Crystal Clear: Can't Fund Students - A Case Study On The Canadian Federation of Students at The University of Ottawa

Crystal Clear: Can‟t Fund Students
A Case Study on the Canadian Federation of Students

at the University of Ottawa
Qualitative Methods – CMN3103A
Prof. R. Luppincinni, Ph.D
Final Research Project
Sarah Taylor
Student No. 4972998
December 12, 2009
1
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................3
Introduction..........................................................................................................................4
Procedures............................................................................................................................6
Literary Review...................................................................................................................9
Data Collection..................................................................................................................14
Discussion..........................................................................................................................19
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................22
Bibliography......................................................................................................................23
Apendix..............................................................................................................................25
Sample 1 data.........................................................................................................25
Sample 2 data.........................................................................................................29
Sample 3 data.........................................................................................................35
Sample 4 data.........................................................................................................38
Sample 5 data.........................................................................................................42
2
This study desires to address the state of membership that University of Ottawa holds
within Canadian Federation of Students. Through qualitative data analysis and valid
conceptualization from previous issues regarding other institution‟s memberships, prescriptive
conclusions may be made regarding the potential future of membership. Sample is composed of
5 participants, partaking in two different open-ended studies, to supply qualitative data,
generalizing attitudes of students.
“Education is apparently a right, say both the administration and the union. But
our right to Education has been taken away,” – Catherine Divaris (Bovee-Begun,
Andre. 2008).
3
From November 18-20, 2008, University of Ottawa students voted on the Canadian
Federation of Students Referendum, accepting or refusing membership. The platform of unity
and transparency that both parties endorsed would ultimately represent the unified campus. The
vote concluded 51% accepting membership, 48% refusing membership. After the results were
publicized, questions of campus unity rose, consuming networking sites and local media utilized
explicitly by students at University of Ottawa.
This study desires to answer one essential question: Is unity and transparency being
exemplified by the Canadian Federation of Students at University of Ottawa? The study aims to
collect and analyze data from selected students using open-ended questions to establish attitudes
regarding membership. Participant feedback is analyzed in unison with other on-campus
newspaper articles from member institutions, justly establishing validity.
The Case Study Method of data collection and analysis allows information to be collected
to establish understanding to particular conclusions. The study is intrinsic, drawing validity
exclusively from the data collected, analyzed and interpreted (Creswell, 2007, p. 74). There are
contextual inferences concluded regarding University of Ottawa‟s current satisfaction, but these
inferences are not prescriptive. All inferences are supported with published articles from other
campuses.
Delimitations are difficult to establish, as with any Case Study. Delimitations are
restrictions or boundaries established by a researcher prior to the initiation of the study to narrow
the scope. Some delimitations included within this study are:
 Participants must, at the very minimum, be in their second year of study at
the University of Ottawa,
4
 Participants must have voted in the Canadian Federation of Students
Referendum on November 18 – 20, 2008,
 Participants must currently be a full-time student.
By providing participants in their second year and who voted, it is ensured that the participant
has been exposed to information regarding the CFS Referendum. It is also essential to provide
participants who are full-time students, as part-time students abide by different stipulations for
fees and access. Ideally, students who are exposed to the full-time university „experience‟ are
included, explicitly relating to peer-to-peer contact as a means of campus education.
Some limitations that may arise during the period of the study include:
 Participant shyness,
 Participant‟s knowledge regarding the CFS and their actions on both
University of Ottawa‟s campus, and other campuses,
 Participant‟s vote was based on peer-say.
This study intends to define and contextualize the term peer-say, exclusively related to
peer-to-peer interaction. University entails a great deal of independence, which students either
crave or fear. The main objective, socially and psychologically, is to establish relationships to aid
in personal development. Such relationships affirm roles, resulting in mutual values, morals, and
decisions. It goes beyond the assumption of hear-say, where varying relationships and verbatim
are influential within daily dialogue. Peer-say rests on the idea that relationships built within
University experiences and who they are with explicitly relates to decisions and execution.
Influence heavily rests on the fundamentals of interaction, and similarities that are established to
evolve interaction. In this context, peer-say may have negative influences to decision-making,
5
resulting in minimal platform and organizational education. It may, however, have a positive
influence on the data collection as it could have done the opposite – educating and evolving the
student‟s knowledge.
Critical theory examines social institutions and their function and development through
the analysis of their own internal social cultures. In this case, the institution is CFS and it‟s
membership. The data collection of interviews and surveys, as well as the institutional
documents serve as internal cultures, providing insight to the development of the study. General
results and conclusions can then be conceptualized, employing satisfaction. It is also important to
maintain an epistemological approach, explicitly relating the researcher to the topic, and in this
case, participants (Creswell, p. 247). It is important to acknowledge the interrelatedness, not
independence (Creswell, p. 248).
Procedures
It is important to identify the role of the researcher and any possible biases that I, as the
researcher, may harbour. The following are my attitudes regarding the CFS.
Most of the information I have learned about U of O‟s relationship with CFS has come
from peers. The most influential peers took leadership in the campaigns. YES supporters
predominantly held positions in student councils at our institution - explicitly contributing to my
notion of inaccessibility. I had never had the opportunity to personally develop a relationship
with these particular people, as I had perceived them as belonging to a „clique‟, diminishing
transparency.
NO supporters were influential, credited to a previously established relationship.
Introduction was made prior to campaigning through various on-campus activities and programs.
6
During the campaign, I utilized these peers as an educational tool. Peer-say was the greatest
influence to the way I educated myself on the platforms to make my vote. Peer-say also
contributed to my attitudes: I personally felt that the YES side was inaccessible, and the NO side
was more open and approachable, influenced by previously established relationships. During
these interactions, I developed an opinion and vote of no.
Case Study research is the study of a topic, examined through one or more cases within a
context (Creswell, p. 73), ultimately exploring through data collection and analysis, providing
assertions. Assertions are the last step of analysis where the main problem is answered through
data interpretation, with validation from literature (Creswell, p. 244). Case studies focus on one
topic and with evidence evaluation, validity is drawn to support the claim, consistently seeking
an answer. Validity is derived from both participant data and textual data, exemplifying
purposeful sampling (Creswell, p. 246). Other data analyzed are documents (online, archived
records, news paper articles), interviews (including participant analysis) (Creswell, p. 75) and
open-ended surveys.
Data collection consists of three parts. The first is to review news articles from various
campus news papers and their local dailies, not only for literary review but as support for
possible conclusions (Creswell, p. 132). These documents are contextual to CFS actions on
respective campuses, with the inclusion of significant quotes.
The next part is the initial interview, set a specific time and place with each individual.
Although it is important to choose locales free of distractions, the chosen setting is a neutral
space, free of intimidation. This contributes to the openness and comfort between the researcher
and interviewee. Once both parties arrive, the interviewee signs a consent form agreeing to allow
7
their input to be used (Creswell, p. 134). Here, particular demographic data is unnecessary;
confidentiality is stated and bound within the consent form. Confidentiality is reinforced before
the interview, opening communication gateways. During the interview, it is important to adhere
to the questions established without lending insight, potentially driven by researcher‟s biases.
During this phase, it is more important that the researcher show the participant that they are
listening than offering conversation.
The final step is the follow-up survey, done electronically. It is e-mailed to the participant
securely and completed on their own time without barriers. The context in which the survey is
completed is uncontrollable to the researcher, but most controllable to the participant. This
freedom broadens communication channels, attributing comfort to the study. A deadline for each
participant‟s survey to be completed and sent back to the researcher via e-mail is set, to create an
analysis into specific views and attitudes.
When collecting sensitive data such as verbatim, it is essential to record all words that
may later support the conclusion. Data analysis requires direct interpretation, where each
participant‟s feedback is analyzed independently to enhance meanings (Creswell, p. 163). Once
all samples have been analyzed, definitions are brought together coherently to establish
substance to the conclusion. During interpretation, all data is analyzed to explicitly produce
patterns of knowledge and instances. Naturalistic generalizations are that which people can learn
