Archive for June, 2010

At a cost of $20-million, the UPass is no longer about post-secondary affordability

When British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell announced the creation of a universal $30/month transit pass for all post-secondary students in the province yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Students applauded the move.

“The U-Pass is an investment in the next generation, in the economy and the environment,” Nimmi Takkar, chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students–BC was quoted as saying in a press release. “This program is going to make a major difference in students’ lives and go a long way towards building a transit culture in British Columbia.”

Just as fast as the CFS media machine cranked out its press release, opponents to the move started decrying the U-Pass announcement as a draconian, paternalistic move typical of our “nanny state.” One reader who responded to On Campus’s news story argued that “students are forced to pay whether they ride the bus or not” despite Translink’s “crappy” service, and who the hell are you anyways to tell me I shouldn’t drive my car?!

Such critics are right about one thing: the policy is not so much allowing students to “access” affordable transportation as it is compelling them to buy in. Nevertheless, none of the schools will sign on until the U-Pass is approved through a student referendum. Although I’m sure it’s annoying for car-loving, suburb-dwelling students out there to be outnumbered by their more green-conscience colleagues, that’s how our democratic society works–so live with it.

The U-Pass isn’t a new idea, but this announcement marks an interesting deviation from the original intent of the program that is worth noting. Originally, the program was intended to be revenue-neutral; basically, Translink would add up its cost of providing transit to a campus then split that cost among the students of that school, regardless of whether they took the bus or not. Translink didn’t make any money off the deal, but they didn’t lose any either. In essence, non-transit-using students subsidized the cost of a transit pass for everyone else. This is why negotiations for U-Passes at other colleges and universities in the Lower Mainland broke down; while the economics of the program made sense at big schools like UBC and SFU, the cost per student was significantly higher elsewhere, and student unions there wouldn’t accept the higher cost.

And so yesterday’s announcement represents a major shift in the philosophy of the project. The $30/month U-Pass is set to cost the provincial government some $20 million. No longer is this a revenue-neutral feel-good program, but a significantly expensive one. And, if this is truly about lowering expenses for students, it’s worth considering whether that $20 million would be better spent on, say, provincial needs-based grants.

But that argument is moot. Because the reality is that the U-Pass program is no longer about affordability, if it ever was, but about promoting a shift towards the “transit culture” Takkar refers to in the CFS release. Using economic means to push people into making more environmentally-friendly choices is par for the course here in B.C., where the country’s first carbon tax was implemented and where car-drivers have long subsidized transit through Translink’s gas tax.

My point is that this program should be recognized for what it is, rather than congratulating ourselves for supporting broke students. And that’s where The Province newspaper hits the nail on the head: “But why should students be singled out? Why is a 19-year-old university student any more worthy of government support than another 19-year-old starting out in life in a job? If the aim is to promote post-secondary education, a more direct way is to further subsidize tuition.”

If we accept the notion that the U-Pass isn’t the best way to subsidize post-secondary education, then the question becomes: is it fair to force students to purchase transit passes that they may not use in the name of promoting transit? Is it appropriate for universities to administer a fee that is fundamentally driven by the desire to shift society?

I don’t have the answer to those questions. But, for the record, I rode my bike to the office today in the rain.

Honourary degree for former premier causes outrage

The Ontario Teachers Federation can hardly be said to be known for its subtlety. In a recent letter sent to Nipissing University’s board of governors, OTF president Reno Melatti warned against plans to name a library after, and confer an honourary degree on, former Ontario premier Mike Harris. “The executive of the Ontario Teachers Federation would like you to know that both we and our members object, in the strongest possible terms to any intent Nipissing may have to pursue such a misguided action,” the letter read.

Melatti raised a number of grievances from Harris’ time in office. “We find it incongruous that a university that prides itself on being a school for future teachers and for aboriginal students would deem it appropriate to confer any honour on an individual who decimated the funding of K-12 and post-secondary education in Ontario,” the letter read. “Given the insidious treatment of the profession by former premier Mike Harris, and his total lack of respect for its members, we cannot predict how teachers may demonstrate their displeasure should the university choose to name a library after, or confer an honorary degree on, Mr. Harris.”

The union boss went so far as to suggest that OTF members may refuse the placement of Nipissing student teachers in their classrooms. “There’s a strong concern from various members that they may reconsider their assistance in providing for (Nipissing) student teachers,” Mellatti told the Ottawa Citizen. In a meeting scheduled for later this month the union executive will consider whether or not to recommend a boycott against Nipissing education students.

