University of Ottawa Paper Fulcrum Boycotts National Defence Advertisements

[armyvern]

I'd agree with you rfishbook.

It only hurts those who actually tried to prevent this from happening.

I find it quite ironic that this site is witnessing opposite behaviours based on two like outcomes -- and that you can't win no matter how you play it.

In the UVic case, members of this site went nuts screaming about "where's the democratic process" ... "how can a Student Union board arbitrarily implement this decision to boycott recruiting on Campus", "that's just wrong."

Then, we have The Fulcrum who they are slamming because they did NOT arbitraily implement a decision and rather went with the democratic vote.

Eerily, in the UVic case, those members then went on to praise those students who showed up and ended up democraticlly overturning the UVic anti-recruiting policy.

Apparently though, democratic process is only good when it results in backing up what they want to see happen.

All the more power to The Fulcrum: you have demonstrated your ability to remain an outlet where those involved actually have a choice in the decisions to be made. Sometimes, we may not like those decisions, but at least they came about freely and fairly.

One would hope that those 85 who voted in favour of keeping the advertising are driven to bring forth this issue at the next AGM as well, and able to harken enough of the silent majority off their duffs and out for the vote ... if your paper manages to last that long.

Ironic that by using and honouring the democratic process -- you now find yourself boycot-threatened by the very folks who would ask where that democratic process was had you arbitrarily imposed the same decision.

Good luck with your paper, I hope that it prospers and that you are able to overcome this setback. And, I hope that UofO students have really learned something about exercising their rights to vote -- it's important.

 

[leroi]

Vern,

Good reply.

Rob,

Hopefully the brouhaha will die down shortly.  I've read The Fulcrum: it's certainly not a rag and very professional.

I respect your integrity for remaining unbiased through what must have been a difficult process and for remaining faithful to you principles.

leroi/Joan

 

[Celticgirl]

   You're absolutely right that CF ds are neither discriminatory or libellous and thus the board opposed them vehemently. Unfortunately we were outovted at the AGM, the only body more powerful than the board.

Are the CF ads discriminatory or libelous? No, they are not. So they broke their own rules in this case. Is that "fair"? I don't believe it is. I'm a believer in democracy, even when the result doesn't go my way, but this is a vote that I believe should never have even taken place. The CF was singled out and targeted for boycott against this paper's own policies. 

[quote author=rfishbook]For those voicing their support of an advertising boycott of the Fulcrum by local businesses, I hope you'll think critically about the effect that something like this would have on our paper.[/quote]

I don't think it will stop at a boycott of advertising for The Fulcrum. As I said before, there are a lot of military personnel who have children who will be attending university someday, some of them very soon. I think The Fulcrum is putting a huge black mark on the university with this blatantly anti-military action and the repercussions will be wide.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

I'll say it again, democracy is only truly a model democracy if people participate, and it appears here, like many campuses, that fringe groups got into university and became active while the rest of the student body focused on work and partying, and became oblivious to the going on's on university. If we want this anti-CF crap to stop more students need to get involved

 

[armyvern]

The vote itself may have been done in a democratic way, but it should never have been voted on in the first place:

Are the CF ads discriminatory or libelous? No, they are not. So they broke their own rules in this case. Is that "fair"? I don't believe it is. I'm a believer in democracy, even when the result doesn't go my way, but this is a vote that I believe should never have even taken place. The CF was singled out and targeted for boycott against this paper's own policies. 

I don't think it will stop at a boycott of advertising for The Fulcrum. As I said before, there are a lot of military personnel who have children who will be attending university someday, some of them very soon. I think The Fulcrum is putting a huge black mark on the university with this blatantly anti-military action and the repercussions will be wide.

Really?

The Fulcrum has a policy that states that if it's readership wants to see changes to the paper, they can put forward motions for agendas to be voted upon by those with vested interest in the paper (ie the students).

The Fulcrum acted EXACTLY in accordance with it's policy regarding "changes" it's readership wanted to propose. That is EXACTLY what happened here.

If it's going to STOP -- then those ones who sat on their duffs had better do something about it and get out, get invloved, and vote. Period.

