By: William Olaleye
On Thursday 3rd April, tension ran high in the student community when Abiola Samuel, chairman of the Council of Faculty Presidents, presented the Students’ Representative Council with a proposal to increase basic dues for UITES from N3,000 to N5,000. Added to this, Miss Nofisat Anifiowose, Head of the Council of Hall Chairpersons, had earlier presented a similar proposal on behalf of the various chairpersons of the halls of residence.
In response to both proposals, the SRC held a virtual emergency sitting and ruled that the proposal be thrown to the generality of the student body, to find out what the consensus within the student community is. Looking at all this though, the question arises if it is ethical that the bodies canvassing for an increase in basic dues are still the ones given free rein to collect the opinions of the student body on these dues themselves. The fact remains that Faculty Heads and Hall Heads, since they are the ones seeking an increase in the basic dues, should not be entrusted with the responsibility of gathering the opinions of the masses on what they want. They can’t be trusted to be objective. And this is not without reason. It’s just like a politician being asked to count the votes at the collation centre for an election in which he has interests.
Furthermore, showing that this is not a baseless conclusion, most of the Google forms currently put out use extremely manipulative language to compel the students to pick the sides of the leaders. Why would you ask a student what their opinion is about the basic dues increment and then impose a caveat? Questions like “Do you think there should be an increment in the basic dues, taking into perspective the allocation of the basic dues as listed at the start and how the leadership at all levels are finding it hard to organize standard events and programs due to the rising inflation” are loaded questions and are fallacious as they presuppose a favourable answer. It is not hard to see that is a play on the intelligence of the student community.
Some questions don’t even seem to have any relationship to the poll, for instance, what business does the room they resided in last session have to do with what they think about basic dues increment?It’s an opinion poll! All that needs to be asked is “What do you want?”, not “What do you want knowing that the leadership will be handicapped if you pick what you this or that?”
Also concerning the segregation of opinions. One faculty excluded the newly admitted freshers from partaking in the opinion gathering despite them having to pay whatever fee that will be concluded. Yet the message they sent out said, “Your voice matters.”
In light of all this, I strongly believe that opinion gathering from the student body should be held centrally by the Students’ Representative Council. Administering the poll in the current format gives room for manoeuvring and manipulation of students. It is illogical to entrust the treatment of such a sensitive issue to the bodies at the helm of the conflict.
Now even if the polls would not be administered centrally, the proper thing to be done is for students to be given free rein over their opinions. Manipulative polls are a no-no. The standard for such polls should be simple, clear and straightforward. “Are you in favour of the basic dues increment? Yes or No. If No, what is your suggestion?” This is a call to the various student leaders to refrain from their efforts in trying to put words in the mouths of the students. Let them express themselves without any check on their utterances. Anything other than that is manipulative and self-serving.
