Carson Jerema
‘Warning: you may have to get off your iPhone’
Why youth don’t vote
Writing over at Open File, Spencer Keys challenges the received wisdom of why youth don’t vote:
In the meantime, let’s stop listening to the armchair strategists that think youth voter turnout can be raised by raising awareness among those who were already going to vote, and start doing the hard work of engaging the silent, unreached masses. Warning: you may have to get off your iPhone.
‘vastly over-invested in universities’
From the Harper dossier of potentially controversial quotes.
From the Harper dossier of potentially controversial quotes.
I think we’re vastly over-invested in universities. Universities should be relatively small and provide excellent education and research in a number of specialized areas. I think the vast majority of young people should be going through non-university, post-secondary training
Source: the Calgary Herald, Sept 15, 2000
A refund is not enough
No matter the outcome students are the real losers in VIU strike
If the Vancouver Island University strike is not resolved by Monday, the term may be extended, and students will be eligible for a full tuition refund if they choose not to complete their classes. That would be an unacceptable outcome and relations between the university and the faculty association should have never deteriorated to the point where the semester is so clearly in jeopardy.
UPDATE: VIU Strike ends
The position of either side does not matter at this point. Even if the university has to concede to concessions it claims it cannot afford, or if the faculty union ends up having to live with a lower level of job security for its members than it would like, the real losers will be students. A certain standard of education at a set time and place is owed to them.
Some students may have to postpone graduation and those in professional programs may be ineligible for provincial accreditation if they don’t complete their studies on time. And many others, if they choose to complete an extended term, as opposed to taking the refund, will lose out on the summer job race.
Giving students the option to get their money back is the least the university could do, but it doesn’t rectify anything. Through no fault of their own, many students will have to face the reality that the semester has been lost and that they will be responsible for making up the time.
If by some last minute breakthrough, a deal is reached between the union and the administration and classes do restart Monday, both sides will likely claim that the semester has been saved. That will hardly be comforting to students.
Compressing the rest of the term into the last three weeks of April, and eliminating the examination period, as the university says it will do, still deprives students of what they were owed.
In some ways a compressed, albeit saved, semester is a less desirable outcome than losing the term altogether. At least if the term is lost, students can register for the same courses next year, secure in the knowledge that they will receive the quality of instruction they expect. The same cannot be said for a drastically shortened term.
Unfortunately, there is not much students can do about the situation, beyond shouting from the sidelines.
One of the clearest expressions of just how few options students have to stand up for themselves came about a year ago when an Ontario judge dismissed a class action suit against York University. The plaintiff alleged that because of the 2008-09 strike, the compressed term forced students to accept lower quality teaching.
However, the judge refused to rule on educational standards, stating, that “(t)hese are matters that fall within the discretion of the university.”
So, presumably because of the convention of university autonomy, institutions can claim that cutting corners, which is what happens after a strike has ended, has no impact on educational quality and students are expected to accept it.
While not inconsequential to a university’s finances, students cannot exert the sort of influence that consumers can in sectors that are not subsidized and regulated to the same extent as the education sector. It is easy to wonder if students are even a factor in collective bargaining.
When labour negotiations break down, students are sometimes described as “bargaining chips.” If only that were true.
‘Our economy now runs on ideas’
Will education play a role in the campaign?
According to the Toronto Star, education should be a major feature of an election.
Investing in innovation. The Conservatives did a poor job in their anti-recession stimulus package of building for the future. They could have turned the crisis into an opportunity, but their 2009 budget actually cut funding for scientific research (though they later addressed that mistake by creating more research chairs and luring world-class researchers to Canada). But the steps are still tentative: last year’s federal budget increased Ottawa’s spending on R&D by $200 million — while President Barack Obama was upping U.S. spending by $15 billion.
Canada needs to step up dramatically in this area. Our economy now runs on ideas; more and more of us discover, design and create things. Waterloo’s Research in Motion is the poster child for that kind of innovation, but we need much more. What kind of investment in research and higher education do the parties propose to keep the country competitive for the next generation?
While it is unclear whether education and research will play a central role in a campaign, all three parties have introduced, or hinted, at what their education platforms could look like. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff says he plans to focus on access for students and has, in the past, endorsed centralization by creating a dedicated higher education transfer to the provinces, presumably with conditions similar to the Canada Health Act. We could likely expect something similar from the NDP.
And, if the Tory budget, released earlier this week, really is to double as an election platform, their position is to focus on targeted research for the physical, engineering and technological sciences, while mostly limiting support for students through established programs such as the Canada Student Loans and Grants programs. The Tories have, in the past, promoted developing something similar to a dedicated transfer in higher education, largely through working with the provinces to outline priorities and demanding reporting for how transfers are spent, though they have been slow to follow up.