 

[Shamrock]

If I have ever read anything so out of touch with reality, this guy is in the running for first place.  He inspected Fire Supression Systems; Fire Extinguishers, Sprinklers, and such, for $10 a hour, and he thinks he was partaking in the killing of innocents.   :  Is he even a Student?  He definitely rides on the short bus.

I wonder how he feels about people accusing us of war crimes in Afghanistan... because he's complicit now.

 

[George Wallace]

I wonder how he feels about people accusing us of war crimes in Afghanistan... because he's complicit now.

Perhaps he has moved on to other things?

 

[brihard]

...And the inevitable Facebook debate has started.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13460053645

 

[Shamrock]

In the end an advertising boycott would do nothing to effect the outcome of the vote and would only serve to directly hurt the 85 students who showed up at the AGM and actually fought this motion. The Fulcrum and all those who work long and hard hours to do something we believe in have already been crippled against our will, calling for further punishment of those that fought the hardest against this is unjust to say the least.

rfishbook, you've pretty muched summarized the entire reason FOR the boycott.  While the Fulcrum's dedication to some of its stakeholders is commendable, in flooring the motion without considering the broader ramifications of an aye vote, the Fulcrum was remiss to those who stood to suffer the most; that this was not considered until AFTER the vote went through does not mean it should be given a carte blanche apology.  The paper has made a decision, it must either stand by it and face the consequences or change it.  If that means no money is available for staff, then so be it.

Advertisers now have vested interest in terminating their custom with the Fulcrum; it has shown a marked lack of loyalty to its clients in refusing to run adverts for specious reasons.  Furthermore, it has taken a very clear political stance that may not be reflective of the advertisers, company owners, and consumers.  Were a paper to alienate a considerable section of my target audience because of its political stance, I would be interested in terminating any further dealings with the publisher.  

It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance, the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future.

 

[Celticgirl]

It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance, the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future.

Hear, hear! Very well-put, Shamrock.

 

[HDE]

Personally I don't know enough about the quality of The Fulcrum to know whether or not it is a "rag" or not.  In this particular instance it appears  small, but organized, group of individuals have managed to force the paper to follow a policy that the paper itself finds objectionable.  Does it follow, then, that punishing the paper actually achieves anything useful?  In the short term it makes some folks feel good because it teaches th paper a "lesson" of some sort, however I don't see trashing The Fulcrum as serving much purpose in the longer term; essentially you're giving considerable success to the yahoos who forced through the motion we all object to.  The editor has had considerable courage coming here to army.ca, likely a fairly hostile crowd, and attempting to provide readers with info on the what actually transpired and, quite frankly, I admire him for it.  Who knows how The Fulcrum will evolve if we dump on folks who appear to be among the more rational and forthright people in the story ?

 

[armyvern]

Does anyone but me see the hypocrisy here??

Here ... you're giving The Fulcrum shit for allowing democracy and saying the decision should have been imposed (because a democratic vote did not get the result you wanted to see):

Quote from: Shamrock on Yesterday at 22:38:55
It's unfortunate the paper now stands to suffer, but I have no sympathy.  In allowing the voters to dictate the paper's stance, the Fulcrum has allowed them to dictate the paper's future.

Some reactions on this site after the decision was ARBITRARILY imposed in UVic:

Yet, kudus and +1s to these posts over in the UVIc thread where you're giving UVic shit for imposing and saying the decision should have been democratic (because imposition did not get the result you wanted to see):

F'ing christ, what an embarassment.  Some minority activists have obviously taken over the student council and, as most student dont give a crap or pay attention to their activities, has on its own decided to rewrite the rules to accomodate their beliefs. 

I am so freaking fed up with this mentality. "You don't know any better, so I'll decide for you. Bias be damned!"

