Talk:Universal Student Unionism

"Compulsory Student Unionism" vs "Universal Student Unionism"?

Yes, it IS more commonly called Compulsory Student Unionism. Do a google search.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Compulsory+Student+Unionism%22&word2=%22Universal+Student+Unionism%22

3756 vs 266 Results. USU may be a new PR term introduced by the NUS.


 * "USU" and "VSU" are both "PR" designations, used by their advocates but rejected by their detractors. I don't accept Google as a source that one is more common than the other.  The best approach is to call the movement whatever it calls itself (Hence Voluntary Student Unionism as opposed to "Anti-Studen Organisation").  Slac  speak up!  05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't accept Google? Why not? I mean, if the numbers were remotely close I'd agree. But CSU has _ten_times_ the hits of USU. Anyway see my notes on the VSU page. I've tried to compromise on the naming.

"Opt Out"

This article doesn't seem to mention that people can opt out of their studnet organisation.

NUS's PR and newspapers
A PR exercise

The attempt to change CSU's name to USU was an NUS initiative to provide a more positive spin. The "compulsory" part of the name was felt to sound overbearing. But even the NUS's old documents reference compulsory student unionism, not universal student unionism. (E.g., this PDF .)

Even opponents of VSU use "compulsory", not "universal"

Other opponents of VSU are also strongly in favour of CSU rather than USU. For example, the ALP refers to CSU not VSU.

Media references

Looking to the media, a quick search of Google news found 85 references to compulsory student unionism, and only one for universal student unionism - and that's only in a direct quote from an organiser of a national day of action opposing the legislation.

The ABC has no references to universal, but 60 references to compulsory.

Factiva, a charged subscription news service covering all major Australian newspapers for at least the last few years, and back to the 1980s for some, returns no results for universal, but 330 for compulsory, the oldest being from a Sydney Morning Herald article of 19 October 1989: "States that legislate against compulsory student unionism will have their funding cut, the Federal Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, said last night...".

Summarising...

The reality is that USU is a term coined for PR purposes, and it is a term whose currency is only amongst people who support it, not just strongly, but rabidly. It is like refusing to keep a casualty count in war and instead only referring to human collateral damage.

One term is accepted and used by the vast majority of people, including those who do not use it in a perjorative or ideological way; the other is strictly for those who want to go out and bust some Howard ass (to put it bluntly). The broader term, endorsed by the media, general discourse, and often even the proponents themselves is CSU. Wikipedia should not be using "USU" - it is just plain wrong!

Thinking about deletion
I think this article is quite superfluous. The topics it covers are perfectly adequately covered in the article on Voluntary Student Unionism. Also, VSU is the topic of discussion, whereas CSU/USU is just the term created when needing to discuss the status quo; neither can hold a candle to VSU in terms of commonness.

Also, as expressed in the section above, if this topic really requires another article, it should be an article named Compulsory Student Unionism.

As such, what do people think about deleting this article/redirecting it to the VSU page? --El T Talk 01:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am opposed, as I'd image many others' are. In any case, all three names are misnomers. There's no such thing as compulsory unionism. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, I was the author of this "Thinking about deletion" section; have added my name now.) The names are all problematic. VSU is clearly the most common and cannot be changed at all since it is the term universally used, even if it is not an accurate description.


 * The real question is, is this topic significant enough and more importantly distinct enough from VSU to warrant its own article? Both terms really only exist as a messy way of describing the status quo that VSU might replace. I wonder if the status quo section of the VSU article isn't the best place for this description. In particular, I note that section is more thorough than this page, which isn't very surprising given that CSU/USU are terms used only in relation to VSU.


 * If this material really needs to be separated from the article on VSU (which I'd be a bit suspicious of, given that it's so subsidiary and already covered better in the main article), then I suggest it needs to be turned into an article on the history of student unionism in Australia, otherwise its material will never be more than a duplicate of the VSU article.


 * On that track, reading the Wikipedia deletion policy's section on What to do with a problem page, I wonder if this would be best served by either: (1) Merging with the article on VSU; or (2) turned into an article on student unionism in Australia. The present state of the article is just too similar to the VSU article's subsection, surely?


 * Pragmatically, keeping it to the VSU page (or going to student unionism in Australia) would avoid the issue of whether to use "compulsory" or "universal" student unionism! ;) El T 14:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes to the VSU page are making this page unncessary
This page is becoming more superfluous, and its inclusion (as compared to other choices of nomenclature) is of itself increasingly POV.

