Governments and university administrations versus post-secondary education

My younger years.

February 2002

To the Editor:

In recent weeks, students across Ontario and throughout Canada have undertaken various initiatives to raise awareness about declining access to our colleges and universities. In addition to meeting directly with government officials - including local MPs and MPPs - students have organized forums, petition drives, and letter-writing campaigns. At Queen's University and the University of Guelph, students occupied administrators' offices. On Wednesday, February 6, thousands of students will demonstrate on campuses and in communities from coast to coast.

Simply put, affordable, public post-secondary education is under attack. So severely have federal and provincial governments starved colleges and universities of needed funding, that campus infrastructure is crumbling, quality of education is declining, and accessibility has been compromised. In Ontario, this government-created crisis has been compounded by the deregulation of tuition fees for certain programs and the decision to allow the establishment of private, for-profit universities. The outcome: still higher tuition fees and declining accessibility.

Meanwhile, university administrators have been reduced to institutional fundraisers and public relations apologists for the selling off of public education by stealth. Their role, essentially, has been to act as the buffer between detrimental government policies and the rest of us. Indeed, university presidents and administrators pay lip service to the lack of government funding. But their behind-the-scenes government "lobbying" amounts to begging for such policies as the deregulation of all tuition fees, enrollment caps, and regressive student loan repayment schemes.

Like complacent messengers of government, administrators tell us that tuition fee increases are necessary in order to maintain quality and excellence. Indeed, they even make this argument in Ontario, where tuition fees are the second highest in Canada and student-professor ratios are among the worst. Moreover, administrators tell us not to worry because tuition fee increases do not compromise accessibility. They make this argument - using partial data sets and spurious correlations - despite a rapidly growing body of evidence to the contrary emerging from Statistics Canada, numerous independent studies, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, nationwide public polling, and international experience.

In a nutshell, administrators' arguments defy basic logic and common sense: it doesn't matter if we raise tuition fees to a million dollars because we'll "set aside" a certain percentage for students in need. Heck, who needs government funding or up-front grants for students when you have magnificent user fees, student-funded financial assistance, and back-end debt remission based on post-graduation income? Why not just tell government to cancel funding completely since we already have the solutions in students' pocketbooks? Besides, once we're entirely private we won't have to ensure accessibility, anyway: education is a service, students are customers, and we need to remain competitive in this rapidly changing knowledge-based economy. Period.

Universities are governed by undemocratic boards of governors dominated by influential corporate sponsors. Such is a world in which it is not what or how you argue, but what you own or control that matters. Students must rely on their numbers and mobilizing power to defend the right to education. We happen to think that education is a right and a necessity. Students also rely on their immediate allies, including faculty members and support staff. So it comes as no surprise that Western's own administrators might try to pit us against each other, stifle our mobilization efforts, oppose tuition fee freezes, and then deploy the same old arguments each year to justify tuition fee hikes.

Of course, students know better - and we have the public on our side. In Ontario, 82% of people support tuition fee freezes and reductions. Now is the time for a united front to demand adequate government funding to freeze and reduce tuition fees. Sadly, administrators' thinking has not quite caught up with the rest of us.

Jesse Greener

Rick Telfer

Student unions, choice, and freedom of speech

SOURCE:

The Agitator: A Bulletin for the Student Left

November 14, 2008 • Issue no. 20 • Author unknown

Should student unions deny funding to student groups that are "pro-life"? In doing so, are student unions limiting free speech on campus? Isn't this stifling the free flow of ideas and debate?

These questions are not new but they've been raised many times on many campuses in recent years. Recently, the Guelph Central Students' Association passed a motion to deny student union resources and funding to a student group called Life Choice. The reasoning behind the ban is because the group in question is not merely "pro-life" but anti-choice.

Unfortunately, the whole debate has been distorted and misrepresented by the mainstream and even student media. In part, this is a problem of ignorance, but in many respects it is a deliberate attempt to draw the debate away from the actual issue at hand, while opening up student unions to yet more attacks by right-wingers.

What is choice?

Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. Pro-choice means that women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. If their views are pro-life, then they have the undeniable right to carry the pregnancy to term. If they choose to have an abortion, they also have the right to do this. Therefore, the notion that pro-choice and pro-life are irreconcilable opposites is simply not true.

There are also people who are pro-life but anti-choice. They seek to criminalize abortion and impose their religious and/or ideological views on others via the state. Church and state have no right to dictate the choices women make with their bodies. The intimidation tactics and imagery used by such groups is also offensive and disturbing.

