The way student space has been eroding at Trent over the last decade has often inspired reaction from those who are affected by it. Whether it be the closing of Peter Robinson College and the plethora of protest that accompanied it, the ‘storming’ of Gzowski’s exclusive cafeteria last year, or the students who went the legitimate route and opened a university-and Aramark-sanctioned cooperative cafe, these reactions have been fairly frequent. Those who have been angered have, over time, sought out appropriate metaphors for this erosion and targeted them with activism of all shades, from basic awareness raising actions up to a full-on occupation of space.

However, while much of the action has surrounded students desiring control over particular spaces, the issue has more recently evolved into one that has made some students feel as if they have lost control over their own choices, and over a much larger area. The issue? Aramark’s contracted monopoly on all campus spaces. Not only does it restrict anyone from providing for profit food services, it also severely restricts the ability of anyone on campus to share food.

While there have always been rules technically limiting this behaviour, only this year have they been enforced with such vigor. An example of this is the Native Studies department, which used to offer free lunches every Wednesday to anyone who was interested. These lunches, aimed at creating both a thriving community centered at the Gathering Space, as well as providing food to those in the university community who can’t necessarily afford it, have been halted this year because of Aramark’s contract.

Student groups, if they are officially registered, can have food on campus only in the form of two potlucks a year, and with a series of restrictions attached to them. Classes that used to come together around weekly potlucks or snack tables have been prevented from doing so.

In one particularly bizarre case, it seems that students in the Education program at Gzowski Argyle, where there is no food service, have been told that Aramark will neither provide proper food services, nor permit anyone else to be brought in to do so.

Ultimately, anyone planning an event with food must hire Aramark to provide it. A recent fundraising dinner was forced to turn over $8 out of the $12 they charged in order to hire Aramark to cater it. Students planning conferences or other inter-university events are not allowed to have these events catered by the food provider of their choice - and the list goes on.

Recently, in the “red light district” of Gzowski College, about 20 students met around a renegade potluck in order to discuss these issues. As it turns out, the rules are a concern to different people for a wide variety of reasons. Many students are concerned about their basic ability to choose, whether this is for reasons of taste, health, concerns about waste, or food ethics issues. Other students are concerned about the cost and quality of Aramark food, while many just feel that a crackdown on the way we share food (i.e. potlucks or luncheons) is a disheartening move away from community space overall. In the end, everyone seemed to agree that it was just absurd that Aramark and the university are able to play such a large role in the way we choose to nourish ourselves, the food ideals we may wish to promote at our events, the way we share with each other, and even the quality of food that is available to those who did not or cannot bring their own lunches.

In the end, the students decided to unite around the message, as one concerned student put it: “that we want Aramark to listen to what students want, not make students listen to what Aramark wants.”

In an effort to challenge the enforced monopoly, and present to the food services giant and the university with the message that students are interested primarily in choice, the concerned students have decided to hold regular potlucks in high traffic areas around campus. The first one will be Wednesday January 18th at 1pm, outside of Wenjack Theatre.

You are encouraged to bake, cook, boil and fry up a storm and come on out to share food with your peers. Whether you are concerned with issues of community and student control of student space, food ethics, waste, health, or you just don’t like the food that Aramark (and Aramark only!) supplies for you, this is an excellent first step in the direction of having some choice.

David Newberry

Many students are outraged by the fact that the Trent Administration and ARAMARK are able to regulate the actions of members of the Trent community the way that they are; especially the fundamental action of sharing food. There are legal issues like health and safety regulations, which come down from the provincial government, but the issue of ARAMARK's corporate monopoly must be factored in as well. It is important to ask the question of why each student club and group is allowed 2 potlucks a year and whether this issue is really about health and safety or ARAMARK's corporate monopoly.

It is important to see the regulation of potlucks on campus as part of general erosion of student voice and space on-campus. This includes the neglect and then sale this past summer of Stratton House (building which was originally part of Peter Robinson College and housed many student groups like the Women's Center, the Arthur, Trent Queer Collective and OPIRG). And the fact that the new Gwzoski building was not built with public senior and junior common rooms like all of Trent's other colleges. There has been an erosion of physical student space at Trent. The proposed "Support Agreement" between student associations and the Trent administration will only exacerbate this problem further; license agreements would become the norm for student associations, which has caused eviction of student groups at other Universities with no path for recourse by the student groups.

The purpose of this meeting is to bring a wide-variety of student groups together to strategize and share stories about how ARAMARK and the Administration have curtailed their freedoms. The individuals who have organized this meeting hope to precipitate further action on this issue. It is our hope that some sort of coalition can form out of this meeting to work on this issue further. The event will be a potluck, so if possible please bring some food to share.