The federal role in post-secondary education has always been a bit murky. Ottawa is involved in student loans, in part, because it holds jurisdiction over the banking sector, but the provinces still retain responsibility for determining a student’s eligibility for loans. Because of the presumed importance of research to economic development, a large federal role in this area could arguably be justified under the trade and commerce power.
In any case, all three parties advocate a visible role for the federal government in this education and research, with the NDP and the Liberals likely to promise a more robust presence for Ottawa, and the Tories likely to take a more incrementalist approach more in line with the constitutional division of powers.
Thanks for the cash
Education sector reacts to federal budget
It might all be irrelevant at this point, given that the federal opposition may take down the government, but reaction from the education sector to Tuesday’s budget has been mostly positive. The budget included a boost to the operating budgets of Canada’s three federal research granting agencies, money for the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, another 10 Canada Excellence Research Chairs, and Genome Canada.
For students, tweaks to Canada Student Loans and Grants will see more money flow to part-time students, and allow full-time students to earn a higher income without incurring a penalty to their loans. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget also included $10 million to develop an international education strategy, and debt relief for doctors and nurses who promise to practice in rural areas.
Among those cheering the Tories was the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada, whose president, Paul Davison said: “This budget represents tremendous progress for the university sector: more funding for the research councils, promotion of international educational marketing, additional support for students, and a range of measures to foster innovation and research.”
Similarly, Sheldon Levy, chair of the Council of Ontario Universities, released a statement that read: “These investments will generate positive results, both short and long-term, for our universities and for our province and most importantly for our students.”
The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations issued a response that was somewhat more tepid in its support of the budget. “The plan the Conservatives tabled will take some strain off the pocketbooks of working students, but there is still a long way to go if we are to truly create an accessible post-secondary education system,” National Zach Dayler said. CASA wanted to see more money put into student loans, relief for the cost of textbooks and measures to help aboriginal students access education.
More critical was the Canadian Federation of Students. In a statement titled “Federal budget fails to deliver affordable education for Canadians,” the CFS criticized inadequate funding for education transfers to the provinces that remain “approximately $800 million short of 1992 levels when accounting for inflation and population growth.” National Chairperson David Molenhuis called the lack of a “national strategy” for higher education, a “recipe for disaster.”
James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers bemoaned the government’s emphasis on targeted research initiatives when combined with only a “small increase” to the federal granting councils. “Research priorities are best set by the scientific community, not by politicians,” he said.
Budget sees modest support for students
Flaherty announces new support for research, and tweaks to student loans and grants
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced $155 million in new spending for research and innovation for the coming year, as part of his budget that was released this afternoon. As with previous years, funding will be concentrated in the physical, engineering and technological sciences, with little new money for social science research.
As for students, little in the way of new funding has been announced, but tweaks to Canada Student Loans and Grants programs will see more money flowing to part-time students.
The budget includes $37 million in additional funding for Canada’s three research councils, plus $10 million to cover operating costs. However, extra funding for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC) was listed separately, including $35 million, over five years, to support climate and atmospheric research, as well as the creation of an additional 30 Industrial Research Chairs.
The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Waterloo, is to receive $50 million over five years, beginning in 2012-13, while funding will be provided to the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute in order to build a cyclotron to produce medical isotopes.
The Canada Excellence Research Chairs program will see 10 chairs added to its current roster of 19, and an extra $65 million will be allocated to Genome Canada.
“In supporting research and development our goal is to promote innovation—and ultimately to create good, new jobs for Canadians,” Flaherty said in his speech to the House of Commons.
The government will also be spending $60 million over three years to “promote increased student enrolment in key disciplines related to the digital economy,” such as in science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs.
The budget also included measures to entice doctors and nurses to practice in rural programs, a proposal that was released on Monday as part of the government’s unsuccessful attempts to sway the NDP to support the budget.
The government will forgive up to $40,000 of the federal portion of student loans for doctors and $20,000 for nurses who choose to work in underserved areas.
“The number of doctors and nurses in Canada has increased in recent years, but Canadians in some regions of the country continue to experience a shortage,” Flaherty said.
A change to income thresholds will see more part-time students eligible for student grants.
Tweaks to the loan system will allow part-time students to retain eligibility as their family income rises, while full-time students will be permitted to earn $100, up from $50, a week while in school without incurring a penalty to their loans.
Other measures targeted at students include, allowing professional and trade workers to claim certification exams under tuition tax credits, and $10 million in “tax relief” and Registered Education Savings Plan “assistance” aimed at increasing the number of Canadian students who study abroad.