The article on voluntary student unionism is - necessarily - easily the best source of information on the present system. With the introduction - albeit amidst fighting - of a terminology section, it is clear that the issue of PR can be better addressed in the VSU article, too - and no doubt will be once a more reasoned debate gets under way.

That really leaves very little use for this page, especially since (other than a minor spelling edit on 4 September) the page hasn't been modified since early July!

So I raised the question of merging before and only got a short response from Cyberjunkie. But I really do think that this page is not useful, non-NPOV, superceded by the VSU article's material, and not distinct enough to warrant a separate article. I think the time to merge is now...

El T 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Going to merge if no responses...
It's a month since I wrote my last comment suggesting merging and no one's commented. So unless someone responds in the next few days - even just a sentence to indicate someone has a contrary opinion - I'll do the merge.
 * My opinion still stands.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also strongly oppose the merge. Ambi 06:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

From cleanup
The following can be found on cleanup


 * Can someone unbiased please take a look at at  Universal Student Unionism. I really think this page should be renamed to 'Compulsory Student Unionism'. Please see the talk page for evidence. Robotic Monkey Head 09:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not the right place for such a debate, but for info I have merged the final and first paragraphs to make it clear that both terms are used (and there is a redirect from one page to the other so the page name is not very important). Andreww 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To expand on my point above, I never see much point in moving a page if the target is already a redirect to the starting place. I've been working in an Australian University for almost a year and viewing this debate with some amusment - I'm a pom and even Mrs T. failed in her mid '80s attempt make students opt in to the UK's National Union of Students. As far as the "correct" name goes I suspect the name depends strongly on the University you look at (and Google will not be a very useful test of this), at the ANU USU seems to be more common, but the student campain is more "no to VSU" then anything else. All three terms (VSU, CSU and USU) are PR terms but we are stuck with them, so take your pick. Andreww 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The bias is in the title

 * VSU is most certainly not a PR term. As you note, it is used by absolutely everyone. If everyone - proponents AND opponents - uses the term, it's pretty safe to say it has no PR value.


 * As for the CSU/USU debate, the whole point I'd have thought of the 1st half of this discussion page is to say that CSU is used by proponents and opponents alike, but USU is a term that is in use only by ideologues. We might as well have a page on abortion restrictions that says, "the status quo is variously called abortion or baby killing". That's an exaggeration of course, but the point is the same: one is an accepted term used by both sides of the debate, the other is a term which exists by design NOT by popular use or by necessity of clarification. And it's the insistence that USU is the most accepted and valid name that is extremely biased, and that's why it bugs me. Wikipedia should have articles on abortion, not baby killing, and (more relevantly) on VSU, possibly CSU, and certainly not USU.


 * In other words, the existence of this article is demonstrating a failure to provide NPOV on the topic. Having an article on CSU would be better, but by far the best would be simply to redirect to the VSU article. That solves all the problems, not least since the VSU deals better with CSU/USU than this article does, anyway! Grrr!...


 * Takes big deep breath and returns to more normal state! :) El T 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposing the proposed merge and recognise that there is big problems with the POV this page. However, if there is a merge then USU and CSU should also be mentioned (and in bold) in the first paragraph. It is useful to note that we have articles for pro-life and pro-choice which are the terms of the anti- and pro-abortion camps respectivly. Andreww 21:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pro-choice and pro-life are terms that describe someone's attitude towards abortion. The terms VSU, CSU, and USU are about the system itself, not one's beliefs. USU is essentially putting up an article on baby killing and pretending that abortion is also just a term used by PR people, and hence refusing to have an article on abortion and instead relinking everything to baby killing.


 * Easily the best way to eliminate the POV from this debate is to merge this article with the one on VSU. This article is unnecessary, and I'd go so far as to hazard a guess that it was created in an attempt to turn USU into the accepted choice of name. All the stuff of usage statistics is quite telling, I think, at how this article title is a partisan attempt to lend legitimacy and commonness to the term. Wikipedia should reflect human knowledge; it shouldn't attempt to reshape it according to partisan spin.


 * It's just a shame that there's been such an unwillingness on the part of those opposing the merge to nominate any actual reasons, let alone research, to back up why the article should not be merged.


