Sir, there’s a fly in my Farrago (David)

I love the Farrago. It brightens my day when I realise the stands are stocked with a new edition. I love the layout and content of the publication. I love the varied topics, some quirky, some humourous, some informative and some satirical. For me, it reminds me that I am actually a uni student; and a student studying in a creative and intelligent environment.

But there is one thing that I dislike about the Farrago.

I hate the left wing crap on the first few pages appearing consistently in every edition. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind left wing crap; as long as it is balanced out with right winged crap. There is a piece written by a conservative about being a conservative (which was refreshing to read – not because I identify with it but because it was different to what is usually served up at uni) and there was also a short snippet about the Liberal Club in ed.3, but that was more of a token gesture and a mockery.

But isn’t the Farrago part of the Union? And so, wouldn’t it be conceivable that the Union would use Farrago as its mouthpiece to push its political agenda? I concluded that the left wing crap was unavoidable and I just had to live with it.

Then I read edition three which said:

‘We believe that Farrago should not be one political party’s newsletter. The only way to keep the magazine relevant is by maintaining that editorial control be as removed as possible from partisan influences, both within the Union and without. We attempt to publish material in Farrago that represents as broad a range of discussion as possible and have a genuine desire to engage with and relate to students.’

I guess the keyword there is ‘attempt’ because since edition one, it’s as though a bunch of hippies have been trying to brainwash me with the ‘anti-Glyn Davis’ bible. I wouldn’t be so annoyed about it if I was offered another viewpoint on issues such as the Melbourne Model. However, it seems like there is no other valid viewpoints, simply the truth (usually juxtaposed with phrases such as ‘arts cuts’.

I don’t have a problem with people disputing the Melbourne Model. I personally believe the model has its pros and cons. But I do have problem with self-absorbed students who argue against the changes based on their personal consequences. Most of these students, dare I say, are from the Arts faculty. Yes, I can understand their point of view. I wouldn’t be too happy either if certain subjects were cut in my faculty, but at the end of the day, I would cop it and move on because to do otherwise would be utterly selfish. The reality is that any changes in the university will never satisfy anyone. Someone somewhere will always pay the price; and that also applies to life in general.

The Melbourne Model certainly has some drawbacks, but it also has plenty to offer both in the immediate and long term future. These benefits should not be jeopardised simply because the changes is an inconvenience to a limited bunch of students. The model should be evaluated in a holistic manner rather than a narrow student-to-student method.

These arts students who are still adamant they are 100% right should remember that they are not the only faculty within the university. By all means, stand up for what you believe in, but do it on a basis of values, not personal circumstances. Argue about the inequality of the model not the subject cuts that directly affect your degree.

 

I am not a right wing Liberal nut; I just want to be able to open the Farrago and know that different viewpoints are represented. For the record, I voted Labor in the last federal election.