Rybak’s Rules

As soon as I know what the CICIC does, you’ll know too

A couple of days ago I wrote a quick piece titled “No guidance for international students.” Shortly thereafter, Mr. Yves Beaudin, the National Coordinator for the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), showed up to correct me. I sent him some mail to suggest an interview and he’s accepted. As soon as something can be arranged we’ll have the results.

Here’s what I know now. The CICIC is primarily focused on supporting the recognition and portability of qualifications and educational credentials. It seems to work both ways–helping Canadians to navigate foreign systems and helping those foreign to Canada to navigate our domestic systems. And for that reason alone I’m already happy to promote them. This is a real need for all concerned and has been the subject of considerable attention. Apparently CICIC was conceived as a response to Canada’s obligations under a UN Convention on the subject. If you really want to read up on that you can do so here.

What I don’t yet know, and what I’m eager to find out, is whether or not CICIC is the answer to the other problems I was initially writing about. Credential assessment and recognition, while very important, is only one challenge for international students. As for the rest of it? Well, the jury’s still out.

I will say this much. The CICIC and Mr. Yves Beaudin are fast on the draw when it comes to their email. And I wouldn’t fault them for solving just one piece of the puzzle while the rest remains, if that turns out to be the case. But I guess we’ll all know soon enough. In the meanwhile, for international students who can’t wait, you can contact them here.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Still more questions than answers

Early Sunday morning (or late Saturday night–depending on perspective) police raided the offices and space of the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU) at the University of Toronto. They arrested approximately 70 activists who were billeted there, using the GSU’s pub and small gymnasium as temporary accommodations for the G20 summit protests. Along with the visitors, police arrested Daniel Vandervoot, the GSU’s External Commissioner, and another executive who is as yet unidentified. Thus far they have not yet been released from custody.

The GSU has issued a press release condemning the arrests and they are supported in a similar statement by other student groups and by Canadian Union of Public Employees. This is essentially the same group of organizations that opposed campus closure in the first instance and which defied it by maintaining their own operations to the greatest extent possible.

Anton Neschadim is an Executive-At-Large with the GSU and he has the unenviable task, at present, of fielding inquiries from the media, from university administration, and from distressed friends and family members of those detained. Anton stresses that he was not on site for the arrests and was not responsible for coordinating the billeting of visiting activists, but with the two executives who were responsible still in police custody he was willing to answer some questions for us.

In their press release, the GSU “categorically denies any involvement in any undemocratic activity.” This seems a vague claim, so I asked Anton to clarify. He says “we did not provide the use of our space for any kind of illegal, undemocratic activity.” Although not blind to the possibility that one or more guests of the GSU might have committed some crime during the protests, Anton states that there is currently no evidence of this.

The GSU took steps to acquire signed waivers from all their guests. So there is, somewhere, a reasonable list of who was staying there. Unfortunately police took these documents with them when they raided the space and so that information is unavailable. Anton states that guests of the GSU would have been people from the student movement, and that some collaboration with the Toronto Community Mobilization Network was part of this arrangement.

The worst case scenario, naturally, would be if those responsible for any of the violence in Toronto were using the GSU offices as a staging ground–either as invited guests or else by mingling with them. Clearly police are attempting to convey this idea and raided the space on that theory. They describe “weapons of opportunity” in the form of bricks and sharpened sticks, as well as black clothing found on site. Anton points out, quite rightly, that these objects are fairly ubiquitous. The GSU has sticks for their picketing signs on hand and there are bricks and stones all over the U of T campus. The suggestion that there is something inherently suspicious in owning a black t-shirt is too absurd to even engage with it.

What if, despite all this, one or more GSU guests really are guilty of something violent? Anton confronts this possibility head on. “We’re really not responsible for any individual’s actions. Steps were taken but we’re not police. The type of accommodation we provided was for allies and friendly individuals and organizations that we commonly work with.” He likens the GSU’s relationship to their guests as similar to that of any hotel or hostel. And while that may be a little disingenuous it does raise an interesting point. Everyone from outside Toronto who was here this past weekend was surely staying somewhere. Are the friends and family members of every outside visitor made personally responsible for their actions simply by giving them a place to sleep?

