Do Not Vote For Holly Kemp

Do not vote for Holly Kemp

Holly Kemp is running for the position of secretary with the leftwing Catalyst group in the coming UQ St Lucia student elections. Voters should know that she misrepresents students if she thinks it is in her interest to do so, and that she does indeed think it is in her interest to do so.

At the 2006 SOS (Students of Sustainability) conference Holly Kemp misrepresented my friends and I.

We were interested in campus activism at the 2006 SOS. The main target of this activism was to be campus militarism such as the scramjet program at UQ and Boeing sponsorship at St Lucia. We wrote a leaflet that argued it is irrational to develop military technology when there are other technologies that could benefit from resources currently allocated to the military, and when these other technologies could help us address (for e.g.) environmental concerns. Our recommendation was that we demand more R&D funding for (inter alia) renewable energy, while also pursuing the abolition of research projects into hi-tech weapons. The leaflet took up the counter-argument that investment in militarism is desirable in order to deter attackers, for instance scramjet tech supposedly may have anti-ballistic applications. However leaflet argued the best way to prevent of war is an international peace movement, and that such a movement is incompatible with deterrence (for a copy: s200408@student.uq.edu.au).

The idea was to blue tack this leaflet mainly to Boeing murals in the engineering buildings. The murals would not be damaged: that was the point. The murals are an embarrassment at a university; they depict the results of military research while unis should encourage the use of knowledge for the betterment of humanity and the planet. So instead of destroying the murals, those who wrote the leaflet wanted to redirect the message of these adverts for militarism; that is we wanted to use the murals against the intentions of those responsible for them.

Holly Kemp and the other SOS 2006 organisers were fully aware we in this way advocated clear argument as the way to oppose campus militarism. However other activists at SOS 2006 were not aware of our intentions. Holly and the other organizers of SOS 2006 then deliberately and falsely put it about that we intended to mindlessly attack various campus targets. In addition they circulated the idea that this would cause SOS 2006 to be shut down by UQ security, also a false claim. Besides anything else, UQ Security do not have power to close down a SOS conference. The police would have to do that. If a few people did start trashing uni property at a conference, it is more likely the police would simply come and arrest those persons. As things stand even the cops would need to look for a better excuse to get rid of an entire activist conference.

The result of this misrepresentation was that only I got to speak at a talk we gave on campus activism for SOS 2006, and then right at the end. The talk was also more or less double booked with an “official” talk on campus activism. Further, I personally was met with suspicion by many of those who attended SOS 2006. We managed to set the record straight with a few people and blue tack the leaflet, but I for one was involved in unnecessary and unpleasant interactions with other activists.

Why did Holly Kemp misrepresent us in this manner? The question is important because if you accuse someone of bad behavior, your case is stronger if you can show that the person had a motive to undertake the wrongful action. The question of why Holly behaved as she did is also important because there is good reason to believe Holly Kemp will continue to behave in a non-representative manner towards fellow students. So let’s consider Holly’s motives.

Holly and the other organisers of SOS 2006 were not completely anti-activism. In fact they seemed to have no problem with off campus actions. What Holly Kemp and the others repeatedly admitted was that they agreed with UQ uni admin that activism would not happen on Campus. I think this is best explained if we take Holly Kemp to be a career bureaucrat. By misrepresenting us, Holly was showing that she could manage dissent. Even though in our case the dissent was the kind of critique you would expect on campus (e.g. in pol sci), should Holly have refrained from action, it would have looked bad down the track when she wanted a job as an apparatchik or yellow unionist. She would seem unable to control activists for whom she was the supposed "representative." What would look good for her in this context is if she proved capable of controlling "rogue elements" in her domain — campus. In our case this control could only be exerted by misrepresentation, for what we were suggesting, i.e. a clear critique of campus militarism, is appealing to many uni students. Note Holly's motives for misrepresentation are ongoing: Holly is interested in her future as much as in controlling activism in the present; any future effective activism will be problematic for her.

Any one who cares about student welfare will not want an official elected who misrepresents rather than represents their student constituents. In the case of left interests the problem is highlighted. Granted her motives for misrepresenting activists are ongoing, Holly could be counted on to use any contacts, resources and authority she acquired in an election victory to defuse and confuse effective campus activism. Yet that activism gives students real representation: the ability to have more control on campus life, and the chance to be more of a social force (i.e. demand a better deal for all students).

It might be objected that if left wing people do not vote for Holly Kemp they are effectively voting for more cynical Liberal or Labour operatives. In response, I have only criticized Holly Kemp, not Catalyst. But I do suggest you only vote for a politician if you strongly believe that person to be representative. If no politician convinces you they will represent you then do not vote. In the case of Holly herself, since she is not left, she is not a left wing alternative to cynicism. Even if her poor performance at the polls contributes to the election of a cynical Labour or Liberal operative, what has happened is that one lying cynic has ousted another, not that a genuine left alterative has suffered a defeat.