from the case to either apply to their own personal lives or cases similar to this (Creswell, p.
163), derived explicitly from the data analysis.
8
It is intentional that the setting of the initial interview creates mutual trust between both
parties. The consent form, as well, involves a binding agreement where the researcher must keep
all information stated confidential, and consequently take ownership for said information.
Literary Review
The main idea of the following articles is to provide not only context to the analysis of on-
campus transparency and unity, but validity to later conclusions.
York University, Toronto, Ontario - Catherine Divaris lead the York Not Hostage protest,
asking alliance from the institution to end the teacher strike, whereas York‟s student federation
lacked a neutral stance. Devoid of representation, Divaris initiated the Drop YFS campaign, to
recall and re-elect the YFS executive. November 17, 2008, official appeals from York Not
Hostage were released to York U and CUPE Local 3903. The first request asked all parties to
refrain interference of the protests‟ efforts both explicitly and implicitly. Divaris and her band
acknowledged challenge by exclusively connecting the student body to the dispute. The second
request asked all teaching assistants to refrain from any “implicit or explicit threats” of
retaliation to students and not to abuse their authority. The final request asked the university
administration to collaboratively work with her group, providing only “peaceful, lawful
demonstrations” be pursued (YorkNotHostage & Anti-Strike Group. 2008).
“Education is apparently a right, say both the administration and the union. But
our right to Education has been taken away,” – Catherine Divaris (Bovee-Begun,
Andre. 2008).
The day before the CUPE Local 3903 strike, YFS President Hamid Osman, accompanied
by several other YFS executive, were hosted by the CFS for the University of Ottawa
9
referendum on November 18 2008, adding $378,000 per year in membership dues for CFS if
passed. Executive director Jeremy Salter stated that the YFS executive had committed to
federation campaigns, and would not be on campus during York Not Hostage protest. This is not
the first time CFS has hosted campaign guests. UTSU President-elect, Sandy Hudson and her
executive council were flown to Victoria, British Columbia for a withdraw referendum at Simon
Fraser University. When confronted about the matter, Osman refused to validate who paid for
travel and accommodations, why he could not cancel his obligation to count ballots at University
of Ottawa, and why his own student body was not informed earlier (Bovee-Begun, Andre. 2008).
Three months later, the Jewish community at York University held a press conference in
the Hillel Office announcing they had collected the required 5,000 petition signatures to launch a
recall of the YFS executive. During the conference, Pro-YFS/CFS students gathered outside the
office, verbally harassing the small group by yelling, “die Jew”, “dirty Jew” and “f***** Jew”.
Frightened students contacted campus security but it was not enough to disperse the mob, the
Toronto Police had to diffuse the situation. Vice President of Equity for the YFS, [now YFS
President] Krisna Saravanamuttu, was fined $150 for demonstrating incivility and intimidation
(CFS watch: Radicalism).
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario - On May 10, 2009, over 5,000 protesters
illegally campaigned on the Gardiner Expressway, blocking traffic for over 6 hours, imposing
danger to pedestrians, drivers and citizens. The protest requested the federal government
intervene in the Sri-Lankan Civil War, even protesting to remove the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist
organization, although Canada and 30 other countries recognize this as fact. Protestor and UTSU
Executive Director, Angela Reginer was arrested for mischief and interference of property. This
situation exemplified radicalism from CFS, not only for Reginer‟s actions, but before she held
10
the highest paying position at UTSU, she was the Vice-Chair of CFS – concluding; who is she
paid to represent? UTSU President Sandy Hudson asked other GTA student unions to donate to
Reginer‟s legal fees, implicitly coming from student fees (CFS watch: Radicalism). Within three
months, over $3,000 had been contributed - $1,000 from UT Students Union, CFS supported,
alone. In a statement to Maclean‟s, Hudson labelled the funds as a means “to support the
constitutional right of individuals to demonstrate peacefully and participate in civil
disobedience.” Hudson quoted that any funds that are not put towards legal fees will be given to
the Tamil Solidarity Legal Defence Committee to help Tamils in Sri-Lankan concentration
camps (Bailey, Brandon W. 2009).
Nipissing University, North Bay, Ontario & York University, Toronto, Ontario – As a
part of CFS‟s pro-choice policy, all pro-life groups have been banned from campus. Shelley
Mellanson, CFS National Women‟s Representative stated, “You wouldn‟t take public money to
put in an organization that moves to take away people‟s rights: you wouldn‟t fund the KKK”
(CFS watch: Attack on free speech). Although pro-life groups have been denied club status, there
has been no move on other such groups. CFS representatives have clarified these actions in
accordance to their pro-choice stance, there may be no clubs on campus which lobby to remove
one‟s right to choose, and that their access to resources and space may not be supported. In
January 2008, CFS passed this same motion supporting Lakehead University Students Union to
deny club status to their pro-life group, Life Support. The vote was almost unanimous, with 20-3
in favour of denying club status (Higgins, Shannon. 2008).
On April 3, 2007, Editor-in-Chief for Ryerson‟s newspaper Eyeopener, Robyn Doolittle
was contacted three hours before deadline by a lawyer representing CFS, demanding any new
articles pertaining to CFS be pulled. An hour after deadline, Doolittle received a hand-delivered
11
letter, detailing several inaccuracies and that failure to accommodate changes would result in
legal action – the article had not yet been published or read by anyone outside of the office. CFS
responded that it is necessary to print correct information (CFS watch: Attack on free speech).
The letter received by Doolittle stated that the paper may not repeat “certain false and potentially
defamatory statements” as previously published. The letter goes on, “Please ensure that your
upcoming article about CFS does not contain these or other falsehoods. In the event that it does,
be advised that CFS will consider all legal remedies to it.”
CFS Government Relations Coordinator, Ian Boyko commented that a “vast majority” of
student run papers have had “little problem” with such matters, specifically mentioning the
Manitoban from University of Manitoba, York‟s Excalibur, and Ryerson‟s own Eyeopener.
Boyko also stated that it was not the first time that the Eyeopener was contacted about its
publications. Previously, it was requested that no “statements to the effect that the CFS recently
loaned or advanced funds to the Douglas Student Union” be documented and publicized. During
a forensic audit at Douglas College, officials investigated staggering deficiencies within internal
controls. The audit reported that CFS had made three loans to DCSU - the first transfer in
October 2005, totalling to $100,000, the second in December 2005 totalling to $50,000 and a
final instalment of $50,000 in January of 2006. The alleged advances were dated during the time
when the College itself refused to forward payments of student fees to the union, due to
questionable money management. It was established that the loans lacked appropriate
authorization and were not approved by all necessary parties. Boyko later commented that the
report was incorrect and the auditor had since acknowledged the erroneous accusations.
In retaliation, over-seeing audit accountant Ronald H. Parks retaliated, stated, “I did not
say that it was an inaccuracy,” with complete conviction. CFS officials claimed that there must
12
have been a mistake in the transaction and that something was mislabelled, as the transaction was
from CFS-BC, Douglas College‟s local branch. Parks contacted and requested that CFS officials
provide him with proof of the mistake plus the official loan agreement but received neither
documents nor reply (Millar, Erin. 2007).
Most recently, Carleton University‟s Graduate Students Association [GSA] executive –
Local 78 of CFS – authored Motion 6 to address the influx of defederation movements from
other member institutions. The motion‟s intentions made it almost impossible for locals to
withdraw membership, let alone as a mass movement. Kimalee Philli, President of GSA,
explained the motion ensured stability, and that the bylaws were airtight and could not be
“abused in the future” by member schools. If passed, the motion allows only two defederation
referenda in Canada per any three month period, plus 20% student body petition signatures.
Motion 6 was birthed from potential co-ordinated efforts to “destabilize the CFS” by a “small
group of individuals” including member institutions. These assumptions validated the rule that
member associations may only attempt to defederate through referendum every five years, versus
the previous two (CFS watch: Corruption).
With 44 votes, Motion 6 passed on November 18, 2009 following a nearly nine hour long
meeting. Previously set bylaws required that to pass a motion, two-thirds of the vote must be
dedicated. CFS-Quebec Treasurer Andrew Haig argued that due to abstentions, a two-thirds vote
was not possible. Haig stated that the chair‟s decision to accept the motion as passed was
“clearly wrong” as dictated by the official bylaws. To pass a motion, two-thirds of member
locals present must be agree, but of the 69 in attendance it resulted in less than a two-third
majority vote. Haig concluded that the question “really isn‟t more complicated than that.” The
bylaw states that “local student associations representing individual members are called voting
13
members” and two-thirds of this majority is required. Consequently, two-thirds majority of
members present at a general meeting is also needed to repeal a motion. Chairperson Katherine
Giroux-Bougard maintained her belief that two-thirds referred to the total number of members
voting, not the total present, and remained vague as to whether the matter would be investigated
further. Giroux-Bougar commented that, “the national executive actually hasn‟t met following
the meeting; our next meeting will be in January, so if there [are] any concerns [they] would be
brought up at the meeting,” (Godmere, Emma. 2009).
Data Collection
Changes – Sample 1
Desired
 Lowered tuition
 Proper allocation of funds
 More student space
 University position as an informative entity
Implemented
 Federal tuition increase
 Membership fee increase
 No evaluative discourse of membership
 On-campus pharmacy coverage late
 International Student Identification Card
14
Expected
 Bigger changes following a dynamic YES campaign
 Student Movement – not Corporate Movement
 Initiate Students Movement incrementally
Sample 2
Desired
 Fall reading week
 Prioritize student space and parking strategies
 Fully bi-lingual events on campus
 Enhanced communication among SFUO members and administration