“Our goal is to help Canadian workers reach the next stage of their careers and to seize new opportunities in the years to come,” Flaherty said.
McGill University–’perplexed and disappointed’
Defends decision to raise MBA tuition 900%
McGill University has issued a statement, pasted below, responding to the provincial government’s decision to fine the institution $2.1 million for raising MBA tuition by 900 per cent.
McGill University is perplexed and disappointed with the response of the Government of Quebec to the changes made by McGill to transform the University’s MBA program. Rather than celebrate the dramatic progress and success McGill has achieved in a short period of time with its renewed and self-funded MBA, the government has imposed a significant fine against one of its own universities.
This action puts an arbitrary, elective and unprecedented exercise of authority of government as a priority over demonstrated quality and program performance.
Since McGill moved to a self-funded program, it has developed an MBA that is attracting top-calibre students from Quebec (some of whom have otherwise gone outside the province for their MBA), and from elsewhere.
The McGill MBA’s improvements include: leaping from 95th to 57th in the prestigious Financial Times rankings; maintaining stable enrolment rates; having McGill graduates enjoy the highest job placement rates and highest starting salaries in Canada; being ranked by FT as the only Quebec MBA program in the Top 100 in the world.
To sustain the University’s increased investments in its program, McGill moved last fall to a self-funded tuition model under which it does without any government subsidies for its MBA students, thus saving Quebec taxpayers about $1.2 million annually.
McGill has created, at the same time, student aid at a unique level of support for any Quebec university program, on a per-student basis. The McGill MBA program provides an average of $12,000 per student in financial aid.
Quebecers deserve better than to have a top quality program fined. Quebecers deserve a world-class MBA program and McGill is providing it. McGill has demonstrated that it can do so without limiting accessibility, and without doing so on the backs of our undergraduate students.
McGill’s rejuvenated program, now with better facilities, improved student-teacher ratios, top-level professors, improved advising and novel educational elements, costs significantly less than top MBA programs elsewhere in Canada, and the world.
McGill will continue to meet the interests of our students, and of Quebec.
Queen’s grad society critical of impeachment process
Referendum would not be ‘representative of the entire student body’
Queen’s University’s graduate student society released a statement earlier today criticizing the impeachment process undertaken against rector Nick Day. As rector, Day represents both undergraduate and graduate students.
Here is their release:
The Executive of the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS) would like to clarify that our students are in no way represented by the actions of the Alma Mater Society (AMS) against Mr. Nick Day, Rector at Queen’s University (Kingston). The SGPS represents all graduate students and the majority of professional students at Queen’s, with over 4000 members. Any AMS referendum is limited to its membership, primarily undergraduate students, and is not representative of the entire student body. We ask the AMS, the Office of the Principal and all parties to cease referring to the process begun against Mr. Day as representative of all students. The process undertaken against Mr. Day is an AMS process with neither the input nor the consent of graduate and professional students at Queen’s. Given the grave importance of this issue, the SGPS is carefully evaluating the options to determine the course of action that best reflects the interests of our members.
Queen’s rector faces impeachment
Students furious Nick Day used his title when defending Israeli Apartheid Week
Queen’s University rector Nick Day now says he regrets signing, with his official university title, a public letter to Michael Ignatieff that accused the Liberal leader of being complicit in “genocide.” On Monday, Ignatieff released a statement condemning Israeli Apartheid Week, calling it “an attack on the mutual respect that holds our society together,” and adding that “It is a dangerous cocktail of ignorance and intolerance.”
On Wednesday, Day issued his response calling Ignatieff’s statement “deeply unethical” and accused Israel of being responsible for the “biggest human rights tragedy of my generation,” and further stated that there is a “genocide happening in Palestine.”
As result of that letter, Day could find himself removed from office. Last night, the Queen’s Alma Mater Society voted unanimously to hold a referendum on Day’s impeachment after a petition signed by more than 2,200 students was submitted to student council.
At issue is that Day, who was elected to represent students in “matters pertaining to education” signed his letter as “Nick Day, Rector, Queen’s University, Kingston,” implying that his letter to Ignatieff was an official position of either the office of the rector, or the university itself.
In his statement to Ignatieff, Day also wrote that “If I ever used the influence of my office and the power of my public voice, as you have [. . .] I would have a very difficult time sleeping at night.”
A Facebook group setup to organize the impeachment drive states that what is “most troubling” is Day’s “claim that he was merely speaking for the students.”
Even Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf entered the controversy. He met with Day on Thursday, and then issued his own statement which read, “Mr. Day’s views do not and should not be seen as being representative of those of the University or Queen’s students.”
