All Posts Tagged With: "Robyn Urback"
The 10 biggest stories in Canadian higher education
The (surprisingly) most-read stories of 2011
Photo by Kelly Finnamore on Flickr
Each year, we offer Maclean’s On Campus readers a look back at the Top 10 most-read higher education news stories of the year. There were two big themes in 2011. First, the many scandals over universities’ reputations, from Alberta to Queen’s to St. FX. Second, uncertainty about the job market for grads.
1. Time for this year’s edition of X-ring Idol
Our blogging English professor, Todd Pettigrew, dared to compare the obsession of St. Francis Xavier students with their beloved X-ring to Gollum’s unhealthy quest for the precious. We knew St. FX students would defend their tradition vociferously—and they did, with more than 250 comments over three days. Most were from alumni and students who thought Pettigrew missed the point. They argued that the ring symbolizes their hard work and the family-like bond they instantly glean whenever a fellow X-grad catches a glimpse of their band. Then again, dozens of readers agreed with Pettigrew—some even suggested the flood of emotional reactions reinforced his point.
Continue reading The 10 biggest stories in Canadian higher education
How to spread the word: lessons from Greenpeace
Dangerously scaling buildings costs lives
Twenty Greenpeace members were arrested yesterday after staging a protest at Parliament Hill. At 7:30 a.m., 19 individuals–in hard hats and jumpsuits–scaled two buildings and unfurled banners from the rooftops.
“Harper, Ignatieff, climate inaction costs lives,” read the banners, in both English and French.
Emergency vehicles were called to the scene, and protesters were helped down one by one. They were then arrested, along with an organizer from the ground.
I could deconstruct the merits of such a demonstration, but (as Obama would say) why not look at the situation as a “teachable moment?” We all have something to say, right? Why not tell it the Greenpeace way? Here are the points I’ve extracted:
- Make sure your method upstages your message. That’s right; loud, brash and unapologetic. That way, everyone will be talking about what you did, not what you said.
- It’s always best to break the law. You can later use your being-led-to-police-cruiser photo as your new Facebook profile picture. I predict 10 new friend requests. At least.
- Nothing says, “take me seriously” like matching uniforms.
- Make sure you identify to whom your message is directed. Spell it out in 7212 point font. Just to make sure they don’t miss it.
- Take a holistic approach. For example, incorporate physical activity in delivering your point. That way, you subtly lament the physical decline of our nation, while broadcasting your primary message. Talk about killing two birds. <Insert inoffensive idiom>
On a more serious note, Greenpeace did effectively reveal the gross security inadequacies at Parliament Hill. Pretty good for a protest that was supposed to be about.. um.. ya, pretty good!
Tickled beige by the Liberal ‘Pink Book’
Probing the merits of the third ‘Action Plan for Canadian women’
I’m a little confused; I thought “pink for girls” and “blue for boys” went fringe a while ago. Isn’t it supposed to be Tonka Trucks for little girls and Barbies for little boys now?
Well, nevermind. The Liberal Women’s Caucus has released their third (poorly titled) volume of recommendations to improve the lives of Canadian women. The 38-page document outlines a series of Liberal policy positions on women’s health and safety, social equality and role in the economic sphere. The ongoing premise is that “The situation for women is rapidly deteriorating under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government,” and a new federal Liberal government should consider the Caucus’s policy recommendations.
Though I take issue with some of the Pink Book policies and look dubiously toward its latent irony (but more about that later), I don’t want to minimize or undermine its theoretical relevance. That is, though I’m uncertain of the real benefits to be reaped by a women’s Pink Book, I fully respect the organized and productive expression by self-perceived marginalized groups. Therefore, I’ll dissect it, criticize it, and question its objectives, but I won’t call it irrelevant.
My feelings on the Pink Book are mixed. Sure, the idea of an action plan for Canadian women sounds nice, but I’m having trouble swallowing some of the spin. (And I’m not just talking about gallant claims like, “Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence.” I’ll leave that alone.) One tendency I find problematic is how many Canadian issues described in the pink pages are passed off as selectively women’s.
Finding a family doctor is “one of the major difficulties women face,” reads page 22. The need for a national care-giving strategy to provide relief for women is outlined on page 23. Page 25 recommends new programs to prevent and provide support for domestically abused women.
