The truth and a smile create unsafe space?

I guess for this column you may need some background information. In our student federation elections at the University of Ottawa, the candidate for vp finance was disqualified after he was elected into office by the students. For obvious reasons, students took this as a blow to democracy. For some, they claimed you can't kick someone out who was democratically elected into office. When they asked for a by-election, the Board of Administration (BOA) refused. This has caused a sit-in and a few major protests. More info to come.

The BOA listened to student appeals on March 6, in a closed-room setting with a live-feed set up across campus. This column addresses how the media was shut out from the room and under what conditions we were let into the meeting.



The truth and smiles create an unsafe space?

by Katherine DeClerq

Published: Mar 9

WELL, MY FELLOW readers, I don’t even know what to say. I have been shocked silent. Should I write about how the Board of Administration (BOA) outright disqualified Tristan Dénommée; should I write about the sit-in students organized in protest; or should I write about the people protesting the sit-in? Should I write about the gossip being spread by student federation executives and board members, or should I talk about Protection Service’s involvement in this entire affair?

After reviewing my options, I have decided to write about the fact that the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO), and the BOA respectively, think that the media create unsafe space.

I guess my reputation for being intimidating has spread across campus. And if any of you know me, you can probably picture me saying that with a smile. Well, not this time.

During the March 6 BOA meeting, the media was allowed into the room after two hours of debating, and only under certain conditions. We were told by Federico Carvajal, Chair of the BOA, that only three members from each paper could enter the room. We were told that we could not speak (not that we usually do as objective observers). We were told that if we did speak, we would have to leave quietly or security would take us out forcibly. Finally, we were told we had to respect the room as a “safe space.”

At this point, I think I speak for the entire Fulcrum when I say we did not feel “safe” entering that room.

Since when has the media become an instigator of unsafe activity? The media’s role is to inform the public in an objective manner. I’m sorry if our pens make too much noise as we write down notes, but does that mean that you feel unsafe in our presence? The Fulcrum has never spoken out during a BOA meeting and only works toward writing the truth—and that is exactly what the BOA feels creates an unsafe space.

I can tell you what they were afraid of. They were afraid that we would be able to hear them better than we could from the live-feed. They were afraid that we would be able to actually quote them rather than paraphrase. They were worried that we would write a story outlining their faults as a democratic institution.

I don’t have a grudge against the SFUO or the BOA. All I wanted was for my reporters to be able to do their job and inform the public as to what happened inside that closed-door meeting. I told them all to be fierce, to try their best to get into the room because the chances of technical difficulties were pretty high. Yes, I said this with a smile.

But apparently, smiles and the truth are what frighten this student federation.