When campus paper, The Journal, interviewed Day, he said he regretted signing the letter as “rector,” but added that he was concerned that the substance of his argument was being ignored. “I have a need to publicly talk about Israeli Apartheid Week. I think that the letter receiving any more attention about what the rector is doing is detracting about what we should be talking about.”
Students will vote on whether or not to impeach Day March 22-23.
Picket lines continue at VIU
‘At this point, it’s a bit like a snow day’
“At this point,” Dan McDonald said during a short break in collective bargaining Thursday afternoon, “it’s a bit like a snow day.” The president of the Vancouver Island University Faculty Association (VIUFA), whose members went on strike at 8:00am yesterday, wants to assure the more than 18,000 students whose classes are cancelled, that he is “hopeful” a resolution will be reached without jeopardizing the semester. The two sides, however, remain miles apart.
Job action was triggered over language in the collective agreement surrounding layoffs, which the union has said is a “deal breaker.” VIUFA, McDonald says, wants the university to agree to a clause that would see layoffs occur only if the administration were forced to declare a financial crisis. It would pretty much commit the university to a “no-layoffs” policy. When asked if the faculty bargaining team was willing to concede anything, McDonald’s answer was, “not at this particular point.”
The current collective agreement allows for layoffs “for reasons of demonstrable and substantial declining enrolment over a sustained period, and for reasons of a demonstrable need for program or service reduction, including the non-viability of non-teaching positions.”
Toni O’Keeffe, VIU’s executive director of communications, says the university isn’t planning on wavering from its position to retain the current agreement, unaltered, until 2012. “A no-layoff clause is a huge cost item, put off to the future,” she said. The British Columbia government has mandated that all universities and colleges bring forth cost neutral budgets this year. Earlier in the week, O’Keeffe said she anticipates there will be faculty or staff “reductions of some type.”
Despite a government appointed mediator taking part in Thursday’s negotiations, the stalemate continues. A media release from the faculty association issued last night, after the VIUFA president was interviewed, stated that the “strike continues” and that no further talks are scheduled. “We came to the table to focus on one issue–ensuring that there are no unnecessary cuts to courses at VIU. Unfortunately the employer has not changed its position,” a quote from McDonald reads.
O’Keefe says the university has been exploring options to complete the term if “the strike lasts longer than two weeks.” Students could see the semester lengthened, and/or courses could be held on evenings and weekends, in order to “compress some of the learning time that was lost,” O’Keefe said.
During the strike’s first day, hundreds of faculty showed up to fill picketing duties. “It was raining but the shifts were full,” McDonald says. They were joined by faculty associations from Vancouver Community College, Camosum College, and Langara College which has also threatened to strike. Dozens of students also showed up in support of striking faculty, wearing signs that read “Students in Support of VIUFA.”
Photo: Students show their support for striking faculty, by Sherry Wota, courtesy of The Navigator
VIU shuts down over strike
Faculty hit picket lines at 8:00 am
As of 8:00 this morning Vancouver Island University has been shut down due to a faculty strike, leaving more than 18,000 full and part-time students without classes to attend.
VIU faculty strike confirmed
As faculty ready picket lines, government mediator returns
It’s official, classes will be cancelled at Vancouver Island University on Thursday. “We’re going on strike tomorrow for sure,” faculty association president Dan McDonald said. After a short bargaining session with the administration today, both sides agreed to call back the government appointed mediator who, only yesterday, declared that an agreement could not be reached. Negotiations are to resume Thursday afternoon.
At the centre of the dispute is the status of layoff provisions in the collective agreement. The union wants the current language strengthened so that faculty reductions could not take place unless the university declares a financial crisis. It is a provision that would amount to a “no layoffs” policy.
A message left with the administration Wednesday afternoon was not immediately returned, but spokesperson Toni O’Keefe previously said that due to a government mandated budget freeze, the university “can’t negotiate on cost.” O’Keefe also said that there will likely be staff or faculty “reductions of some type” when VIU brings down its budget.
While McDonald said it is job security that is the “deal breaker,” other issues on the table include faculty involvement in choosing senior administrators, job security for contract faculty, and developing a uniform policy across the university so that department chairs are eligible for lighter teaching loads.
When asked to speculate on how long the strike will last he said that “if we have successful talks, it could be for one day . . . or it could be much longer.”