For its part, the university has shrugged off the complaint, with spokesman Bob Pipe telling the Citizen plans to honour Harris will proceed.

Mandatory retirement against human rights law

The University of Prince Edward Island was recently ordered to reinstate three employees who were forced to retire under a mandatory retirement policy that was found in contravention of the Human Rights Act. Mandatory retirement was once common in Canadian universities, but it has been largely phased out through a combination of provincial legislation and university amendments to their own retirement provisions. UPEI was one of the last institutions to have such a policy.

Psychology professor Thomy Nillson, sociology professor Richard Willis and receiving clerk Yogi Fell will be returning to work complete with back pay minus retirement benefits already paid out. The UPEI Human Rights Commission ruled in favour of the three employees, who were forced to retire between 2005 and 2007, back in February but only recently issued orders for the university to reinstate them. The university must also “Refrain in the future from committing the same or similar contravention, namely,
mandatory retirement.”

University officials are not pleased with the order and estimate that compliance will cost more than $1 million in addition to $325,000 required to respect the order on an annual basis. “For comparison purposes, this is double the increase to our government operating grant for Main Campus in 2010-11,” Gary Bradshaw, vice-president finance, said in a statement. Bradshaw further warned that “Restrictions on hiring and on discretionary expenditures are anticipated.” UPEI is also on the hook for $52,000 in legal costs that the UPEI Faculty Association incurred in arguing the case.

The university maintains that their mandatory retirement policy was justified under a provision of the Human Rights Act that states that prohibitions against age based restrictions “do not affect the operation of any genuine retirement or pension plan.” The university has also cited a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that concluded mandatory retirement policies were exempt when there exists a “genuine retirement or pension plan.”

The Human Rights Commission disagreed with those arguments, concluding that the university ” had failed to establish that the discrimination was justified.” UPEI is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.

The Faculty Association is satisfied with the result and in its own statement said it would provide a check on the university to ensure it respects the rights of the reinstated employees. “Moving forward, the Association will work to ensure that the collective agreement rights of those being reinstated, of the departments involved, and of other members in those departments are all respected,” the statement read.

The association also expressed concerns over the university’s response. “It is unfortunate, though, that the Vice-President’s memo also seems to threaten the entire University community in response to the Commission’s Decision and Order . . .  This is especially concerning given that we are now in negotiations.”

Concerns arise over whether the education exception is neutered by digital locks

Proposed amendments to Canada’s arcane Copyright Act has provoked sharp disagreement within the education sector.

Introduced last Wednesday by Industry Minister Tony Clement and Heritage Minister James Moore, the amendments expand rules governing “fair use,” making several exceptions for education.

Under the proposed legislation, the use of copyrighted material in the classroom would be permitted over the internet, allowing students to legally view material during and after class, as well as from remote locations. To illustrate the change, the government has used the example of music students, those in the classroom as well as those studying remotely, to perform protected songs together, if it forms part of a lesson.

Students would also be permitted to print one copy of material delivered electronically by teachers. Other changes include a provision delinking material from “specific technologies” so that protected material that already include exceptions for education may be copied to a variety of formats before being presented to students.

One of the biggest proposed amendments involves the use of recorded broadcasts of current affairs programs, which will no longer have to be paid for. Documentaries, however, are not included in this provision. Another important amendment is permission for librarians to digitize copyrighted material for the purposes of inter-library loans.

The Copyright Act was last updated in 1997 before the advent of many media platforms such as MP3 players. The new legislation proposes to bring the law in line with common activities such as transferring media from one platform to another for personal use.

The legislation also aims to provide creators with new ways to protect their intellectual property. Most controversially, the government will protect the use of technological protection measures, or digital locks. It would become illegal for the locks to be circumvented, even in cases where copying material was permitted by other provisions in the bill.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has given the proposed legislation cautious praise. AUCC president Paul Davidson noted that the bill contains many changes that the university sector suggested during government consultations last summer. He said that the AUCC is “very pleased that the bill amends the fair dealing provision to include the purpose of education.” However, the AUCC has expressed concern regarding the “overly strict prohibition against circumventing the technical measures.”

Similarly, Tina Robichaud, chair of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) said the changes will be “immensely beneficial for students, teachers and institutions.”