To their credit, the university administration seems to be adopting a “wait and see” approach to these arrests, and is not willing to condemn the GSU simply for hosting guests in its space. While understandably very concerned, Anton reports that the university is still “gathering facts and information around what happened” and is in close communication with the GSU. Anton also states that the university was informed the GSU would be billeting people, as it has done in the past for similar events and occasions.

Looking at the arrests as an outside observer, it’s hard to agree with demands that “all arrested activists be released.” No one is currently in a position to know what charges may be laid against the guests of the GSU, and it may indeed be the case that someone was involved in genuinely criminal acts. But it’s also obvious that even if this were true, it would be only a few out of the 70 or so arrested on site who fall into this category. Most (if not all) were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, yet for the right reasons.

It may fly in the face of the “arrest ‘em all!” mentality that has pervaded the media in wake of some truly regrettable violence on the streets of Toronto, but the mass arrests at the GSU offices should be a reminder to everyone that Canadian law does not promote guilt by association. While the GSU may have been inviting problems by hosting friends and like-minded activists for this event, they hardly become guilty by extension even if someone did something criminal and stupid elsewhere in the city that day, and neither do the other activists who were arrested on site with them. As more news develops around these arrests, it should prompt some tough questions about just how much freedom we are willing to surrender in the name of security.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Until it wasn’t

I don’t think I have the right to use this photograph here, but I’d urge everyone to have a look at it because it’s already iconic. Here’s another really good one of the same scene. Now think again about what civil dissent has looked like on the streets of Toronto this weekend.

For complete coverage of this story click here

I wasn’t at Queen and Spadina when the lines finally closed in around an otherwise peaceful protest. It was the same thing we’ve seen again and again throughout the weekend. It was the same thing when the police cleared the “designated” protest site at Queens Park north. It was the same thing last night when I was boxed in with 80 or so demonstrators outside the Pape/Eastern detention center. It’s the same thing now–only this time they’ve boxed in an immense number of people and the media and television crews who were there to film the (non-existent) riot and the (non-existent) violence have started to notice the other story. Quite a number of them have unwittingly become part of the story, finding themselves on the other side of police lines, treated as protesters, identifying with protesters, or simply arrested no matter their press credentials.

This is a breaking story as I write this. I’ll head back out in a moment. But for those tired of the media storm and sick of the images of burning cars out there, please tune in to your televisions tomorrow, read a variety of news sources, and hear what journalists are trying to tell you; what they are already telling us via twitter in real time. The ability to peacefully assemble and to protest in Toronto has been entirely suspended. It doesn’t matter who, where, how, or what you’re saying. The new police power is essentially “leave as soon as we say so or you’re part of the problem and will be arrested.”

As you read these accounts from other journalists and media types who finally experienced what it’s like out there, please consider that Queen and Spadina was not a unique encounter–only the biggest and perhaps the final one. Police tactics and mentality of this sort do not excuse violence. Please do not imagine I am suggesting otherwise. But also, don’t allow yourself to be tricked into regarding anyone who refuses to immediately and unconditionally cooperate with every police demand issued for every reason as “violent.” Police have never had unilateral powers to order our citizens in this way and they still do not. Our rule of law has not changed.

Or maybe it has. It’s terrifying to me how many people feel this is a measured and appropriate response. Show some scary stuff on television, create an identifiable fear-inducing peril (the Black Bloc!), rope the media into cooperating with your message with constant and repeating coverage of the same material and bam, you’ve got a blank cheque. At least in America it took 9/11 to threaten their commitment to civil liberties. It’s sad how much they compromised but anyone would admit they had good cause. In Canada, for all we trumpet our civic values, all it takes is repeating video images of some police cars that were burned yesterday, and a few damaged Starbucks, and too many people are eager to be rescued on any terms at all.

Think carefully what you wish for.

