Criticisms
UTSU and its predecessor body SAC have long been the target of criticism. The earliest manifestations of this were in response to SAC's policy, established in 1926, of not interfering in political issues for fear this would impede campus unity. This policy extended to The Varsity (newspaper), which was published by SAC. In 1929 and 1931, SAC dismissed editors who published unpopular opinions. In the mid-1930s, SAC was criticized for failing to support efforts by anti-war and pro-peace advocates on campus, groups which SAC declared were of limited interest. In 1946, SAC's decision not to endorse efforts to prevent deportation of Japanese Canadians was also the brunt of campus criticism. Anti-racist advocates also derided SAC's inability to embrace this cause in the 1940s.
Recently, UTSU has been criticized for having taken controversial public positions on equity and racial issues on campus, as well as having become involved in controversial campaigns relating to certain global issues like the Sri Lankan conflict or the Israeli Apartheid campaign. Many criticisms have come from members of provincial and federal political parties, including both the Liberals and Conservatives, which have questioned the legitimacy of UTSU's democratic credentials.
UTSU elections have been the subject of intense controversy in recent years, with student governments at the University of Toronto's constituent and federated Colleges coming into conflict with the campus-wide UTSU over allegedly unfair and non-transparent electoral rules and practices. The Union's relationship with the Canadian Federation of Students has often been a major flashpoint of conflict between the College Councils and the UTSU, with many students expressing concern that the UTSU's political advocacy on controversial CFS campaigns runs contrary to the interests of students at the University of Toronto.
Read more about this topic: University Of Toronto Students' Union
Famous quotes containing the word criticisms:
“The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour. Sobriety diminishes, discriminates, and says no; drunkenness expands, unites, and says yes.”
—William James (18421910)
“I have no concern with any economic criticisms of the communist system; I cannot enquire into whether the abolition of private property is expedient or advantageous. But I am able to recognize that the psychological premises on which the system is based are an untenable illusion. In abolishing private property we deprive the human love of aggression of one of its instruments ... but we have in no way altered the differences in power and influence which are misused by aggressiveness.”
—Sigmund Freud (18561939)