VSM Myths

Nothing could be further from the truth. Students do not speak with one voice – like any group in society, many students think many different things. Voluntary student membership gives a voice to each and every student, not just the few who come to control the association.

In addition, it is precisely the fact that these groups will be voluntary that will give respect and mana to the associations. Currently, they can be dismissed as organisations that students are forced to join, rather than genuinely representative groups. Under voluntary membership, that will change.

It is not because they are left wing, it is because they are political organisations which use compulsorily acquired funds to push narrow political agendas.
If students voluntarily want to support left wing organisations, they should go for it. What they should not do is hijack the resources of other students – many of whom disagree – and use them to push political messages.

No. Even in those cases where you are allowed to leave the organisation, you are still forced to join in the first place. This is wrong.

Moreover, you can only conscientiously object according to the procedures and reasons determined by the Students’ Association. In other words, you need to get their consent before you can leave, and you need to have reasons that they deem important. Any student should be able to leave an organisation at any time for any reason.

Furthermore, even if you do get manage to get approval to leave the organisation, you do not get your compulsory association fee back – so it is taxation without representation.

A referendum can be held, provided that you get the signatures of 10 percent of the student body. This requirement is absurdly tough, given that most association presidents are elected with around 3 or 4 percent support from students.

But more fundamentally, freedom of association is an individual right. The idea that rights should only be upheld when a majority agrees reduces the very concept of rights to mob rule.

It seems unlikely that students’ associations are effective at stopping fees going up. Under compulsory students’ associations, Victoria University will double its services levy next year.

If these associations were voluntary, it seems more likely they would fight battles they could win - rather than trying to have a universal allowance, no fees, cars for all students, and the rest of the rubbish they currently peddle, they would try to ensure that tertiary education delivered value for money.

In the first place, many of those services – such as student health, counselling, etc., - are in fact funded from a levy raised by the University, not the Associations. It is precisely because most associations are inept that the University takes on this role.

In the second place, there is nothing to stop voluntary associations providing vital services. Give all your members a membership card that allows them to access certain services free at the point of consumption. That’s what the Automobile Association do. That’s what trade unions do.

In the third place, many of the social services, such as orientation, run at a profit. There is no reason to suggest that these kind of services would not carry on.

The other side will claim that these goods are public goods. They do not know the meaning of a term. A public good is not just a good that benefits the public, it has specific economic properties.

More generally, the exact same arguments were made when unions became voluntary. But since then the sky has not fallen; unions still exist – and those that do a good job attract more members.

The choice for a majority to force others to join an association gives choice to some, but only at the expense of others. The choice to coerce others to join an association is not a choice that we should value as a society.