Images of violence, as striking as they may be, are not the whole story

I’m standing next to a nice young woman at the corner of Pape and Eastern as she calls her friend to explain how she is almost 100 per cent sure that she is going to be arrested, along with the 80 or so people still gathered with her on the street corner. I am certainly included in that number. She is trying hard to sound calm about it but there’s an edge to her voice. It’s really hard to know what is about to happen next. But I agree with her. It looks awfully likely that I’m about to get arrested.

Related: Violence and chaos in Toronto

Campus under siege

Saturday morning I started my day by addressing a room full of student leaders in Calgary. That’s an entirely different story, but my plane landed in Toronto around 9:50pm and from that point forward I’ve been on a mission to get the story of the G20 from the ground level. In my original coverage of the G20 I was most concerned about the “designated” protest site smack dab in the middle of University of Toronto. That site was overrun by police earlier in the day and I wanted to see what it looks like afterward. So that’s where I started.

Just north of Bloor I begin to feel the heavy police presence in the city. They’re traveling routinely in squads of eight. But as an upstanding citizen I figure the easiest way to get started is simply to ask them where stuff is happening. They point me at Allan Gardens, where protesters established a tent city earlier in the day. I thank them and make a note to check it out. Less than five feet away a helpful stranger named Kevin gives me the real story. The next place to be is outside the temporary detention center where those already arrested are being held. And boy is he right–but it will take me a while to get there.

Kevin is a part-time faculty member at Concordia University. He came down to Toronto for the G20 protests and to see his grandmother. These two activities are unrelated. He got his start protesting in Quebec City in 2001 and has stayed interested since. His opinion is that police have done an excellent job of separating and dispersing crowds. He says this with an air of appreciation. There are rules to this game and this far, at least, the police are playing within them. As a result things have stayed somewhat disorganized. But he also feels that the heavy police presence is beyond anything that could be called reasonable and that it’s provocative in and of itself.

As I’m talking with Kevin, another squad of officers have approached from the south and they are escorting a couple of young guys who look awfully unhappy. The two squads merge and they joke about the trouble makers they’ve caught. Now we’re surrounded by sixteen officers in full riot gear and the new ones are eying us suspiciously. We excuse ourselves and cross the street. I can already see Kevin’s point. I haven’t done a thing wrong and I’m already intimidated.

Queens Park north is a mess but it’s no more of a mess than I’ve seen many times. All sorts of things are organized in that park and clean up is always incomplete. I survey the campus for signs of damage and find nothing to speak of. From what I can tell the University of Toronto escaped relatively unscathed. But that doesn’t mean the administration was wrong to close the campus. Even on a Saturday buildings, staff, and any students who would have been around could easily have been caught up in the chaos of the day. Based on events thus far, the university seems to be vindicated.

Just about everyone has moved on from the site but an enterprising man with a shopping cart is collecting bottles and cans to return to the beer store. He’s all smiles and says it’s his second load and that he’s made a hundred bucks today. It’s nice that at least someone is benefiting from this and it’s a reminder that for most people the demonstrations are half political statement and half street party–one where they tend to leave their empties behind. The few images of violence, as striking as they may be, are not the true story. They are just a small part of it.

I realize that if I’m going to find the action it’ll be at Pape and Eastern, where the detention center is located. That’s quite a ways away and transit is questionable. Fortunately I’ve got my bike. The ride across the city at night is hardly safe but there’s a lot of people doing it. Dissent in Toronto generally travels on two wheels. Now I’m getting the nod from folks on the street who accept that I’m out to make a statement just like they are. As I get near the site I manage to join a small band of other cyclists. It’s nice to have some company. There’s safety–or at least a greater sense of it–in numbers.

We approach the detention center from an odd direction and it briefly seems as though no one is there. The site is huge and based in an old film studio. We find one young woman, all alone, who has staked out an entrance to the facility. Her name is Caroline and she’s from the University of Manitoba. Her boyfriend was arrested earlier in the day and she’s come to rescue him. She’s joking, of course, but there isn’t much else for her to do. She claims they were protesting peacefully and based on her views I have no trouble believing it. She’s upset at the violence and believes that it has “delegitimized the actual protest.” She finds the police presence to be “insane” but she has no desire to clash with them. She’s quite glad some company has arrived. On a dark night, in the middle of an industrial district, a little solidarity is a good thing.

