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

8/14/2019 Crystal Clear: Can't Fund Students - A Case Study on the Canadian Federation of Students at the University of Ot

1/46

Crystal Clear: Cant Fund Students

1


A Case Study on the Canadian Federation of Studentsat the University of Ottawa

Qualitative MethodsCMN3103A

Prof. R. Luppincinni, Ph.D

Final Research Project

Sarah Taylor

Student No. 4972998

December 12, 2009


2/46


2

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


3/46


3

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 institutions 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).


4/46


4

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 Ottawas 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 atthe University of Ottawa,


5/46


5

Participants must have voted in the Canadian Federation of StudentsReferendum on November 1820, 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, Participants knowledge regarding the CFS and their actions on both

University of Ottawas campus, and other campuses,

Participants vote was based onpeer-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 ofhear-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,


6/46


6

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

students 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 its

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 Os 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.


7/46


7

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


8/46


8

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 researchers 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

participants 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

participants 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.


9/46


9

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 Yorks 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


10/46


10

referendum on November 182008, 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 Reginers actions, but before she held


11/46


11

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

Reginers 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 Macleans, 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 CFSs pro-choice policy, all pro-life groups have been banned from campus. Shelley

Mellanson, CFS National Womens Representative stated, You wouldnt take public money to

put in an organization that moves to take away peoples rights: you wouldnt 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

ones 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 Ryersons 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


12/46


12

letter, detailing several inaccuracies and that failure to accommodate changes would result in

legal actionthe 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, Yorks Excalibur, and Ryersons 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


13/46


13

have been a mistake in the transaction and that something was mislabelled, as the transaction was

from CFS-BC, Douglas Colleges 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 Universitys Graduate Students Association [GSA] executive

Local 78 of CFS authored Motion 6 to address the influx of defederation movements from

other member institutions. The motions 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 chairs decision to accept the motion as passed wa s

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 isnt more complicated than that. The

bylaw states that local student associations representing individual members are called voting


14/46


14

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 hasnt 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

ChangesSample 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


15/46


15

Expected

Bigger changes following a dynamic YES campaign Student Movementnot 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 movementactually Corporate Movement

Sample 3


16/46


16

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 changenothing 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


17/46


17

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 impartialarbitrators

Individual students may vote, watch and participate in meetings SFUO regaining stance, instead of corporate puppet for CFS

MediumSample 1

Class presentations by student representatives, peer-to-peer interaction Facebook groups, discussion boards, comments, links, blogs


18/46


18

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 embellishmentSample 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


19/46


19

Peers: specific people of power [two former executive member, among other positions instudent 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 studentsSample 5

Internet, news media, word of mouth, first hand experience, seek resources to gatheropinion

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 bankissues, 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


20/46


20

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 teachers who [sometimes] dont care about the

class or the material, teachers 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 students jobs to work hard and pay for someone elses mistakes,

it is a students 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 its

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


21/46


21

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 anothers 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 Macleans, students seek out means to educate


22/46


22

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.


23/46


23

Bibliography

Bailey, Brandon W. (2009, September 17). Wheres 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/
http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6095http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6095http://thevarsity.ca/articles/6095http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070405_142226_1620http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070405_142226_1620http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070405_142226_1620http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/attack-on-free-speech/http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/attack-on-free-speech/http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/attack-on-free-speech/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070405_142226_1620http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/3480-Campus-abortion-debate-flareshttp://thevarsity.ca/articles/6095


24/46


24

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
http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/radicalism/http://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/radicalism/http://www.yorknothostage.com/rally-updateshttp://www.yorknothostage.com/rally-updateshttp://www.yorknothostage.com/rally-updateshttp://www.campuspc.ca/cfs-watch/radicalism/


25/46


25

Appendix

InterviewSample #1

1. Overall, what specific changes to any system (fees, space, rules) would you like to seewithin our institution?

a. I think that tuition should be decreased. There is a constant discussion of howtuition should be a right, and not a privilege, but so far, this isnt really the case.We pay for something and for the most part receive mediocre performances fromteachers who sometimes do not really care. Our generation starts its professionalcareer in debt, swimming in debt. Not just, oh Im a couple thousand dollars, butupwards of $40,000 in debt. Its ridiculous. I think that students should have theright to request grades and schedule meetings on a collaborative time, not the timethats best for the teacher. Again, we are paying for them to have a job; we shouldhave a little more say in how we can access professors. I think there should bemore available parking, perhaps hourly parking. I understand that there is littlespace on campus to do so, and seeing as how we are essentially downtown