When it comes to student unions, the pro-choice position has to be defended. In practice, this means that student unions fund a number of religious student organizations which hold pro-life positions. Student unions also fund explicitly pro-life groups. However, if such a group is advocating the criminalization of abortion, which would entail the state determining what women do with their bodies, then student unions have the right – via their democratic processes – to deny this group funding and resources.

Free speech

But, you may ask, isn't this infringing on freedom of speech? No. Student unions are not the arbiters of free speech on campus. Student union resources, funding and policies do not determine which student groups can setup tables, hold events, poster, flyer, and do other activities. Universities provide such services to students independently of student unions. A telling example from Carleton University in the fall of 2006 was when an anti-choice student group was criticizing the student union for infringing on their right to free speech by denying them resources and space. At the same time, this group was able to book an auditorium and hold a debate with a pro-choice organization. The notion that student unions can determine who has free speech on campus is nonsense.

A more interesting question to ask is why these sorts of arguments emerge. The fact is, if anti-choice student groups tried to organize an open campaign to get the student union to take an anti-choice position, it would be overwhelmingly defeated. The vast majority of students support a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice students who want to remove hard-won rights from women rely on diverting people from the real issue by lobbing baseless criticisms onto the student union. They do so to hide the fact they want to turn the clock back on women's rights.

There is also another right that needs to be defended – the democratic right of students to determine their student union policies and the use of their collective resources. Most, if not all student unions have policies that deny funding to student groups that are racist, sexist, and homophobic. Part of fighting sexism is fighting the notion that women can't control their own bodies without approval from the state. The Guelph CSA and all other student unions who have fought this battle are right to do so and must be defended. ■

What makes a source "credible"?

"Use valid, credible sources for information"

University of Maine at Farmington, 2007

Just because you have located a book, article, website, or other resource on your topic, does not mean you should automatically use it in your paper or project. You need to choose your resources carefully to make sure you get the best and most useful ones.

How can you tell if the book, article, website, or other resource you located is a valid, credible source? It may be helpful for you to ask yourself six questions:

Who?

• Who is the author?
• What are her/his credentials?

What?

• What information is available from this resource?

Where?

• Where did the author(s) get the information?
• Are citations provided?

When?

• When was the resource produced?
  For books, check the copyright date.
  For articles, check the publication date.
  For websites, look for a "created on" or "last updated on" date.

Why?

• Why does this resource exist?
• Is the purpose to entertain, persuade, inform, etc.?
• Is the resource biased?

How?

• How comprehensive is the resource?
• Does it go into the depth you need?

SOURCE: http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/valid.html

Carson Jerema: Elitist agenda trumps journalism standards

She must be opposed to academic standards.

Re: "Standards trump rights on campus," Nov. 15/10

On the surface, Carson Jerema might appear to be little more than a columnist who engages in reasoned debate regarding post-secondary education in Canada. But even if one sets aside his long track record of siding with right-wing ideology -- these days, the seeming raison d'être of Maclean's magazine journalists -- it's hard not to conclude that he's just another paid propagandist who ignores journalistic standards in the service of an obvious elitist agenda.

Granted, columnists aren't reporters. But columnists are still journalists; they write for newspapers and make factual claims, the key difference being that they explicitly advance arguments on the basis of those claims. And good journalism means adhering to accepted standards for journalism. Take, for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists' "Statement of principles and ethical guidelines" which, among other things, declares:

• "We will give people, companies or organizations that are publicly accused or criticized prompt opportunity to respond. We will make a genuine and exhaustive effort to contact them. If they decline to comment we will say so."
• "We will report all relevant facts in coverage of controversies or disputes."

Now, compare these standards with Jerema's critique of the Canadian Federation of Students' campaign slogan that "education is a right."

His argument is as follows:

• "Education is a right" should mean "the 'right to pursue an education' or the 'right to an education for all qualified students.'"
• This, however, "is not ... the position of the Canadian Federation of Students."
• The Federation's position, he contends, is "you get to go because you breathe."

Given Jerema's relentless attacks upon the Canadian Federation of Students over the years, it's not unreasonable to wonder if his conclusion is just another smear intended to weaken the 29 year-old organization's credibility and legitimacy. After all, Canada's right-wing despises the Federation precisely because the Federation has, for decades, strongly and effectively opposed government policies that would turn higher education into an exclusive playground for the rich.