Others have found it nearly impossible to applaud expansions to fair use given the protection provided for digital locks. “By imposing a blanket provision against all circumvention, the government will lock down a vast amount of digital material, effectively preventing its use for research, education and innovation, and curtailing the user rights of Canadians,” said David Robinson of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

The Canadian Federation of Students agrees. “The government has indicated a willingness to compromise. Step one is listening to Canadians and abandoning blanket protections for digital locks,” said national chairperson David Molenhuis.

We Shakespeare profs have to have patience with pop-culture references to the Bard.

Dear Will,

As a Shakespeare scholar, I am familiar with the casual, even cynical uses of your work in popular culture, so the trailer for the new film Letters to Juliet did not take me by surprise. I haven’t seen the film — and I’m not criticizing it; I’m sure it’s delightful — but I gather that the practice of writing letters to Juliet (she of Romeo and Juliet) is the starting point. I think I even read somewhere that people actually do this in Verona.

Fair enough. As I often say, you’re in no danger from popular culture. You practically invented popular culture. Besides, you borrowed liberally from everyone else, why not borrow liberally from you?

But I do find it strange that Juliet (and I guess Romeo, too) has become a symbol for magical, fulfilling romance. Has anyone even read the play? As you well know, Will, Juliet has exactly one love affair: it lasts about three days and she is dead by the end of it. All before her fourteenth birthday. Why would she be someone to dish out advice like a sixteenth-century Dear Abby?

Lovelorn on the Lido: I think my husband might be cheating on me — I read some very sexy texts on his phone.

Juliet: Great question. First, what’s a text? Also, what’s a phone?

Confused in Canterbury: I think this boy likes me, but I’m not sure. What should I do?

Juliet: It’s always best to send a message through your wet nurse. Oh, and marry him right away. No time like the present!

Aching in Athens: I’m in love with one man, but my parents want me to marry someone else. What should I do?

Juliet: Do you know your local priest? Have him mix up a potion… no, wait…

Will, I certainly hope this practice of writing to your characters doesn’t catch on. What’s next? Letters to Hamlet for those trying to make tough decisions? Letters to Iago about how to win friends? Letters to Shylock with questions on sound financial planning?

Letters to you about how your plays are man-handled these days? Now, that really would be going too far.

Canadian universities are “closed and fearful institutions”

Most people think of lawyers as silver-tongued, but Robert Martin, a retired law professor at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ont., admits that subtlety is not his strong suit. His paper, “University Legal Education in Canada is Corrupt Beyond Repair,” is as subtle as a sledgehammer: in it, he compares law faculties to “psychotic kindergartens” populated by “a horde of illiterate, ignorant cretins.” The paper, published last fall in the academic journal Interchange, made the rounds of law blogs and news sites in Canada and abroad last week, turning Martin into a minor Internet phenom.

It’s no wonder the legal community picked up on the article. Canadian universities are “closed and fearful institutions,” writes Martin, 70, from which students graduate “armed with bits of paper, which most of them are probably not able to read, called degrees.” Schools have adopted a “corporate model,” he continues, singling out the University of Toronto’s law faculty, which, in deregulating its tuition fees, “pattern[ed] itself after a Wal-Mart outlet.” Other faculties, “equally lacking in integrity,” followed suit. Martin’s solution is to close every law faculty, offer the buildings to the homeless, and use law textbooks as kindling—“a much more socially useful function,” he writes, than “being gawped at by illiterate students.”

Academics refused to comment, suggesting that to do so would give the article—published in a journal even Martin calls “obscure”—a veneer of credibility. Still, Martin is unapologetic: “I believe in being direct and to the point,” he told Maclean’s in an email. “If one is to spend one’s time paralyzed by the fear that one’s writing might offend someone, then one should not be writing.”

Elsewhere, legal watchers reacted with a mixture of horror and glee. The State Bar of Michigan blog, for one, said Martin “defies both the stereotype of the super-polite Canadian and of the phlegmatic academic,” while Simon Chester, who blogs on the well-read Slaw.ca, dismissed Martin’s words as a “hyperbolic rant,” a point that most seem to agree on. “Talk about your cranky old man,” wrote one commenter on the site.

Feds to restore another $4m to keep university open for another year

First Nations University of Canada (FNUC) can afford to keep its doors open for at least another year, after the federal government announced today that it would give the embattled school $4 million in transitional funding.

The future of the university had been uncertain, after both Ottawa and the Saskatchewan government removed funding earlier this year over ongoing governance problems. The institution had been plagued for years by allegations of misused funds, fraud, and political interference from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

However, in March the Saskatchewan government restored funding to FNUC after a Memorandum of Understanding was signed that would see the institution’s finances controlled by the University of Regina. The U of R was already responsible for granting degrees to FNUC graduates. The five-year deal will see $5 million in provincial funds flow to a national accounting firm during the first year of the agreement. During the remaining four years, the money will go to the U of R, who will then distribute it to FNUC.