Ottawa, I get that we cant just snap our fingers and have more parking. I feel likethere could be more space utilized. The biggest change I want is student space. Ihate 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 cant, but space is so limited in all ofthese places. I havent even been to the third and second floor to study... theyrenot really promoted as study places... I see them as... just books. Get your booksand go. Maybe thats my fault, but I dont know if my campus has space here forme to sit down and study. Leading from there, campus educationI would like tobe able to get my information from more than just my peers, you know. I onlyhear 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 outmessages when theres been a tragedy or something really big is changing.

2. When educating yourself regarding the Canadian Federation of Students, whatmedium(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 thiswhole situation, instead of some guy in a suit saying big words. After thepresentations, too, talking to my classmates about everything, about the wholescenario 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 wasreally helpful too, because it had the groups and you could access particularcampaign people and send them messages, and usually theyd reply, so havingthat accessibility was really helpful.

3. Are you aware of any other institutions who hold membership in the CFS? What do youknow about them and how did you learn this?


26/46


26

a. I know that Carleton does, and York. I only know this because I heard someclassmates talking about it, and I did hear it for the YES campaign at one point intime. I dont really remember the context though.

4. Did you utilize any social networking sites during respective campaign times? Be asexplicit 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 blogarticles that were really helpful before making a vote.

5. Were there any people who you felt were increasingly influential to your decision-makingprocesses? Please include positive and negative influences.

a. I think that the yes people were kind of illusive. They seemed kind of on theirgame and stuck to a script. All answers were really manufactured, or at least Ithought so. I think the no side, which was entirely student driven was moreaccessible 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 onat other schools was really an eye opener to things that we obviously werentgoing to be told

7. During the respective voting times, would you have considered yourself active inlobbying 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 tovote, but not over facebook. A lot of my friends dedicated their profile pic andtheir statuses to voting times, but I decided not to, just because there was so muchof it. It was a bit of an overload. But I did encourage other students to vote.

8. Considering all of your chosen platforms action plans, which were the most appealing toyou, 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. Readingall of these other blogs and then hearing all the scripted stuff that the yes side wassaying was kind of a wake up call. The no side really stuck to honesty and studentrights, not union rights. This whole idea of education is a right and not aprivilege I think that the yes side, and their pushing of fees, and this wholeillusive union view made it seem like a privilege. I want a school that supportsand 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 planswere sufficient to the calibre of the referendum?

a. I think that the yes side presented their information eloquently, but at the sametime, really too manufactured. I think that the no side, propelled by honesty andstudent ideals was really up to par and in general kind of like hey, there arestudents who agree with me on the whole education is a right thing.


27/46


27

SurveySample #1

Please note, that you are not asked to provide your name, age or faculty to ensure furtheranonymity. If you feel uncomfortable answering any question, please let me know.

1. How did you vote in the Canadian Federation of Students referendum from November18-20, 2008?

a. Yesb. No

2. When was the first time you had heard of the Canadian Federation of Students as anassociation 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 whensomething was happening at our school, obviously being the referendum. When Ihead about it in relation to other schools I really didnt think about it too much,because it didnt really affect me too much.

3. How did you, as a student, educate yourself about the Canadian Federation ofStudents implementation, overall?

Overall, I really utilized my peers. If I didnt know about something, I would justkind of go to a friend and ask them if they knew anything. I did use the websites but itseems as though official CFS websites came in this neat little package that you couldnot open. I read a lot of blogs, as well. I just found that getting your information frompeople 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 aninstitution are already an organization. We already pay fees to be a part of thisorganization. I just dont see how paying more money to save a couple of dollars onsome random things that youll probably use maybe once a year is beneficial to thestudent body as a whole. Education should not thwart desire to educate, but it shouldenhance and propel the desire to evolve. Educate, in this sense, I mean educate onlife, 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 sides arguments about discounts at particular vendors and at transportation

places really threw me off. We already, as students, get a certain percentage off atparticipating bus stations and train stations; Im not sure how another percentage thatis probably not even combinable with the initial discount is of use. I just really dontknow about the stipulations of everything that we are supposed to get withmembership, because it was all so tightly wrapped up into a package labelled unity. Ifeel, personally that this unity would better be described as anti-democratic.