Here’s my question: how is a national doctor shortage a women’s issue? Perhaps women, more often than men, are the ones seeking out family doctors, but should we really put a gender focus on this problem? A national care-giving strategy—I’m totally for that. I’m sure husbands and fathers are too. What about male suffers of spousal abuse? Where’s the “Blue Book” on that? Many of the causes and recommendations in the Pink Book seem legitimate, but to label them all “women’s issues” seems a little disingenuous. Why segregate, rather than unite, to tackle these issues?
Here’s my other issue with the Pink Book: it seems to dispute (albeit, inadvertently) my power as an autonomous female citizen. Take this example:
“Girls generally are not encouraged to enter hard sciences, technology or the trades,” reads page 21.
“The National Liberal Women’s Caucus therefore recommends that a new Liberal government develop a coordinated strategy and support mechanisms to encourage girls and women in science…”
Call my reasoning fallacious, but I can’t help but see the above “call for assistance” as a concession that girls and women can’t make it on their own. Think of it this way; fifty years ago, women were dropping out of universities to get married. Now, more women than men are applying to (and enrolling in) medical schools. If that change could happen without a “coordinated federal strategy,” why should the government be directly involved now? (Sorry, is my libertarianism showing?)
Personally, I don’t care much for an action plan written on my behalf with a flower printed on each page. Sure, women are disadvantaged, but so are men, children and seniors. Should women really be calling for special consideration? To be honest, I’m not really sure. But I do think that to be perceived as equals, women in government should present themselves as equals. And we “regular women” should continue to look critically at the ways we’re being represented. That means taking off the rose-coloured glasses.
Professors work for you
A call to take back your education
Poor Carleton. From the embarrassing Shinerama fiasco to the more recent Hassan Diab hiring/firing controversy, media attention certainly hasn’t been the university’s friend.
As reported by Dean Tester, my OnCampus colleague, Hassan Diab was recently hired for, then fired from, a summer position teaching introductory sociology at Carleton University in Ottawa. Diab is accused in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four and injured dozens more. He is under virtual house arrest and faces an extradition hearing in January.
Carleton released a statement Tuesday saying their decision to remove Diab from the position was “in the interest of providing its students with a stable, productive academic environment that is conducive to learning.”
I’m not going to debate the integrity of their decision. I’ll let you assume what side I’m on. Here’s what’s of more immediate importance to me:
Carleton has faced criticism from the Canadian Association of University Teachers for removing Diab from the post. James Turk, the association’s executive director, chastised the university saying, “They did this solely because of external pressure. It’s an abdication of the responsibility of universities to be insulated from these kinds of pressures.
Now, obviously I’m incredibly naïve and misinformed, but I was under the impression that students, you know, pay for their university education.
Oops, I’m sorry; am I going too fast? I’ll back up a bit. You see, “money” is exchanged for “goods” and “services.” With said exchange comes an expectation of the standard and/or quality of benefits received. So, to be specific, university tuition is paid with the expectation of receiving a level of post-secondary education befitting certain quantitative and qualitative standards.
To use a different, kindergarten-level example: if I pay a barber to cut my hair, I’m allowed to tell him how short. If I give money to a restaurant in exchange for a meal, I expect the cook not to spit in my food. And if I pay a university $5k+ a year for an education, I expect administrators to consider my opinion when I give my two cents about their hiring decisions. They don’t have to take my opinion—just consider it.
With that idea in mind, Turk’s expectation that universities be “insulated” from “external pressures” is not only misguided, but simply put, it’s unreasonable. Whether directly or through representative organizations, students should have their voices heard.
Industry stars foster post-grad ambitions
… or something like that
Journalism
We all want to make a difference, right? Serve as society’s watchdog through the employment (oops, poor word choice) of fair, balanced and honest reporting. So what happens when there’s nothing to watch? We make it up, of course!
The Saint John Telegraph-Journal issued a front-page apology yesterday for their July 8 story claiming that Prime Minister Stephen Harper pocketed a communion wafer at the funeral of former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. The incident, affectionately named “Wafergate,” was acknowledged to be a complete fabrication.
“There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now.”