The arrangement with the U of R was key for the restoration of federal money, as was the appointment of an independent board of governors, and a “sustainable” fiscal plan. Distributed through the Indian Studies Support Program, federal funding will carry the school through March 31 2011. Previously, $3million was restored so that students could finish the school year, which ends in August.

Why summer courses make me happy, even when skies are gray.

I have taught a course in the summer almost every year I’ve been a professor, and I’ve always enjoyed it. Well, almost always. And it’s not just because of the extra money.

For one thing, the classes tend to be at just the right size, around a dozen or so. Smaller than that and there are not enough ideas to sustain the discussion; too many more and people feel intimidated and reticent.

The students, too, are often better in the summer. It’s a matter of motivation:  if they are driven enough to pick up extra credits in the summer, they’re likely to have the wherewithal to do the readings and, you know, actually think about them. Such students often do very well in these courses, too, because when it comes to exam time, the material is fresh in their minds. We just covered half this stuff last week!

It’s not all joy and fun, of course. I have not, for example, been able to keep up with mowing my lawn lately, and it’s sometimes frustrating when students are taking your course because they need three credits of something, anything, to graduate. But on the whole, I would hate to miss that brainy season in the sun.

Education departments to implement goals aimed at creating respectful learning environments

A promising step forward for Aboriginal education is taking place at this year’s Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, currently underway at Concordia University in Montreal. On June 1, members of the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE) signed an Accord on Indigenous Education. The Accord lays out a vision, a set of principles, and an extensive list of goals with the aim to create respectful learning environments, inclusive curricula, and to recognize and promote Indigenous knowledge in education.

The ACDE’s move comes at a time when almost half of Canada’s Aboriginal population is aged 24 or younger and represents the fastest-growing segment of the Aboriginal population. Indigenous organizations and communities have become increasingly involved in educational policy and issues, while major studies and government commissions have called for Aboriginal people to play a greater role in these areas. ACDE, with a 61-institution membership, recognized the role it could play as an association for educators in order to push for improvements in Indigenous education.

The Accord’s many goals include: reclaiming and teaching Indigenous languages, as well as promoting their use in research and scholarly writing; creating procedures in the promotion and tenure process that value work on Indigenous education projects; eliminating cultural biases in student assessment; and improving access, support and retention strategies to increase the number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people enrolling in and completing post-secondary and teacher education.

The signing of this Accord follows several years of work. In 2007, a four-chair committee was struck comprising two deans of education—Laurentian’s John Lundy and Saskatchewan’s Cecilia Reynolds—as well as Aboriginal scholars Jo-ann Archibald of UBC and UVic’s Lorna Williams. Archibald and Williams had just chaired a B.C. deans of education task force on Aboriginal education, and the B.C. deans had accepted their recommendations the previous year. The ACDE committee’s process involved looking at the needs of universities and Aboriginal communities and what each had to offer the other, while the lengthy drafting process included soliciting comments from each group.

As Williams, who is a member of the Lil’wat First Nation of Mount Currie, B.C., observes: “Education was the tool used to destroy our languages, ways of life, cultural traditions, relationships with families and the land. This action by the deans of education is leading the way to education being an institution that can also heal and restore what it attempted to destroy.”

While the Accord will be implemented within faculties and departments of education, the ACDE hopes that it can also serve as a model for the wider university community, within the teaching profession, and in elementary and secondary education. There is optimism that the Accord’s stated goals will result in concrete changes, and soon. Lundy sees the Accord as “a guide for genuine dialogue and social action in education.” Already at the University of Saskatchewan, the Accord has been shared with deans and upper administration, while USask’s College of Nursing consulted the document when designing a new program.

ACDE members had signed a General Accord in 2005, as well as a subsequent Accord on Initial Teacher Education. Both agreements have helped education deans take a leadership role in education across Canada and have influenced the work of education ministries, teacher federations and national organizations.

For her part, Reynolds sees the Accord as both a challenge and a cause for optimism: “As a country we stand at an important historical crossroads with regard to our relations with Aboriginal Peoples. Either we move to improve our policies and practices, or we choose to ignore the vibrancy that Aboriginal knowledge and learning can offer our local and national activities. This Accord offers us new pathways and serves as a beacon of hope.”