28/46


28

6. Did you utilize any mediums (texts, social networking sites) to encourage and/orpersuade your peers to vote?

I encouraged my peers to vote interpersonally, verbally. I definitely did lend mystatus on facebook to voting times and places but didnt explicitly lend my opinion tosway 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 mydismay, the usual delayed student discount at the pharmacy wasas per usualnotworking until mid-November. Youd think, now that we are part of a union, thattheyd be fixed and kind of worked out. Ive noticed a lot less free speech on campus,we dont really hear about the negative things that the CFS does. In fact, I dont thinkIve heard anything at all about the CFS, other than the Motion 6 stuff... it doesntsound like theyve 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 campaignswere 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 reasonsas to why you chose your specific platform?Im really a firm supporter in the education is a right platform. By voting no, I wasreally hoping to see more student-to-student interaction and a better institutionworking FOR students. Unfortunately, this isnt the case but I have been noticingaround campus lately that there have been small pieces of protest all around. Outsideof the library, the typical clich GeeGee pictures and the intercultural murals hadbeen taken down, and in multi-coloured spray paint, one wall read These wallsbelong to students with a smiley face and posters detailing how to scare students intobelieving they are lucky for being in university, complete with scare tactics. Itdefinitely 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 needa 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 arebased inter-city that although students have the benefit of coming from various partsof the city and still having complete access, not everyone will see these smallmovements at first. Its important to spread the word, which is why I utilize my peersso much.

10.What changes did you see that you did not expect, want, or appreciate, directlyassociated with CFS membership?

Overall, the membership fees, the useless international student card, and the tuitionhike.


29/46


29

11.If given the opportunity, would you change your vote? Why?Definitely not. If anything, I hope to become more involved in the student movementagainst the union.

InterviewSample #2


Fall reading week, needed. Student spaces, more of them. Crappy spaces should havepriority to be fixed. Better relationship between SFUO and its members. Betterrelationship between SFUO and admin, whole hierarchy has to be improved when itcomes to communicating with one another. Bi-lingual access needs to be exposed oncampus. Events and happenings on campus, are announced bi-lingual, but are seldomfully bi-lingual. Parking spacesneeds improvement... always get tickets... needs to bemore spaces... some sort of plan should be implemented.


Probably their website, I visited it quite often to get definitions and understanding. I thinkthats the case for a lot of other students in my same situation. I did use that, I thought itsounds kind of cool but when I started to dig deeper, it was on websites of other studentrun newspapers like our fulcrum, I started going to them and reading up and searchingCFS on the website itself and all these articles would pop up. I started using Google andjust google news CFS and thats probably what really shaped my opinion on the CFSbecause quite a bit of it would reference how it was anti-democratic, lack of transparencywhen 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 dothe drop fees this year, because its something I do for sure support. But the way ithappened this year, like the message, it wasnt exactly the right route to take for theprotest. Between different messages, last year it was drop fees, and this year it was dropfees for a poverty free Ontario. At first I thought yeah, that probably will resound withmore people but then I realized that the title of the campaign is saying, is that becauseeducation is so expensive, that its what is creating poverty but thats definitely not thecase. Im sure there are examples, but I dont think its the only cause, and thats how Iinterpreted 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 advertisingthere were posters everywhere, and there were people complaining outside of campus

about the CFSour referendum happened right after our last drop fees campaign and Itend to think that fact that last year it wasnt so focussed on CFS it seemed more of aSFUO campaign, and this year it was quite more apparent to me that it was a lot moretalk of the CFS and how this is the position of the CFS, therefore our position. The factthat we became members really hurt this campaign because of the tension that it causedduring last years yes and no campaigns. I sat on the PIDSSA exec last year and during anexec meeting we had two people to come in and discuss the platforms and I was stillreally confused because there will obviously be some embellishment oon either side as to


