The Strand sat down with UTSU slate, Demand Better’s Presidential Candidate, Mathias Memmel, to discuss the current reality and future of the UTSU.
The Strand: Last year you wrote an article for The Varsity questioning whether the UTSU was worth saving and now you’re running for president. Can you elaborate on that decision?
Mathias Memmel: In that article I ended with the conclusion that the UTSU is worth saving but only under a pretense that it would be saved for all students and that’s the guiding philosophy with this team. Students don’t trust the UTSU too much with anything and many of them would prefer that the UTSU be disbanded. I don’t blame them for that, especially when you have an organization that consumes more than half of its annual budget on staff salaries and leaves little left to do anything useful for students. some student unions prioritize advocacy and service, and the UTSU is good at neither. I think that’s the fundamental problem, and, with our team, the idea is that the UTSU can be saved as an institution but it’s got be rebuilt from the ground up. It’s a team dedicated to the complete reinvention of the UTSU.
TS: How do you plan to change the image of the UTSU with your slate?
MM: So, I think a lot of people get elected into the UTSU with the idea of changing the image of the UTSU by promoting what it currently offers and provides, but just in a different, and better way, if you will, without actually addressing the structural problems with the organization. The overall/underlying problem with the UTSU is that it’s a culture of superiority and self interest and self service, where the UTSU for over a decade has put its own interest ahead of students, and that culture is fundamentally based in the philosophy that the UTSU can displace and replace all of the other communities that exist on campus. I think that people sense this. It’s a culture that has resulted in a lot of problems and that’s the diagnosis for a lot of these problems with the UTSU. In terms of changing the image, I think, fundamentally, we have to change structural issues and show students that we have meaningfully addressed these and there are changes and we ought to be promoting the changes instead of promoting what already exists.
TS: what structure reinvention do you suppose would help benefit the UTSU?
MM: Oh my gosh okay. There are three pillars to our platform. There’s demand for better governance, better services, and better advocacy, and those are the three pillars what the organization needs to be re-founded on. In terms of governance, we need to stop the overspending on staff salaries. We need to provide more jobs to students instead of full time staff that aren’t students. We need to fix the electoral system that is completely toxic, and which is very inaccessible for students that don’t already wield political capital. We need more oversights of the UTSU. We need a different way of representing marginalized students on the UTSU. […] Generally, there needs to be a shift form executive power, the power ought to reside on the board and the board should do more than just rubberstamp things that have already happened; they should be a part of what is ought to come.
TS: In choosing to advocate for students and also representing marginalized groups, where do you stand in the involvement in free speech voices and groups?
MM: I think that there’s two components to advocacy here. There’s the component where the UTSU needs to do much more to support marginalized groups on campus. To be blunt, the UTSU did not do enough to support those students this year. That’s a personal failing on my part and the part of the entire executive and board of directors. And then there’s the other component, that’s the education component that’s been absent this year. I think that when there’s a group of students, some of them are flat out racists and neo-Nazi’s, then there’s also people who fundamentally believe in the principles of free expression, and in some ways are ignorant to how problematic speech can impact further marginalized groups of students. So with a group like “students for free discourse,” and “sounds like censorship but okay,” I think that for the UTSU to refuse to engage with these groups would fundamentally would be a disservice to the members because it ought to be the responsibly of the UTSU to educate students. We can’t expect marginalized students to put in the emotional labor necessary to educate bigots and nor should they have to. I think that’s sort of when, “is the UTSU worth saving” comes in. It has to be saved for everyone so that it can support marginalized students and that it can educate students who hold problematic views. Refusing to engage in that discourse and discussion fundamentally doesn’t advance anyone’s cause.
TS: How are some of the ways you fought the UTSU, and why is that important to you?
MM: Fought the UTSU? Okay cool. On the board we passed a lot of reforms, there was a new board structure, which is still problematic, change in services to health and dental plan that was overhauled, and an internal fight within the UTSU […]. Certain individuals were being interested in pursuing a flawed ideology. Now this year, I’ve had my eyes opened completely and I’ve seen the dysfunction and nastiness from the inside. […] the individuals involved at all levels of the UTSU have bought into the culture of self service to the point where it comes to the point of its not actually what’s the best for students, its what’s the best for my job or the UTSU as an institution. I don’t think those two things need to be different but, in the culture of the place, its just a colossal mess. […]. I’ve fought the UTSU a lot this year and I’m still motivated to fix it.
Voting runs March 14th-16th at utsu.simplyvoting.com.
