A group of students led by a recruiter for the provincial
Young Progressive Conservatives is putting NSPIRG’s feet to the
fire.
The left-leaning Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group, a
fixture on Dalhousie’s campus for nearly 20 years, faces loss of its
core funding from the Dalhousie Student Union if a controversial motion
passes at the union’s annual general meeting April 1.
The battle seems to have a ripple effect well beyond campus.
Organizations including Oxfam, the Ecology Action Centre, the Atlantic
Council for International Co-operation and others have spoken up in
support of the student-run PIRG.
NSPIRG runs on a model started at American universities in the
1970s. Its mandate includes “research, education and action on social
and environmental issues,” both on campus and in the broader community,
according to program coordinator Angela Day. There are more than 15
PIRGs in Canada and over 200 in the US.
NSPIRG’s projects and campaigns depend on its inherently transitory
student population. (Full disclosure: I was a student volunteer for
PIRG in 2001.) Presently, NSPIRG initiatives are a community garden, a
campaign against a garbage dump in the black community of Lincolnville
and Students’ Coalition Against War, among others. PIRG has also
published 17 studies on topics ranging from homeless youth to
colonialism.
PIRG’s budget pays for two part-time employees, overhead and funding
for working groups and research grants for students. Like other PIRGs,
it is funded through a levy, approved in a 1991 referendum, of two
dollars per semester per student.
Therein lies the rub, according to Ben Wedge, administrator of
stopnspirg.org. Wedge says his
campaign against PIRG is “about accountability.” The organization’s
$64,000 budget includes “80 percent overhead. Very little of their
funding gets to actually help any group.”
Stopnspirg.org wants DSU to
evict NSPIRG from its campus office and withhold its funding. Failing
that, the group is circulating a petition asking for a new referendum
on PIRG’s student levy.
In Ontario last week, reports surfaced of Conservative Party
workshops for university students on strategies for undermining
PIRGs—though Wedge denies any knowledge or connection to these
workshops.
Regardless of who’s leading the charge, Wedge’s campaign has local
community groups shaking their heads. “We’ve collaborated with PIRG on
many different issues over the last 15 years,” says Brian O’Neill of
Oxfam, an international social justice advocacy group. “At times I’m
amazed of the breadth of activities that are generated by PIRG, given
the limited financial resources applied to staffing.”
Lauren Dale of the Atlantic Refugee and Immigrant Service Society
agrees. “Support from NSPIRG has been crucial to the existence of
ARISS,” she says.
Lyndon Hibbert of Fight for Justice, an East Preston-based
organization that initiated the Save Lincolnville campaign, chimes in
to say that NSPIRG was “instrumental from the beginning” in providing
legal and advocacy support to the campaign.
Although Wedge admits that Lincolnville is a “good campaign,” he
insists that the fact the group is “no longer run by students”
(referring to PIRG’s one non-student employee) means it should not get
funding from the general student body.
Angela Day counters that the new group has ideological bones to
pick. She notes that while Wedge’s group has offered to give surplus
from donations to its website to Feed Nova Scotia, “PIRG does public
education on questions like ‘why do people have to rely on the food
bank?’ We try to explain why there’s so much food in the world people
don’t have access to. Meanwhile, they attack us.”
Wedge insists his group contains views from across the political
spectrum, even though he is a recruiter for the Young PCs, and PIRG
funding is really a “campus issue.”
He may be right: Regardless of community support, it seems that PIRG
could lose its funding from the student union without recourse to a
referendum, if there are enough anti-PIRG votes at the upcoming
meeting. That would be a major loss to the community, according to
Hibbert. “You need opposition to injustices that are going on.”
This article appears in Mar 26 – Apr 1, 2009.
Great just what we need Mini Harpers.
I am involved with the stop NSPIRG group, and I think that there are three big things that the Coast missed in this article. I will list them here.
1. Wedge is not the leader of this group, nor the founder. He is the one who has registered the website because he had a credit card on hand at the time. He just likes the idea of getting attention, which is also why he is so easy to pick on…
2. Most of us don’t have many problems with NSPIRG. I enjoy their stance on most issues. I do believe however that they have lost their integrity, in the sense that they have alienated themselves from their support. They are not acting in Dalhousie’s interest, but in the interest of the community. This is not a problem in itself, but it is when many people who fund NSPIRG rely on military funding for their livelihood. This really is not associated with the conservative movement. I vote for the Green Party.