“The Telegraph-Journal sincerely apologizes to the prime minister for the harm that this inaccurate story has caused.”
“Our reporters Rob Linke and Adam Huras, who wrote the story reporting on the funeral, did not include these statements in the version of the story that they wrote. In the editing process, these statements were added without the knowledge of the reporters and without any credible support for them.”
So, kids, if you want to be a journalist, (or, more specifically, an editor) start by reading Stalinist-era back issues of Pravda, paying special attention to the 1953 Doctors’ Plot. Eliminate copy editing positions and instead invest in ministers of public enlightenment and propaganda. Keep a watchful eye, a sharp pencil and remember: sex and sensationalism always sells.
Mathematics
Just when you think those Chi-squared tests will never come in handy…
The first study regarding the dangers of texting and driving was just conducted. Hurray!
In a revolutionary breakthrough (I’m thinking man-on-the-moon-type miraculousness) it was found that drivers who text are 23 times for likely to get in an accident. Pioneers at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute compiled the data, which included 18 months of video surveillance of long-haul trucks.
Next up, a $5 million study to investigate the correlation between collision rates and driving with your eyes closed, and another analyzing which type of soda best fits most automobile cup holders. Boy, we sure do live in an exciting time!
So to all you math majors: look alive during your related rates lecture, and try to stick with it through analytical geometry. You, too, could soon play a role in these momentous statistical achievements.
Urban Planning:
Toronto sinkhole on Finch, July 2009
Enough said.
Public Health:
The public health pros are clearly taking some spending advice from their chums at Virginia Tech. A study published in the Journal of Public Health reveals that the many consumers believe that cigarette packages that bear the words “filter” or “smooth” contain less harmful cigarettes than those packages that do not. (Same goes for cigarette packages in lighter colours.) Seventy-five per cent of respondents believed that cigarettes in packages printed with a charcoal filter posed less health risks than those without the illustration.
Other than demoralizing public health officials’ opinion of the general public, this study has prompted some to advocate the implementation of plain, standardized packaging for all cigarette brands. Apparently, public health financial resources are best used to study smokers and play around with Adobe Photoshop; actually helping people quit is clearly just a bunch of “hot air.” Researchers’ subsequent tobacco-related plans include actually giving individual smokers $5 bills from which to light their cigarettes. So, if you’re studying public health, make sure your cheque-writing skills are in order and familiarize yourself with the latest Adobe Creative Suite updates.
Keep reading the news to see just how far you can go.
- photos by Pa1nt and Tom Cochrane
The right to be an exceptional Canadian
Should religious freedom trump Canadian law?
No.
Ahem. Some context:
The Hutterites are a Christian sect who live by a strict code based on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ. The group fled persecution in Russia in the early 20th century and some immigrated to Canada, settling in farming communities of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Some Hutterians believe that to willingly have their photograph taken violates the second of the Ten Commandments, which forbids idolatry and graven images. It is on this belief that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) was forced to rule just days ago.
In 1974, the Alberta government began issuing photo driver’s licenses. Special licenses were available for those with religious objections until 2003 when the Alberta government began requiring photos for all licenses. The change was made as a measure to protect against identity theft. The Hutterites won cases before the Alberta Court and the Alberta Court of Appeal, but the SCC ruled 4-3 on July 24 to uphold Alberta’s provincial rules. As it stands, all Alberta driver’s licenses must have a photo.
Now, back to the overarching question. Admittedly, the fact that this particular religious debate is so inexhaustible makes me think the hastiness of my initial “no” was a bit brash. I’m not suggesting we adopt the American melting pot, and I don’t support religious stifling in the name of conformity. If, for example, identity theft concerns would not be properly quelled by license photos—as lawyers for the Hutterites contend—I would see no reason to force religious objectors to have their pictures taken. But laws exist for a reason (yawn), which is (in theory) to promote the greater good. (Yes, I know what happened during the Dreyfus affair, yes I understand the concept of “scapegoating the innocent” and no, I don’t think this was a show trial.)
