Montreal, 9 February 2012

On February 8, Provost Anthony Masi issued a statement to all McGill students, staff and faculty members explaining the Administration’s rationale for refusing to recognize the results of recent referenda concerning independent student organizations Radio CKUT and the Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG). While the Provost’s message clearly represents the Administration’s position on this matter, its characterization of the issues involved in this dispute is not objective. The Board of Directors of Radio CKUT offers the following clarifications, in the hopes of more fully informing the campus community on this issue.

In a November 2011 referendum conducted by Elections McGill, an independent agency of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), students voted 72% in favour of continuing to support CKUT by paying a fee of $4.00 per semester. The referendum vote also authorized removal of a controversial online opt-out system that has threatened the viability of the station for the past several years. The Administration refused to recognize the outcome of the referendum, and refused to negotiate renewal of the University’s Memorandum of Agreement with CKUT based on this result.

The dispute over online opt-outs – in which students can withhold their individual fees at the click of a button, even if they have never heard of CKUT — has unfolded over several years.

In 2007, the Administration unilaterally imposed an online system for opting-out of fees paid to independent student groups, including CKUT, without consulting the affected organizations and against their persistent objections. Soon thereafter, an SSMU General Assembly and referendum called for the removal of the online opt-out system. The Administration refused, claiming it, and not the SSMU, represents McGill students, and has since refused repeated attempts by the affected groups to propose a mutually-agreeable alternative.

As the Provost points out in his message, the online opt-out system has dramatically increased the number of students choosing to withhold their fees. This has resulted in annual revenue reductions of tens of thousands of dollars, for groups that McGill students have consistently said they wish to remain vital parts of campus life. Additionally, during the opt-out period every term, these groups face organized online campaigns by anonymous organizations encouraging McGill students to opt out. These campaigns are not bound by the rules or procedures of Elections McGill. They typically involve misinformation and smears against the targeted groups and their supporters, and contesting them is a massive drain on the resources of the affected organizations, resources which would otherwise be spent serving McGill students.

Left with few options and facing severe budgetary pressure, CKUT asked McGill students in Fall 2011 if they agreed to support the organization by paying a fee that cannot be opted-out of online. The response by students was positive and clear.

In presenting reasons for the Administration’s refusal to recognize this response, the Provost makes a number of mischaracterizations. The first is that the question CKUT asked McGill students was unclear. Again, for the record, here is the text of the question:

“Do you support CKUT continuing as a recognized student activity supported by a fee of $4.00 per semester for full-time undergraduate students, which is not opt-outable on the Minerva online opt- out system but is fully refundable directly through CKUT, with the understanding that a majority “no” vote will result in the termination of all undergraduate funding to CKUT?”

Contrary to the Provost’s assertion that this question “asked two things at once,” it is clear that the question asks only if students are willing to support CKUT with a fee that is not opt-outable online. The Provost has mischaracterized clarification of the nature of the fee being requested as asking a second question. This is presumably because the Administration would have preferred CKUT to ask two questions but, in this case, the Provost is misconstruing the Administration’s preference as a binding requirement.

As this was a referendum asking McGill students for their money, to confirm the clarity of the question we deferred to Elections McGill, the duly constituted agency of the SSMU charged with authorizing student referenda. The question was fully scrutinized and authorized by Elections McGill. The question was debated extensively in the campus press prior to the referendum. McGill students knew exactly what they were voting for. That the Administration was unhappy with the result is not grounds for contesting the legitimacy of the question after the fact.

For the same reason, it is misleading for the Provost to characterize CKUT as claiming “the right to change an opt-out system to a method less convenient for all students.” CKUT claims no such “right.” We do assert that if McGill students have expressed their preference for a fee that cannot be opted-out of online, by majority vote in a referendum authorized by their own representative bodies, then McGill should feel morally obliged to respect that preference by implementing the result of the referendum.

The Provost also indicates that the online opt-out system was designed to “protect students’ privacy” implying that the previous system of on-site refunds was somehow deficient in this regard. CKUT must be privy to the names of students who choose not to pay its fees, as by this choice they also decline membership in CKUT, and become ineligible to participate in the organization’s elections and offices. Protecting students’ privacy does not require that students who choose to withhold their fees remain anonymous, only that their identities not be released to third parties. CKUT has always been scrupulous in its protection of students’ privacy, and will continue to be so regardless of which fee management system is in place.

Finally, the Provost’s message indicates that the Administration has now agreed to recognize the result of the Fall 2011 referendum as confirming that McGill students wish to continue to support CKUT by paying a $4.00 fee per term, and that CKUT plans to run another referendum this winter asking students if they agree to remove the online opt-out. The Administration’s previous refusal to recognize the results of the Fall 2011 referendum left us no choice but to agree to this proposal, as the survival of our historic organization, which is vital to the democratic life of the University, was otherwise in jeopardy. This agreement should not be construed as indicating CKUT’s agreement with the Administration’s position. We continue to affirm the validity of the results of the Fall 2011 referendum, as clearly indicating McGill students’ continued support for CKUT and their preference for a fee removed from the online opt-out system.

http://ckut.ca/feb9masi.php