As it turns out there’s actually a party in full swing just down the street and we haven’t quite found it yet. Another group on foot tromps confidently past us and we follow them. There’s a band with a tuba on the street corner and some dancing. People are having a good time. It’s 1am and we’re making a whole lot of noise. There’s no denying that. But otherwise there’s nothing threatening or destructive about the group.

Update: G20 protest turns violent

With G20 protests just ramping up in Toronto it’s worth remembering one thing. Whatever may happen on University of Toronto campus grounds, the university sure didn’t ask for this.

Update: G20 protest turns violent

Also see: On the front lines at the G20

Although it’s still uncertain just how much action to expect in and around the “designated” protest site at Queen’s Park North, what is certain is that the university isn’t taking any chances. The decision to essentially shut down the main campus for the duration of the G20 was swift and, for many stakeholders in the university, quite sudden. But then this sort of decision making has been a hallmark of the G20 from the start. With little warning the summit was suddenly in Toronto. Then the protest site was relocated from Trinity-Bellwoods Park (far from U of T) to the virtual centre of the university. And then the university announced it was closing shop. This will extend from the evening of June 23rd through the weekend, with the university resuming business as usual on Monday the 28th.

Two days of classes and numerous events on campus have been canceled. This period also includes summer exams, so some students will face difficult rescheduling while others may simply be glad for the extra time to cram. Those living in residence–an eclectic group of resident summer students, visitors from other institutions, guests and tourists–have been required to move out and either stay away for the duration or relocate to other housing provided for them. Graduate students have lost access to their laboratories and research facilities. Thousands of students have been affected, to varying degrees.

Dr. Cheryl Misak, Vice-President and Provost of U of T, describes this process as “a very complex and difficult set of decisions” forced on the university. When the residents around Trinity-Bellwoods complained about damage and disruption in their community, summit officials dropped the problem unceremoniously on the university, with buildings and facilities on three sides of the park and the provincial legislature to the south. If protesters end up spilling over in any direction they aren’t likely to overrun the legislature, so the alternative consequence is obvious. In anticipation of this, campus residences have moved their students elsewhere and every door that can be shut will be. But then universities aren’t well designed to go on lock down.

What the university should have done may be a moot point, now, but it presents an interesting problem to groups on campus who simultaneously sympathize with the goals of protesters but also have their own members to think of. Leslie Jermyn, Chair of CUPE local 3902 (representing university employees) defines the problem in terms of conflicting responsibilities. “I think there are motivations (for closure) that I can comprehend. On the other hand, I feel that the university is a public institution and as such has a greater responsibility to the public and to the community.” Meanwhile the University of Toronto Faculty Association, in debating the issue, was only able to arrive at a motion stating that the university should have consulted them first. Professor George Luste, President of UTFA, expresses concern for faculty research and dangers associated with it. “We have buildings with chemicals, radioactive material, animals, etc. I don’t think they could have kept it open with business as usual.”

Student groups, meanwhile, seem less restrained in their opinions and have gladly launched a No Campus Closure movement. They are simultaneously calling on the university to reverse its decision (not remotely possible now, if it ever was) and vowing to maintain their own operations as much as possible. They were also surprisingly hard to interview for this story. The Graduate Students’ Union referred only to their press release for information, while the University of Toronto Students’ Union, which represents undergraduates, missed three separate invitations to air their views. Presumably they are all too caught up in the event at this stage. But Jermyn, on behalf of CUPE, took up the challenge of offering a more nuanced view in dissent.