And that agenda certainly seems to be Jerema's preference. Indeed, he considers the argument that "access to education shouldn't be tied to ability to pay" -- i.e., that getting an education should be affordable for everyone. Jerema's not so sure; "why" this must be so, he slips in, "is unclear."

Of course, Jerema probably realizes that arguing for an elitist system of post-secondary education -- which is precisely what the Federation advocates against -- is probably not going to win him a lot of fans among the masses. So, better to paint the Federation as "unreasonable" and "radical" in other respects than to try to argue with the Federation's central message.

And so we return to his critique of the Federation's supposed "focus on students accessing the education of their choice without any qualification or reference to student ability" as being "on the far edges of education politics." Well, my goodness, that settles it! Clearly, we should pay no further attention to this crazy organization! Jerema's wet dream, right?

Indeed, his critique is just another fantasy. And it's classic card stacking.

Returning to those journalistic standards, consider: Did Jerema give the Federation an opportunity to respond to his criticism? If he did, was his effort genuine and exhaustive? If the Federation declined to comment, why did he not mention that? These questions go unanswered.

More importantly, did Jerema report all of the relevant facts? This one's easy: No, he didn't. So, please allow me to list a few facts that he, um, forgot:

• The Canadian Federation of Students does not, and has never, advocated against academic standards. Indeed, Jerema fails to present any evidence to support this ludicrous claim -- apart from his loosey-goosey interpretation of a Federation policy statement. His selective citing of the policy is his only evidence -- and his entire column is based upon what the policy, by his own admission, "seems" to mean. Shoddy, to say the least -- especially in light of the history of the Federation and its campaigns.
• The Federation's policy statement on "Accessibility" begins with the following declaration: "An accessible education is one which is available to all applicants who wish to attend a post-secondary institution." Clearly, an "applicant" applies for something -- and, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "apply" means "[t]o put oneself forward formally as a candidate for a position, esp. in a recruitment or selection process; to submit an application to do something, for a job or other position, or to an institution." "Available" means "within one's reach" -- e.g., financially.
• The Federation's longstanding slogan, "Education is a right!", is derived from the United Nation's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13(c), to be more specific, declares: "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education." I trust we can agree that "capacity" means "capableness."

So, yes, Carson, "here we are." We're still fighting for a system of post-secondary education that is accessible -- meaning affordable and free of generally recognized forms of discrimination. And there you are, over there, parroting the elites' call for an exclusive and privatized system of higher education. No doubt you're proving yourself well as a propagandist worthy of a great salary, and I'm sure you'll never have a problem finding a job. After all, who needs education with those kinds of connections? And who needs journalistic standards when you've got such a lucrative agenda?

Ontario Conservatives: Hypocrites, bullies

Kimberley Rogers, 1961-2001

October 2004

To the Editor:

The hypocritical name-calling used by the Tories in the legislature over the past week towards Health Minister George Smitherman is laughable. As an education advocate, I witnessed first-hand how the Harris-Flaherty government bullied those who spoke out for public education.

During a post-budget announcement at the University of Western Ontario in 2001, I questioned then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on behalf of university students about Conservative tax cut policies that resulted in rising tuition fees. In response, Flaherty lashed out at me with hostility. That was the typical Flaherty approach to stakeholder relations.

Later, when democratically elected school trustees in Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa refused to make cuts that hurt classrooms, and spoke out in defence of public education, then-Education Minister Elizabeth Witmer deployed “supervisors” to take over the school boards. Conservative leader Bob Runciman took the most extreme stance when he demanded that school trustees be fired.

And let us not forget Kimberly Rogers, the pregnant college student from Sudbury who turned to social assistance while on student loans in order to make ends meet. As punishment, the Harris-Flaherty government sentenced her to a lifetime ban from welfare benefits. She was also placed under house arrest and found dead in her home shortly after.

Let’s keep this in perspective: the real bullies are Flaherty and the Conservatives. I shudder to think of how much more damage they might have done to education and health care had they been re-elected last year.

Rick Telfer

First-past-the-post: An affront to democracy

October 2003

To the Editor:

The Star's Oct. 8 editorial, "NDP's late fight for party status," concludes that "arbitrarily changing the rules within days of every election in which the NDP loses more seats is an insult to voters — and to democracy."

I strongly disagree. First of all, such rules are already "arbitrary." Thus, that is not the problem. Instead, it is a political question that has serious ramifications for democracy in our province.