3. NSPIRG “faces loss of its core funding from the Dalhousie Student Union if a controversial motion passes at the union’s annual general meeting April 1” is a flat out lie. The motions will force NSPIRG to:
A. “BIFRT that NSPIRG stop paying their staff members that are not Dalhousie students, keeping them inline with there original referendum question.”
and
B. “BIFRT NSPIRG’s entire funding be held in trust by the DSU for the reminder of the term and their payroll that runs there the DSU will be cut off to the remained of this term”
In short, NSPIRG will have its funding held only until next year.
I believe that this article was a tad one-sided, and seemed to be more of an opinion than an article. However, that is not an accusation toward the Coast, just an opinion.
So Cicero, your problem is that there is a NSPIRG staff member who is not a Dal student? That’s a pretty thin argument. Scratch the surface of student societies across campus and I’ll bet there must be DSU money going to other non or former students across campus one way or another. If that’s your logic, is CKDU next? Oh, wait, they’re pretty lefty, too. Don’t spare them, either. How exactly in your opinion have they alienated themselves from the Dal student body? Specifically, what did they do? It’s probably good for groups to have to defend themselves now and again, but this is a pretty dangerous all-or-nothing position NSPIRG is in. Reveal your hand so we can know all the details.
@Andy
Hold a moment Andy, you’re being a little rough, don’t you think? Nowhere did I say that my primary concern was with their non-dal executive. I am primarily concerned with the focus of the organization itself. I am not concerned that it is too left leaning, but am very concerned that its working groups, such as SCAW have been protesting against military jobs, when many of the people that they levy are dependent on the military for their livelihood.
Now, if you have read my other posts on the stop NSPIRG site, you would know that I also have a big problem with any political group receiving a direct levy from students at all. Surely, NSPIRG is non-partisan, but they certainly do aspire to an agenda. This agenda does not operate in the interests of all students that pay that levy. I personally believe that it is a just agenda, but many do not. Surely, people who do not believe this can op-out, but we all know what the problem with that is— People often don’t know about NSPIRG’s existence until the short two week period is over. Not only this, but when I tried to opt-out, it was a hassle. I had to send three e-mails and go to two appointments (they didn’t make one of the ones we had organized). They clearly wanted me to lose interest. This is where my second criticism of this organization lies; it enjoys keeping its full details from the student’s eye, so that it can continue to receive its funding.
Now, this is only a problem when it comes down to political organizations. CKDU, the Gazette may seem to have orientations, but anyone who does not share the same political belief can participate in these organizations. However, in the case of NSPIRG, people who do not believe in environmental issues cannot participate. This is a major problem.
Now, you asked for my personal motivation, you can have it. I believe that groups like NSPIRG are giving the environmental movement, and the social justice movement a bad name. They are willing to be discreet about their existence, use tactics that undermine student involvement, and be exclusive to individuals of different political beliefs. This is in my view dishonest (note: there is a huge difference between dishonesty and lying, I am not accusing them of that) and unkind. In short, NSPIRG lacks the integrity that proponents of environmental issues deserve.
And hey, don’t be so rude towards other people. You seem to think that there is some sort of conservative conspiracy. I get really pissed when people suggest this; it is an insult to me, and the rest of the people who are not conservatives involved with this movement. People who make claims like this are akin to the reason why I oppose NSPIRG.
NSPIRG is hardly facing an “all or nothing” fight. At present, there are exactly two items on the table:
First: A motion at the Dalhousie Student Union’s AGM that asks for NSPIRG’s funding to be held in trust, and for them to stop paying non-Dal staff. This would amount to a temporary shutdown of NSPIRG’s funding. The motion is quite explicit on that point. Temporary.
Second: A movement to have a new referendum on NSPIRG’s funding. If it passes, NSPIRG can go back to doing what it does best. If not, NSPIRG’s mandate has run out. Either way, the people have had their say.
NSPIRG is not _entitled_ to its funding, and its been 20 years since it was reviewed. That’s a long time. If NSPIRG wants Dal students to foot the bill, at the very least it needs to be accountable to Dal students.
Although Cicero won’t go so far as to criticize the coast for this article, I will. Although the text of the article itself maintains some semblance of non-bias, the photo captions and headlines did a really good job of making the stop NSPIRG moment seem like a conservative plot. I voted for the NDP in the last two elections. I am not a conservative, and I do want to see NSPIRG’s funding revisited. It’s my money they’re spending, and I deserve a say in how it’s spent.
So here is what Cicero didn’t quote from the stopnspirg motion. Just in case any of you think this isn’t a targeted attack.