“The panic around where we’re going to locate the protesters suggests that the protesters are the problem. There are always people who want to do property damage, or want to make a statement that we may not agree with, but the bulk of people are there to make a peaceful statement and to stand in solidarity.” For Jermyn, it isn’t so much the university’s decision that is objectionable as the terms in which it is presented. “It feeds into the kinds of images that the mass media wants people to see–rioting and violence.” Unfortunate though it may be, coverage of the event thus far bears out this theory. And the expectation of violent confrontation only builds tension and makes it that much more likely.

Amid all of this cynicism around campus, and the expectation of violence, one small island within the university has defied the general trend and intends to remain open. Massey College is an independent graduate and professional residence on campus and therefore not beholden to the university’s orders. Though it has a reputation as a conservative institution it appears less concerned about the idea of unruly protesters than most. John Fraser, as resident Master of Massey College, promotes a more laissez faire approach.

The Facebook campaign

We take it for granted today that social media is a force to be reckoned with — with students and younger folks leading the charge. It’s really amazing how fast this new reality took hold. I had my stint in student politics from 2003 to 2006 and I never leveraged social networking for that. It all came later. Well, I’m all socially networked now. But I still haven’t tried to use it to make a real point yet. Maybe I haven’t had a truly original point to make until now. Now I think Leonard Cohen should be our next Governor General.

For those who haven’t heard, Stephen Harper recently announced that he would not be recommending Michaelle Jean for a second term as Governor General. Although the Governor General is nominally the Queen’s representative, in actual practice it will be the Prime Minister’s decision as to who is appointed. This decision is effectively one that Mr. Harper can unilaterally make, but all kinds of practical constraints intrude. It has to be someone who won’t embarrass either the nation or Harper’s party. And for all that the Governor General may be very important for a brief time in some constitutional crisis (prorogation anyone?) the odds of this happening again any time soon are so long that it isn’t worth buying a lot of negative press with an unpopular choice. So where does that leave us? This is politics played in the theatre of public opinion. And this is what social media was made for.

So here is Leonard Cohen for Governor General – The Facebook Campaign. And really, why not? He is respected and even revered both internationally and domestically. He is fluently bilingual and is gladly claimed by both French and English Canada. He loves our nation in the quiet way only true Canadians understand. He is spiritual and morally centered without pushing his faith on anyone else. He’s a heck of a good choice in every respect, save perhaps that he’s probably too smart to get suckered into the job. That, and he makes a much better income on stage.

But leaving aside the unlikeliness of the choice, does having a bunch of people in a Facebook group really prove anything? I don’t know. I waffle back and forth on this one. But I do believe in the power of an idea. And social media gives me the power to turn a quip over breakfast into a potentially national movement to draft this man into office. And that’s pretty cool. If enough people join maybe we can actually get his name in the mix. Who knows?

What really matters, more than anything, is that we demonstrate to the government that we are indeed still watching. We care who represents our nation, even in a role that is often just ceremonial. Our choice for Governor General sends a message about who and what we are as a nation. The message I’d like to send to the world is that we’re a nation not afraid to be led by a poet.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Because really, it’s a worthwhile investment

For those in the Toronto area, city councillor Rob Ford is revving up for a probable campaign for mayor. This wouldn’t be especially relevant to student politics, save that Ford’s attitude towards budgeting and reasonable expenses in fulfilling his role as a city councilor has always struck me as symptomatic of a problem in student organizations. Ford is a cost-cutter and a penny-pincher. This is his major claim to fame and the source of his popular appeal. He’s against office budgets and funds used to communicate with constituents and he thinks everyone gets paid too much to run the city. And I’ve got to admit, any time I see money spent in stupid ways or on stupid things or paid to stupid people I feel the tug of his message too. But then I remember where it’s coming from.

Ford, you see, is quite independently well off. Rather than spend taxpayers’ money he’d prefer to spend his own. That’s how he funds events in his riding, and how his official office budget each year is $0, and how he can afford to suggest that everyone running Toronto (including himself) is overpaid. He doesn’t need the money. And while his public spirit is admirable, and sometimes I even like him despite my disagreement with his politics, I also have to wonder where it would lead us if we follow that attitude towards its logical conclusion.