Granting official party status to the NDP would hardly be "an insult to voters." That is ridiculous. The NDP has a long history in Canadian politics and has played critically important roles as both government and opposition. Furthermore, the NDP captured a larger portion of the popular vote than it did in 1999.

The real insult to voters — and to democracy — is our antiquated "first-past-the-post" electoral system. The Star's suggestions for electoral reform, however, are weak at best. Dalton McGuinty has gone further by suggesting we should consider some form of proportional representation.

In other words, both The Star and McGuinty acknowledge the faults of the current system. The first step towards correcting them is to grant official party status to the NDP — a party that has and will continue to play a significant role in Canadian politics.

R. Telfer

Raining on parades

To the Editor:

Re: "Gays and lesbians must earn respect," July 18/03

In reference to London's recent gay pride activities, Florence Warren remarked that "bizarre parades will not help people to achieve their goals." Funny, that. It's worked rather well for Santa Claus.

R. Telfer

Higher university enrolment does not mean equal access

To the Editor:

Re: "University degrees worth the hassle," Mar. 12/03

The idea that "having a post-secondary education increases your earning potential" is generally true--especially when compared to not having a degree or diploma. However, a more careful reading of the recently released Statistics Canada census data reveals that Canadians under 30 actually earned less in 2000 than they did in 1980. Men under 40 have also experienced losses, while those over 50 have made substantial gains.

In other words, attaining a degree or diploma does not translate into instant prosperity. Rather, post-secondary education ensures prosperity if you happen to be male and over the age of 50. Recent graduates--who carry the highest student debt loads--are not necessarily doing so well.

It should also be noted that while university and college enrolment rates are on the rise, this does not mean that post-secondary education is accessible. Participation rates are neither a sufficient nor necessary measure of accessibility. That more people are enrolling in college and university does not indicate that people from all income backgrounds can afford post-secondary education equally.

In 2001, Statistics Canada reported that young people from the wealthiest quarter of the population were 2.5 times as likely to attend university as those from the poorest quarter. Given that tuition fees have risen by more than 126% during the 1990s, and that average student debt loads now exceed $25,000, this fact is not at all surprising.

R. Telfer

Anti-smoking: It's medical correctness, actually

December 2002

To the Editor:

I read with great interest parts of the Simcoe Reformer's "war on smoking" series. Having lived outside of Norfolk for several years now, I almost forgot just how absurd tobacco farmers sound when they claim that smoking is not, in fact, harmful. Or that those of us concerned about the hazards of cigarette smoke are simply "anti-smoking zealots" with a penchant for political correctness.

My favourite pro-smoking argument goes something like: "My mother smoked all her life and lived until she was 92." How rigorous! My second favourite argument is that all those experts, including innumerable scientists and doctors around the world, have merely distorted the facts and statistics. How objective and comprehensive!

The good news is that the "war on smoking" is working. Perhaps once the last butt is stomped out, the tobacco industry will admit the truth that it obfuscates with anecdotes and aspersions. So long as it profits from others' addiction to disease and death, the industry will dispense with the basic morality of doing no harm to others.

In the meantime, I'll trust the expert word of those not reaping magnificent profits from the sale of cigarettes. That is, I'll take the advice of the 10 million doctors in 117 countries - represented by organizations like the World Medical Association - that say smoking kills. Period.

R. Telfer

Support workers and demand better from government

To the Editor:

Re: "Government urged to fire all strikers," Apr. 3/02

Like Steve Scott in his Apr. 3 letter, I too have a complaint about the OPSEU strike. Specifically, I am outraged that the provincial government has failed to provide a fair settlement to our fellow workers, friends, and family members in the public sector.

The government strategy to dismantle the social safety net includes a concerted attack on the standard of living and rights of workers - whether in industry, manufacturing, or the public service. This attack is very much in line with the privatization of electricity, healthcare, education, and so on.

There is no group of people more strategically poised to save our public services from the privatization agenda of the provincial government and its corporate backers than the mass of workers employed in the public sector. At the same time, any gains made by the striking workers will set higher standards for all workers fighting for better living standards across the country.

I agree that under-employed - and unemployed - people need meaningful, well-paying jobs. But instead of firing the strikers to achieve this goal, we should instead fire the Ontario Conservatives and start questioning why it is that some people in our society, namely CEOs of the largest corporations, have daily incomes greater than the yearly income of Canada's average worker.

Rick Telfer