page break

The arrogance of student power

by Michael Law

As reported in last week's 'Salient', plans are again well advanced to create a National Union of Students. But until the release of a press statement by Jim Crichton, President of the New Zealand University Students' Association. 12 days ago, less than 12 university students in the country had an inkling that this proposal was in the wind.

In brief what is proposed is that NZUSA should merge with the Student Teachers' Association of New Zealand. University students will have varied initial reactions to this proposal and those that are not completely dulled into permanent apathy by the detached manner that NZUSA deals with national student issues, will probably want to examine the pros and the cons before committing their local association to supporting or opposing the scheme.

With typical arrogance however, student politicians have decided that a National Union of students will be imposed on students by the beginning of next year without any opportunity for effective campus debate. This article deals solely with the reason why the scheme should not be proceeded with this year. In the next Salient I will argue the pros and cons of the proposal.

In the last 10 years there have been four attempts to forge an NUS. All have been defeated. In 1972 a scheme was cooked up by Lindsay Wright for STANZ and David Cuthbert for NZUSA. A large amount of student money was spent pushing this around campuses and training colleges. Opponents of the scheme were subjected to vitriolic at homine attacks as the scheme's promoters toured the country attacking detracters and pushing their views. Notwithstanding the tactics used, the scheme was rejected on university campuses. That year Crichton was sitting in the wings waiting to be NUS's first president.

Now as NZUSA president he is at it again. But neither he, nor his flatmate, STANZ president, Benson-Pope, have learnt any lesson from the 1972 experience. We now have a situation where a proposal has been foisted on students at short notice, without any prior debate and without any opportunity being given for on-campus discussion before the scheme is bulldozed through NZUSA's August Council meeting.

With almost conspiratorial stealth, but without any mandate from NZUSA, Crichton and Benson-Pope devised their scheme in the six months January to June. At an NZUSA executive meeting in June Crichton raised the question under general business. Despite the fact that he had been talking and plotting with Benson-Pope for months, no advance notice of this subject matter was disseminated to out of town or local executive members before the June meeting. Crichton asked if he could keep talking to Pope — which was pretty hard to deny him since they live together, and the NZUSA donkeys said 'yes'. No one on the executive asked for details, or a timetable of likely moves, or what stage the discussions had reached or if/when students were going to be told of any proposals.

No attempt was made by anyone of these heavies to tell any student that the subject was again under discussion. In early July I raised the NUS business of 1972 with Crichton and said that he would face hostility if it raised its head again. I was led to believe that nothing could be further from his mind.

However on July 24, I got a letter enclosing a draft report and was invited to submit comments by August 9. In a covering note Crichton pretentiously described me as a coherent opponent of the last proposal. A view I know he does not hold; important however, is that it was only after some internal NZUSA bickering that Crichton let the report out of the hands of the small elite who form NZUSA's office and the constituent presidents.

Crichton and Pope have proposed a timetable which avoids any student debate on the proposal. The report that has been circulated is a draft one.

That it is biased, one-sided and prepared in secret is just one aspect of its unacceptability. More important is that it is clearly intended that once 'criticisms' of the scheme have been forwarded to Crichton he and his flatmate will prepare a report for August Council of NZUSA. Crichton and Pope want that council to endorse the merger to take effect from 1.1.75.

In my view the manner in which Crichton has approached this whole question is good ground to have him ousted at NZUSA Council and I would hope that the Vic delegation will lead a concerted attack on his secretive anti-student approach. But the NZUSA underlings must also be condemned. In June the executive members acted like donkeys. No attempt was made to seek details from Crichton, his oral report was endorsed unthinkingly. But the Shaws, Clarkes, Cuthberts etc allied themselves with Crichton's whole approach when they deliberately participated in the conspiracy of silence to avoid any campus discussion. All are now manufacturing excuses for their role in this business — none can provide an explanation that holds water.

My first objection to the proposal proceeding at this stage therefore, is the complete lack of student participation in the decisions to date. Crichton from NZUSA's side had no mandate for his discussion up to June. The mandate he did get was obtained by springing the suggestion on an executive meeting. Neither Crichton nor any other donkey-student politician attempted to inform students either directly or through the student press. One can only conclude that all the members of the NZUSA executive went along, deliberately, with Crichton's proposal to bulldoze this through without student debate.

My second objection relates not to the proposal but to the near corrupt way in which NZUSA is operating at present. The dwindling group of students that take even a mild interest in national student affairs have become well aware that NZUSA has degenerated into a self-perpetuating elite. Completely and quite consciously divorced from the broad mass of students. Its leadership likes to posture a left-wing pressure group hut this in fact is just a guise. NZUSA is more like the Tory clubs of London where those 'born to rule' meet in a self reinforcing environment, heaping scorn on the student masses and discounting the student press with arrogant disdain.