When folks look at students’ unions and see people getting paid to represent their peers they often wonder how it can be justified. This sometimes applies to the student press as well, and other organizations where students may be paid to varying degrees. One common reaction is to think “if they really cared about doing the job, they’d do it for free.” Some even think “hey, I’m willing to do it for free — why would anyone want them instead?” And while these ideas are commendable, in a Rob Ford kind of way, they do circumvent an important question. Who can afford to simply volunteer and to do these jobs for free? Or more importantly — who cannot afford to?

Some positions on campus represent very significant commitments of time and energy. It’s not uncommon for these positions to simply require a reduced course load — either formally in the by-laws of the organization in question or informally due to the demands of the job. And again, while there’s some justice to the notion that these roles are assumed voluntarily and anyone who goes in with their eyes open should be prepared for the demands, this notion necessarily suggests that a certain kind of person need not apply. So the students who are poor and can’t afford to volunteer dozens of hours each week, or cannot possibly afford to extend the duration of their studies without some compensation, they are effectively barred from the jobs entirely. And is that what we want?

Here is where I think there’s a special onus on representative organizations to ensure that it’s possible for anyone (or at least most people) to represent their peers. Much as I may applaud some of Rob Ford’s sentiments, his politics essentially imply that city council should be run by independently wealthy individuals who can afford to pay their own costs and fund their own activities. And this is not representative democracy in any real sense. It can only lead to skewed politics and bad outcomes. Government by the wealthy inevitably becomes government for the wealthy.

Now in a student context, there are obviously two important limits. First, some student groups simply can’t compensate their representatives adequately and so must run on volunteerism. If there’s simply no other choice then so be it — you do what you’ve got to do. Second, there’s no reason that students need to be paid well for their commitments — only adequately. And yes, I have seen some student organizations where executive compensation seems to have got out of control. This too can lead to unfortunate outcomes, so really it’s all about striking a balance.

When there are competing demands for every dollar in an organization — and this is inevitably the case because there’s never enough money — it’s easy to wonder why we’d bother paying students or funding their commitments. But in fact it’s one of the best investments that any organization can make. If the people who run your organization and who represent students are not themselves typical students then your entire mission is skewed. It undermines everything you are hoping to accomplish. There will always be examples of money that isn’t spent well or of people who don’t earn what they’re paid. And it’s useful to have someone around who will keep an eye out for that, even if it’s a Rob Ford type. But that attitude cannot be allowed to deflect the entire mission of a student organization, which is to represent real students. And students, typically, cannot afford to take on full-time jobs for free.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Just how well should students expect to live while in school?

Okay, I’ll be the one to say it. I have no problem at all with the “OSAP Diet” as exposed by the Toronto Star. Apparently students funding their studies entirely on government loans are expected to survive on $7.50/day for food. And my reaction, mainly, is a big “so what?”

Related: Budgeting for the real world

First, let’s get the obvious (and somewhat spurious) argument out of the way. Social assistance in Ontario–still generally thought of as “welfare”–will provide $221/month to a single adult for all personal needs after housing costs. So this number includes food, clothing, hygiene products, transportation, etc. If that’s $3-4/day for food they’re lucky–and this ignores the fact that most welfare recipients need to dig into their $221 just to cover rent shortfall.

This is a spurious argument because I would never defend welfare as a livable income–not for anyone. Pointing out that some other group of people is being starved out of existence doesn’t prove that students are getting a fair deal simply because they receive more. But I am somewhat surprised that the “OSAP Diet” is a front page news item when the “Welfare Famine” is not. If educated, presumably competent young people can’t feed themselves on $7.50/day, then honestly, what do we think is happening to the people who rely entirely on public assistance? Do we even care?

Second, let’s agree that an ordinary person, with a little effort and attention, can indeed live on $7.50/day for food–assuming access to reasonable cooking facilities. Does it involve a fair amount of pasta, veggies, and bulk food preparation? Of course it does. Anyone who heads straight to the frozen food aisle and loads up on prepared meats might as well be eating out. The only thing to recommend frozen chicken fingers, really, is convenience. For what they cost by the pound you might as well get fast food. So yes, learning to shop and feed oneself on a budget is a skill, even a valuable educational experience.