Sponsored by the Trent Acion Coalition

This week, Trent students “concerned about the state and direction of our university” will be gathering in the basement of Gzowski College for a public meeting, in the form of - and here’s where it gets edgy - a potluck.

Earlier this academic year, Trent administration tightened its regulations regarding on-campus eating and Aramark’s corporate monopoly at Trent. The new regulations now limit each student group to having two on-campus potlucks per academic year. Additionally, the new regulations prevent, for example, the Native Studies department from holding free weekly lunches for its students, faculty and staff, a regular social occurrence last year.

The stated reason for these new regulations is stricter provincial health standards and insurance issues at Trent; however, Trent Action, the collective organizing this week’s public meeting, is not convinced. The group believes that Aramark’s monopoly is a motivating factor, citing a historical trend of Aramark encroaching on students’ ability to have bake sales, cater events, provide traditional Halal or Native food and share food in the classroom.

“It is important to see the regulation of potlucks on-campus as part of a general erosion of student voice and space”

However, it’s more than just about food and potlucks, states Pat Clark, Trent Action activist. “It is important to see the regulation of potlucks on-campus as part of a general erosion of student voice and space,” he explains. “The purpose of this meeting is to bring a wide variety of student groups together to strategize and share stories about how Aramark and the administration have curtailed our freedoms.”

The public meeting is on Wednesday, November 30 at 4:00pm underneath the stairs in Gzowski College’s red light district.

What is a corporation?
a) A looming glass building with the letters S-H-E-L-L
b) A large factory in a developing country spitting out endless identical white Nikes
c) Your neighbourhood Wal-Mart
d) An old, white-haired dude in a cheap blue suit and bad tie
e) None of the above

Actually, it’s none of the above. According to Milton Friedman, a corporation is “simply an artificial legal structure.” In the past, a corporation was originally created to serve the public interest—for example, in constructing a bridge or a road. That definition, though, has changed since the 19th century. The corporation is now a legal structure that is programmed to do one thing exclusively: maximize profits. According to the law, it has an actual legal responsibility to act in the best interests of its shareholders.

But what does this actually mean? Well, for example, a CEO of a company may feel that he or she should engage his or her company in activities that would lessen the impact of that corporation’s activities on the environment. According to the law, though, that CEO can’t legally do that if it results in a reduction in profits. For a corporation, it’s only about the bottom line, and everything is legitimate in the pursuit of that bottom line.

Of course, it doesn’t just end there. Thanks to an 1886 US Supreme Court ruling, corporations are also legally considered people; that is, they have all the rights under constitutions and bills of rights that any American citizen does. Naturally, though, a corporation needn’t necessarily have the same ethical or moral responsibilities that come along with those rights—they have rights without responsibilities, essentially, except the responsibility they have to their shareholders.

This combination of rights and privileges given to corporations are a major reason why they’re perhaps the most dominant social institution of our time. In the movie, The Corporation, Ray Anderson, founder and CEO of Interface Incorporated, said, “In the corporations pursuit of profits, the pressure is on the corporation to deliver results now and to externalize any costs that this unwary or uncaring public will allow it to externalize.” It would probably be best if we weren’t that uncaring and unwilling public. But, as Dr Debra Davidson, a professor in the Renewable Resources Department, explains, the power that these corporations exert can have a tremendous influence on communities around the world.

“Within this global economy, corporations are in a position to exert a tremendous amount of control over the direction of policy, because an individual nation-state isn’t in a position to control a corporation,” says Davidson. “That corporation can simply say, ‘Well, if you’re going to impose these policies on me, I’m simply going to locate my business elsewhere.’ So, one aspect [of corporate power] is increasing central control and the decline of autonomy of individual states to try to constrain the activities of corporations.”

Of course, according to Davidson, the scope of corporate power isn’t limited to something as big as a nation state.

“The power of an individual community has also tended to decline over time,” she explains. “Obviously, part of that is because they’re dependent on corporations to help them engage in the global economy, but part of that also is that, as this relationship—this dominant relationship within an individual community—persists, there tends to be a development of a gradual sense of disempowerment and apathy among community members. This basically instills within them that they can’t fight what the corporation does, or it’s within their best interest not to, because they’re providing them with jobs, so they have to support the corporation. So the power of the community to, basically, assert its political rights and mobilize in any way is constrained.”

It should come as no surprise, then, that our lives have become permeated with this dominating corporate presence. Even when we step inside the walls of an institution like a university, the corporate sphere of influence is all around us. As Diana Gibson, the Research Director of the Parkland Institute, explains, the role of corporations is changing on campuses across the country, with corporations becoming more and more prominent.