VIU ‘Strike Begins Tomorrow’
Still no progress in negotiations
So far there doesn’t seem to be any progress in negotiations between the Vancouver Island University Faculty Association, and the university. VIUFA informed the administration yesterday that it intends to strike. I am still awaiting for VIUFA to return a couple messages, but they posted a release on their website earlier today that carries the headline “Strike Begins Timorrow” (UPDATE: I have now spoken to VIUFA president Dan McDonald, and he confirmedthat the strike will happen “for sure”)
We have come to this position reluctantly (especially since we have been without a contract since April 2010), but with an abiding commitment to our position. We are well aware that money is tight in the public post-secondary sector in BC as the provincial government continues to reduce their share of the costs, forcing tuition fees higher. 1,500 students were caught up in waitlists this year.
In such an environment, we argue, it is even more important to prioritize student access to education since a better-educated community is a recognized stimulus for economic recovery. As both education and living costs become more expensive, it becomes even more vital that students be able to complete their degrees in a timely manner. Inadequate numbers of sections and cuts to courses and faculty all impede students’ access to their chosen fields of study.
A message posted to the university’s website is similarly taking the view that a strike is inevitable:
VIU anticipates that strike action will be underway at all of our campuses early Thursday morning, March 10, 2011.
Meanwhile, students are beginning to panic. According to the Nanaimo News Bulletin, dozens of students rallied against a strike in front of the school’s library. However, despite being worried over their classes being cancelled, students who spoke to the Bulletin were generally supportive of faculty.
“I fully support the teachers, they shouldn’t lay anybody off,” anthropology student Meghan Dalskog said. “It sucks for the faculty, but all in all, it’s the students who get screwed.”
Arts student Tim Balaski was more straightforward in his support. “It’s probably not going to be good in the immediate sense, but I’m for it . . .I’d rather lose some money and have things improve a bit then not take a stand at all,” he said.
VIU faculty to strike Thursday
UPDATE: Faculty strike confirmed
Classes could be cancelled for students at Vancouver Island University as early as Thursday morning when faculty would be in a legal strike position. Talks stalled between the university and the Vancouver Island University Faculty Association (VIUFA) on Tuesday, after a government appointed mediator failed to negotiate a settlement. Faculty had previously voted 84 per cent to give the union a strike mandate last month.
Negotiations broke down because VIUFA wanted a “no-layoffs” clause in the collective agreement, according to university spokesperson Toni O’Keefe. “We can’t do that” she said, citing the B.C. government’s demand that public universities freeze budgets. “We just can’t negotiate on cost.”
UPDATE: VIU faculty strike confirmed
VIUFA’s chief negotiator Dominique Roleants disputed the university’s claim that it cannot commit to no layoffs. “Virtually every university in Canada has language that severely restricts cuts to education and faculty layoffs, yet VIU won’t even meet to discuss this issue with us,” he said in a release distributed to media Tuesday morning.
The current collective agreement allows for layoffs “for reasons of demonstrable and substantial declining enrolment over a sustained period, and for reasons of a demonstrable need for program or service reduction, including the non-viability of non-teaching positions.”
VIUFA would like to see the language strengthened so that layoffs, for its members, would only be permitted if the university was forced to declare a financial crisis.
O’Keefe said that while the university refuses to include a no-layoffs clause, it is willing to work with the union when reducing staff and faculty. VIUFA president Dan McDonald says that that is news to him. “They’ve certainly never said anything like that to us at the bargaining table,” he said.
The faculty association also says the university plans to cut courses, but O’Keefe dismissed the claim. “They are trying to mix bargaining with the budget” she said. Although she couldn’t confirm whether the university’s upcoming budget would include course cuts, O’Keefe did concede that layoffs are a possibility. “I will anticipate that there will be reductions of some type,” she said.
In order to ensure no increases to the university budget, the administration’s bargaining position is to renew, unaltered, the collective agreement that expired last spring, and extend it until 2012. Wages would be frozen for the duration of the contract.
VIUFA is not calling for wage increases, however, and maintains that improving job security is its chief concern. “If they can’t give some job security, that’s a deal breaker,” McDonald said. “[Wages are] not as high a priority for our members.”
Patrick Barbosa, a spokesperson for the Vancouver Island University Students’ Union, says that while VIUSU supports the faculty association’s right to collective bargaining the organization is remaining officially neutral. “We’re not taking sides. We’re standing up for students,” he said.
More than 14,000 full and part-time students would be affected by a strike.
Unless the administration returns with a new proposal McDonald says “you can expect to see picket lines at 8:00 Thursday morning.”
Photo: VIU students taking introduction to digital media, by bex0r
UWinnipeg faculty reject contract offer
Admin wants to freeze wages for two years.
University of Winnipeg faculty voted 65 per cent today to reject a contract offer from the university. At issue was the fact that the administration offered zero salary increases for the first two years of a four-year contract, and requested senior faculty increase their pension contributions. Official statements have yet to be released from either the university or the union. More details tomorrow.