There are some barriers and potential issues we should acknowledge. Not every student has access to a grocery store or to transportation. On my campus, the residence council (with support from the university) organized regular grocery van trips. That’s a service I’d want to see on any campus not within walking distance of groceries. Some students off campus simply don’t have access to reasonable cooking facilities. They get stuck in living arrangements they didn’t think enough about, and due to roommate problems, landlord problems, or other issues their “cheap” accommodation ends up costing far more than they realized. But that’s a problem of education too.

Some students have dietary restrictions that may increase their food expenses. That’s a huge problem with social assistance as well–adding to what is already a deeply unrealistic calculation–but I certainly endorse considering any unusual dietary expenses as a medical issue. I’m frankly not sure of the status of such claims within student assistance plans, and I’d be interested to learn more. There may be the kernel of a real problem lurking in this story after all. But for now, let’s stick with a typical student. That’s the thrust of this breaking news story, after all.

For all those “drop fees!” proponents who see this as further evidence that education is too expensive, I’d like to remind you that we are not remotely talking about the cost of education just now. We’re talking about the cost of living. The funding that students require to access education is still, in the majority, not required to pay for tuition but rather required to support their lives and lifestyles while they are in school. Which is fine. People need to live, after all. But if you want education to be affordable, and if you expect governments to subsidize it to that point, you need to eventually confront the question of just how much lifestyle the government has an obligation to fund for each student. And please, think carefully about that question because there isn’t an endless pot of money here. The more extravagantly you believe each student has a right to be supported, the fewer students in total can be funded.

Stress, isolation, anti-social problems not confined to students

The latest set of campus murders involves an assistant professor of biology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. She is accused in the deaths of three of her colleagues, with three more reported injured. Reports and details are still coming in or being confirmed, but there are strong suggestions that her actions had something to do with her tenure review and the likelihood she had not passed it.

For the full story on CNN — no doubt to be updated as details emerge — check here:

A Harvard-educated biology professor has been charged with capital murder after the shooting deaths of three faculty members at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, authorities said Saturday.

There are layers to this story that will no doubt receive a lot of attention. There’s the relative rarity of a female mass shooter, for instance. And there’s the reported incident in her past where her brother was killed in a shotgun accident. And then there’s America’s strange fascination with Harvard — seriously, a lot of the comments go along the lines of “why would someone who went to Harvard throw away her life…?” As if attending that one institution somehow guarantees lifelong emotional and psychological stability. But the real story, for me, is in the tenure issue.

The University of Alabama-Huntsville is a tier three undergraduate college in the U.S. (read: not that good) that is already on the margins of professional success for a career academic. Don’t get me wrong — it’s a good gig, especially considering the state of the job market out there. But people who are bounced from the tenure track at an institution like that don’t land on their feet. Someone out on the job market again, in her mid-40′s, Harvard-educated or not, is in a bad place. People who are looking at this from the outside may not get that, but if the details regarding tenure denial are accurate, then this woman was indeed facing the probable end of her career.

I do not for an instant want to excuse this woman’s actions or to paint them as understandable. Most of us, in life, absorb blows to our egos and to our ambitions and respond with varying degrees of resiliency but under no circumstances do we react with violence. I would never excuse that. But when we talk about your “typical” campus shooter — some over-stressed kid who was just kicked out and can’t face up to the failure — we do address the subject with some degree of comprehension. We know, at least, why he snapped. And in that same sense, I think it’s important to know why this woman snapped.

Academia is vicious. Harvard or not, there are unemployed academics all over the place. I mean “unemployed” in the sense that they are utterly unable to secure the sorts of jobs their training and expectations revolve around. Of course they can work at Starbucks just as foreign-trained doctors can drive taxi cabs. Call them terminally marginalized as employees, if you prefer. But by any definition their situation sucks. And as we relate to students and the pressures they face — as explanation if not as excuse for their actions — I think we need to extend the same to academics.