That my friend is the entire point of my earlier post.  Big Brother is watching and obviously they know what's best for all of us because we are just a mindless mass, especially the ones fortunate enough to go to an institute of higher learning.  :rage:

Then the praise after a motion was put forward by students to VOTE in an attempt to rescind this imposition:

One of the directors that was absent from that meeting is making a motion at Monday's UVSS meeting to overturn that Sept 10 motion.  The motion will be this:

"WHEREAS UVic students have the right to evaluate all career options and points of view;
and WHEREAS the UVSS has no right to censor the information that is provided to UVic students;
and WHEREAS the decision to ban the Canadian Armed Forces from the SUB has caused considerable outrage in the Campus Community;
BIRT that the motion passed at the Monday, September 10, 2007 meeting, banning the Canadian Armed Forces from the SUB, be rescinded."

...Her most recent politically minded move is to move this issue to the annual general meeting so that the students can decide: which completely goes against what was said earlier about how the students aren't informed enough to make this kind of decision.

Then, in that thread, there are some inclusions from members of this site of emails that they forward and sent to UVic carrying titles such as "UVic Students have no right to choose".

Then a few more about imposing upon the students with the students having no say ...

...How dare the student union decide what the other students should or should not be exposed to vis-a-vis career choices!

I do realize that the student union is not the same as the administration of the school. However, there are still some rules that student's union have to follow, ie: being inclusive, upholding human rights, etc.

If the shoe were on the other foot and it was the administration not allowing freedom of choice or speech, these same students would be protesting! Also, who funds the office space/building that houses this student union?

(Interesting comment there in that that is exactly what's happening on this forum right now because The Fulcrum DID allow freedom of choice)

This comment:

These guys need a wake up call to the fact that their actions are more militant than ours...

in that their action to "impose" a decision is a militant action.

I wasn't able to make the event (I figured skipping the class that I have a midterm in on Friday wasn't a good idea), but from what I was told it was pretty tame. There were a couple of protesters that ended up walking out after muttering about the RCMP and "imperialism", but otherwise uneventful. I'm just hoping that it's informed even a few people about what this is all about.

For now though I think it's just a matter of overcoming the typical student apathy and getting them out to vote at the AGM. Those who want the ban are small in numbers but are very dedicated. It does sound like there are enough signatures for the petition to impeach though (although that is second-hand knowledge so don't hold me to it until it's confirmed through another source).

Then, the students succeed in having this "imposed decision" tabled on the UVic AGM, debated, and set for vote as to whether to overturn the imposed decision or stay with it: (It was overturned by the majority vote)

Great to see that this issue motivated the students to debate and exercise their democratic right to vote.   After all did not the blood of many soldiers earn them this right.

I saw this clip on the news last night, the students looked quite happy with their achievement.

Talk about sour apples on the anti-military side.  When they squeak through a ban against military recruitment its for the common good. When the student body shows up and argues that they want the military to show up, its because they dont understand the issues.  When the anti-war group pulls a fast one in the voting, its revolution in action.  When the student body shows up and starts using Roberts rules of order, they're manipulating the system.

Bah, what a bunch of whiners...

Of course, the people "squeaking through the ban" in UVic were the Student Union Council who voted within themselves to "impose" the ban because students couldn't think for themselves.

Well well what an interesting turn of events. Hurray for those students who took the time to stand up for their rights and not be bullied by those zealots on their student board!

>"For me, exercising my democratic right and freedom of speech is about taking actions to actually stop things from happening," student Jennifer King said.

So everything turned out democratically; a bunch of people stopped a thing (the ban on a recruiting presence in the UVIC SUB) from happening.

Either you want it done via a democratic vote or not. Take your pick. Allowing someone to vote doesn't make The Fulcrum wrong just because YOU don't like the result. That's hypocritcal. DEMOCRACY and freedom IS what we fight for -- and here you are slamming it's occurance. You praise democracy of student votes in overturning UVic to get the results you wanted after they were imposed -- and slam The Fulcrum for not "imposing" to overturn the results of a democratic & free process.

Funny type we miltary folk are ... anything against us must be wrong. Wrong for imposing it (because they should have voted on it). Wrong for voting on it (because they should have imposed it).

Reminds me of philosopher Jagger's fine words "you can't always get what you want ..." even through democratic process if you don't get your butt out there and exercise your democratic right to vote.