 * The parallel with the abortion debate is erroneous. "Abortion" is a medical term. "Baby killing" - a baby being something already borne - is known as infanticide, not abortion.
 * El T's proposed merger is far from NPOV. How neutral is it to discuss a competing principal within the article of its competitor? Think about it. It wouldn't be neutral at all, and that's why this article must be maintained.
 * Secondly, we have the question of "USU" and "CSU". USU is the term used by its proponents, as VSU is the term used by its proponents. They are both PR terms. The reason for the commonality of "CSU" is because it is the natural antonym to VSU - a misconceived or deceptive term in itself. Having USU at CSU would be as ridiculous as moving VSU to ASOL.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Research to demonstrate article's bias
Cyberjunkie, as I will present below, CSU is VASTLY more common than USU, which, as I also present below, is only used by partisan hacks. If you must have an article on what VSU is replacing, it needs to be CSU, not USU.

Superfluity of this article
But do you need the article at all? No! The presumption is that any idea requires a page for those who oppose the idea. There's nothing wrong with discussing an argument all in the one page, provided:


 * 1) Both arguments are presented fairly and with a NPOV; and
 * 2) There is no compelling reason to have an article for the opposing view.

For most major issues the second point will be the deciding factor - conscientious objection and conscription are both significant issues that have their own unique story to tell. However, CSU/USU are really just a term to describe what VSU isn't. The fact that student unionism is compulsory should be discussed, but most probably under either the article on students' unions, or (better yet) student unionism in Australia. Having CSU or USU is silly, as demonstrated by (1) the angst it causes, and (2) the fact that it is so rarely updated.

Having said that, I present some damn thorough research into usage of CSU and USU, which I feel is wholly and totally overwhelming as an argument killer. If you want to have a page explaining the opposite of VSU, it has to be CSU. This is why:

Usage statistics
As people have done above, it seems a good idea to consider which is the term is broad use. As any linguist can tell you, corpus searches are hugely valuable when it comes to sorting out what is the term in popular use:


 * Googlefight: CSU = 10,800 (96.36%), USU = 408 (3.64%)
 * ABC (a left-friendly source, I'm sure we can agree): CSU = 60 (100%), USU = 0 (0%)
 * Sydney Morning Herald archives: CSU = 114 (98.3%), USU = 2 (1.7%; both by union hacks, I note)
 * The Australian: CSU = 10, USU = 0
 * Factiva (a paid subscription source): CSU = 1,028 (98.94%), USU = 11 (1.06%) (see next section)
 * ALP website: CSU = 1, USU = 0

To emphasise the point, let me draw a little graph:


 * {| style="border: solid 1px #000; margin: 5px 0px; width: 100%;" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0


 * colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background: #000; color: #fff; font-weight: bold;" | CSU vs USU - Comparative usage
 * style="width: 96%; background: #fc0; text-align: center;" | CSU
 * style="width: 4%; background: #ccc; text-align: center;" | USU
 * }
 * style="width: 4%; background: #ccc; text-align: center;" | USU
 * }

(That's 96% to CSU, 4% to USU.)

Factiva's articles
Just to further demonstrate that USU is a strictly partisan term, here are the 11 articles Factiva returned:


 * 1) "Athletic supporters" (SMH, 10 August 2005, Samantha Keen): "University sport is under threat from voluntary student unionism, writes Samantha Keen..."
 * 2) "Media Release: National Tertiary Education Union" (9 August 2005)
 * 3) "Members only", SMH, 13 May 2005, Judith Ireland ("Judith Ireland is an honours student in politics at the University of Sydney")
 * 4) "Student unionism is crucial", Mosman & Lower North Shore Daily, 31 March 2005, Emily Sexton ("Committee Secretary, University of Sydney Union")
 * 5) "Labor vows to block HECS rises", The Australian, 6 October 2004, Dorothy Illing; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
 * 6) "PROMISES, PROMISES, KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST< - LABOR< - GREENS< - DEMOCRATS", The West Australian, 10 November 2001, author unknown; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
 * 7) "Campaign moves back to home ground - KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST", The West Australian, 27 October 2001, Geraldine Capp; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
 * 8) "Plan to cut funds to wealthy schools", SMH, 24 October 2001, Claire O'Rourke, mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
 * 9) "Students to fight move on unionism", Adelaide Advertiser, 16 April 1998, Nicole Lloyd; found only in direct quote from then-NUS South Australia president Ms Olivia Nassaris
 * 10) "Student campaigns for voluntary fees", The Evening Post (New Zealand), 20 September 1997, Christine Robertson; found only in paraphrase of then-Victoria Student Association president Alistair Shaw
 * 11) "Two student unions win reprieve", Australian Financial Review, 23 November 1993, Andrew White; found in body of article

So yes, over a decade of articles in its database. Only one article - from 1993, no less - uses the term USU without being inherently POV. The ten other uses are all deeply, deeply partisan. Furthermore, both pro- and anti-VSU people have standardised on the CSU label. They have assiduously avoided USU as a term reserved for union spin doctors.