People are describing this woman as odd, anti-social, and in similar terms. I’m sure it all seems obvious in hindsight — just like that quiet guy next door who kept to himself but never seemed to have any friends. Many academics are odd, so I can’t imagine how you’d work up a profile on that basis. I am not even in favour of profiling, necessarily. I remember in the wake of Columbine that any kid in a trenchcoat was suddenly suspect. How is that useful?

In any event, the fact remains that when you put people under enough stress and incubate the sense (sometimes justified) that they are being isolated then someone, eventually, is going to snap. The stress and isolation associated with students and their education is well-recognized. The stress and isolation associated with professional academia, and especially the large numbers of underemployed and marginalized academics operating at the fringes of the profession, is less well recognized.

I truly hope this never happens again, and certainly not any time soon. But I also have to admit that I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. Even the ones I don’t post will still receive answers, and where I do use them here I’ll remove identifying information.

Conference at Ryerson draws large numbers, raises important issues

Some time ago I wrote a series of posts concerning mature students, starting with this one. It became an interesting discussion on the various resources that are available (or not available) for mature students. And it was at least part of the motivation for a mature students’ conference that just occurred at Ryerson University, a year later, and where I recently had the pleasure of speaking along with other very interesting panelists.

Big kudos to the Mature Students’ Association at Ryerson (MSAR) for organizing the first-time event. Hopefully it won’t be the last. Certainly the response would justify a regular conference. Of the 130+ attendees most were from the GTA, but a small contingent came down from Guelph and a single intrepid soul ventured down from Lakehead. Additionally, a group of students skyped in from Mount Allison. Isn’t technology wonderful? In any event, the response was enthusiastic, to say the least.

I won’t attempt to summarize the entire content of the conference but a few impressions seem particularly significant. First, just about everyone who doesn’t come from York was deeply envious of the very significant support that mature and part-time students enjoy at York, through the Atkinson Centre. Clearly York has set the standard to follow — and indeed the ability to reference such a benchmark will likely do a lot of good for mature students at other institutions. Good ideas may be emulated elsewhere. And as mature students are a growing demographic, no institution wants to be left behind on this one.

Of course we talked about future employment and the job market. I believe as much as anyone in learning for the love of it, but mature students have even less margin to ignore the financial realities than other students do. Jeremy O’Krafka from RECSOLU spoke on that topic, which is an area where the needs and concerns of mature students diverge especially from those of “traditional” students. His anecdote about younger students showing up with parents to speak with prospective employers struck a particular chord, but that’s probably a topic for another article.

As for myself, I contributed the observation that however much an institution may support mature students, the vast majority of campus resources and opportunities will still remain general to all students. So finding a way to access those opportunities and networks, while perhaps more difficult for mature students, is nevertheless critical. But as so often occurs, I was partially preaching to the already converted. The students who organized and showed up for this conference clearly know how to access the resources available to them. Some even accessed funding from their unions to attend.

Participants referred, on several occasions, to recent stories about how mature students are “competing” with younger school applicants. I agree that coverage of this sort is symptomatic of an unhelpful attitude that suggests mature students are somehow less legitimate as students. But a better observation on this topic is simply that it’s the new market reality. We keep hearing about how we’ll all have several careers, right? Well, for some, that necessarily suggests retraining. There’s no sense resenting older students for being where a lot of us will be in the future — there’s only a question of how the post-secondary system needs to adapt in response.

As a final observation, I sincerely hope that this growing interest among mature students in their shared identity and experiences forms the basis of a lasting association. The more mature students take an interest in their institutions and their education the happier I’ll be. Not only is it in their obvious self-interest to do so, but I also find that mature students exert a positive and productive influence on every student organization they become involved with. They are deeply motivated to be constructive — even while pursuing their criticisms — and a little more of that attitude would do a world of good for the student cause.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. Even the ones I don’t post will still receive answers, and where I do use them here I’ll remove identifying information.