“BIFRT NSPIRG shall be served notice to vacate the SUB after thirty (30) day notice has given toÂ
them in writing by the Vice President of Finance and Operation. This notice shall be deliveredÂ
within twenty‐four (24) hours of conclusion of the AGM.
BIRT that NSPIRG make an official apology, in writing, to all Dalhousie students, for wastingÂ
their money and outlining the four points in the “Whereas” clauses. This will be submitted toÂ
DSU Council by April 1st 2009 to be distributed to the student body.Â
BIFRT that NSPIRG stop paying their staff members that are not Dalhousie students, keepingÂ
them inline with there original referendum question. “
Dave b.
Â
Cicero, disagreeing with an organization is legitimate. And, as I said, I think it’s healthy for organizations to examine themselves, or have to defend themselves publicly. Because PIRG often takes tough stances on issues, it should expect some push back. This is definitely not the first time PIRG has had to defend itself, either, and it’s still around.
If I seemed harsh, I just wanted to get you to open up a bit about your reasons, personally and politically. Not sure if I think it’s a “conspiracy” or not (although you have to admit, in the States there are well-known campus movements out to bait ‘liberals’ and pirgs across the USA, so it’s a legit question to ask oneself), but trying to take away an NGO’s funding is a big move, a pretty harsh move, and an undeniably political move, too. Anyway you did talk more about why you want to vote against funding PIRG, so thanks. Readers have a better sense of what you’re all about.
NSPIRG Truth writes ‘It’s my money they’re spending, and I deserve a say in how it’s spent.’
Wow, a revolutionary thought when you are dealing with the types who gather at NSPIRG.
When it comes to doling out OPM (other peoples money) I believe Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway fame, and Obama supporter, has the best idea. He believes company donations should be decided by the shareholders and not the Chairman & CEO. As Buffett says ‘After all the money belongs to the shareholders, it’s not mine to give away to my favourite causes’
Being a man of his word he decides each year how much goes into the donation pot and each shareholder tells him where to send their share.
Therefore I suggest the money going to NSPIRG be distributed on ‘research’ in accordance with the wishes of Dal students. Shareholders and union members should likewise decide how donations and political action spending are directed.
Very democratic. Something the NSPIRG clique don’t really like.
In light of the wikileak and the manipulative plans of the Conservatives toward student government in Ontario it’s tempting to draw the connection with Ben Wedge and stopNSPIRG, but I think that’s short-sighted. I don’t presume to know much about Ben and his intentions, but the stopNSPIRG movement appears to me to be more of a problem with one non-student staff and his leadership techniques. What everyone seems to be tip-toeing around through mentions of removing NSPIRG from the SUB and holding their finances is that the non-student staff member has shown poor leadership and judgment. Shouting and yelling and stomping your feet should not be the way you set an example to the students of your organization if you expect to be taken seriously within the University or the community at large.
In my opinion NSPIRG is idealistically brilliant. What place better to stimulate critical, radical, progressive thinking than at a University where young minds are as free and open as they’re ever going to be? StopNSPIRG members can be faulted for the short-sightedness of existing within the university bubble and not understanding the value to community connections, but the community should also be aware that an organization fully funded by the Dalhousie students is subject to the whims of those students. When the original referendum was passed the organization was called Dal-PIRG, since switching to NSPIRG I have to wonder where the levies from all other other universities and colleges in Nova Scotia are, or even these stake-holding community members.
Cicero is right – this reads far more as an opinion than a news piece.
Given that I’ve voted NDP in every provincial and federal election since I came of voting age in 2003, I also resent the attempt to spin this as some sort of a Conservative plot. You don’t need to be a puppet or a pawn to have issues with NSPIRG’s lack of accountability, behaviour, or even with the very idea of having an automatic levy on students to fund a highly politicized organization.
Ben Wedge has a lot of energy, and is something of an attention whore, but to call this “his” movement is simply incorrect. Wedge is only a first year student, and many of us have been troubled by NSPIRG’s behaviour and lack of accountability for years now. The reason that all of this has exploded in the past few weeks has to do with a backlash against SMAC, a group of students whose members and objectives overlap with those of NSPIRG. They tried to stack the DSU AGM so that they could push through a series of short-sighted and radically left motions that would have been binding on the DSU. Many students were infuriated by this, and in gathering opposition, discovered just how widespread the concerns over NSPIRG actually were. That was how Stop NSPIRG came about – sorry to disappoint conspiracy theorists who envisioned Stockwell Day whispering sweet nothings into the ears of innocent, impressionable young students.
Geez, I’m going to start voting Conservative just so I can have more credibility whenever I disagree with them!
