask the disinterested students to pay for the production of the paper. 

Actually, if I understand this correctly, the Students are not paying anything.  The Levy is calculated on the numbers of Full-time and Part-time students attend the Campus, and then taken out of University Funds.  You and I are paying those fees, in essence, from our Tax Dollars that the Federal Government pays to Canada's Educational Institutions in the forms of Grants and Endowments, etc.  So in the end, the Students are paying only a tiny portion of the costs for their educations, and fees to the Fulcrum.

 

[leroi]

Rob F :

I think there's lots of room for agreement here, too.  Your students, en masse, need to get out and vote on these important isssues. This is a valuable political lesson for them.  Before I continue debating though, I'd like to ask  a few things:

1) Where was this advertised; what type of venues?
2) Were these venues delivered to all dues-paying students?
3) How much time elapsed between the advert and the event?
4) Was an attempt made to hold debate and discourse on this matter before the vote and if so when.? i.e.: How much time elapsed between debate and vote?
5) Did anyone at the Fulcrum consider the untimeliness of this issue? (Erring on the side of angels, here, I know that end of term is often a time recruiters target; so, perhaps it's an assumption on my part that the vote's untimeliness was strategic? )
6) Could these types of important decisions be made at a more suitable time of year?
7) Was the Canadian Forces the only targetted boycott?
8)Was there a list? (Good grief, I hope this is a negative answer.)
9) Was there a rationale offered by those who voted to boycott  Canadian Forces advertising in The Fulcrum? What reason?

Sorry, I'm still stuck on the timing and  the student's opportunity to discourse. And that's because during the discourses and debates held here at Guelph on this issue, a tremendous amount of rich learning takes place between the two opposing views.  People actually learn. Intellectual transformations take place when individuals realize ... that, hey, these issues are not as black and white as was previously thought. 

Thanks for responding.
Good luck with the controversy.

 

[RTaylor]

What we need is a good old World War and the Draft. It'll bring these whiners to their knees.

Won't have to pay them to advertise then!

 

[armyvern]

Leroi,

Did you read the original article at all??

Carvajal said that students were encouraged to attend the meeting through e-mails, Facebook groups, word of mouth, and the Fulcrum’s own advertising.

The Fulcrum published it's own adverts to get the word out about this ... which is available for "free" all over campus to those UofO students (not really "free" because those students are paying a levy to The Fulcrum with their tuition fees anyway as already stated by Rob).

Again, many of your questions are answered in the original email and in the post made on this site by Rob from UofO.

 

[George Wallace]

Vern 

I read that completely differently, and it does not say whether this was on the agenda or not, of even if there was an agenda. 

While the newspaper’s staff was opposed to the idea of boycotting military advertisements, he said, the annual general meeting at which the new policy was proposed showed other sentiments among average students.

Tells me that this was brought up "AT" the meeting, not before.

“The members were concerned enough about that motion in particular to come out in such large numbers,” Carvajal said. “It definitely reflects the majority of students.” According to Wood, however, the campaigning to bring students to the meeting attracted a very particular group.

“I would argue that the motions passed at this meeting regarding advertising boycotts reflect the opinions of a specific group of students that [was] well-organized and adept at mobilizing, and not necessarily that of the student body at large,” she said.

This tells me that the specific "Interest Group" planned in advance to present a motion.  It doesn't say anything at all of what was published in advance by the Fulcrum as an agenda for the meeting. 

As it does not appear to be as clear cut to me as it may to you, I would like some confirmation as to what preceded this Meeting prior to the motion being made.

 

[leroi]

Vern,

Yes, I had read the information. I asked more specific questions of Rob because I suspect the process was subtly manipulated and hijacked by a special interest group in advance of the vote.
Admittedly, I could be wrong.

Anyway, it continues to be a contentious and hotly debated issue at the University of Ottawa:


http://www.thefulcrum.ca/letters

leroi/Joan