UPDATE: The Winnipeg Free Press has comments from the union, which confirmed the vote, and from the admin which says it wants to keep bargaining.
CUSA to consider Israeli boycott
Motion would call on Carleton to develop ‘Socially Responsible Investment’ policy
Carleton University Students’ Association will be voting on a motion this week to call on the university to adopt a “Socially Responsible Investment” policy to be applied to the institution’s pension fund. The motion is intended to endorse the Students’ Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) Divestment Campaign. Full motion is posted below.
Motion to encourage Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) of the Carleton University Pension Fund
Whereas Carleton University, through its pension fund, invests a total of $2,426,757.12 in BAE Systems, Motorola, Northrop-Grumman, and Tesco Supermarkets, equivalent to 0.35% of the total value of the pension fund;
Whereas each of these companies is potentially involved in significant violations of international humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention amounting to war crimes by contributing extensively to some or all of these violations by:
• Manufacturing weapons and weapons components that are used to kill and maim
Palestinian civilians;
• Materially supporting and economically developing the illegal Israeli settlements
in the occupied West Bank, thereby entrenching the occupation of Palestinian
land; and by
• Perpetuating Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza and its discriminatory practices and
policies against Palestinians, both in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT),
and within Israel;Whereas Carleton University currently has no binding socially responsible investment policy, thus allowing it to invest in and profit from corporations engaging in unethical behaviour;
Be it resolved that CUSA endorse the following three campaign recommendations put forward by the Students’ Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) Divestment Campaign, intended to encourage socially responsible investment of the Carleton University Pension Fund:
• That the Carleton University Board of Governors, via the Pension Fund Committee, immediately divest of the Pension Fund’s stock in BAE Systems, Motorola, Northrop Grumman, and Tesco;
• That Carleton University refrain from investing in other companies involved in violations of international law;
• That Carleton University work with the entire university community to develop, adopt, and implement a broader policy of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) for its Pension Fund and other investments, through a transparent and effective process.Moved: Reem Buhaisi
Seconded: Alex Hunsberger
But university students do vote
Just because voter turnout is low for ‘youth’ doesn’t mean it is low for all youth
Over here, Jacob makes the claim that tuition protests don’t work because “students don’t vote in elections.” Is this true? It is certainly a widely held belief that appears to be backed up by voter participation rates. But, while only 37.4 per cent of those aged 18-24 voted in the 2008 election, that doesn’t mean students, as a general subset of this age group, are as allergic to ballot boxes as other young people. In fact, the data we have suggests students are loyal voters.
In 2003, Electoral Insight published a study by a group of political scientists, led by McGill’s Elisabeth Gidengil, that tracked the decline in voter participation. The data, where the 2000 federal election is the latest to be considered, is admittedly dated, but voting trends haven’t changed all that much in the past decade. The pivotal election that saw voter turnout begin to rapidly decline was the 1993 poll.
Consistent with pretty much everything else that has been published on this topic, the authors demonstrate a steady drop in participation among young voters, particularly those born after 1970.
When accounting for education level, however, they conclude: “it is a serious misconception to suppose that it is the highly educated young who are failing to turn up at the polls. On the contrary, the more education young people have, the more likely they are to vote.”
To illustrate they show while participation has dropped off a cliff for those with lower levels of education, the university educated young continue to vote in the same, very high, numbers as they always have.
The 2000 Canadian Election Study reveals that turnout in the youngest generation was almost 50 points higher among university graduates than it was among those who left school without a high school diploma. Furthermore, the decline is confined to those with less than a university education. Since the 1993 general election, turnout has fallen over 30 points among those with less than a high school education and 15 points or more among those who have completed high school and/or some college. Meanwhile, turnout has held steady among young university graduates.
A caveat needs to be added. The authors of the study are referring to “university graduates” not university students. But in 1993, the oldest university educated cohort for this age group would have been 23. It’s possible that those who were 20 or 21, and still in school, voted at the same level as high school dropouts, but that seems unlikely.
(UPDATE: Another study conducted by the same authors breaks up groups by lesser, middle, and better educated, and predicts likelihood of voting. Turnout for lesser educated youth at age 20 is predicted to be 29 per cent. For the middle educated it is 43 per cent, and for the better educated at age 20, it is 58 per cent, which is comparable to total voter turnout for the general population.)
The common refrain, these numbers imply, that university students don’t vote just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Now, the point that tuition protests don’t work because those participating don’t vote, could have some weight if the claim that politicians ignore education was true, or that those protesting were part of a small subset of the young and educated who don’t vote.