30/46


30

why a university should or shouldnt join. I was still really undecided on which way Iwas going to go to be honest, it was only this year, I guess probably around the beginningof October that I startedI stayed neutral throughout, because I didnt understandenough, nor have enough info to take a side- it was in October when I started to reallythink that CFS isnt 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 befederate right away, because I think that in principal, federate is a good idea, but there arecertain things and characteristic of the fed that are anti-democratic. When I found outabout the AGM, I took interest and looked into it, for different documents pertaining tothat and found the reform package that was brought forward by McGill U and it talkedabout a lot of the motions allowing access to any media, not just the specific designatefrom each local, and I thought wow, this could really improve the fed in itself and mostof those motions failed. Grads of Carleton presented motion 6, which was instead ofallowing a referendum to defederate after two years a membership in the cfs, that the timeperiod be extended to five years and that instead of needing ten percent of the studentpopulation 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 twoor three referendums to defederate within this period meaning that if 5 or 6 members allget to their 5 year period at the same time, there could only be... theyd have to wait, firstcome first serve, but only two of them would be able to hold a referendum, so the otherones would have to wait either 6 to even 9 months to hold the referendum, thats twouniversity years, which doesnt at all make sense. Once you hit that 5 year limit, youshould be able to hold a ref. I was surprised to hear that our grads voted in favour of thisand it passed and that once of the delegates of our grads resigned his position andeverything within our institution. I think thats pretty interesting. I was happily surprisedthat the SFUO delegation abstained from it, I was under the impression that they wouldvote in favour of it, through what Ive heard through the grapevines. But then the issuecame up that once the vote was finished there were so many abstentions that really, theydidnt receive the two thirds vote of locals present to actually pass this motion. Therewere 44 yes, 19 no and I dont know how many abstentions, but the board decided theabstentions didnt count within the count of the vote. As long as there was 2/3 peoplewho voted within that 44 and 19, thats what decided if it was 2/3... So since then itsbeen a very contentious issue, but Ive read that this could end up in the courts, becauseof that decision by the chair in this motion. Im speaking against the cfs, but Im notsaying we should defederate, but there are some advantages, like our services, one beingthis agency, like traveling, where you can get cheaper flights, train, bus tickets forstudents who are students and members of the CFS, theres also the international studentscard, where you get your picture and you get quite a few discounts, like for examplegreyhound, I think you get 50% - 70% off your ticket, I think. They do lobby thegovernments in their specific respective provincial entities of the CFS Canada theirspecific governments for different things, especially drop fees. I read to day that CFSOntario in conjunction with Toronto u students were successful in producing the cost ofthe TTC pass for students but apparently there isnt that big of a difference in price, as Iheard from my friend who goes to York. All I know is that theyre claiming a victorythrough the CFS and thats the story there. Arguably you could say they have donesomething but theres obviously a lot more negatives in the fact that you have the CFS


31/46


31

national bringing its own locals to court when it comes to petitions of defederate andstuff like that. CFS has been quite active on the legal scene, at the cost of who? At thecost of its members all over Canada and I think that that is a huge misuse of the studentsmoney, and should end, ASAP its just incredible that you bring your own locals becauseof different clauses. I think its ridiculous. Money each one of us gives to the CFS each

year is going to legal fees... its ridiculous. Its been common that they take stances thatarent education related. When it comes to pro-life clubs on campuses, there have beentwo for sure locals who have banned either pro-life or abortion... Im not too sure.... but Iknow 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 touchiestcontemporary topics to talk about anywhere, and to take, for a student federation, whichisnt even a government, to take stances on things even the Canadian government ornations government dont even take stances on because its so touchy. Who are we asstudents to say we, all of our members at every single university in Canada that that thisis 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 saidthat Palestinians werent able to access their institutions because of the Israeli blockades.Its a very heated, emotional issue, and it ended up being the same heated debate. Thispassed, and now the SFUO is financially supporting this group, who support a certainside of this situation, of this conflict, which I find, once again, youre causing a splitwithin the student population because a lot of people were offended by this motion. Itwas very, very emotional. I had to leave the debate, people were crying, its a veryemotional issue. Especially for a student association, like the SFUO, representing 30,000students plus grads, why would you want to alienate maybe 50%, I dont know exactly, Iknow its a contentious issue, and its something that should not be done. No stanceshould be taken, especially by our small federation. I think youre starting to see thevalues that have been projected by the CFS in the past; theyre slowly trickling into ouruniversity, slowlybut surely, through different things like that. Theyre coming in slowlybut surely and I think that its a situation that shouldnt be happening, I am sure there is apositive that there Israeli students here, Palestinian students, and when they see this, theythink oh man theyre supporting this side, thats clearly discrimination and for them tohave to walk around this campus and know that you know, my student federation doesnot support me, and this might not even occur to people who dont know about thesituation, but to people who do, they could feel like targets, because the SFUO took astance, and ultimately against us. Its just a terrible feeling that I would not want to havehanging over my shoulders personally.