Hello. Bueller, anyone?? Pot --- Kettles --- Black.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

Isnt it only counsellors that are elected ? I belief student council are apoointed by a nationwide organization. Students are also forced to join and pay dues

 

[Yrys]

Isnt it only counsellors that are elected ? I belief student council are apoointed by a nationwide organization. Students are also forced to join and pay dues

I'm not sure of it is working in the anglophone part of the country, didn't talk to SSMU people about that,
back in the day. In Québec, General Association have their council elected either in General assembly or in Board of governors whichever their constitution dictate.
When you're in the executive of the General Association, you can get delegate to the Board of Governors of the  FEUQ,
which is the provincial federation (Quebec Federation of University Students). Their own executive get elected in a general assembly, where executive of General association that are member attend.

Student are force, because the law (Rand, I think) that govern Students Associations mimic the one about unions. If you work in a place where there is a union,
you don't get your say into whether you join or not...

 

[Shamrock]

Does anyone but me see the hypocrisy here??

Here ... you're giving The Fulcrum shit for allowing democracy and saying the decision should have been imposed (because a democratic vote did not get the result you wanted to see):

I don't see how I'm being hypocritical.

The Fulcrum, as a company, floored a motion and allowed its stakeholders to vote on it; stakeholders voted in favor of the motion and it was passed.  Any change of company policy will have an affect on the company; a hot-button topic like the CF, client loyalty, and client control over its paid advertising content will have broader ramifications.  The Fulcrum was irresponsible in allowing the motion to be floored without considering and weighing these ramifications; if they now face the near catastrophe they should have forseen, it would have been in the paper's best interest to illicit as large a possible Nay vote.  The Fulcrum has the right to deny custom but so too do its clients.  If they feel the Fulcrum has been disloyal to them or the CF, then they have the right to take their business elsewhere. 

The shareholders have spoken; if the majority of the attending shareholders have decided "integrity" is more important than survival, then so be it.  They do not have my sympathy in the same way UVSS would not have my sympathy if its AGM were to produce a motion that harmed it grievously.

Is CF recruiting a big deal?  Yes, absolutely.  Anyone who cannot form an informed opinion, cannot see through the bullshit, promises, dangers and restrictions to personal and civil liberties prior to signing the dotted line also lacks the faculties to vote. 

 

[armyvern]

It's hypocrital exactly because had The Fulcrum's tabled motion led to a "keep the military recruiting adds" outcome -- people like you would be cheering on the democratic process at it's best exactly as they did with the UVic bit.

That's what's hypocritical. You don't like the process only because you don't agree with the outcome. Had you agreed with the outcome -- you wouldn't have a single care in the world about their process that they undertook. In fact, it wouldn't even be news, nor being discussed here most probably.

 

[Shamrock]

It's hypocrital exactly because had The Fulcrum's tabled motion led to a "keep the military recruiting adds" outcome -- people like you would be cheering on the democratic process at it's best exactly as they did with the UVic bit.

Vern, I admire your skills as a moderator.

Your ability to read and contribute to an argument, however, is sorely lacking.  I have neither cheered nor criticized either vote, but rather their inability to forecast the outcome of their process.  An aye vote or a nay vote; both will have negative consequences.  Which will have a more adverse effect and which can be dealt with?  Professional entities make decisions like this on a daily basis.  Some collapse while others thrive.

Are "people like me" hypocrites because we think people should suffer the consequences of their actions, or are "people like you" the kind that feel no-one should be forced to deal with the negative outcomes of a poorly conceived plan?  Arguing they should be protected against negative consequences, even if those consequences mean absolute failure of the Fulcrum, implicitly states they did not make an informed decision -- and if students cannot make an informed decision here how can they make an informed decision there in the recruiting centre or there in the voting booth?

Am I a hypocrite because I believe in adult responsibility for adult decisions?  I can live with that.  Nobody gets a free ride.  Fuck up and face the consequences.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, I admire your skills as a moderator.

Your ability to read and contribute to an argument, however, is sorely lacking.  I have neither cheered nor criticized either vote, but rather their inability to forecast the outcome of their process.  An aye vote or a nay vote; both will have negative consequences.  Which will have a more adverse effect and which can be dealt with?  Professional entities make decisions like this on a daily basis.  Some collapse while others thrive.