Here the argument continues to fall apart. For starters, if you’re politically engaged enough to take part in a protest, you are also engaged enough to vote. As Gidengil and her research partners point out, “these young activists are more likely than other members of their generation to belong to a political party or to an interest group, and to vote.” (Emphasis in original). In other words, people who don’t vote aren’t likely to be engaged in other ways. To the extent that protesting works as a way to impact public policy, it seems reasonable to assume that that is because protesters are voters.
As for whether politicians ignore students, it is a little tricky to draw even speculative conclusions based on these statistics for the simple reason that I have been referring to participation rates for federal elections, and higher education policy continues to be a predominantly provincial responsibility.
But the fact that pretty much every province heavily regulates the price of tuition and/or provides some form of debt relief would suggest politicians are mindful of university students as voters. As for policies like tuition tax credits and tuition rebates, it is true that they may not be precisely what some education advocates, who generally want upfront grants or lower tuition, are calling for. Such policies do, however, remind voters who their benefactors are. A fat cheque at tax time does a better job of this than if tuition is low to begin with.
Finally, if the question of jurisdiction seems inconsequential, and you’re wondering why the Stephen Harper Conservatives may appear to ignore tuition protesters, ask yourself if the government has anything to gain, in terms of votes, by paying attention to these activists? How many diehard anti-tuition advocates are also potential Conservative supporters?
That’s what I thought.
Student vouchers for Alberta?
Despite a conventional PSE platform, the Wildrose Alliance might still have a radical edge
When talking about higher education, Alberta’s Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith rarely sounds like the “libertarian” she is commonly believed to be, and certainly sounds nothing like the “extreme” right winger the current government tries to paint her as.
In her view, high student debt “is untenable” because “it discourages kids from seeking higher education.” She slams the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary who have, in the past, circumvented a tuition cap by raising non-tuition ancillary fees because “We don’t think that is fair to students.”
However, there is one policy plank that, depending on how it is implemented, could be one of the most radical departures in Canadian post-secondary education policy in decades. When unveiling the platform at the University of Calgary in October, she advocated for “sending a good chunk of government funding directly to students and allowing it [to] follow them wherever they choose to go.”
The plan, she told the audience, “would have the effect of adequately funding the schools and the programs that are in the highest demand while at the same time creating competition between schools to offer those programs at reasonable rates.”
While the idea remains underdeveloped, Smith’s choice of words have signaled to some observers that she favours a voucher system, albeit a relatively modest one. A pure voucher program would involve entirely replacing operating grants to universities and colleges with direct transfers to students who would then take their money, in voucher form, to any school of their choice. Smith has not proposed anything so bold. A “good chunk” is not the whole envelope.
Nonetheless, her comments prompted the Council of Alberta University Students to request clarification from the party on this peg of their platform. Aden Murphy, a student executive at the U of A, says that the worry over transferring education funding in voucher style is that it could cripple universities, unless it is modified enough to take into account multi-year enrolment projections.
“An institution isn’t as agile as a small business,” he says.
When asked about her university funding plans Smith is reluctant to actually use the word “voucher,” instead stating that the proposal “is more like our charter school system.” When a “student chooses to go to that charter school, the funding, on a per capita basis, flows directly to that school,” she pointed out in an interview. “There is some value in considering this approach in post-secondary education as well.”
If her comments were simply intended to refer to per capita student funding, already incorporated to a degree in Alberta, then her plan may be similar to other elements of the Wildrose higher education platform, that is, it may involve modest tweaks rather than slashing and burning.
Of course, Smith could be hedging on this question to avoid appearing immoderate. In the past she has openly advocated for a voucher program in the K-12 system. A report she coauthored for the Fraser Institute concluded that, “Schools must be given the freedom to innovate and the requirement to do so. The way to do this is to introduce competition into the school system through a voucher scheme.”
An article that appeared in the Georgia Straight last spring wondered if Smith has been preparing to put her old education ideas into practice. For primary and secondary education, the Wildrose Alliance is only officially committed to supporting “School Choice” legislation.
In addition to enforcing rules that index tuition to the rate of inflation, the more fleshed out, and conventional, parts of Smith’s higher education platform includes plans to forgive student debt for graduates who stay in Alberta, remove parental income as a factor in loan eligibility, and to streamline the credit transfer process.
She would also change election rules so students living in residence could vote in their university riding, rather than in their parents’.
“We seem to have no problem setting up polling stations in other facilities where we have temporary residents, like prisons for instance, like nursing homes for instance,” she says. The current Progressive Conservative government, Smith adds, has “no reason to find a way to facilitate the vote [for students],” because they tend to be more “left-leaning.”