Carleton, both CUSA and their grad students association are both members, I dont knowtheir local numbers, but they are both members, I first learned about CUSA being amember when there was the issue of the defederation petition that they started workingon. Actually I knew before that but hadnt done any real concrete reading or researchuntil the CFS referendum for defederation. Then it came out in their student newspaperthat apparently, CFS Ontario and CFS national didnt even receive these petitions, or lost


32/46


32

them. I know the issue was voted on at the AGM, but I dont know what the decisionswere, pertaining to the acceptance and the denial with these issues, but thats how Ilearned a bit about how CUSA works as well. Obviously, as well as the grad students andmotion 6that sums it about up. Thats something thats definitely disgusting me. Ivetalked to people about and theyre 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 thesame time, it could take up too 10 years for all of them to even hold a referendum to evenwant to defederate. Youre trapped good or bad. We have possibly sent in a petitionnext year, now that this has passed, and we have to wait another 4 years, which I findincredible, that current members are effected by this current motion, universities who arereaching their two years just coming up and having to wait the rest of the 3 years... itmust be so frustrating.

4. Did you utilize any social networking sites during respective campaign times? Be asexplicit as possible.

I took more of a neutral stance, I decided not to blog. I dont even know if I had my blog

at that time. I actually started it during the SFUO elections, so I didnt have my blog atthat time and Facebook, I followed things about it, and I went on each group, but I didntpost anything anti- or pro-CFS.


I think I was disappointed to see that SFUO exec took certain stances that they didposition themselves; I dont think it was their place, but they took very explicit leadershiproles. I think it was very disappointing, even more enhancing my stance of neutrality. Iwas a rep of PIDSSA and for me to say that, for me to take a stance for sure, even if Ididnt come out exclusively as a rep for PIDSSA with a stance, I still think that theperception of being pro or anti that if you are seen supporting by people who possiblyvoted for you it could hurt your reputation because theyre seeing you as one thing, at onetime and now that youre taking a position on something that did split the campus right intwo, I just didnt want to be put in that situation. Some of them got re-elected... its hardto say if any of that was taken into consideration but... it definitely influenced myperceptions. I think there was a lot of, from the yes side, there was a lot of bashingagainst the no side, and I think that that has become something that is very common onour campus, that whenever somebody speaks out against the CFS it doesnt matter where,someone thats pro CFS is going to comment and bash you for it, how dare you and youshould be supporting it because its a good thing and thats almost every single time Iveblogged or posted a link to my Facebook. Theres always somebody who comes back anddiscusses unity. Its become an ideology. People are so, I dont want to say brainwashed,but its been driven into people about the positives, that when negatives come up, peopleget defensive, youre wrong and theres no way around it. Its lead to no respect when itcomes to open discussions. The fact that people are given bad names because they speakagainst the organization, and that they think reform is necessary, youre just shot downright away and to criticize it is frowned uponby half of the campus. Its disappointing,and disrespectful. Am I attacking your pro stance? No. I respect your opinion; Id neverdo so openly on their stance on this. I just believe that everybodys opinion should be


33/46


33

accounted for, it could defer with your own but discussion is necessary. Especially whenit comes to money, its our money, Im not sure of the total amount, but when Imforcefully giving money to an org, you have no choice, I should be able to voice myopinion, and so should everybody else. And that should be done with respect and as aconstructive debate and not as youre wrong and Im right and shame on you for bashing

the CFS. And then the argument comes out that you know what, no org is perfect, andokay, then why is everyone so against bringing reform in some areas. Thats obviouslythe case, at the last AGM, a lot of motions were shot down. The idea of a student unionat a Canadian level, as well as a provincial level is a positive thing. Im definitely all forthat. There is strength in numbers, but that slogan has been murdered. The way that thedelegation was chosen, the two students were supposedly chosen from the student bodyand it was supposedly send in a resume and application to help rep this situation, but Icouldnt find this anywhere.


