USU Candidate Profile: Ruby Lotz
Name: Ruby Lotz
Studies: Arts (Politics and International Relations, Political Economy)
Faction: NLS
Colour, slogan, campaign manager: Orange, Rebuild with Ruby, Roisin Murphy and Nick Forbutt
Ruby, despite being the youngest candidate in the race, was thorough and articulate in advocating her vision for the USU. She began our interview by characterising the USU as a “diverse and exciting community” where she has made some of her “closest friends and fondest memories”. Nonetheless, she told us, there remained some flaws which she aimed to fix. These were the lack of transparency on Board - she pointed to the decision to close Manning being made in camera, the lack of accessibility of USU outlets and programs to many students, and the failure to address international students’ needs.
Her three favourite policies made it clear she is aiming for a broadly progressive campaign with a focus on reaching out to marginalised students, although at times they seemed impractical.
She wants to implement a Drug, Sex and Consent Week (modelled off the existing Rad Sex and Consent Week) to promote “harm reduction strategies, safe and consensual sex” among other issues. When we asked how this would address the low turnout which occurred in previous years, Ruby claimed that there was a lack of “political will” to run the event - something we suspect Director Maya Eswaran would challenge. She did, however, draw on her personal experience starting the Drug Law Reform Society to say that a “huge portion” of the student body were interested in harm reduction strategies. Nonetheless, it was difficult to see what was novel about this policy or why it would be more likely to succeed.
Ruby’s next favourite policy was commissioning a review into the transparency of its decision-making. She named a number of benefits she believed would emerge from this review: in particular, better financial management due to student scrutiny and changing the culture of secrecy on the Board. This is a worthy policy which shows Ruby is taking students’ concerns about transparency seriously, although it relies on the review returning a favourable decision and the Board Directors acting on it appropriately. On the topic of transparency, she confirmed she would be willing to leak confidential information if she thought it was in the interests of students.
The other policy she discussed was subsidising RSA and barista courses for students. While she acknowledged the policy would be costly, she suggested it was a way the USU could support “students hit financially to enter the workplace”. As she admitted, while students might find this helpful, its financial cost could easily be unfeasible.
In terms of how the USU could economise following the loss of revenue caused by COVID-19, Ruby pointed to Incubate as a program that could be cut, because it is targeted at only a select number of students rather than being accessible to all. She also suggested that a USU food delivery service could raise revenue and support USU staff.
Regarding whether the USU should be political, Ruby told us it should add to its traditional role as a “service provider” with more activism and collaboration with the SRC, for example by taking a stand against ProctorU. When pressed to provide something she would and wouldn’t support, she told us that the Board should not endorse a specific political party or politics that alienated groups in the student community. She applied this logic to the question of controversial clubs and societies, saying she saw Lifechoice as anti-choice and “when you’re anti something it means you’re alienating… a group of the student community.” We asked if she believed that left-wing initiatives should be avoided if they might alienate students on the right, and she clarified that decisions should avoid alienating “large portions” of the student community, although there would always be some people whose interests aren’t met.
One of Ruby’s focuses - as implied by her slogan, Rebuild with Ruby - is re-establishing campus culture to its former glory. When asked what traits she would look for in Michael Spence’s replacement, she told us she wanted a Vice Chancellor who “recognises the importance of campus culture”. She also argued that a priority of the Board should be reviving campus nightlife. She, like Belinda and Nick, supports reform to the University’s alcohol policy, although she acknowledged the barriers to changing it. She suggested that even with the policy in action, it was still possible to revive student culture, for instance at USU venues and through free entry parties.
When asked about offensive screenshots uncovered by Honi in which she used a homophobic slur, Ruby replied that she had made the comment to her boyfriend when she was 16, and had not intended it to be homophobic. She acknowledged that it is “innately homophobic” and assured us that “it was made in passing and didn’t represent [her] views then or now”. This apology was reminiscent of Josie Jakovac’s explanation of racist posts during the SRC campaign last year: stating that offence was not intended and arguing it occurred in the past (in this case, several years ago). Whether the apology is sufficient, then, will probably come down to Ruby and her platform’s ability to address discrimination and prejudice in meaningful ways, which could demonstrate to voters that her politics have matured.
Ruby received a very respectable 81% in the quiz, the third highest score overall. Her mistakes were largely fairly minor, for example, slightly misremembering the USU’s 2018 revenue, and voters can be assured she is knowledgeable about the role. Generally, Ruby had detailed and thoughtful comments about the USU. The biggest hurdle for her campaign will likely be justifying to the electorate that they should accept her apology for her past comments.
View her full interview here.