“[Corporations have] promoted the position of using public spaces like universities, hospitals, and elementary and primary schools as marketing opportunities, and are seeing openings for public funding that weren’t there before,” says Gibson. Universities, for example, have been entering into research funding in a way that was unprecedented in the past—they’re relying more and more heavily on private sector funding. Tuition fees, of course, also make up a higher and higher portion of the university’s core funding, but, as governments abdicate their responsibility to adequately fund postsecondary education, so does private-sector funding [increase].

“There is a space open for them now that didn’t exist before,” she adds. “They’ve moved into that space very, very happily, and are occupying it as much as possible in terms of advertising, and in terms of things like the Coke exclusivity
contract.”

As Gibson points out, the corporations on campus that you see everyday are utilizing this public space, and whether you know it or not, you might be supporting a corporation that has policies and ethics that you don’t agree with. When you wipe your hands after going to the bathroom, when you have lunch in Cab, even when you’re sitting down to take a pee, you’re surrounded by a corporation’s special little touch.

For example, the next time you go to the bathroom, check out the paper towel dispenser. If it has a name on it, you’ll see that it says Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark is one of the leading tissue manufactures in the world, with a consumer base of over 1.3 billion. However, the company is currently under scrutiny by activist groups for their use of virgin tree pulp in consumer tissue.
Of course, while you’re checking out that dispenser in the bathroom, take a look at the walls around you, and the insides of the bathroom doors. What you’ll see are Zoom Media ads, or companies using Zoom Media space to sell their products. Zoom Media has targeted university students as a market group termed “the student lifestyle,” and, according to its website, its energy is focused on targeting that specific “demographic and psychographic niche.” Students across the country have fought to get Zoom Media ads removed from campus bathrooms, but so far only Trent University has succeeded.

But corporate presence on campus isn’t exclusive to bathrooms. Since 1994, Aramark has been the company providing catering for the greater majority of food outlets on this campus. You can find Aramark services all over the campus, ranging from a full-fledged cafeteria in CAB to supplying the surrounding residences with food as well. Aramark has been under scrutiny by students for high prices and food quality that does not match those prices. For residences, however, there is no other choice.

And, of course, there is the infamous deal with Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola is the world’s leading manufacturer, marketer and distributor of non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups. Walking around campus, you see Coke products in nearly every corner. That’s because the University of Alberta has an exclusive agreement with Coke. An exclusive agreement means that there can be no other provider for bottled beverages on campus other than Coke. So, from that Dasani water that you purchase after going to the gym to the Minute Maid orange juice you have for breakfast, you’re drinking Coke products. What’s more, Coca-Cola has been suspected, and it some cases confirmed, of depleting water supplies in countries where their factories are located, adding pesticides to their drinks, and taking part in violence in Columbia against union members that work in the Coke factory.

But it is up to you as a consumer to be educated when purchasing products, so that you know what and whom you’re buying from. However, a student’s life does not always allow for a time to sit down and constructively find out the information on each and every product that you purchase. But, as Dr Davidson explains, there are ways of finding this information out without going down to a library and looking it all up yourself.

“Ideally, we should all be making informed purchasing choices. But, in reality, there are so many purchases that we make everyday, to basically investigate each company directly or indirectly that we consciously or unconsciously support would be a monumental task,” she explains. “This is a part of the reason why we have started to see non-governmental organizations such as fair trade organizations and so forth do our homework for us in the form of labelling. This way we can rely on a label, rather than sit down and do the research that needs to be done.”

Dr Sean Cash, a professor in the Rural Economy department, agrees with Davidson that it can be hard to find this information on your own, but that it’s beneficial to find a trusted source.

“You have to remember is that there’s a cost to the consumer for seeking out and processing this information. I can only deal with so much, so if I’m being flooded with information, sometimes it’s easier for me to make the wrong choice, because I have some sort of rubric for decision making than to spend the time and make the right choice,” he explains. “I might increase my happiness, my health—whatever it is that I’m looking to maximize from an economic point of view—I might increase it slightly if I had more information to make a better choice, but the cost of getting that information might be so high that I’m worse off in the long run. The purpose of consumer guides is to reduce the cost of gathering information, but then you still have to trust that guide.”

Obviously, though, corporations have gained a lot of power around the world. They are all around us, and make decisions for us everyday that effect our lives in ways we may not even realize. However, as Dr Cash and Dr Davidson further explain, becoming educated about the companies and raising a voice can be strong tools in delivering a message to the corporations that we as consumers are aware of their actions, and aren’t going to let them off the hook.

“If people don’t know, or if they don’t care, about what’s going on, then corporations aren’t going to get rewarded for doing the right thing,” explains Cash. “For a company still to do the right thing, even if nobody knows about it, is a very difficult thing to do, because if there’s complete entry into the market, then somebody else is going to come out with a different strategy, and the product will be a few cents cheaper and then the responsible company is going to flop.”