Implemented
 Proposals heavily influenced by CFS, branded
 Drop Fees slogan changed to “Drop Fees for a Poverty Free Ontario”
 Constant implication of privilege instead of right.
Expected
 System has not changed, simply branded one way
 CFS promotes itself as a student movement – actually Corporate Movement
Sample 3
15
Desired
 Lowered fees
 Regulate class size and emphasize collaborative teaching
 Emphasis on right to learn how to form opinions, not what others say
Implemented
 Tuition Increase
 International Student Identification Card
Expected
 Voted against change – nothing significant has happened
 51% of campus has yet to see desired changes
Sample 4
Desired
 Maximize student space
 Healthy, affordable and accessible food options
Implemented
 Surplus of propaganda from CFS
 Everything is now branded
Expected
 Had hoped CFS would not infiltrate campus
16
 SFUO could potentially focus on realistic student services if referendum did not pass
 Less focus on irrelevant protests, more on undergraduate students
Sample 5
Desired
 Accessible entrance scholarship stipulations
 Qualitative education approaches to enhance learning
 Opportunities to learn outside of classroom, beyond co-op and spiritual services
Implemented
 SFUO has not been leader of support
 Have brought one underwhelming popular motion to vote
Expected
 Allow media coverage at General Assembly, limit waiting times between referenda to
access or dissipate membership
 Refuse external campaign parties, set equal spending limits, overseen by impartial
arbitrators
 Individual students may vote, watch and participate in meetings
 SFUO regaining stance, instead of corporate puppet for CFS
Medium – Sample 1
 Class presentations by student representatives, peer-to-peer interaction
 Facebook groups, discussion boards, comments, links, blogs
17
 Did not encourage or persuade
 YES: illusive, scripted, manufactured, union stability and appeal
 NO: honest, accessible, student rights
 Benefits of membership still unclear
Sample 2
 Facebook groups, posts
 Propaganda: buttons, clothing, Facebook display pictures
 CFS website contains definitions, not examples
 Blogs refined searches and narrowed opinion (McGill AGM-Reform Package)
 YES: Bending slogans and rules to seem flexible, only providing benevolence to CFS
(“Drop Fees for a Poverty Free Ontario”)
 Did not lobby or engage in campaign, superfluous embellishment
Sample 3
 Class presentations, peers, Facebook groups
 CSA positive and negative influences, profs were impartial, peer-to-peer interaction
allows multiple information transmitted and formed to generate an opinion
 YES: presented well, but have yet to follow through
 Did not use mediums to encourage peers to support
Sample 4
 Blogs, Macleans, student forums
 CFS webpage is one big advertisement
18
 Peers: specific people of power [two former executive member, among other positions in
student politics] are trustworthy and honest, positive influence
 Peers: campaigners were pushy, chasing down students for votes, sneaky, underhanded,
negative influence
 SFUO played minor role; lost respect for exec that is supposed to represent students
Sample 5
 Internet, news media, word of mouth, first hand experience, seek resources to gather
opinion
 YES: narrow minded, disrespectful, all-encompassing ideologies, livelihood based on pay
 As part of NO: recruitment, designing materials, organizing websites, interacting, media
relations, media buying, presentations, banners, posters
 Rationale behind NO platforms came from students: real debt, real situations, food bank
issues, relevant causes to students
 Unfair approval rates for YES versus NO
Discussion
Data analysis shows that student space is an issue that most of the sample feels should be
addressed. Student space on uOttawa campus is limited and during exams time, being very hard
find. Students deserve to have a space where they can study free of distractions with all resources
available to them. UOttawa must take initiative to promote other floors of the library and make
them not only accessible but comfortable study areas for all students. Opening up as much space
as possible provides students with more options than the typical [loud, busy] library floors that
19
already exist. Student space is by no means a priority for CFS, as money goes everywhere but to
students, giving more reason to demand what students deserve. Students are paying thousands of
dollars in education per year to be taught by teacher‟s who [sometimes] don‟t care about the
class or the material, teacher‟s who demand regurgitation and repetition, and classrooms that are
over-capacitated, refusing any possible student-teacher relationship. Student space must not be
prescribed by CFS to best fit their value system, as depicted in the pro-life club banning at
Lakehead, York and Nipissing, in attempts to control and regulate student activity.
Another popular theme that became apparent in analysis is the action for relevant issues
to students. Membership dues are being used to aid legal fees for executive members who can
not stay out of trouble. It is not student‟s jobs to work hard and pay for someone else‟s mistakes,
it is a student‟s job to work hard and advance themselves. If CFS were realistically a student
movement, membership fees would be put towards the creation of student services for minorities
or students who need food. Student movement is not the correct term for the actions of CFS, as
student fees are being allocated to occurrences that are not benevolent at all. Unless CFS defines
student movement as bailing out other student executive members with annual dues, then the
term is valid, but definitely not ethical. As depicted in the Sri-Lankan Civil War protest in
Toronto [directly leading to arrest of executive members] and travelling York student
campaigners, student dues are doing just that – moving students. Fees are bailing out,
transporting and paying for everything that may arise, but only for the benefit of CFS and it‟s
true supporters.
Lower fees is a theme that resounds true for every student, despite economic status. As
students, debt can escalate to over $40,000 over the course of an entire 4-year program. With
debt like this, students are leaving University with mediocre knowledge from being too stressed
20
to study and absorb any real data, as well as working full or part time jobs. Students pay
excessive amounts of tuition per year, approximately $500 per class, per semester. One platform
that CFS utilized was that fees would and should be lowered if the referendum passed. This,
however, has definitely not been the case. Not only has uOttawa suffered federal tuition
increases, but also a new membership fee, paid in full per semester. Still to be established is what
we are paying excessively for. We have not received a student space, classes are not getting
smaller or intimate, and students have not received any benevolent accolade for unwillingly
paying excessive fees. This situation can be applied to the event at Douglas College, where the
institution refused to give local branches paid student fees under suspicion of misconduct and
inappropriate allocation of resources. Despite the refusal, CFS allegedly loaned large sums of
money to their student union local, perhaps to sustain loyalty. It is unknown as to why this
allegedly happened, but the intimidation tactics of the CFS do not limit themselves to monetary
means.
The most prominent theme encompassing all data collected is peer-say. Not only was
peer-say listed as the most frequent method of education and transfer of information, but it was
also the most trusted. Students feel comfortable asking their peers questions about sensitive
matters such as this, and vis a vis, students learn from one another‟s advice and information.
Peer-say, in the context of the CFS membership, shows a unity among students. UOttawa is not a
leader in educating its students on campus activities; therefore students must seek alternative
sources of education. Seeking peer-to-peer interpersonal contact allows for information to be
repeated, reworded and transformed so the individual may decipher what is right and what is
wrong. Peer-say, in its biggest sense of the context, includes student blogs. From school
newspapers‟ online articles, to blogs on Maclean‟s, students seek out means to educate
21
themselves, most comfortably by other students. Blogs and interpersonal interaction allow
definitions to become simpler, examples to become more relevant and information to be more
applicable then just general, regurgitated information that official websites produce. Peer-say
was proved to be the most reliable, most utilized source of information. The question of
transparency on campus is simply answered by the astounding use of peer-say. CFS has not
demonstrated accessibility, unity or transparency to the students at uOttawa; therefore there has
been no trust established, nor credibility of CFS as an organization on our campus. In previous
efforts to limit peer-say on other campuses, CFS has threatened student run papers, supporters
have harassed indifferent parties, and executive bodies have been arrested, and then secretly
bailed out, all for what?
Conclusion
As desirable as it is to answer the question “why” it is next to impossible. Based on the
evidence supplied it is fair to assume that Canadian Federation of Students is working towards a
bigger goal than just a student movement. This goal can not be stumbled upon on blogs, or on
websites, and peer-say can only conjure assumptions. By consistently utilizing the prescribed
methods of data collection and keeping in mind the past actions of officials, students at the
University of Ottawa must be cautious of the membership. This study is not intending to
disgruntle supporters of CFS, but to open the eyes of indifferent bodies, and invigorate non-
supporters to do something about our current situation. Transparency and unity, the two main
platforms Pro-CFS campaigners pushed during respective times have definitely not been
demonstrated on the campus of University of Ottawa, and weighed out by an abundance of
information and evidence, will not be demonstrated in the near future.
22
Bibliography
Bailey, Brandon W. (2009, September 17). Where‟s your money going? The Strand. Retrieved
from:http://media.www.thestrand.ca/media/storage/paper404/news/2009/09/17/News/Wh
eres.Your.Money.Going-3776644.shtml
Bovee-Begun, Andre. (2008, November 24). York student leader takes a working holiday.
theVarsity.ca. Retrieved from: http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6095
Creswell, John W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Canada. Sage Publications.
Godmere, Emma. (2009, December). Tensions high, debate extensive at CFS annual general
meeting. The Fulcrum. Vol. 70. Iss. 16. P. 5.
Higgins, Shannon. (2008, January 29). Campus abortion debate flares. The Eyeopener Online.
Retrieved from: http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-
flares
Millar, Erin. (2007, April 5). CFS threatens legal action against Eyeopener. Macleans.ca.
Retrieved from: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070405_142226_1620
Ontario PC Campus Association. (n.d.) CFS watch: Attack on free speech. Retrieved from:
http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/attack-on-free-speech/
Ontario PC Campus Association. (n.d.) CFS watch: Corruption. Retrieved from:

http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/corruption/
23
Ontario PC Campus Association. (n.d.) CFS watch: Radicalism. Retrieved from:

http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/radicalism/
YorkNotHostage & Anti-Strike Group. (2008). Statement regarding our relationship with York
University and CUPE Local 3903. Retrieved from:
http://www.yorknothostage.com/rally-updates
24
Appendix
Interview – Sample #1
1. Overall, what specific changes to any system (fees, space, rules) would you like to see
within our institution?
a. I think that tuition should be decreased. There is a constant discussion of how
tuition should be a right, and not a privilege, but so far, this isn‟t really the case.
We pay for something and for the most part receive mediocre performances from
teachers who sometimes do not really care. Our generation starts its professional
career in debt, swimming in debt. Not just, oh I‟m a couple thousand dollars, but
upwards of $40,000 in debt. It‟s ridiculous. I think that students should have the
right to request grades and schedule meetings on a collaborative time, not the time
that‟s best for the teacher. Again, we are paying for them to have a job; we should
have a little more say in how we can access professors. I think there should be
more available parking, perhaps hourly parking. I understand that there is little
space on campus to do so, and seeing as how we are essentially downtown
Ottawa, I get that we can‟t just snap our fingers and have more parking. I feel like
there could be more space utilized. The biggest change I want is student space. I
hate that during exam time, going into the library is like going into a cafe.
Libraries are meant to be quiet and calm, not crazy. I understand, there are like,
floors that you can talk on and floors you can‟t, but space is so limited in all of
these places. I haven‟t even been to the third and second floor to study... they‟re
not really promoted as “study places”... I see them as... just books. Get your books
and go. Maybe that‟s my fault, but I don‟t know if my campus has space here for
me to sit down and study. Leading from there, campus education – I would like to
be able to get my information from more than just my peers, you know. I only
hear about new things from my classmates and friends on campus, and sometimes
the exec of my department, but for the most part, the university only sends out
messages when there‟s been a tragedy or something really big is changing.
2. When educating yourself regarding the Canadian Federation of Students, what

medium(s) did you find most resourceful, and how?
a. I think talking to my friends and classmates was really helpful. During class,
some reps came in and gave presentations, and that was really helpful too,
someone who I actually know and have seen around campus telling me about this
whole situation, instead of some guy in a suit saying big words. After the
presentations, too, talking to my classmates about everything, about the whole
scenario was really helpful because some of them knew more than I did. I would
say I learned more about the CFS from other students, mostly. Facebook was
really helpful too, because it had the groups and you could access particular
campaign people and send them messages, and usually they‟d reply, so having
that accessibility was really helpful.
3. Are you aware of any other institutions who hold membership in the CFS? What do you
know about them and how did you learn this?
25
a. I know that Carleton does, and York. I only know this because I heard some
classmates talking about it, and I did hear it for the YES campaign at one point in
time. I don‟t really remember the context though.
4. Did you utilize any social networking sites during respective campaign times? Be as
explicit as possible.
a. I utilized them in a sense that I went onto facebook and read up on the comments
and postings on the facebook groups. Sometimes, people would post other blog
articles that were really helpful before making a vote.
5. Were there any people who you felt were increasingly influential to your decision-making
processes? Please include positive and negative influences.
a. I think that the yes people were kind of illusive. They seemed kind of on their
game and stuck to a script. All answers were really manufactured, or at least I
thought so. I think the no side, which was entirely student driven was more
accessible and comfortable, as well as inspiring
6. Were there any mediums that you felt were increasingly influential to your decision-
making process? Please include positive and negative influences.
a. I think the blog posts were really influential. Being about to see what is going on
at other schools was really an eye opener to things that we obviously weren‟t
going to be told
7. During the respective voting times, would you have considered yourself active in
lobbying for your chosen platform? If so, how did you participate?
a. I definitely would not say that I promoted a vote. I did encourage some peers to
vote, but not over facebook. A lot of my friends dedicated their profile pic and
their statuses to voting times, but I decided not to, just because there was so much
of it. It was a bit of an overload. But I did encourage other students to vote.
8. Considering all of your chosen platform’s action plans, which were the most appealing to
you, and why? Do you think they had the same appeal to other students, and why?
a. I think the whole transparency issue was the biggest deal breaker for me. Reading
all of these other blogs and then hearing all the scripted stuff that the yes side was
saying was kind of a wake up call. The no side really stuck to honesty and student
rights, not union rights. This whole idea of education is a “right and not a
privilege” I think that the yes side, and their pushing of fees, and this whole
illusive union view made it seem like a privilege. I want a school that supports
and works for me, not one that I have to support and work for.
9. Did these action plans influence which way you voted? Do you think, overall, the plans
were sufficient to the calibre of the referendum?
a. I think that the yes side presented their information eloquently, but at the same
time, really too manufactured. I think that the no side, propelled by honesty and
student ideals was really up to par and in general kind of like hey, there are
students who agree with me on the whole education is a right thing.
26
Survey – Sample #1
Please note, that you are not asked to provide your name, age or faculty to ensure further
anonymity. If you feel uncomfortable answering any question, please let me know.
1. How did you vote in the Canadian Federation of Students referendum from November
18-20, 2008?
a. Yes
b. No
2. When was the first time you had heard of the Canadian Federation of Students as an
association on the University of Ottawa? What was the context of what you heard
(specific details)?
The first time I had actually heard something substantial that stuck was when
something was happening at our school, obviously being the referendum. When I
head about it in relation to other schools I really didn‟t think about it too much,
because it didn‟t really affect me too much.
3. How did you, as a student, educate yourself about the Canadian Federation of
Students implementation, overall?
Overall, I really utilized my peers. If I didn‟t know about something, I would just
kind of go to a friend and ask them if they knew anything. I did use the websites but it
seems as though official CFS websites came in this neat little package that you could
not open. I read a lot of blogs, as well. I just found that getting your information from
people experiencing it, and not promoting it is more accountable to the credibility.
4. What were some of the beliefs that you shared with your chosen platform?
I am a strong, firm believer in that education should be a right, and not a privilege. I
do not agree with paying membership dues to an organization when we, as an
institution are already an organization. We already pay fees to be a part of this
organization. I just don‟t see how paying more money to save a couple of dollars on
some random things that you‟ll probably use maybe once a year is beneficial to the
student body as a whole. Education should not thwart desire to educate, but it should
enhance and propel the desire to evolve. Educate, in this sense, I mean educate on
life, morality, ethics and justification.
5. During the time allotted for voting, what were the arguments that not only convinced,
but encouraged you to vote for your chosen platform?
The yes side‟s arguments about discounts at particular vendors and at transportation
places really threw me off. We already, as students, get a certain percentage off at
participating bus stations and train stations; I‟m not sure how another percentage that
is probably not even combinable with the initial discount is of use. I just really don‟t
know about the stipulations of everything that we are supposed to get with
membership, because it was all so tightly wrapped up into a package labelled unity. I
feel, personally that this unity would better be described as anti-democratic.
27
6. Did you utilize any mediums (texts, social networking sites) to encourage and/or
persuade your peers to vote?
I encouraged my peers to vote interpersonally, verbally. I definitely did lend my
status on facebook to voting times and places but didn‟t explicitly lend my opinion to
sway or persuade anyone.
7. During the fall semester of 2009, what changes did you notice to the system,
pertaining to the newly implemented Membership University of Ottawa had with the
CFS?
I noticed the obvious hike in tuition fees, first of all. I also noticed, much to my
dismay, the usual delayed student discount at the pharmacy was – as per usual – not
working until mid-November. You‟d think, now that we are part of a union, that
they‟d be fixed and kind of worked out. I‟ve noticed a lot less free speech on campus,
we don‟t really hear about the negative things that the CFS does. In fact, I don‟t think
I‟ve heard anything at all about the CFS, other than the Motion 6 stuff... it doesn‟t
sound like they‟ve done anything. I understand that it might take a few semesters to
implement all of these apparently great things, but at the same time, the campaigns
were so intense, and so forceful that I was expecting huge changes but so far, nothing.
8. What changes were you hoping to see that were directly associated with the reasons
as to why you chose your specific platform?
I‟m really a firm supporter in the education is a right platform. By voting no, I was
really hoping to see more student-to-student interaction and a better institution
working FOR students. Unfortunately, this isn‟t the case – but I have been noticing
around campus lately that there have been small pieces of protest all around. Outside
of the library, the typical cliché GeeGee pictures and the “intercultural” murals had
been taken down, and in multi-coloured spray paint, one wall read “These walls
belong to students” with a smiley face and posters detailing how to scare students into
believing they are lucky for being in university, complete with scare tactics. It
definitely made me smile as this is what I want to see. I think this is the very small,
but progressive start to the student movement that we need as an institution. We need
a student movement, not an union movement.
9. Did you see these changes implemented, according to your chosen specific platform?
As above stated, there has been evidence of small, progressive student movements,
slowly incrementing their way to the entire student body. I think that since we are
based inter-city that although students have the benefit of coming from various parts
of the city and still having complete access, not everyone will see these small
movements at first. It‟s important to spread the word, which is why I utilize my peers
so much.
10. What changes did you see that you did not expect, want, or appreciate, directly
associated with CFS membership?
Overall, the membership fees, the useless international student card, and the tuition
hike.
28
11. If given the opportunity, would you change your vote? Why?
Definitely not. If anything, I hope to become more involved in the student movement
against the union.
Fall reading week, needed. Student spaces, more of them. Crappy spaces should have
priority to be fixed. Better relationship between SFUO and its members. Better
relationship between SFUO and admin, whole hierarchy has to be improved when it
comes to communicating with one another. Bi-lingual access needs to be exposed on
campus. Events and happenings on campus, are announced bi-lingual, but are seldom
fully bi-lingual. Parking spaces – needs improvement... always get tickets... needs to be
more spaces... some sort of plan should be implemented.