Are "people like me" hypocrites because we think people should suffer the consequences of their actions, or are "people like you" the kind that feel no-one should be forced to deal with the negative outcomes of a poorly conceived plan?  Arguing they should be protected against negative consequences, even if those consequences mean absolute failure of the Fulcrum, implicitly states they did not make an informed decision -- and if students cannot make an informed decision here how can they make an informed decision there in the recruiting centre or there in the voting booth?

Am I a hypocrite because I believe in adult responsibility for adult decisions?  I can live with that.  Nobody gets a free ride.  Fuck up and face the consequences.

My "skills" as a poster sorely lacking?? Because I disagree with you?? And, what pray tell -- do my "skills" as a mod have to do with anything? You've not stated anything that I haven't already stated in this thread.

Suffer the consequences of their actions?? Why yes ... those that sat home and didn't turn out to vote and those who didn't find this issue an important one to be involved in ... certainly will -- as I've said; they have no one to blame but themselves.

They certainly should be adults in their decisions and reap what they have sown. Did you miss it when I said that at least ten times now?? I just happen to put the blame where it lies.

I put the blame squarely on them. Not on The Fulcrum proper who did the democratic thing as their policy states is their process; a process by which, FYI states that an item must be placed upon the agenda, debated, and then voted upon. Exactly what occured.

Their policy does not state that they get to delay that process when they "can't predict the outcome". That would be undemocratic. Imagine the Tories, for example, "sorry today's federal elections are cancelled because we might not win" ...

Indeed, where were those adults who chose not to exercise that democratic right and thereby effected this outcome? To blame anything but their apathy -- is not putting the blame where it lies.

And, I've yet to post that I agree with the vote's outcome (rather I do not like it's outcome) ... but I blame those responsible for not exercising their right to vote, not the staff of The Fulcrum who did the democratic thing.

 

[Trinity]

Sadly... the students who voted and thus made the decision will not feel the ill affects from it.

The Fulcrum I read online will lose $7000 in advertising as a result.  Not to mention people
who are now boycotting or up in arms with the Fulcrum. 

In this case the minority gets away with their views at the expense of someone else (the Fulcrum).

Now... with 2 editions left??? until school is over not much damage is done and this can be easily revisited next school year.
But alas, it was all done legally and democratically as per their students rules of their incorporation.  Like
it or hate it it was a well played move by the opposition.  But at best it's symbolistic and isn't going to stop
recruiting.  If anything it's had the opposite effect with more newspaper and media time than the lost $7000
worth of ads could ever buy. 

 

[Shamrock]

The Fulcrum is beholden to its stakeholders and the stakeholders have made their voices known: boycott the advertisements, don't boycott the advertisements, or I don't care.

It is the stakeholders who hold stake in the Fulcrum's success or failure and these people who have voted in an issue that will either allow it to succeed or fail.  The Fulcrum is not a separate entity from its stakeholders; they are part and parcel.  These people care enough about the Fulcrum's content to make the decision. If the paper collapses, then it is on the stakeholders' shoulders.  They cannot absolve themselves of responsibility (although they may be willfully ignorant of their participation towards its success or failure).  Those who abstained obviously don't consider themselves stakeholders. 

The motion was announced and stakeholders attended the AGM.  Speeches were shared, and it was here that those who had the most to lose (staff and employees) had the obligation to tell voters what the nay vote means; I can only assume they did everything in their power to do so.  They failed to convince the Aye voters of the consequences.  Who is to blame?  The people who care more about their agendas and ideals than the success of a school paper.  All stakeholders will feel the effects of this and every decision; some will notice a decrease in salary, others a decrease in quality, others an increase in "integrity." Those who neither read nor contribute to the paper, nonstakeholders, will not.1 

Those who did not show up for the vote have no vested interest in the topic and/or the paper; they are non-stakeholders.  Without an interest in either topic why should they show up?  If they have no reason to show up, why should they be held accountable for something someone else feels is relevant?



1 Even if this decision results in a higher student levy to make up for shortfalls in revenue, I assert the vast majority of those not in attendance were still non-stakeholders as few will realize the reason behind the increase, care about it, or even notice it.