Clarifications

Hello all! Just a quick post. SHAC are not adverse to criticism or suggestion – in fact we think it is a really important part of SHAC and the process we’re engaging in. New ideas and different perspectives help the campaign grow and prosper.
However because we at SHAC love clarifications (though not as much as we love affordable housing) we just want to make a few in response to some of the feedback we’ve been getting. It’s not a question of right or wrong – we just want to make sure our actions and message are as clearly represented as possible.

That our call for students to come and support us whilst we’re facing eviction is a threat of violent protest.

It definitely isn’t. We are totally adverse to any violence going down. Most of our resistance involves supporters coming down just to say hello or let us know they are in solidarity with us. We’re hanging out and sleeping out in front of the house trying to create a human chain to symbolise the fact that we don’t think the eviction should occur – nor do we want it to. We’ve kept open channels of communication with the Sheriffs office about when they plan to arrive to evict and we’re trying to keep everyone posted with all the information we have. We DO NOT want this to get violent and HAVE NO PLANS for it to be. It is a peaceful resistance. Any supporters coming down DO NOT HAVE TO BE AFRAID OF VIOLENCE.

That all we want is three house in Carlton just for us.

No! Our hope has always been that the University would adopt the co-op model for wider use. We think it is a great and sustainable way for housing to be provided to low income students. What we want from the Faraday Street house is for it to be used as an example of the co-op model. We’ve had to focus on the house because asking the University to fund a co-op housing project for 500 seemed… well, unlikely to happen. I guess you could say we’ve tried to start small. Seeing as the University couldn’t even agree to a trial on the scale of 20 students, it seems our thinking was maybe correct. The reason we have the eligibility criteria and the reason we’re always running community events and inviting people to SHAC is because we want it to be open for all who need it - not just those who are there now. We want for all to get involved and for people who are low income students to move into. Not just for the viability of the project but because that is what the point of SHAC is – the Faraday St house, the campaign, everything - it's about providing housing and community to those who might not have it, those who most need it. We tried to use the Faraday Street houses to make a statement and as a tool to get the University to examine the co-op model and hopefully implement it widely. If you have a look at the presentation we made the University it talks about how the co-op widely is widely and successfully used in the U.S.A. - that is the kind of thing we'd like to see here.

That there is a limited pool of money, and using this on such a high cost per student scheme is not in any way sensible.

This is a completely reasonable point. We just want to clarify that we think there shouldn’t be a limited pool of money. The University of Melbourn has A LOT of money (just think how much they’ve spent on advertising last year alone). We want them to invest more in student housing. We’re totally opposed to the fact that the University’s proposal to us involved re-routing money from projects already in place rather than actually investing more in student housing and more in the co-op model. Nonetheless if we did this using the buildings the University has or some capital investment and the structures SHAC have put in place, housing for students that isn’t really expensive could be provided with the University recouping their costs pretty quickly. It’s part of the whole system of SHAC that investment by the University would be paid off long term. Check out the way STUCCO in Sydney works for a better idea of this. Basically - they invest in building(s) for student housing, we repay the debt, the University doesn't lose any money in the end, students have somewhere to live. The approach of the University - acting as gurantor on students renting from the private rental market - is far less economically viable.

We knocked back the University’s offer.

We didn’t. We had concerns about some elements of their proposal and wanted to continue discussing and negotiating further. It was the University who chose to not do this and instead take us to court and force an eviction order. The University chose to not move forward and shut us down. Not us.

Hopefully this will clear some things up. Keep coming back here to check on our status and what we're up to. Any questions, criticisms or messages of support are always welcome.

7 comments:

Jack W. said...

Thank you for clarifying the issue of SHAC-induced violence. I was surprised that this issue was brought up by David Barrow from NUS (later reported in the Herald-Sun). Clearly the main concern is that police may now have the legal authority to use violence to remove picketers and occupiers. There has been no suggestion that SHAC plans to be violent.

I agree that SHAC's picket is symbolic. But is it not also designed to actively and physically resist eviction by police? Surely, effective direct action needs to aim for actual - rather than merely symbolic - resistance. Such resistance does not need to involve violence although attempts by police to physically break a picket line can accurately be referred to as violence.

I agree that potential picketers need not be afraid of violence - in the sense that they are not being asked to intentionally cause injury or destruction. However, if the picket is to be anything more than simply symbolic - ie that it will be dissolved if threatened with physical force - then supporters need to be prepared for the possibility of police violence. I am not saying that police will use violence nor that the organisers want them to. But it is always a possibility and so picketers would naturally feel some fear.

Finally, there is nothing illegitimate or immoral about placing oneself on a picket line knowing that consequences will be difficult to predict - eg one might be subjected to police violence. So, before joining a picket line one needs to careful in their decision and be adequately prepared for what might happen and how they plan to react. Regardless, it has traditionally been a legitimate and effective tactic of working-class struggle.