There was a lot of propaganda when it came to buttons, clothing, t-shirts, Facebookdisplay pictures, again also by some pretty influential people within student politics, thatyou know had, like Facebook pictures, that still do and some of them are still there andwhether or not, like I said before, taken into account with the elections, I think the reasonthat the election turnout was so terrible had a lot to do with the bitterness of thiscampaign and how messy it was of a campaign. People that were in the no camps werehighly criticized and it just seemed like yes was just kind of let off the hook. There wasobviously 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 werent evenfacts, theres no way of being sure that yes this is exactly how it is. Its exactly how it issaid, typed written in a pretty and professional way to influence your decision. Im sure itinfluenced a lot of other people


No, not at all, I did not participate in any campaign at all.

8. Considering all of your chosen platforms action plans, which were the most appealing toyou, 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 yesside were saying and that obviously they were trying to not make public, certain thingswere brought up on the no side. The no side did the same to conceal, as well as dig upfacts that are not as easily found. I think now there is a lot more information for futuremember considerations, that if they search of CFS on Google, it wont be as pretty of apicture. That media obviously didnt exist at that time, or at least I couldnt find any.Both sides did do some embellishment and there was more than had to be done on the yesside. To get people to vote, but I think that spinning act, or the spinning masters were


34/46


34

more over-worked on the yes side, than the no side. It didnt influence my too much,because I kept my neutral stance.

SurveySample #2

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 fromNovember 18-20, 2008?

a. Yesb. No

2. When was the first time you had heard of the Canadian Federation of Students as anassociation on the University of Ottawa? What was the context of what you heard

(specific details)?The first time I heard of the CFS at the U of O was during a meeting I was attending anda 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 sidewas trying as hard as it could to discredit the other. It did seem though that the studentwho spoke in favour of the CFS was often on the defensive when given the opportunity torespond to what the student who spoke against her position.

3. How did you, as a student, educate yourself about the Canadian Federation ofStudents implementation, overall?

In order to make sure I had all the information needed, I often visited the CFS website tofind out exactly what the implications were of becoming a member as a University.

4. What were some of the beliefs that you shared with your chosen platform?

As I said during the interview, I chose to stay neutral on the matter as I was a studentrepresentative and also because I felt as though it was wrong that certain SFUOexecutives, that were supposed to represent ALL undergraduate students, had taken sidesand had even taken on leadership roles in the "YES" campaign.

5. During the time allotted for voting, what were the arguments that not only convinced,

but encouraged you to vote for your chosen platform?

I liked the idea that we could be apart of a national student movement. I didn't like thefact that we would be forced to pay more money (in membership fees) but it seemed likea small price to pay for the perceived advantages.

6. Did you utilize any mediums (texts, social networking sites) to encourage and/orpersuade your peers to vote?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 beeninfluenced by positions taken by the CFS.


35/46


35

The national Drop Fees campaign seemed to be the main focus of the SFUO executivesand there was a lot of negativity surrounding the campus media concerning the lack ofparticipation on Nov. 5th.The system as a whole didn't really change much to my knowledge. It was more so achange 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 everyonethrough one voice

9. Did you see these changes implemented, according to your chosen specific platform?Not at all! The contrary, the campus has been split down the middle and campus unity isdefinitely at the lowest point I've ever seen.

10. What changes did you see that you did not expect, want, or appreciate, directly

associated with CFS membership?The way our campus has been split in half. Also, whenever someone speaks against theCFS in any regard, someone who supports it will attack that personimmediately and attempt to discredit anything that that person said.

11. If given the opportunity, would you change your vote? Why?ABSOLUTELY!!!! I don't like the tone this subject has taken and the negativitysurrounding the whole issue.

InterviewSample #3


Fees, always. Our fees were increased and were not even benefitting from it/. I dontunderstand why our fees are being raised but we are not getting anything from itemptypromises. Class sizesthe public speaking class is easier to learn and interact if its asmaller class. When there is 300 kids and the professor doesnt know your name. Werepaying big bucks to get textbook knowledge but not personalized learning. Moreemphasis on collaborative teachingstudent and teacher. Not regurgitation. Were beingtaught how to regurgitate, and not form an opinion; weve 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 justdelete them. Class to class in person discussion, talking with your friends. The sameinformation was constantly being rephrased, and hearing it over and over again, makes it


36/46


36

stick to your head. By talking to other people, you take bits and pieces of it to create youropinion.


