Federal candidate - right move?
Re: USC decision to fund federal candidate
To the Editor:
For a council so bent on invoking and utilizing the democratic process, my colleagues and I were clearly surprised at the inept, futile and wasteful decision to fund a candidate in the up-coming (has an election been called that I don't know about?) federal election.
First, my colleagues and I want the USC to know that contrary to popular myth, money does not grow on trees. Most students work all summer in order to afford to come to school. Nonetheless, when we graduate in one year most of us will have a debt. The Education Party's $13,000 could pay the tuition of two dentistry students, four undergrads, three law students, two years of rent, 14,000 cans of Tsbouchi Tuna. If invested properly it could provide scholarships, bursaries or even low interest loans to needy students. Clearly if the council was concerned with the access of higher education these avenues may have been explored.
Second, the USC must know by now that education, especially university education, is a provincial responsibility. In fact, the Liberals got out of funding provincial education in their first budget. So what "feathers" is Mr. Rubinoff exactly going out to ruffle?
Third, no matter how encompassing Mr. Rubinoff and his party are they can not possibly represent the views of all students on campus. He may not even represent a majority. Is Mr. Parks suggesting that his mandate to spend such a ludicrous amount comes from his recent election victory? I voted and I didn't see that question on the ballot.
Clearly our student leaders should be a little more sensitive to the realities facing the student body. It seems that our student council has a little too much money and a little too much free time to play with. Perhaps refunding a little of the former to us would be something worth debating.
Mark Redinger, Law II
Chris Ramsay, Law II
Tullio D'angela, Law II
Mitch Singer, Law II
John Vettese, Law II