Probably their website, I visited it quite often to get definitions and understanding. I think
that‟s the case for a lot of other students in my same situation. I did use that, I thought it
sounds kind of cool but when I started to dig deeper, it was on websites of other student
run newspapers like our fulcrum, I started going to them and reading up and searching
CFS on the website itself and all these articles would pop up. I started using Google and
just google news CFS and that‟s probably what really shaped my opinion on the CFS
because quite a bit of it would reference how it was anti-democratic, lack of transparency
when it came to documents, access to information, their AGM, which is still not inclusive
to all members, just a select few delegates, and I experienced the drop fees, and did do
the drop fees this year, because it‟s something I do for sure support. But the way it
happened this year, like the message, it wasn‟t exactly the right route to take for the
protest. Between different messages, last year it was drop fees, and this year it was drop
fees for a poverty free Ontario. At first I thought yeah, that probably will resound with
more people but then I realized that the title of the campaign is saying, is that because
education is so expensive, that it‟s what is creating poverty but that‟s definitely not the
case. I‟m sure there are examples, but I don‟t think it‟s the only cause, and that‟s how I
interpreted it, after I thought about it a bit more. But I did participate again this year,
there was definitely a lot less participation compared to last year, I think the advertising –
there were posters everywhere, and there were people complaining outside of campus
about the CFS – our referendum happened right after our last drop fees campaign and I
tend to think that fact that last year it wasn‟t so focussed on CFS it seemed more of a
SFUO campaign, and this year it was quite more apparent to me that it was a lot more
talk of the CFS and how this is the position of the CFS, therefore our position. The fact
that we became members really hurt this campaign because of the tension that it caused
during last years yes and no campaigns. I sat on the PIDSSA exec last year and during an
exec meeting we had two people to come in and discuss the platforms and I was still
really confused because there will obviously be some embellishment oon either side as to
29
why a university should or shouldn‟t join. I was still really undecided on which way I
was going to go to be honest, it was only this year, I guess probably around the beginning
of October that I started – I stayed neutral throughout, because I didn‟t understand
enough, nor have enough info to take a side- it was in October when I started to really
think that CFS isn‟t as great a thing as some people were saying it was going to be and
that there needs to be some changes brought to it and not necessarily that we must be
federate right away, because I think that in principal, federate is a good idea, but there are
certain things and characteristic of the fed that are anti-democratic. When I found out
about the AGM, I took interest and looked into it, for different documents pertaining to
that and found the reform package that was brought forward by McGill U and it talked
about a lot of the motions allowing access to any media, not just the specific designate
from each local, and I thought wow, this could really improve the fed in itself and most
of those motions failed. Grads of Carleton presented motion 6, which was instead of
allowing a referendum to defederate after two years a membership in the cfs, that the time
period be extended to five years and that instead of needing ten percent of the student
population in the petition to be federate, that you would need 20 percent whereas to
federate, you still only need 10. Also within a period of three months they only allow two
or three referendums to defederate within this period meaning that if 5 or 6 members all
get to their 5 year period at the same time, there could only be... they‟d have to wait, first
come first serve, but only two of them would be able to hold a referendum, so the other
ones would have to wait either 6 to even 9 months to hold the referendum, that‟s two
university years, which doesn‟t at all make sense. Once you hit that 5 year limit, you
should be able to hold a ref. I was surprised to hear that our grads voted in favour of this
and it passed and that once of the delegates of our grads resigned his position and
everything within our institution. I think that‟s pretty interesting. I was happily surprised
that the SFUO delegation abstained from it, I was under the impression that they would
vote in favour of it, through what I‟ve heard through the grapevines. But then the issue
came up that once the vote was finished there were so many abstentions‟ that really, they
didn‟t receive the two thirds vote of locals present to actually pass this motion. There
were 44 yes, 19 no and I don‟t know how many abstentions, but the board decided the
abstentions‟ didn‟t count within the count of the vote. As long as there was 2/3 people
who voted within that 44 and 19, that‟s what decided if it was 2/3... So since then it‟s
been a very contentious issue, but I‟ve read that this could end up in the courts, because
of that decision by the chair in this motion. I‟m speaking against the cfs, but I‟m not
saying we should defederate, but there are some advantages, like our services, one being
this agency, like traveling, where you can get cheaper flights, train, bus tickets for
students who are students and members of the CFS, there‟s also the international students
card, where you get your picture and you get quite a few discounts, like for example
greyhound, I think you get 50% - 70% off your ticket, I think. They do lobby the
governments in their specific respective provincial entities of the CFS Canada their
specific governments for different things, especially drop fees. I read to day that CFS
Ontario in conjunction with Toronto u students were successful in producing the cost of
the TTC pass for students but apparently there isn‟t that big of a difference in price, as I
heard from my friend who goes to York. All I know is that they‟re claiming a victory
through the CFS and that‟s the story there. Arguably you could say they have done
something but there‟s obviously a lot more negatives in the fact that you have the CFS
30
national bringing it‟s own locals to court when it comes to petitions of defederate and
stuff like that. CFS has been quite active on the legal scene, at the cost of who? At the
cost of its members all over Canada and I think that that is a huge misuse of the student‟s
money, and should end, ASAP it‟s just incredible that you bring your own locals because
of different clauses. I think it‟s ridiculous. Money each one of us gives to the CFS each
year is going to legal fees... it‟s ridiculous. It‟s been common that they take stances that
aren‟t education related. When it comes to pro-life clubs on campuses, there have been
two for sure locals who have banned either pro-life or abortion... I‟m not too sure.... but I
know one of the two sides has been banned and they refuse to fund these clubs anymore,
but they are members of the CFS. The cfs themselves have taken stances on that as well,
and on issues like Israel and Palestine, and obviously one of the most touchiest
contemporary topics to talk about anywhere, and to take, for a student federation, which
isn‟t even a government, to take stances on things even the Canadian government or
nations government don‟t even take stances on because it‟s so touchy. Who are we as
students to say we, all of our members at every single university in Canada that that this
is wrong. There was a campaign proposed in early November of 2009 to support the
rights for Palestinians access to education. The motion, right now, of this campaign said
that Palestinians weren‟t able to access their institutions because of the Israeli blockades.
It‟s a very heated, emotional issue, and it ended up being the same heated debate. This
passed, and now the SFUO is financially supporting this group, who support a certain
side of this situation, of this conflict, which I find, once again, you‟re causing a split
within the student population because a lot of people were offended by this motion. It
was very, very emotional. I had to leave the debate, people were crying, it‟s a very
emotional issue. Especially for a student association, like the SFUO, representing 30,000
students plus grads, why would you want to alienate maybe 50%, I don‟t know exactly, I
know it‟s a contentious issue, and it‟s something that should not be done. No stance
should be taken, especially by our small federation. I think you‟re starting to see the
values that have been projected by the CFS in the past; they‟re slowly trickling into our
university, slowly but surely, through different things like that. They‟re coming in slowly
but surely and I think that it‟s a situation that shouldn‟t be happening, I am sure there is a
positive that there Israeli students here, Palestinian students, and when they see this, they
think oh man they‟re supporting this side, that‟s clearly discrimination and for them to
have to walk around this campus and know that you know, my student federation does
not support me, and this might not even occur to people who don‟t know about the
situation, but to people who do, they could feel like targets, because the SFUO took a
stance, and ultimately against us. It‟s just a terrible feeling that I would not want to have
hanging over my shoulders personally.
Carleton, both CUSA and their grad students association are both members, I don‟t know
their local numbers, but they are both members, I first learned about CUSA being a
member when there was the issue of the defederation petition that they started working
on. Actually I knew before that but hadn‟t done any real concrete reading or research
until the CFS referendum for defederation. Then it came out in their student newspaper
that apparently, CFS Ontario and CFS national didn‟t even receive these petitions, or lost
31
them. I know the issue was voted on at the AGM, but I don‟t know what the decisions
were, pertaining to the acceptance and the denial with these issues, but that‟s how I
learned a bit about how CUSA works as well. Obviously, as well as the grad students and
motion 6 – that sums it about up. That‟s something that‟s definitely disgusting me. I‟ve
talked to people about and they‟re accusing me of saying it as a negative thing, but some
are seeing it as a positive thing. Theoretically, if all members all reach their 5 years at the
same time, it could take up too 10 years for all of them to even hold a referendum to even
want to defederate. You‟re trapped – good or bad. We have possibly sent in a petition
next year, now that this has passed, and we have to wait another 4 years, which I find
incredible, that current members are effected by this current motion, universities who are
reaching their two years just coming up and having to wait the rest of the 3 years... it
must be so frustrating.
I took more of a neutral stance, I decided not to blog. I don‟t even know if I had my blog
at that time. I actually started it during the SFUO elections, so I didn‟t have my blog at
that time and Facebook, I followed things about it, and I went on each group, but I didn‟t
post anything anti- or pro-CFS.
I think I was disappointed to see that SFUO exec took certain stances that they did
position themselves; I don‟t think it was their place, but they took very explicit leadership
roles. I think it was very disappointing, even more enhancing my stance of neutrality. I
was a rep of PIDSSA and for me to say that, for me to take a stance for sure, even if I
didn‟t come out exclusively as a rep for PIDSSA with a stance, I still think that the
perception of being pro or anti that if you are seen supporting by people who possibly
voted for you it could hurt your reputation because they‟re seeing you as one thing, at one
time and now that you‟re taking a position on something that did split the campus right in
two, I just didn‟t want to be put in that situation. Some of them got re-elected... it‟s hard
to say if any of that was taken into consideration but... it definitely influenced my
perceptions. I think there was a lot of, from the yes side, there was a lot of bashing
against the no side, and I think that that has become something that is very common on
our campus, that whenever somebody speaks out against the CFS it doesn‟t matter where,
someone that‟s pro CFS is going to comment and bash you for it, how dare you and you
should be supporting it because it‟s a good thing and that‟s almost every single time I‟ve
blogged or posted a link to my Facebook. There‟s always somebody who comes back and
discusses unity. It‟s become an ideology. People are so, I don‟t want to say brainwashed,
but it‟s been driven into people about the positives, that when negatives come up, people
get defensive, you‟re wrong and there‟s no way around it. It‟s lead to no respect when it
comes to open discussions. The fact that people are given bad names because they speak
against the organization, and that they think reform is necessary, you‟re just shot down
right away and to criticize it is frowned upon by half of the campus. It‟s disappointing,
and disrespectful. Am I attacking your pro stance? No. I respect your opinion; I‟d never
do so openly on their stance on this. I just believe that everybody‟s opinion should be
32
accounted for, it could defer with your own but discussion is necessary. Especially when
it comes to money, it‟s our money, I‟m not sure of the total amount, but when I‟m
forcefully giving money to an org, you have no choice, I should be able to voice my
opinion, and so should everybody else. And that should be done with respect and as a
constructive debate and not as you‟re wrong and I‟m right and shame on you for bashing
the CFS. And then the argument comes out that you know what, no org is perfect, and
okay, then why is everyone so against bringing reform in some areas. That‟s obviously
the case, at the last AGM, a lot of motions were shot down. The idea of a student union
at a Canadian level, as well as a provincial level is a positive thing. I‟m definitely all for
that. There is strength in numbers, but that slogan has been murdered. The way that the
delegation was chosen, the two students were supposedly chosen from the student body
and it was supposedly send in a resume and application to help rep this situation, but I
couldn‟t find this anywhere.
There was a lot of propaganda when it came to buttons, clothing, t-shirts, Facebook
display pictures, again also by some pretty influential people within student politics, that
you know had, like Facebook pictures, that still do and some of them are still there and
whether or not, like I said before, taken into account with the elections, I think the reason
that the election turnout was so terrible had a lot to do with the bitterness of this
campaign and how messy it was of a campaign. People that were in the no camps were
highly criticized and it just seemed like yes was just kind of let off the hook. There was
obviously the pins, the clothing, now did it influence my decision? No, I like to think not.
I based my decision on the facts that were presented either through the cfs website,
Facebook groups and once again, you can arguably say that maybe they weren‟t even
facts, there‟s no way of being sure that yes this is exactly how it is. It‟s exactly how it is
said, typed written in a pretty and professional way to influence your decision. I‟m sure it
influenced a lot of other people
No, not at all, I did not participate in any campaign at all.
you, and why? Do you think they had the same appeal to other students, and why?/ Did
these action plans influence which way you voted? Do you think, overall, the plans were
sufficient to the calibre of the referendum?
The embellishment of the facts from each side obviously there were things that the yes
side were saying and that obviously they were trying to not make public, certain things
were brought up on the no side. The no side did the same to conceal, as well as dig up
facts that are not as easily found. I think now there is a lot more information for future
member considerations, that if they search of CFS on Google, it won‟t be as pretty of a
picture. That media obviously didn‟t exist at that time, or at least I couldn‟t find any.
Both sides did do some embellishment and there was more than had to be done on the yes
side. To get people to vote, but I think that spinning act, or the spinning masters were
33
more over-worked on the yes side, than the no side. It didn‟t influence my too much,
because I kept my neutral stance.
1. How did you vote in the Canadian Federation of Students referendum from
November 18-20, 2008?
a. Yes
b. No
(specific details)?
The first time I heard of the CFS at the U of O was during a meeting I was attending and
a presentation was given by two students, one in favour and the other against.
From what I can remember, the information was very confusing and obviously one side
was trying as hard as it could to discredit the other. It did seem though that the student
who spoke in favour of the CFS was often on the defensive when given the opportunity to
respond to what the student who spoke against her position.
In order to make sure I had all the information needed, I often visited the CFS website to
find out exactly what the implications were of becoming a member as a University.
As I said during the interview, I chose to stay neutral on the matter as I was a student
representative and also because I felt as though it was wrong that certain SFUO
executives, that were supposed to represent ALL undergraduate students, had taken sides
and had even taken on leadership roles in the "YES" campaign.
I liked the idea that we could be apart of a national student movement. I didn't like the
fact that we would be forced to pay more money (in membership fees) but it seemed like
a small price to pay for the perceived advantages.
I did not engage in either campaign
7. During the fall semester of 2009, what changes did you notice to the system, pertaining
to the newly implemented membership University of Ottawa had with the CFS?
During Campaign committee meetings, some campaign proposals seemed to have been
influenced by positions taken by the CFS.
34
The national Drop Fees campaign seemed to be the main focus of the SFUO executives
and there was a lot of negativity surrounding the campus media concerning the lack of
participation on Nov. 5th.
The system as a whole didn't really change much to my knowledge. It was more so a
change of brand; the SFUO has tried to make itself synonymous to the CFS.
8. What changes were you hoping to see that were directly associated with the reasons as
to why you chose your specific platform?
I hoped this could be something that would rally the whole campus and unite everyone
through one voice
Not at all! The contrary, the campus has been split down the middle and campus unity is
definitely at the lowest point I've ever seen.
The way our campus has been split in half. Also, whenever someone speaks against the
CFS in any regard, someone who supports it will attack that person
immediately and attempt to discredit anything that that person said.
ABSOLUTELY!!!! I don't like the tone this subject has taken and the negativity
surrounding the whole issue.
Fees, always. Our fees were increased and we‟re not even benefitting from it/. I don‟t
understand why our fees are being raised but we are not getting anything from it – empty
promises. Class sizes – the public speaking class is easier to learn and interact if it‟s a
smaller class. When there is 300 kids and the professor doesn‟t know your name. We‟re
paying big bucks to get textbook knowledge but not personalized learning. More
emphasis on collaborative teaching – student and teacher. Not regurgitation. We‟re being
taught how to regurgitate, and not form an opinion; we‟ve just gone through 4 years to
learn how to do that.