They had mentioned different schools and what they did for them, but were not gettingthe same stuff. I remember different names being thrown around, and them getting perksand travel discounts. Your ISC will work wonders?


Facebook, I read different comments from other peers. Probably msn too, but even thenits discussing but I think I asked more questions than I discussed. I didnt persuadeanyone in any direction

5. Were there any people who you felt were increasingly influential to your decision-makingprocesses? Please include positive and negative influences.CSApositive, and negative. There were different people within it that gave differentcomments, professors didnt really say anything, peers gave different comments. Thepeople 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 awide variety of information to use it and form my own opinion.


No. I voted and I was done.

8. Considering all of your chosen platforms action plans, which were the most appealing toyou, and why? Do you think they had the same appeal to other students, and why?

Yes -I thought they said there would be an increase in inter-university relations, I thoughtthat was cool to have a greater connection with other schools. More events, more spacefor students on campus and a decrease in tuition fees. They said wed be paying forsomething beneficial, and wed be pulled into that. Maybe it will happen fully next year,but I dont know.

9. Did these action plans influence which way you voted? Do you think, overall, the planswere sufficient to the calibre of the referendum?

They had no effect on the way I voted. I think they were interesting and well presented, Idont think that, I think if they do make an appearance, it wont be as drastic orpronounced as they said I t would be. Itd be a much smaller calibre.


37/46


37

SurveySample #3

Please note, that you are not asked to provide your name, age or faculty to ensure furtheranonymity. 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)?

I first heard about the Canadian Federation of Students as an association on theUniversity of Ottawa when they were petitioning for and against it. I heard about itthrough word of mouth, class presentations and discussions, peer contact, and in theFulcrum.

3. How did you, as a student, educate yourself about the Canadian Federation of

Students implementation, overall?

I educated myself by listening to the class presentations, talking with my peers, andreading the articles in the Fulcrum.

4. What were some of the beliefs that you shared with your chosen platform?

I believe that the CFS does NOT follow through with it's promises. I believe thisbecause everything they said would happen if we chose to allow them to come intoour school did not happen. Instead, we are paying more tuition to cover the CFSexpenses 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 friendsand listening to what they had to say. I have friends that are for it, as well as againstit, and hearing all of the points brought up by this means allowed me to further myopinion. One argument that I head was that the CFS will allow for the student body atthe University of Ottawa to have more student-oriented space, an overall decrease intuition, and more of a support against the administration if need be.

6. Did you utilize any mediums (texts, social networking sites) to encourage and/or

persuade your peers to vote?

I did not do anything to encourage my friends to vote or to persuade them to vote oneway 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 cardtaking up space in my wallet.


38/46


38

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 likethey were promised.

10. What changes did you see that you did not expect, want, or appreciate, directly

associated with CFS membership?

I have not seen any changes.

10.If given the opportunity, would you change your vote? Why?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.

InterviewSample #4


I would like there to be more study space, in the library there is so little spaced,especially during exam times, its like a zoo. It feels like in times when its neededtheres always spaces at a premium. This should be emphasized. I think there should bemore choice of healthy food on campus, theres cafe alt and Nostalgica, but just kind of

easy to pick up, that you can grab and go, they dont offer much choice and the prices aresuper expensive. Affordable and accessible food for students.


Reading blogs, Ive been to the CFS website before but its all one big advertisement forthe movement. Definitely reading about it from notable blogs, like MacLeans. Readingabout stuff from people on campus, who are really into the issues and who are reallyknowledgeable. Mostly through those mediums.

3. Are you aware of any other institutions who hold membership in the CFS? What do youknow about them and how did you learn this?I know Carleton is part of CFS. Carleton put forth, I dont know if it was grad, or studentunion, put forth a referendum for defederation from the CFS, rules. A lot of peopledisagreed with this, myself included, because had that rule not been put forth, then thisyear we would have been able to start the defederation, and put forth the referendum. Thenew rule is now not two years, but five years and instead of ten per cent, you need twentyper cent to pass the petition. It makes it really hard to defederate.


39/46


39


Definitely keeping up on blogs, more so from the no side, because that was what I wasmore into. Through Facebook, too, seeing groups and their profile pictures. Those twomediums were the most used.


One person who was influential was (exp

Documents

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