“An important influence students can have is to simply speak up in their classrooms, speak up amongst their friends and the role of corporations offered in a very uncritical manner into our discourse, which does happen all the time,” adds Davidson. “Sometimes it’s simply a matter of raising one’s voice, and that is going to open the ears and eyes of the other people that are listening. You can turn other people into critical thinkers by taking other opportunities to speak up.”

Wanna respond? Send your feedback to gateway@gateway.ualberta.ca.

Students at Trent University in Peterborough voted overwhelmingly in favour of reducing tuition fees in September 2006. The voting took place November 21 to 24.

“This referendum demonstrates the depth of support for adequate government funding that will allow tuition fees to be reduced,” said Emily Penny, Vice-President External Affairs for the Trent Central Student Association.

Last year, students at Trent, along with members of the Peterborough community, participated in the Rae Review consultation on post-secondary education, making their views on tuition fees clear at both the consultation and at the public town hall meeting. “Based on the fact that the Rae Review recommended that tuition fees be increased and fully de-regulated, it appears that student input was wholly ignored through the review process,” said Penny. “The results of the plebiscite clearly demonstrate that students oppose further tuition fee increases and want action from the government to reduce tuition fees.”

In July, 2005, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities launched a second round of consultations on tuition fees. “Premier Dalton McGuinty’s announcement on September 30 clearly prejudged the second consultation process which was intended to do what former Ontario Premier Bob Rae did not—listen to the vast majority of students,” said Penny. “I was disappointed that before the review concluded, the Premier had announced that students’ views were being disregarded.”

“This vote provides an even greater mandate for student leaders who call on the provincial government to extend the tuition fee freeze and plan for reductions,” said Penny.

“In Ontario, over 80% of Ontario families believe that tuition fees are already too high,” said Jesse Greener, Ontario Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. “Judging by the overwhelming sentiment demonstrated through campus referenda, the support is even higher among students.”

Students at the University of Western Ontario, Laurentian University, University of Toronto, York University, and Ryerson University have all voted over 90% in favour of extending the tuition fee freeze and working toward reductions. These referenda are part of a province-wide vote on college and university campuses organised by the Canadian Federation of Students.

TORONTO, Dec. 2 /CNW/ - The Canadian Federation of Students, representing 250,000 full-time and part-time college, university and graduate students in Ontario will be holding a media conference on Monday, December 5. Throughout the remainder of the day, Federation representatives will be meeting with Members of Provincial Parliament from all three political parties.

To date, individual MPPs from all three political parties have expressed support for the extension of the tuition fee freeze.

At the media event, thousands of signed postcards addressed to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty will be on display.

SPEAKERS:

• Jesse Greener, Ontario Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students
• Rosario Marchese, New Democratic Party Post-Secondary Education Critic
• Vanessa Archer, Vice President Education, Student Association of George Brown College, Canadian Federation of Students Local 92

The Canadian Federation of Students, Canada's national student organisation, unites more than 500,000 students from coast to coast, and over 250,000 in Ontario.

The Federation has been campaigning for tuition fee freezes and reductions in provinces across Canada. With victories in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, tuition fees are now frozen or reduced for the majority of students in Canada.

For further information:
Jesse Greener, Ontario Chairperson at (416) 925-3825 or (416) 301-5747 (cell)
Pam Frache, Ontario Government Relations Coordinator at (416) 925-3825

Dear Editors,

One of the most valuable things I gained from my liberal arts education at Trent was the understanding that nothing in this world can be fully grasped. I learned that the complexities of humanity were such that we lowly mortals could only ever grasp them in part, and that it is intellectual humility that we gain after our years of pouring over texts and engaging in dialogues that improve our abilities to communicate with one another.

You can imagine my surprise then, when I was directed to the Trent website by a friend, only to discover that Trent has declared itself able to hand students the world by helping them to understand it.

This statement is quite a bold one. Not only does it make assumptions about what we can (possibly ever) know, but it also suggests a commodification of knowledge only gained through formal classroom instruction (increasingly available only to a select few). The statement contains none of the humility of the motto, “Now I know in part.” It is a slap in the face to the careful forethought given to Trent’s educational heritage, and, while only a slogan, makes clear this administration’s final break from the past.

I know that this marketing tool is important in the conversion of Trent from a liberal arts and science university that taught students to ask the right questions, to a university which teaches students to pretend that they have all the right answers (a tactic that the administration uses so well). But I still have nostalgia for the Trent that I grew to love - the professors that taught me to think, the political climate that taught me to question, and the discussions we had together that taught me what I don’t, and may never be able to, know.

Fondly remembering the past, saddened for the future,

Marisa Barnhart ‘99