When people came class to class, I found that informative. Not the e-mails, I usually just
delete them. Class to class in person discussion, talking with your friends. The same
information was constantly being rephrased, and hearing it over and over again, makes it
35
stick to your head. By talking to other people, you take bits and pieces of it to create your
opinion.
They had mentioned different schools and what they did for them, but we‟re not getting
the same stuff. I remember different names being thrown around, and them getting perks
and travel discounts. Your ISC will work wonders?
Facebook, I read different comments from other peers. Probably msn too, but even then
it‟s discussing but I think I asked more questions than I discussed. I didn‟t persuade
anyone in any direction
CSA – positive, and negative. There were different people within it that gave different
comments, professors didn‟t really say anything, peers gave different comments. The
people who were no were more of a positive influence more than the yes side.
The fulcrum did a huge thing on it, peers, Facebook, were all positive. I was able to get a
wide variety of information to use it and form my own opinion.
No. I voted and I was done.
Yes -I thought they said there would be an increase in inter-university relations, I thought
that was cool to have a greater connection with other schools. More events, more space
for students on campus and a decrease in tuition fees. They said we‟d be paying for
something beneficial, and we‟d be pulled into that. Maybe it will happen fully next year,
but I don‟t know.
They had no effect on the way I voted. I think they were interesting and well presented, I
don‟t think that, I think if they do make an appearance, it won‟t be as drastic or
pronounced as they said I t would be. It‟d be a much smaller calibre.
36
1. How did you vote in the Canadian Federation of Students referendum from
November 18-20, 2008?
a. Yes
b. No
2. When was the first time you had heard of the Canadian Federation of Students as
an association on the University of Ottawa? What was the context of what you heard
(specific details)?
I first heard about the Canadian Federation of Students as an association on the
University of Ottawa when they were petitioning for and against it. I heard about it
through word of mouth, class presentations and discussions, peer contact, and in the
Fulcrum.
I educated myself by listening to the class presentations, talking with my peers, and
reading the articles in the Fulcrum.
I believe that the CFS does NOT follow through with it's promises. I believe this
because everything they said would happen if we chose to allow them to come into
our school did not happen. Instead, we are paying more tuition to cover the CFS
expenses and getting nothing in return.
5. During the time allotted for voting, what were the arguments that not only
convinced, but encouraged you to vote for your chosen platform?
A lot of what helped me decide on how to vote was conversations with my friends
and listening to what they had to say. I have friends that are for it, as well as against
it, and hearing all of the points brought up by this means allowed me to further my
opinion. One argument that I head was that the CFS will allow for the student body at
the University of Ottawa to have more student-oriented space, an overall decrease in
tuition, and more of a support against the administration if need be.
I did not do anything to encourage my friends to vote or to persuade them to vote one
way or the other.
7. During the fall semester of 2009, what changes did you notice to the system,
pertaining to the newly implemented membership University of Ottawa had with the
CFS?
I saw no changes, other than an increase in tuition and another basically useless card
taking up space in my wallet.
37
8. What changes were you hoping to see that were directly associated with the
reasons as to why you chose your specific platform?
I was hoping to see more action taking place in regards to student space on campus,
and more student rights.
9. Did you see these changes implemented, according to your chosen specific
platform?
I voted 'no', so I have seen everything I expected to see from the side I voted for.
Unfortunately for 51% of the population that voted 'yes', nothing has happened like
they were promised.
I have not seen any changes.
If given the chance, I would not change my vote. I am content with what I chose. I would,
however, work hard to persuade all of my friends to vote 'no' as well.
I would like there to be more study space, in the library there is so little spaced,
especially during exam times, it‟s like a zoo. It feels like in times when it‟s needed
there‟s always spaces at a premium. This should be emphasized. I think there should be
more choice of healthy food on campus, there‟s cafe alt and Nostalgica, but just kind of
easy to pick up, that you can grab and go, they don‟t offer much choice and the prices are
super expensive. Affordable and accessible food for students.

