In which our humble blogger tries to digest Day 3 of Convention
Okay, well that felt like a fever dream.
So, just in case anybody reads this who did not attend OPSEU/SEFPO Convention… Despite a resolution (which passed) to advance Resolution I1 up on the agenda, it arrived at the floor for debate with approximately 15 minutes of time remaining in Convention.
So, the Resolution didn’t manage to get voted on, although the “debate” consisted (due to a quirk of microphone protocols at Convention) of nothing more than three consecutive speakers in favour of subscribing our Union to an international campaign that would have the effect of boycotting and sanctioning Israel, and divesting OPSEU/SEFPO of all investments related to Israel, as well as discontinuing all academic, social, or cultural exchanges or collaborations that “normalize” a Jewish state of Israel. (More on that later, no doubt.)
There wasn’t time for the order of microphones to make it to anyone who was lined up to speak against the Resolution.
Of course, even if that time was available, it might be worth considering that the debate could not include the voices of any observant Jews, given that it was taking place on a) the Sabbath, in the middle of b) the Jewish holiday of Passover. (For what it’s worth, of the two factors, I think the first would be the more disqualifying factor.)
But anyway, let’s just take a moment to savour the fact that ~2,300 delegates, alternates, and observers had no problem holding a debate to resolve whether or not their Union should boycott Israel, at a time when observant Jews were unable to participate in that debate.
So, if you ever need an example of structural antisemitism, that would probably be as straightforward a one as you’re likely to find: “We don’t need Jews to participate in a debate about whether we should engage in economic warfare on the only Jewish state on earth.”
This is, of course… curious… in light of OPSEU/SEFPO’s Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Policy, which reads in part (emphasis added):
2.5 This Policy addresses all forms of harassment and discrimination, including systemic discrimination. Where the term “systemic” discrimination is used in the Policy and/or Procedures Manual, it refers to patterns of behavior, policies, or practices that are part of OPSEU/SEFPO’s structures, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage based on a prohibited ground.
I think the lesson to take from this is that being Jewish is (according to my Union) clearly not a “ground” on which structures that create or perpetuate disadvantage should be prohibited. I suspect that the reasoning for this conclusion is that Jews are inherently, essentially privileged, and no amount of systemic discrimination against Jews could be possibly by deemed to create disadvantage for them.
It’s also fairly obvious evidence that the principle of “Nothing About Us, Without Us” clearly doesn’t apply to Jews.
If, for example, there was an issue of what position the Union should take on any given Indigenous land claim, I find it pretty hard to imagine that the Union would simply leave the issue to be debated and voted on at Convention without any prior consultation with Indigenous Circle.
But hey–things seem to be different when it involves Jews. And OPSEU/SEFPO’s notion of equity absolutely seems to have a Jew-shaped hole in it. And in that regard, I would say that my Union is absolutely unexceptional among the progressive left.
Anyway, I’m still trying to digest the Convention. I’m obviously not thrilled about the way that it ended (with me standing at a muted microphone hoping that a “debate” on Israel might actually include a Jewish voice–or any voice–speaking in defence of it). Obviously, others were disappointed for very different reasons, most likely the fact that a resolution in which they believe so fervently didn’t have a chance to come up to a vote.
And its certainly true that a frivolous quorum call and a rather ridiculous demand for greater budgetary information did take up maybe 25 minutes that could have been added to that debate, but I don’t know whether it would be a good look for a Union to vote to become active participants in an international conflict with only 40 minutes of debate. I mean, I think that we spent considerably more time than that debating the agenda.
My understanding is that resolutions that do not get disposed of at Convention are referred back to the (now-27, I believe) members of the Executive Board. I can’t quite imagine what voices the Executive Board would solicit in making this decision, or how they might begin to measure the economic impact to the Union (including, say, investments or staff pensions), of boycotting the companies and organizations on this list, or divesting them from our investments.
But hey, I’m sure that OPSEU/SEFPO members would expect to make sacrifices, so that their Union can become active participants on one side of an international conflict, for the purpose of destroying the Jewish state of Israel, right?
(Does sarcasm still come through in blogs? Do I still need to use that /s thing?)
Anyway, I was going to review some recent messages from readers in this post — I’ll put that off for a bit.
In the meantime, feel free to offer your own impressions of Convention, at ontariocollegeprof@yahoo.com (or by using the “Leave a Comment” link, above). Quoted stuff will remain strictly anonymous.
As well, the fact that resolution I1 did not pass means that I’ll carry on my current role in the Union’s CAAT-Academic division until the end of term.
And in that spirit, I look forward to–one of these days–getting back to talking about College stuff.
One Ontario College Prof's Blog 