This week, Concordia students have the opportunity to vote in a referendum proposing a raise in the fee levy for the Concordia student center.
Unfortunately, it seems likely that most students at Concordia will not take advantage of this right and opportunity. Recent elections at Concordia have been characterized by extremely low student participation, and this referendum will probably not break that trend. The low turnout can be attributed in large part to the ailing state of popular student politics at Concordia. This, in turn, can be explained by the fact that the political agenda at Concordia has, in recent years, been hijacked by individuals and groups promoting radical and unrealistic anti-capitalist and anti-corporatist ideologies.
To fix the situation at this school, Concordia students, who in their majority surely subscribe to the same sort of moderate political beliefs as most Canadians, must take back control from the radical-leftist fringe.
From individual students to student-funded groups such as QPIRG, anti-capitalist and anti-corporatist sentiment seems to prevail at all levels of student political discussion. The first problem with promoting these ideologies at Concordia is that like most universities, Concordia is, and has always been, a capitalist institution. It awards degrees that facilitate participation in the capitalist economy, and it frequently, and often to its benefit, engages in partnerships with capitalist corporations.
As well, it should be noted that, by and large, the students at Concordia who seem to so enjoy railing against the capitalist system and its trappings are able to attend school in such large numbers because of the general wealth and need for specialization created by the existence of this system in Canada. To pretend that Concordia is “under siege” from the forces of capitalism and corporatism ignores the fact that Concordia is an inherently capitalist institution, and that every single student, by virtue of paying tuition and attending classes, has already signified their support for and participation in this system.
Not only are the sentiments expressed at Concordia often not based in a firm understanding of reality, they are also delivered in a way that leaves much to be desired. Instead of relying on sound facts and logic, the proponents of anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism at the university all too often resort to the use of buzzwords and meaningless slogans. Many of these are borrowed, some might say misappropriated, from much more serious and important historic causes such as the civil rights movement in the United States and the struggle against apartheid. If such individuals and groups wish to be taken seriously, they must rely on fact and logic, and less on big words and out-dated demagoguery. While it may be fun to play the part of the romanticized 1960s student-protester, that character comes from a time and place that is very different than Montreal in 2010, and it is a mistake to fool oneself into thinking otherwise.
Popular student politics at Concordia has been dominated by a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist fringe for too long. Those advocating such causes and beliefs are a small minority of the student population, and it is unfortunate that their voices are allowed to take up so much space in the political discourse at Concordia. Concordia surely possesses a “silent majority” of students with more realistic and moderate political views, and they would be wise to speak up a little more often. Concordia’s reputation as being a “radical” university only exists because the “silent majority” of moderate students have not done enough to counter that reputation by making their voices heard.
Everyone at Concordia and in the academic world in general would be better off if more people of different points of view made their voices heard. No matter how one defines progress at Concordia, it can only be achieved by a healthy political discussion involving diverse points of view.