Reading blogs, I‟ve been to the CFS website before but it‟s all one big advertisement for
the movement. Definitely reading about it from notable blogs, like MacLean‟s. Reading
about stuff from people on campus, who are really into the issues and who are really
knowledgeable. Mostly through those mediums.
I know Carleton is part of CFS. Carleton put forth, I don‟t know if it was grad, or student
union, put forth a referendum for defederation from the CFS, rules. A lot of people
disagreed with this, myself included, because had that rule not been put forth, then this
year we would have been able to start the defederation, and put forth the referendum. The
new rule is now not two years, but five years and instead of ten per cent, you need twenty
per cent to pass the petition. It makes it really hard to defederate.
38
Definitely keeping up on blogs, more so from the no side, because that was what I was
more into. Through Facebook, too, seeing groups and their profile pictures. Those two
mediums were the most used.
One person who was influential was (explicit), who was a head of the no campaign. I
personally look up to him, as he accomplished a lot if student politics, being on the boa,
and CSA president. He is just a very well read person, he‟s very intelligent person, and
his opinion was something I valued. As well (explicit), who was co-head. She‟s always
been heavily involved in the campaign. She‟s been around campus for a while now, and
she has a lot of knowledge about campus issues. I really respected her opinion. I guess
people who I didn‟t respect were all the people from the CFS, people who worked for
them, and came to our campus to campaign. It was concerning, they came here from
other places, coming to campaign us, and them, literally chasing students and bringing
them to the polls to vote. It was sickening. Their tactics were sneaky and very
underhanded. I did not respect anyone on the yes side for that reason. I guess in a sense I
can say that about the SFUO exec of those who were in favour of the cfs. Obviously they
are influential, people look up to them and follow their views. They made their views so
public, even though they are not supposed to have an opinion; it was such a huge grey
area. They were using their positions of power to support, our exec were and do follow.
Once again, the blogs, they had the up to the minute facts from all the different students
on campus who saw different things. They kind of knew what was going on, it was a
great way to follow what was going on. That and Facebook, people would post links to
blogs, post notes and post on groups to keep people updated. Student blogs are one of the
most important mediums.
I would say no because I didn‟t want to get too involved. At the time I wasn‟t very
knowledgeable to persuade, I was more of a viewer into the whole thing. Not publicly but
I still supported the no side. I wouldn‟t say that I was an active participant.
8. Considering all of your chosen side’s platforms., which were the most appealing to you,
and why? Do you think they had the same appeal to other students, and why?
I don‟t remember specifically. CFS claims it reps 50000 taking into all account the
member associations but not all support. It‟s just not logical. The $14 seems ridiculous, it
could go towards the SFUO, it could create at least two different services from the SFU.
Having the CFS in place, why would we need another student union when we have one
already? Basically all they do is provide material to campaign with their brand on it. Why
39
spend that extra money to support a huge corporate union, instead of necessary to
students at the university of Ottawa campus.
Yes, the no side had enough relevant platform points to make me vote no, they all
resounded as true in my mind, and they just made sense, as opposed to all the fallacies. I
would say that while the yes campaign I didn‟t really believe at all in their platform
points, they were still really good at relaying the information, they had a lot more money,
big booths, professional student campaigners, they definitely had a lot more organization,
and power behind their push. I think the no campaign was run by students on camps who
weren‟t professional and just doing something they believed in and brought up such
intelligent arguments against the CFS. I think they were of calibre.
18-20, 2008?
b. NO
(specific details)?
I think the first time I actually heard about it was from the Fulcrum newspaper who
announced that we were having a referendum on the subject.
I read about it on the various blogs from students on campus that were covering the
referendum, where I heard the reasons for/against joining CFS.
I felt that, as a "NO" supporter, that the CFS would be just another overarching student
association that we're paying fees to, when we already have one on campus, which just
seems ridiculous. Also, I felt that the campaigns of the CFS did nothing for me as a
student at the University of Ottawa, and they are mostly targeted to minority students.
Again, as a "NO" supporter, I felt that the arguments from my chosen side were more
comprehensive, because they didn't have an agenda; whereas all the arguments from the
"YES CFS" side were put forth by paid employees of the CFS who were sent to our
campus to campaign, which clearly means they have an agenda.
Specifically, the fact that we were paying $14 per full-time student a year to an
organization that does nothing for the average student at the University of Ottawa was
40
one of the top deciding factors in my decision to vote "NO", because as a struggling
student, when you're touching my finances I get serious.
Personally, I didn't get involved in the lobbying for my chosen side, because I felt like I
didn't know fully enough at the time about both sides to make myself a public supporter.
To be honest, I didn't see any changes on campus except for the CFS propaganda that the
SFUO adopted, in the form of posters for CFS campaigns, which makes me seriously
question all the "positive" aspects that the "YES" side said that CFS membership would
bring to campus.
Well, since I was a "NO" supporter, I was hoping that if my chosen side won, that we
wouldn't have to deal with the CFS trying to infiltrate our campus again.
Also, I feel that if we were to have rejected CFS that the SFUO were to take that as a sign
that what's important to students is getting services from their student association that
directly pertain to them instead of large-scale campaigns that really don't affect the
average student.
Since I voted "NO", I can't really say there were changes implemented, even though the
CFS supporters said they wanted to work with the "NO" side to figure out what's best for
students at the University of Ottawa.
To be honest, the fact that there is less focus on University of Ottawa undergraduate
students and more focus on large-scale national campaigns of the CFS adopted by the
SFUO.
I would definitely not change my vote, because I feel even stronger than I did then that
CFS is doing nothing for our school except siphon out our for their various shady
workings.
41
Specifically, I think that the entrance scholarship policy needs to be changed, it needs to
give students an easier opportunity to keep their scholarship, its hard for students to keep
an 8.0 or 8.5 straight out of university. I don‟t think it‟s realistic, I think it‟s used as bait
to bring in the students, and shortly there after they‟re unable to keep the scholarship. I
think that the university could use more sources of qualitative research. I appreciate town
hall focus group. Hijacked by activist interests. I think asking student‟s questions would
be easier, to better education. I think we need more opportunities to learn outside of the
classroom. I think that with co-op and spiritual services, it give students some
opportunity, but there could be more for students. I think the institution has a very
conservative way of managing things, but at the same time, they could tread lighter.
When tuition is increased, it is done more transparently and democratically.

