The election for the University of Sydney’s Senate’s undergraduate fellow is underway with eight candidates taking part. Student’s options range from from Liberal and Labor SRC Councillors to a range of faculty and society representatives. In a crowded field, Honi Soit interviewed six candidates to understand their policy priorities and what makes them stand out.
Many of the candidates already have experience in University governance. Current president of the Cheerleading Society, Emily Skipper, already serves on the Senate as the student representative for Sydney Uni Sports and Fitness (SUSF). Miesha Noor and Satvik Sharma (Liberal) have both served on the Academic Board and Alexander Poirier (Unity), in his role as President of the Conservatorium Students Association also sits on the Con’s board.
That experience may give them a head start when faced with the mountain of bureaucracy that is the Senate. Document packs can be hundreds of pages long, let alone the drafting of your own proposals. Skipper pointed to her experience advising the Senate on SUSFs ten year plan for sport and facilities development and Poirier said that his discussions with the Student Life team afforded the Con a new shuttle bus to the main campus.
The difficulty of affordable housing close to campus faced by undergraduate students was an issue multiple candidates raised as being a priority. Noor pointed out that there are “buildings that are not being utilised 80% of the time,” and former SYNCS Treasurer Angus O’Grady agreed, highlighting that International House, which used to house hundreds of students, remains in planning limbo. It’s unlikely a Senate fellow could pressure the University to invest in enough beds to solve the problem but in the context of the international student caps, acquiring more student accommodation is becoming a commercial priority.
The most ambitious policy to tackle rising food prices, another cost of living concern, comes from O’Grady, who is proposing the University build a buffet style dining hall on campus. Running on a joint ticket with postgraduate candidate, Weihong Liang, it became clear this was more Liang’s policy, who already took the idea to the University while he was Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA) President. O’Grady’s response when pressed on the practicality, “I am not sure how the existing subsidies for food work on campus,” exposing the danger of a joint ticket.
Poirier’s policy platform is by far the most ambitious, with ideas ranging from completely reforming student representation including automatically making the SRC President the undergraduate fellow, creating a new Faculty of Fine Arts, and removing all OLE and interdisciplinary units. He conceded this was less a roadmap for a two year term and more “a long term what I would like to see,” and conceded “there was a little bit of hesitancy,” even among other student organisations for what he was proposing.
However, Porier does have a track record of effectively pressuring student bodies to become more progressive. When he served on the USU Board, he successfully pushed for period products to be placed in all the USU operated bathrooms. When asked how he would convince a University under budget pressure to make commitments, Porier said that there was tons of outsourcing that could be reigned in. “I really hate consultancy fees,” and there may be some “leadership positions that are not providing much value.”
The continued fight over five day simple extensions was again a buzzword, with every candidate knowing this is a winner with the student body. How they would go about defending this holy grail revealed important differences in how candidates wanted to work with management.
Ned Graham (NLS) said the success of last year’s petition was evidence that the fellow should be working closely with the SRC to pressure management. “We have to build movements,” he said. He argued the fellow should lead that movement and if simple extensions were threatened, “we will sustain the effort.” “We will raise it again and again,” he said.
Sharma, who claims to have saved simple extensions by splitting a motion at the Academic Board last year (a claim that is disputed), took a less oppositional approach to management. He said the role had to “hold management to account” but “in a cooperative way.” He argued that, as a fellow, you “don’t want to create a rift between the student fellows and management.”
Making the University more inclusive to low socioeconomic status (SES) and rural students by expanding scholarships was a down to earth idea that may be less on the radar for most students but is equally if not more important. Graham wants to double the number of MySydney scholarships, which currently only account for 10% of scholarship payments. “We need to make sure we don’t have a two tiered uni system,” he said, highlighting that many students who get into USyd have to decline the offer due to cost. Noor also wants to put more scholarship money towards disadvantaged students. She argued that scholarships should not be seen by management as solely “for the purpose of attraction” but to make the campus more accessible.
Even when students arrive on campus, Noor argues, finding the correct support services was challenging. “I don’t know where to start,” she lamented when asked about University bureaucracy. She is proposing a centralised search engine to help students find the correct place to go as opposed to being constantly redirected by the SRC or Student Centre.
These small fixes, what O’Grady called “day to day problems” became easy pickings for the candidates to generate policy ideas. O’Grady is advocating for a Canvas module to help students with public transport timetables, improvement to lighting on campus, and a review of how the University charges students for parking. Whether these are student priorities (Google Maps may suffice) is unclear, but it certainly speaks to a consistent view that the University is an inefficient behemoth.
Sharma’s signature idea is to improve transparency by giving all students a breakdown of where their Student Services and Amenities Fees (SSAF) and course fees go. In the context of increasing HECS debt and the exorbitant fees international students are charged, he said “it was a legitimate thing to ask.” The University sector “is a market,” he argued and “if you show the fees are being spent in a good way,” students will have confidence in the University. Whether the University will show their card’s is unclear, but it’s hard to argue against more transparency.
When pressed on more politically divisive questions like whether they supported the new Campus Access Policy, which cracks down on student protests, or if they wanted the University to divest from weapons companies, most of the candidates gave vague or cagey answers.
Skipper, who sat in on some discussion about the Gaza solidarity encampment, said it was “such a complicated situation,” and when pressed on the CAP would only go as far as saying it is “a bit of an attack on the student’s free speech.” O’Grady said he was “not a very political person” and on divestment left almost everything on the table with the general principle that investments should be made “in an ethical and sustainable manner.” Noor was even more diplomatic, refusing the comment further than saying the University “should be supporting students and their academic requirements.”
Both Labor candidates, Graham and Poirier, were exceptions, making abolishing the CAP and divestment explicit in their platforms. Graham said the CAP was “part of a broader disdain for the student voice.” On divestment, Poirier has made applying BDS principles to the University a priority and said now was the chance to “go in firmly” because management was “aware they need to have these discussions.”
Sharma also refused to comment on divestment, saying he would await the recommendations of the working group, but was more supportive of the CAP saying the policy should “balance the needs of free speech with the student experience and making campus safe.” He said he heard from Jewish students that the encampment made them “feel violently upset” and alleged “anti-semtic dog whistling” was common.
If the candidates agreed on anything, it was a desire to make the Senate less obscure to students. Skipper suggested town hall meetings where students can bring direct feedback to the fellow. O’Grady admitted that before running he “had not heard of the Senate before.”
Poirier explicitly went after the current undergraduate fellow Ben Jorgensen, arguing he “used convenient excuses” like confidentiality to obscure what the Senate was doing. “Published minutes is the bare minimum”, Poirier said, but there should also be consistent meetings with the SRC, SUPRA, and other student organisations. Noor was also sceptical of just getting more feedback. “We don’t need another survey,” she said, “we need to be more collaborative with the current student representatives.”
Voting links have been sent to all undergraduate students via email and will remain open until October 24th.
Jack Mars and Jarrod Field were both contacted for an interview but did not respond.
Teng Yong Khoo dropped out of the race and has been removed from the ballot.