So far her platform is receiving cautiously optimistic reviews from student leaders. Murphy says that a year ago students he spoke to were worried that Smith would promote privatizing elements of the university and college sector.
“That fear hasn’t come to pass,” he says.
He does note that any debt relief scheme shouldn’t supplant current programs, and that upfront grants would be preferable to tuition tax credits. But on balance he is hopeful that if Smith were to become premier after the next election, her focus, at least when it comes to higher education, would involve tweaking the current system rather than anything particularly revolutionary.
“They showed they are serious about developing a constructive higher education policy,” he says.
Where Smith is more comfortably conservative is on her already notable distrust of the federal government. She dismisses any legislation to enshrine higher education standards across the country—as has been proposed by the federal wings of both the NDP and the Liberal party—as unconstitutional.
“There is just no way that we would support an increased federal role so that they can start meddling in this area. I don’t see how that would benefit Alberta taxpayers or Alberta students,” she says. “I would anticipate that that would just be another mechanism to transfer wealth out of Alberta.”
Photo: Canadian Press
Standards? We don’t need no standards
McMaster president worries about raising entrance requirements
Speaking to the Canadian University Press, McMaster president Patrick Deane worries that unless the province increases funding, universities like his won’t be able to maintain education quality. “It’s good for Ontario that we have a higher level of participation, but is it good for Ontario that what the students are actually getting when they enrol in university is not as good as it might be?”
But in the same interview, he says the shocking possibility that universities might have to raise entrance requirements, in order to ration seats, is “a potentially worrying thing across the whole system because there are many deserving students seeking admission and I think there’s a possibility that the choice of institutions available to students will begin to decline.”
I suppose in a province where more than 60 per cent of students graduate high school with at least an 80 per cent average, it is easy to conclude that every single student already in the university system must certainly be “deserving,” and if entrance requirements rise, and consequently leave out some of these “deserving” students that would be “worrying.”
There was no ‘muzzle order’ against Lukacs
Court reserves decision on whether lawsuit can be heard
On Thursday a judge appeared to have dismissed the notion that math professor Gabor Lukacs was suspended from work as punishment for suing his employer, the University of Manitoba, as has been suggested by both Lukacs and his supporters.
Lukacs filed a lawsuit against the U of M in the fall to reverse a decision, by Dean of Graduate Studies John Doering, to waive a comprehensive exam for a PhD student. The student, who had failed the exam twice and was asked to withdraw from the PhD program, is said to suffer from exam anxiety. Lukacs claims that Doering, as an administrator, has no authority to make academic decisions. Shortly after filing his court application, Lukacs received notice that he was being suspended for three months, a sanction that ended at the beginning of January.
The university has maintained that Lukacs was suspended for violating the student’s privacy, but suspicions immediately arose, mostly through dozens of online comments, but also in a petition from his students for him to be reinstated, and in official protests sent to university brass. A grievance filed by the faculty association argued that Lukacs was treated “unreasonably, unfairly and in a manner contrary to the collective agreement.” Surely, many observers argued, Lukacs was suspended for daring to challenge the administration.
But yesterday, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Deborah McCawley seems to have quashed that argument. Addressing Lukacs’ lawyer Robert Tapper, the judge said, “Your client was not ordered to desist discussion of academic integrity. It’s not right to say it’s effectively a muzzle order.” On that particular point, the judge was siding with U of M counsel, Jamie Kagan, who had argued “When you disobey your employer, there is going to be a consequence, and Dr. Lukacs felt that consequence.”
When Lukacs first filed his court application, the student was identified by name. The name was later redacted, and replaced with the initials AZ, after a publication ban was ordered.
Despite arguments surrounding whether or not Lukacs was legitimately suspended, Thursday’s hearing, the Winnipeg Free Press reports, was dedicated to the question of standing. Kagan argued that Lukacs, who didn’t teach the student, and was not on the math department’s Graduate Studies Committee until after the exam was waived, was not individually harmed. “His rights are not affected. He has no skin in the game,” Kagan said.
Tapper countered that Lukacs, as a member of the math department, has a direct interest in the case because if the university comes to be seen as a “diploma mill” his own reputation will be at stake. “The University of Manitoba has nothing to be proud of in this case,” Tapper said.
For now, McCawley is reserving her decision on whether Lukacs’ lawsuit will even be heard. But even if the court rules that Lukacs has no standing, the university will still likely find it difficult to claim anything but a narrow legal victory. In November U of M faculty rejected a senate motion that would have recognized “that the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies has jurisdiction to waive academic requirements.”
Even when the story is no longer of interest to media types, grudges within universities can be held for years, and often decades.