Internet, news media, word of mouth, first hand experience. Paint a picture beyond the
corporate stain you might get from the CFs. You were able to get the other side of the
story. The popularity among students is to think critically, so it‟s important to seek out
these resources to form an opinion.
I know a lot about Ontario schools, and heard some stories from BC. At the time I was
aware of the political climates. There are some champion schools such as Toronto, York,
Ryerson, Carleton, being specific where you see a different, left wing student body,
approach to student issues. They were all here campaigning, taking time off from work,
or classes to propagate a message of a corporation to our students.
We weren‟t allowed to. We used Facebook privately to spread messages to our
volunteers. We also used Google documents. In terms of a public relations tool, we were
banned from doing so.
I felt the campaigners from the yes side further influenced, if not vindicated a lot of
things I had been saying. They were aggressive and narrow minded, disrespectful in
general. They came across with this all encompassing thing, it was really narrow minded.
It didn‟t make up my mind but it did validate my decision
Word of mouth, first hand experiences, interactions with campaigners. There wasn‟t
42
much space for me to make up my mind. I took a role and it never really changed, if
anything it just became stronger as the campaign progressed
I was the chairperson or co chair person which included but not limited to recruitment,
helping design campaign materials and messages, organizing the websites, interacting,
media relations, media buying, a lot of different roles. Canvassing myself for
presentations, banners, posters
Price of membership, and internal return of investment for students. It was ten times what
the food bank gets, so we gave ten times more to them, plus pay for conferences and the
agenda they give us and whatever website they give us. And then we give so little to food
bank. We‟re a little school, we didn‟t really need to be a part of it, we were able to crush
the code of conduct as an independent school, and were able to function positively. They
claim to be a movement, but it‟s really a corporation, there shouldn‟t be a cover charge to
work together.
They did it very effectively and they were very well organized. They spent four times
more money than we did, I gave our completely student budget to the student body and
they refused. We bought one ad, and they bought multiple. We fundraised, but they were
able to do so without so. They flew in campaigners. York students came here because of
the strike, Carleton, Ryerson, u of t, all came here to lobby for them. Organizers were
brought in and paid, who were on the payroll before, almost overwhelmingly so.
We experienced harassment, protection was called. People tried to deface our office. We
had people quit from our campaign because they couldn‟t deal with the harassment that
was going on. The referendum oversight committee by by-law they had two reps from the
student body, and everything we put out had to be approved, and every time we wanted to
say that was negative or critical, some things were approved and some things weren‟t, so
we were tied up in a verbal process. We weren‟t able to fundraise until we set up an
independent PayPal. We eventually gained a surplus and we gave it to the food bank. We
had to get all of the work done within three days of the campaign. We calculated the costs
they were dishing out and it was ridiculous. Referendum question was a good page long,
and listed two specific organizations, and then the lists about 9 or 10 of the services; the
yes committee was almost debating a balance. Towards the end of the campaign, we were
accused of spreading false information, even though we were approved. I think out class
presentations were better; we even had to inform of our schedule so they could check in
to see what we were saying. Two of the people on the committee were paid by the CFS,
and the lively hood was based on the passing, so they were working against us the whole
time. We were subject to a lot of complaints that were always found to be true, in
contrary and we were only able to get one out of very, very many. The only one we could
prove was their posters were too big. They cut one of their banners early, and took down
43
their posters, but this was shot down, as well. The campaign would be going by and we
couldn‟t retaliate because we were waiting. I made a poster that said, another student org?
No thanks! Being why? What‟s the point? So I got an e-mail from the CFS and they said
CFS was not a student government. So I made a poster about that, and it got approved,
funnily enough. Although being outspent of 4 or 5 to 1, our campaigners being from u of
o, average students who work jobs, we only lost by two hundred votes. We did well, it‟s
essentially a victory. They allowed off campus campaigners, so we got people from
Carleton, they would be easy and cheap to get, but it was blocked for some time because
we brought in our three campaigners and we used them as a volunteers, but they had to
get permission from their own student government. So CUSA made up the rule that you
had to be a member of the board to do it, so that took away one. So I had them in my
office and we had to try and figure something out. There was a double standard with
everything. Permission from people I felt vindicated overall with everything. I had been
fighting for almost two years, and I had become synonymous with the word no. Uneven
spending, the referendum committee wanted to approve things, and it just wasn‟t fair.
18-20, 2008?
b. No
(specific details)?
Fall of 2006 as a first-year undergraduate student; I found out by reading The Fulcrum,
and then took steps to attend the student union's board of directors' meetings to watch the
directors eventually vote down prospective membership.
Word-of-mouth conversations with other student leaders, media, Internet research
Students do not need to pay a membership fee to work together; the CFS is an ineffective
organization that in 20+ years of existence has never gotten tuition decreased in Ontario.
The framework of the CFS does not allow input from individual students that would be
paying membership fees, only student union leaders.
My own arguments helped me shape my beliefs; the conduct and harassment of the "yes"
campaign solidified those beliefs.
44
Myself, as an individual, word-of-mouth
Absolutely none. The student union at uOttawa has not been a leader in the CFS as an
organization. In one year of membership, the only suggested change brought forward by
the SFUO to a CFS AGM was not only overwhelmingly voted down, but even the SFUO
did not support its own motion.
The CFS needs to allow media to cover its general assemblies and committee meetings.
No external campaigners should be allowed to participate in the referendum process - it
should be left up to students to decide. The "yes" and "no" sides should be subject to
equal spending limits. There should be little to no mandatory waiting period between
referenda. The same rules should apply to join and leave the CFS. The referendum should
be overseen by an impartial arbitrator, not paid CFS staff persons. If a school as more
members, it should have more votes during meetings. Individual students should be
allowed to watch, participate and vote at CFS meetings. The CFS should campaign on
issues directly related to education.
No. The SFUO has remained a mouthpiece for the CFS and has taken no steps to try to
improve the organization.
The motion six nonsense from the last CFS AGM exemplifies what is wrong with the
organization. A student movement should be working together because it wants to, not
because it is forced to.
No.
45
46

Crystal Clear: Can't Fund Students - A Case Study On The Canadian Federation of Students at The University of Ottawa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crystal Clear: Can't Fund Students - A Case Study On The Canadian Federation of Students at The University of Ottawa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crystal Clear: Can‟t Fund Students

Crystal Clear: Can‟t Fund Students

A Case Study on the Canadian Federation of Students

Qualitative Methods – CMN3103A

Prof. R. Luppincinni, Ph.D

Final Research Project

Student No. 4972998

December 12, 2009

conceptualization from previous issues regarding other institution‟s memberships, prescriptive

5 participants, partaking in two different open-ended studies, to supply qualitative data,

generalizing attitudes of students.

Federation of Students Referendum, accepting or refusing membership. The platform of unity

explicitly by students at University of Ottawa.

regarding membership. Participant feedback is analyzed in unison with other on-campus

newspaper articles from member institutions, justly establishing validity.

to establish understanding to particular conclusions. The study is intrinsic, drawing validity

the scope. Some delimitations included within this study are:

 Participants must, at the very minimum, be in their second year of study at

the University of Ottawa,

 Participants must have voted in the Canadian Federation of Students

Referendum on November 18 – 20, 2008,

 Participants must currently be a full-time student.

included, explicitly relating to peer-to-peer contact as a means of campus education.

 Participant‟s knowledge regarding the CFS and their actions on both

University of Ottawa‟s campus, and other campuses,

 Participant‟s vote was based on peer-say.

case, participants (Creswell, p. 247). It is important to acknowledge the interrelatedness, not

independence (Creswell, p. 248).

predominantly held positions in student councils at our institution - explicitly contributing to my

NO supporters were influential, credited to a previously established relationship.

these interactions, I developed an opinion and vote of no.

respective campuses, with the inclusion of significant quotes.

listening than offering conversation.

analysis into specific views and attitudes.

participant‟s feedback is analyzed independently to enhance meanings (Creswell, p. 163). Once

163), derived explicitly from the data analysis.

campus transparency and unity, but validity to later conclusions.

demonstrations” be pursued (YorkNotHostage & Anti-Strike Group. 2008).

(CFS watch: Radicalism).

constitutional right of individuals to demonstrate peacefully and participate in civil

camps (Bailey, Brandon W. 2009).

in favour of denying club status (Higgins, Shannon. 2008).

On April 3, 2007, Editor-in-Chief for Ryerson‟s newspaper Eyeopener, Robyn Doolittle

be advised that CFS will consider all legal remedies to it.”

documents nor reply (Millar, Erin. 2007).

Most recently, Carleton University‟s Graduate Students Association [GSA] executive –

the previous two (CFS watch: Corruption).

members” and two-thirds of this majority is required. Consequently, two-thirds majority of

brought up at the meeting,” (Godmere, Emma. 2009).

 Proper allocation of funds

 More student space

 University position as an informative entity

 Federal tuition increase

 Membership fee increase

 No evaluative discourse of membership

 On-campus pharmacy coverage late

 International Student Identification Card

 Bigger changes following a dynamic YES campaign

 Student Movement – not Corporate Movement

 Initiate Students Movement incrementally

 Fall reading week

 Prioritize student space and parking strategies

 Fully bi-lingual events on campus