Adelaide Student Politics

Posted 27th April

All schools (subdivisions within a faculty, e.g., the School of Law exists within the Faculty of Professions) at the University of Adelaide are loosely required to have an undergraduate and postgraduate student representative. The actual duties of the student representatives differ greatly from school to school, faculty to faculty, but the term broadly means what it suggests, and usually involves sitting on some sort of committee with the aim of providing a student perspective to other voting members.

I’m a third year International Studies student. This puts me in the School of History and Politics (what a mouthful. Let’s call it H&P). In the time I’ve been at Adelaide, I have not heard anything about student representation in this manner for this school. The school in charge of the other half of my degree has had a student rep for half the time I’ve been there. What can I say; no one really bothers with these things, the position not meaning much anyway. This year, however, H&P decided it would be a good idea to solicit nominations for a student representative.

The first email sent out (on April 1st) called for expressions of interest, saying this wouldn’t be a time-consuming role, requiring at most attendance at three meetings over the course of the year. Two days later, there now appears a need to call a ballot, due to an ‘overwhelming response’. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where the fun begins.

23 students have nominated. For one position. You can guess what that means. Attached to the email with the candidate list is the nomination form. It references the SAUA. I’m sure no one but a freak like me who finds this all morbidly fascinating even knows what that is anymore (I would link the wiki, but, well, there's an explanation at the start of this). Fail H&P, fail.

But anyway, that was the most I heard about it for a while. I knew three of the names on the list, and figured I’d simply weigh up which one I thought was the clueyest and vote for them. I imagine most third years would know at least one name on the list; it’s not that big a school.

However, in the absence of stringent AUU-like election regulations, it did not take long for the university mailing lists to be accessed. Remember guys, these isn’t no message boards or candidate statements, but actual emails that were sent out to everyone in H&P. I’m quite surprised some people weren’t able to see how that would backfire. But anyway.

The first message, that hasn’t been lost in my inbox, came on the 24th of April, from K.R. I quote:

“I've got lots of ideas and want to get better, services, but first and foremost i want to alter the tutorial system to get a, better deal for students and tutors and “cut down student workload””.

Oh god. It’s a fairly ambitious platform for a three-meeting-a-year position. To K’s credit, she also tries for a bit of market research, asking students a series of questions about how they see their workload. She might find this useful.

W.W., who isn’t running, nonetheless takes the time to reply to K. He tells her that without reading, how on earth one expects to gain the level of knowledge needed to justify a degree in history or politics.

“Tertiary education is a privilege, not a right. The end result of a University education should be a well rounded, educated self, not a piece of paper and, considering how much money you're sinking into it, you should try and make the absolute most of the education you're getting a chance at attaining. If you're only here for the piece of paper, I'd say leave Uni and go work. It's cheaper, quicker and (contrary to popular opinion) wholly possible.”

H.M. (also, not running) then responds. She’s very nice, nicer than I would have been. She agrees with W.W., and says that K.R. should drop this ‘less workload’ nonsense and focus on promoting services available to assist students instead.

The last word (in this thread at least) goes to B.S.

“[This is] highly fucking annoying. So attention to further participants in this debate: If you want to talk to [K], make sure your reply is addressed only to her and not to everyone. If you just hit reply there's a chance you will get everyone's address and I will have to start signing up your and Katy's addresses for random spam.”

Bravo! Although, it kind of spoiled my fun.

Alright, new email thread. This one is started by another candidate, C.R. He talks about the (almost universally despised) unit course weightings changes in the school. He doesn’t exactly say he’s going to change them back, just, ‘address’ them. So, I can’t say he’s stupid enough to think he can derail a university course rationalization policy that’s been in the works for a few years. He says he’s happy to run on a populist ‘free pancake day’ every week. I’m puzzled. He’s clearly not stupid; he just doesn’t give any serious reasons to vote for him. Apart from all the other candidates being communists apparently (in H&P, that could count in their favour).

A friend puts her name out there in support of C.R, finishing with the ominous “I think anyone would be wise to vote for him.”

Another candidate then puts her name in the mix. R.P. ‘isn’t a political animal’….

She just…cares. She doesn’t really say I should vote for her, just for someone good. I really don’t understand why anyone would send out an email unless they actually think they can convince people through it. I mean, you send out an email, you instantly repel, what, a lot of people (so wanted to make up a statistic there). So, unless you offer solid reasons, it’s lose-lose.

Last thread.

J.D. She sounds like she’s running for VC. She wants to serve two ‘primary aims’:

1) To bridge the gap between H&P and the ‘real world’, through talking to employers etc.
2) To lift the profile of H&P (“Lets make our degrees nationally prestigious, internationally renown”).

Oh boy. This is too much. W.C. responds with “I will vote for whoever stops emailing me first”. He sends it out three times. Nice touch there.

A.M. agrees. Not enough to take his own advice though.

P.B. then sends out the only intentionally hilarious email I received today. He sets out the terms for his vote. Basically, you either have to make him laugh, or pay him. This applies retroactively: all candidates who have previously sent out unfunny messages are barred from his vote.

And that, my friends, is what has been entertaining me all day. Several points to take away from it are:

1) Never, ever, underestimate the stupidity of the people you go to uni with.
2) H&P: The SAUA died ages ago. Furthermore, did you really not expect an election? History and Politics students are rarely the shy reserved type.
3) And finally, it’s a self-regulating system! You don’t need election regulations like prohibitions on what mailing lists can and can’t be used, the voters take matters into their own hands. Apply this valuable insight as broadly, liberally, and, most importantly, recklessly as your heart desires. For that is the way of freedom.

*Ballots opened today. Go vote. Or, stay where you are and watch this and this*