Editorial :  In loving memory of the student press

OpinionsEditorialThe Link — Published November 5, 2024 7 minutes

Our necessary work in holding the administration and student unions at Concordia accountable depends on extractive work conditions and the burnout of our editors and contributors.

For 43 years, the model practiced by The Link expected our staff to work upwards of 25 hours per week, with little to no compensation. This resulted in our masthead's population comprising solely of those economically privileged and those willing to wear themselves thin by juggling numerous financial and academic responsibilities.

In the last volume, we launched the contributor freelance fund and started paying our editors a fairer wage—both are temporary pilot projects. The compensation enabled editors from diverse backgrounds to join our masthead. The project acknowledges a masthead position at The Link for what it is: a part-time job, a full-time commitment. Editors and contributors could work and pay their bills. Less sacrifice was required to be a part of the student newspaper. This pilot project continued into Volume 45 and will die without external funding. 

The Link will be forced to return to an unethical work model should nothing be done. 

Our funding is 23 years out of date. The funding inherited per semester from the undergraduate student body reflects the consumer price index of 2001, with our fee-levy currently at $0.19 per credit, per student—not including those who opt out. Our funding is appropriate for costs relevant two decades ago. 

We attempted to run for a fee-levy increase four times: thrice in the Concordia Student Union (CSU) elections and once in the Graduate Students' Association (GSA) elections. We pleaded our case and stressed what was at stake, and in the face of austerity and a precarious political climate, we've been denied our consequential increase.

In the Fall 2023 CSU by-elections, we lost the referendum; in the winter, we lost again, and in the spring (when we proposed to be added as a fee-levy group in the GSA), our fate seemed to be sealed once more. We are conscious of and appreciate the democratic process of a referendum; it reflects public opinion. Now, our fourth attempt at a fee-levy increase is undecided. 

The Fall 2024 CSU by-election phases were initially announced on Oct. 22, 11 days after the start of the nomination period on Oct. 11. But on Nov. 4, all phases got pushed back by a week. 

CSU’s initial announcement on the by-elections goes against the latest available version of the Policy on Elections and Referenda on the CSU website, point 5.1.1. which states that the chief electoral officer must issue a notice with the dates of the three election phases after the September regular council meeting (RCM) for the by-elections, held this year on Sept. 18. 

The policy for non-CSU groups to modify an existing fee-levy indicates that they must submit all documents by the last Monday in September. We did. We submitted our application to the CSU on Sept. 8, 2024, and it wasn’t until 51 days later (five days before the nomination period closed at the time) that we were informed we had submitted an incorrect document in our package. 

We were told to submit the correct documents two hours before a fee-levy council meeting, where the committee discussed who could be on the ballot. While we're grateful that this was brought to our attention, why were we first hearing about this error two hours before the nomination meeting and not in the near two-month window the committee had to review our application?

Following the end of the initial nomination period on Nov. 1 at 6 p.m., we asked the CSU on multiple occasions to confirm whether or not we were included on the ballot. It was vital we knew how much cavalry to prepare for our campaign should we be on the ballot in the coming few days. These requests fell on deaf ears. It was only in the mid-afternoon on Nov. 3, the day before the start of the initial campaigning phase, that we were made aware of our predicament. 

A day later, on Nov. 4, the CSU announced on their Instagram and website that they had extended the nomination period to Nov. 8, pushing back the campaign period to start on Nov. 11, instead of Nov. 4. This means that, although The Link was rejected from the ballot during the initial nomination phase, we are now unsure if we would have a chance to get on the ballot at the time of publication. 

Our initial rejection did not come from an official channel, and as of the time of publication, The Link has yet to receive a formal official explanation as to why we were initially excluded from the ballot.  

The Link urges the CSU to allow us to be on the ballot. 

If not, its decision would be, at best, an undemocratic practice born out of a lack of transparent communication between the CSU and the student publication. At worst, it would be a deliberate attack on an entity that has the power to hold the student union accountable. This targeted attack on student media needs to be taken for what it is: a gross overreach of power and direct tempering in the election’s democratic process. 

In its Policy on Student Media, the CSU states that it “respects the role of student media in maintaining transparency of its actions to its members,” and that it “believes that Student Media plays an essential role in the University community.” 

Let us be very clear: fear of repercussion has never and will never affect The Link’s editorial decisions. In fact, our decision to advocate for a spot on the ballot is born out of a desire to protect our editorial identity, and is one of the reasons we are publishing our call to the CSU fee-levy committee to hear us out.

Since the start of the academic year, some non-voting CSU members have approached masthead members stating their belief and concern that we fail to cover the CSU positively. We’ve also been told through several channels, and have witnessed ourselves in RCMs, how infighting between councillors at the CSU has rendered it seemingly unable to function smoothly.

Both CSU RCM meetings so far this year have run multiple hours without the completion of the agenda, with the last RCM seeing the chairperson resign following hours of repetitive questioning, leading to the second October RCM never being held. These agenda items either remained unaddressed or were moved to special council meetings, as was the case with the approval of the CSU’s budget, which was passed without any media present. 

A lack of transparency and communication can only lead us to speculate on the reason for our initial rejection. However, blocking those with the power to hold the union accountable from running in an unprecedented political climate that has caused rifts and infighting within the CSU itself seems like a probable cause for our initial rejection.  

Another probable cause is the assumption that The Link has enough funding to function. This is the type of thinking that leads to our demise and nurtures a breeding ground for unscrupulous labour. Hear us when we say we need your help. 

The disaster of Volume 43 is a prime example of the environment that underpaying your staff and contributors perpetuates, with seven editors resigning, in part, due to unsustainable working conditions. 

We cannot revert back to this exploitive model where—to quote a previous editorial—each masthead member who resigned departed expressing the sentiment, “I am not paid enough for this.” In this perpetuation of a work culture where only the most privileged could participate, The Link became a white-dominated space where racism, ignorance and insensitivity against BIPOC writers and editors festered.  

In light of being devastatingly denied from the ballot—as we learned before the nomination phase was extended—all masthead members were asked if they would be able to do their job with little to no compensation. The resounding answer is a decisive no.

The freelance fund is single-handedly keeping The Link afloat by ensuring we never revert back to being an exploitative newspaper where both staff and contributors are mistreated. This is not an aggrandizing statement; this is a cry for help.

To all of our readers, thank you. Thank you for your continued support and trust for 45 years. Forty-five is an incredible anniversary milestone, and we would not be celebrating it without the support of the Concordia and Greater Montreal communities.

The Link is not dead yet. But without the support of our community, it will cease to be an ethical workplace producing ethical, advocacy-centred content. We once again are extending an olive branch to the CSU and pleading to be allowed to run for fee-levy. Democracy can only thrive in the presence of a free press, something those in power have an incentive to let you forget.

The Link has added a donation box to its website to help keep us alive, with all profits going to ensuring our continuity and fairly paying our staff and contributors.

This article originally appeared in Volume 45, Issue 5, published November 5, 2024.