So, the gauntlet is laid down! This article needs to be switched into CSU. (Perhaps after that it will be merged into VSU, but that's something for the CSU discussion.) I'm interested to see what proof can be offered to counter those very, VERY strong usage statistics contained in the research above. Keyboard ready... El T 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conflict page further supports move
I was reading the naming conflict page and I'm even surer of my position.

A few quotes:
 * "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." In other words, the fact that CSU is used far more than USU, even by proponents of the status quo, indicates that "CSU" is the term in common use (as proven above, and agreed by Cyberjunkie). The fact that CSU can be objected to on what are essentially moral grounds - that it doesn't perfectly encompass the spirit of the status quo as seen by its promoters - is irrelevant.
 * "Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Whilst USU is not a term invented by the authors of this article, it is a term invented to put a more positive spin on the status quo, as demonstrated by its use being almost solely by ideologists.

Comparison table
Let me make a comparison table (similar to that used by the naming conflict page to resolve disputes over proper nouns):


 * {| border=1


 * Criterion
 * CSU
 * USU
 * 1. Most commonly used name in English
 * Yes
 * No
 * 2. Used by both sides of argument
 * Yes
 * No
 * 3. Current self-identifying name of entity
 * Often
 * Rarely
 * Total:
 * 2.75/3
 * 0.25/3
 * }
 * Total:
 * 2.75/3
 * 0.25/3
 * }
 * }

El T 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just redirect this to voluntary student unionism? This article is pretty short and somewhat redundant these days. Ambi 04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. El T 07:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd not.
 * My stand is that: both VSU and USU are PR terms; VSU, as the term used by government, is the most common; and that CSU is used more often than USU by virtue of it being the natural antonym to the most common term - VSU. I dispute the neutrality of discussing the alternate principal (USU) within the article of its competitor (VSU).
 * However, back to the course of action. I do agree that this article is lacking (title withstanding). As a compromise, it might be good to resurect Robert Monkey Head's proposal (IIRC) to fold the two in a single Student unionism in Australia (or "organisations", "movement", "representation" etc) thus bypassing the title issue altogether. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Student unionism page
I definitely support the creation of a student unionism in Australia page. It could actually be quite exciting to research such a topic - I know, for example, that either Sydney or Melbourne uni's student paper was considered so lewd in the early 20th century that the university only allowed its continuation on the condition that its contents be "monitored" by professors. And there are issues like being under the watch of ASIO during the 1950s, leading the anti-Vietnam rallies, the involvement of people like Peter Costello and Tony Abbott, the controversies over things like PLO funding and refugee activism, etc etc. I wonder if any of the student unions maintain archives??? I know the ANU Student Association has now archived most (all?) the copies of the student newspaper; perhaps there are others scattered about the place.


 * Sounds like a very sensible sugestion. Andreww 00:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as it doesn't replace the voluntary student unionism article as well, then this wou7ld be a good idea. Ambi 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that Voluntary Student Unionism would be discussed on student unionism in Australia but that voluntary student unionism would still exist and would be linked via a "for more information see the main article on voluntary student unionism" statment (or whatever the correct wording should be). Andreww 01:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The VSU page is necessary because it's describing an argument to change the status quo. If and when VSU is implemented, then student unionism in Australia should certainly be updated to reflect that. It may also be sensible at such a time to remove the VSU article and redirect it to student unionism in Australia, but that argument is still a fair way off. El T 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * By "voluntary student unionism would still exist" I mean the article found at voluntary student unionism would not be merged into student unionism in Australia. One hopes that the lead section of voluntary student unionism could be used (with some editing) as a POV free section within student unionism in Australia - would you object to this? Andreww 10:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds A-OK to me... El T 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Move under way
As per the previous discussion, I've started creating the student unionism in Australia page. Dig in if you get some time once exams end! El T 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)