When (many years ago) I was a student at a residential college a fellow student deeply disliked being required to be a member of the Student Union.
This despite or because of the fact that he was (as it turns out) an avid supporter of the League of Rights, an offensively right wing organisation ...which hates everything from blacks to poms, to commies to gays; and that memebership was far more objectionable than anything our "union" ever did.
The fact that our "Student Union" only ran a shop and sold soft drinks, had an annual dinner and held a couple of business meetings seemed to add up to sedition and left-wing thuggery in the mind of said rightist gentleman. He was happy to buy thew cigarettes he needed from the shop, and to enjoy the largess of the bottle at the annual dinner.
I reflect that if we had called ourselves the Annual Piss Up Club, he would have had no objection to joining at all.
This seems to me to be part of the problem with the debate on Student Union fees. The use of the word union! But a student union is no more linked to a trade union than being a member of the Labour Party has anything to do with real labour! Or being a member of the Liberal party (in Australia) has anything to do with being liberal!
Student Unions organise campus groups, and allow pathetic forums for people who need to get a life to debate together about nothing in particular.
Why then should our beloved government be so keen to see these pretty impotent organisations abolished. (see recent developments here). I can only think it is because governments dislike everything that has any potential to allow public discussion about anything controversial.
Some of us would think that it is good to encourage young people to discuss vigorously, and even to develop conflicting ideas. Unless we seek only passive acquiescence to a narrow range of ideas.
This does indeed seem something of a desire on the part of our current government.
Let us not thoroughly debate industrial relations, or ant-terrorism laws....but rather let us allow legislation to be guillotined throught he parliament with as little objection as possible.
This is paternalistic government at its worst.
My suggestion......drop the word union, but continue to be intelligent!
2 comments:
Yes. Exercise of power, intelligence and goodwill don't often go hand in hand. (Luke 23:23) Asoociation of the word 'union' with the word 'power' can be regarded with favour - but on the other hand it can be a liability: as they say "it all depends" - but upon what? When we are told what we should think, we should think about it, shouldn't we? But can our desire for intelligence be conditional? Should we think about that?
I guess I'll have to think about that!!
Post a Comment