(for further discussion on violence and shac see the http://www.iww.org.au/node/643 and http://www.iww.org.au/node/641)

Jack W. said...

Thank you for clarifying the issue of imagined SHAC-induced violence. I was surprised that this issue was brought up by David Barrow from NUS (later reported in the Herald-Sun). Clearly the main concern is that police may now have the legal authority to use violence to remove picketers and occupiers. There has been no suggestion that SHAC plans to be violent.

I agree that SHAC's picket is symbolic. But is it not also designed to actively and physically resist eviction by police? Surely, effective direct action needs to aim for actual - rather than merely symbolic - resistance. Such resistance does not need to involve violence although attempts by police to physically break a picket line can accurately be referred to as violence.

I agree that potential picketers need not be afraid of violence - in the sense that they are not being asked to intentionally cause injury or destruction. However, if the picket is to be anything more than simply symbolic - ie that it will be dissolved if threatened with physical force - then supporters need to be prepared for the possibility of police violence. I am not saying that police will use violence nor that the organisers want them to. But it is always a possibility and so picketers would naturally feel some fear.

Finally, there is nothing illegitimate or immoral about placing oneself on a picket line knowing that consequences will be difficult to predict - eg one might be subjected to police violence. So, before joining a picket line one needs to careful in their decision and be adequately prepared for what might happen and how they plan to react. Regardless, it has traditionally been a legitimate and effective tactic of working-class struggle.

(for further discussion on violence and shac see the http://www.iww.org.au/node/643 and http://www.iww.org.au/node/641)

Anonymous said...

Personally I would prefer to see universities spending their limited resources (and no, universities are not swimming in money) on their core business: teaching and research.

A university is not a social welfare organisation, it is not responsible for housing, feeding or clothing students. Providing some assistance to students for housing and other services is reasonable, but it should not be the main focus of the university.

I would prefer to see the university spend more money on teaching, research and scholarships rather than expend massive amounts of money to directly provide subsidised accomodation to a handful of students. The best people to provide accomodation are private sector landlords, and the best way to help poor students is to help them with their rent.

I would prefer to see 100 students get $30 per week to help them with rent (for a total of $3000 per week) than for the university to spend $3000 per week on mortgage payments and maintenance. Why? Because the second approach would provide two or three houses at most, housing 10-15 people, and leaving the other 290 with nothing. Rental subsidies are a more equitable system, and more efficient.

STT

Anonymous said...

Hi SHAC,

I think what a lots of us are worried about (people who have always supported SHAC.....I've visited myself, and it was lovely) is that for SHAC to end in a (possibly messy) forced eviction can not help the cause a year down the track.

Accepting the Uni's offer, while flawed, is at least a start. Something to build on. The protest ending in a eviction is only helping those who don't support the SHAC model: it allows the whole thing to be swept under the carpet by the Uni, as people not willing to negotiate or respect the law (regardless of the truth).


I'm pro-SHAC, but anti-resistance, now it have been through the courts. The point is made, the groundwork (even though flawed) is there.

Ending in a protracted eviction is going to destroy all that. Even the ABC live coverage has turned: it was pretty balanced, and now is signing off "so they get another night, free of charge", sounding pretty barbed.


Sal.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Uni has that much money at all. Just look at the slashing of core expenses, such as research staff. Advertising isn't a frivolous expense: they'll have a marketing team that knows the conversion rate of every dollar spent to every brought in. Marketing is a very precise science, and in times of economic trouble, if anything advertising goes up. A large advertising budget is not a sign of economic health.

Anonymous said...

The idea that the University of Melbourne is somehow dodging a worldwide financial crisis to remain swimming in money is naive in the extreme. Have you been keeping up to date with the financial news? Unfortunately the University is in the same boat as the rest of the world. They have very little government funding, investments have gone pear-shaped and private donations are all but a thing of the past.

The University is bleeding money, student numbers are down, Faculties such as Arts have started involuntary redundancies and cutting academic programs in order to try to stay afloat. Faculties that aren't yet that deep in the hole have a hiring freeze on, with the workload of those that leave distributed to existing academic and administrative staff. In an environment in which teaching and learning outcomes (the very role of a University) are under threat due to lack of funds, it is rather perplexing to see a group of young people who insist that the University owes them cheap, inner city housing.

Anonymous said...

From what Ive seen on the Facebook, they did agree to a small scale project (3 Dec letter), but SHAC rejected it. Pilot schemes are usually flawed, but that's the joy of them - you get to figure out what to fix. Pity you didn't say yes, really.

I also agree with the point about Universities being centres of teaching and research, not social welfare. They're not obliged to house their customers.

I can understand the frustration of living on the poverty line whilst studying - I put myself through university. But to say no outright to an offer that may have lead to a better deal, seems selfish and counterproductive to the whole point of the protest.