NZUSA needs to he thoroughly cleaned up. Six years ago the structure of meetings etc was changed to provide a constitutional basis for student participation by discussing proposed policy before it was decided and by including local presidents on the executive to ensure regular feed back to local executive and SRC members, the student press and students who attended general meetings, forums etc. Over the last couple of years this has fallen into disuse and I maintain it is a direct result of the arrogance that has crept into NZUSA and its leadership.

Some of the executive members have argued that merging with STANZ will change this because their outfit is more democratic than ours. Again this reflects the arrogant attitude adopted towards students, by suggesting that merger rather than campus debate will make NZUSA more democratic.

One indication of what is wrong with NZUSA is the development of a 'trips for the boys' mentality which has gripped its hierarchy. There was a time when NZUSA had a policy which precluded current student politicians from taking the perk trips that come up from time to time. But in 1971 NZUSA reversed this and two of the then executive went on the first China trip. A second example of this is the way in which threats to cut off travel and other services are used as a weapon to stop affiliates that might consider pulling out. In the last NUS debate this argument was frequently used at Victoria when it was suggested that if NUS was imposed against the will of the students at Vic we would consider withdrawing. Our constructive arguments were ignored and the heavies simply relied upon threatening to chuck us out of the NAC standby scheme.

A merger will at this stage, have the effect of postponing and making more difficult a debate on the role of NZUSA, its structure and policies — a debate that is long overdue. A merger will entrench the present methods of work and the elitism that is discrediting the organisation on several campuses.

My third objection relates to the lack of opportunity for all the issues to be examined even if the proposal is delayed. A tremendous amount of NZUSA money is spent flying the heavies around the country. If that means that they actually front students on issues relating to NZUSA then that would be a good thing. But it also opens up the possibility of a repeat of the 1972 gerrymandering when the proponents of the scheme used our money, our fees to travel around pushing their point of view. We who oppose this proposal — or any other major upheaval like this, can't argue with students around the country and debate against the heavies pushing the scheme. This amounts to a biased use of everyone's money to push one point of view. It is even worse when those in authority try to cook the whole debate so that students are presented with a fait accompli.

It it impossible to conduct a full discussion on the pros and cons before August Council. Furthermore to attempt to do so would be to play right into Crichton's hands, for he could then claim that the matter had been fully debated. I don't discount the possibility that a majority of students may eventually support the merger. I personally believe the alleged benefits to be a hoax and my views on that will be in the next Salient. I certainly don't intend to fall for Crichton and Pope's tactic of presenting false arguments just to knock them down. This is a sham objectivitiy and the inclusion of this tactic reflects the lack of goodwill of the proponents of the scheme.

Victoria should attempt to introduce an element of democracy and student participation into the debate by proposing the following at NZUSA Council:

First as a matter of policy no decision should be taken before 1976 unless there is unanimous support both in STANZ and NZUSA. In view of the secretive manner in which the whole question has been approached no constituent of either body should be forced into this shot gun marriage.

Secondly, no decision should be made before at least August 1975 even if there is unanimous support. At least two full terms are required to debate this matter out.

Thirdly full NZUSA faculties should be given to opponents to visit campuses and circulate their point of view. This is especially necessary if the NZUSA leadership intend to continue to play the strong advocacy role they have played to date.

Fourthly Victoria should move to have Crichton thrown out of office for bis undemocratic approach to this question and for the money and paid time spent developing this proposal when, until June, he had no mandate and when he also knew that the previous scheme had been so overwhelmingly rejected

Fifthly Victoria should propose the establishment of a special subcommittee to thoroughly overhaul NZUSA's procedures to ensure (i) That all delegations to councils have a clear mandate for policies and remits and (ii) That NZUSA leaders and constituent presidents report back after executive meetings and that students are given an opportunity to debate policy matters before they are adopted by the executive, (iii) That there be a full investigation into NZUSA's national and international tripping and expenditure. This should be done before any rise in levy.

Victoria SRC has already expressed its dissatisfaction with NZUSA over the China trip. The above suggestions are designed to ensure that at August Council Victoria initiate a complete overhaul of NZUSA's method of work rather than just try to correct one symptom as manifested in the China trip selection.

My final suggestion is for Victoria to consider voting against any current member of the NZUSA executive who stands for office. Their performance at the June executive meeting clearly shows them to be completely manipulated, lacking in either the ability or the desire to examine critically important questions such as this merger and so lacking in commitment to a principled method of work that they should to insist that students participate in the debates on questions as important as the STANZ-NZUSA merger.