I’m amazed at how confrontational this whole situation has become. Seems like people’s beefs are actually quite bite-sized and probably quite resolvable. I just heard Judy Rebick speak last night about her experiences learning from new social movements around the world, which she found to be as committed to values like compassion, mutual respect, and understanding as they are to their specific political & social goals. I wonder how this situation would be different if that were the case here.
This is plainly an oped rather than a serious look at the subject. The “full disclosure” that the author has been involved with NSPIRG serves only to draw attention to his bias, rather than mitigate any ethical issue.
As a Dal student, for me the NSPIRG issue boils down to one of principle:
1) NSPIRG’s campaigns against free trade, Canadian Forces involvement in Afghanistan, and Israel Apartheid week are all explicitly POLITICAL activities.
2) No Dal student should have to OPT-OUT of a political organization. If they believe in these causes, they can OPT-IN, just like with any other political organization.
NSPIRGers argue that if students were forced to opt-in, NSPIRG would lose all its money. Yes, it would lose all it’s free money; it would have to raise funds from those who are actually interested in supporting these causes–of which I am not one.
$2 or $4 a year is nothing. And you do have a say in how it’s spent, do you not? You can opt out of the payment, or you can go to the meetings and/or AGM and make proposals and pose questions. The cost is literally pennies per person, and proves that the Stop NSPIRG argument is more ideologically driven than anything.
It’s necessary for students and the public to fight for causes but I think a lot of students jumped on the wrong horse with this one.
“Just pennies a day”… yes, the siren song of the snake-oil salesman. Why should students be forced to pay even pennies a day for a political group they do not support? PIRG sounds like it needs to be purged.
I would probably fight anyone who ever even thought of calling me a Conservative. I’m about as far away from it as I can be, and I believe in NSPIRG reform.
Twenty years ago students voted that the society needed a levy. Do they still need a levy now? Let the current student (who are paying for it) vote on the matter.
I love the Coast, but I was really disappointed by this article. I’m also disappointed at Andy Murdoch jumping in this comment section. It isn’t a left v. right thing, team Coast. Relax.
I’m sorry you misunderstand the issue, but you do. You were duped by one side. Hard.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/OPCCA_workshop_o…
http://ryersonfreepress.ca/site/archives/7…
http://www.manningcentre.ca/docs//102607_P…
http://dalnews.dal.ca/2007/10/26/manning.h…
Really? You want to start posting links to try to prove that everyone against NSPIRG must secretly be a Conservative? Trust me. I’m not.
Do you have to be a Conservative to not want to be paying the salary of this guy? I don’t think so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzhj7SZ-ogc…
http://u-news.ca/story/video/activists-pro…
Yes, you do have to be a conservative if you support weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin (yes, the same Lockheed Martin in the Bowling for Columbine documentary) to give 2 million dollars to Dalhousie University.
http://dalnews.dal.ca/2008/05/16/physics.h…
Bombs away! LOL. Is this what they mean by “Inspiring Minds” (as in inspiring minds to kill?)
You may not be a conservative, but Dalhousie university sure is!
Weird, I was under the impression that I hate Lockheed-Martin, but I guess you would know what I think better then I would.
I don’t understand the argument of how, exactly, Lockheed Martin has anything to do with what we learn in class at Dal.
So the referendum was: “Yes, I support the establishment of a Public Interest Research Group at Dalhousie University
(Dal-PIRG) which will operate as a student run, student funded research, education, and action
organization at a cost of $2.00 per student, per semester ($4.00 per year), which is refundable to
those students who do not wish to participate. “
The DSU and CKDU are student run but employ staff. To say that “student run” means no hired professionals working at the direction of a Board, the majority of which are students, means the 10 DSU full time managers and the 5 CKDU full and part time staff would have to go. Good luck with that, both organizations need that institutional professional expertise. It is the same with PIRG.
Waye Mason – you apparently support ‘reverse onus’ schemes. Rogers Communications had such a scheme and customers were rightly outraged. The cost is irrelevant. I suggest that Dal students should be required to opt IN to NSPIRG. The Students Union should just hand over the $60,000 a year to the Salvation Army or the United Way. Looks like NSPIRG has lost credibility if they have hired the loudmouth in the youtube video.
I bet all NDP supporters in Halifax have been asked to attend the Wednesday meeting to support the existing arrangement.
The Women’s Center used to have a non-student ED, we should cut their levy too. In fact, I heard they look out for women’s interests (what about the men?!). Destroy them all! p.s. I’m a bored nerd with nothing better to do with my time then complain about a $2 levy and attend student debates.