Stupid Union Building

Shara Lee from The Peak wrote this week about our two student societies signing on with the university to create conceptual plans for a student union building (see: "Student union building planned for SFU"). This is a letter I submitted to The Peak about our societies running a student union building. I don't know if it will get published, but since I went to all the effort here it is for our 23,000 daily viewers - Johnny

On the subject of having their very own student union building (SUB), the wisdom of our two student societies appears to be, “if we build it, they will stay.” The idea of creating more inviting spaces to keep students on campus is noble, but it’s wrong think that it’s the job of the student societies in the first place, or that a dedicated building is necessary to achieve that goal.

It is the responsibility of the university for creating an attractive campus, not any student society. The student societies certainly have a role making the campus a welcoming and tolerant place, but they shouldn’t be in the business of running entire buildings. So why has the university been able to foist such responsibility to the student societies? Perhaps it’s because our societies are so eager to perpetuate their existence that they’ve jumped at the chance to take on this new role, hire more staff, and create more electable positions. The university, in turn, gets to have the student societies pay the bulk of the costs. After all, we seem to be more than happy to throw money at our student societies (see the Society Development Fund referendum question from the last SFSS election), yet bare our teeth when tuition rises.

If the student societies are keen to foot the bill of creating better student spaces, they should instead consider the option of remodeling existing areas to achieve the same goal. Shara Lee’s article on the subject pegs the cost of the “conceptual plans” alone at over $75,000. As a point of reference, the recently opened Arts and Social Sciences Complex cost $34 million to build. How many million would our SUB cost? How much would student fees increase as a result? I’ll admit that it’s perhaps too early to ask such questions, but it’s not too early to look at more cost-effective alternatives.

Ultimately, it seems an inferiority complex is the true motivation behind a SUB. Quote our SFSS President, Joe Palling: “We’re way behind many universities in that we don’t yet have a SUB.” Yes, the new SUB is not being proposed out of necessity, but rather from a desire to keep up with the Joneses. Oh, and as a place for the GSS to have their own pub, I guess (as one money sinkhole of a pub is not enough).

As we fight for lower tuition fees, we should also demand that our student societies tighten their belts and work to reduce their mandatory membership fees. If the experience of other universities is any example, a SUB will result in increased society fees levied on the student body for years to come (see: UBC, U of Manitoba, U of New Brunswick, and Dalhousie, to name a few). The question of building a SUB will surely be put to the student body in the form of a referendum at some point in the future. I hope when that day comes we students strongly reject any such initiative.