These debates seem to arise precisely when the authority of Canadian law is called into question. I’m not talking about whether or not new Canadians should paint flags on their faces on July 1st, I’m talking about whether citizens should be forced to uncover their faces while voting. (See Harper’s abandoned plan.) And frankly, I’m not sure. I don’t know enough about identity theft and voter integrity to authoritatively conclude. But I do think we should stop running scared when the issue sparks a little dissent. (Again, see Harper’s abandoned plan.)
I also think us feeble sideline commoners should take some perspective. In my opinion, the question should not be “What right does the government have to interfere with religious belief?” but, “Why is the government interfering with religious belief?” If the answer is a valid one (and to some, it will never be) maybe we should put our tissues away.
The great thing about Canada (yawn) is that we have choices. If you really don’t want your picture taken, hitch a ride. (Yes, I know, “but driving is a right” and “we should strive to accommodate” and other like claims…) If you don’t like the education system, send your child to private school. Eat fish on Friday, if you want, and only watch satellite television. Believe what you will about life and death and holy texts and pray to whomever or whatever you wish—as long as you stick to the law. If you can’t, it’s on you to find a way to make it work, not the government. In Canada, we live by Canadian law. If you don’t like it, find a way to live with it. Because if I step into your mosque, I’m going to take off my shoes.
For more, see CBC News Indepth, the Toronto Star and the National Post.
robynoncampus@gmail.com
Manufacturing ferment
For a real laugh, sometimes you have to stray from the comics. Yesterday, I found mine in The Globe and Mail’s Health & Fitness section. “How to talk to your kids about swine flu.” Gold. Yes, I’m being shortsighted. Yes, I’m being insensitive. But when an issue is pushed that far, it’s almost seducing a [...]
For a real laugh, sometimes you have to stray from the comics. Yesterday, I found mine in The Globe and Mail’s Health & Fitness section.
“How to talk to your kids about swine flu.” Gold.
Yes, I’m being shortsighted. Yes, I’m being insensitive. But when an issue is pushed that far, it’s almost seducing a smile. Tell me you can take the Dr. Phil special Dr. Phil House: Heroin Twins seriously, and I’ll retract my comment.
But since everyone’s doing it, I suppose I’ll hop on the bandwagon and come up with my own list of helpful hints to deal with the growing pandemic.
How to talk to your kids about swine flu
By Robyn Urback
- First off, it’s H1N1, jerks.
- Wash your hands.
- Lysol the area, then sit your child down.
- Tell your child you have something important to talk to him/her about. Best to start crying from the get-go. That way, your child will know you’re serious and won’t get distracted by toys or games or other frivolous things three-year-olds busy themselves with as they bask in ignorant global disconnect.
- Wash your hands.
- Explain the history of global pandemics, paying special attention to the 1918 Spanish Flu.
- Detail the molecular breakdown of the H1N1 virus.
- Now it’s time for the nitty-gritty. Glaze over nothing. Pair positives with negatives to ensure smooth reception. For example, tell your child that a vaccine is in the works, then say that camp/daycare/play dates/day trips/vacations/going outside has been canceled.
- If your child gets upset, coddle with your words. Physical contact spreads contaminants.
- Wash your hands.
There you have it! Now get inside, and enjoy your summer.
- photo courtesy of Talea Miller, NewsHour
A better bio
If you’re reading this you obviously weren’t put off by my initial preamble. Or (more likely) you know me personally. Either way, I’ll move on to a more appropriate introduction. My name is Robyn Urback and I’m going into my fourth year of journalism at Ryerson University, majoring in magazine reporting. As of yet, I’ve [...]
If you’re reading this you obviously weren’t put off by my initial preamble. Or (more likely) you know me personally. Either way, I’ll move on to a more appropriate introduction.
My name is Robyn Urback and I’m going into my fourth year of journalism at Ryerson University, majoring in magazine reporting. As of yet, I’ve just dipped my toes in the industry, but I’ve since grasped there are some key elements I’ll need to survive; namely, a thick skin, some talent, a lot of luck, and a rich spouse. Let’s just say I always keep a pen and my number in my back pocket.
My future goals include finding employment and making it to 25 without facing a libel suit. (Fingers crossed.)
Now, about the blog. Essentially, my blog will consist of commentary on social, economic and political affairs.
… Are you gagging? I would be. So allow me to elaborate:
I don’t plan or strive to change the world. I don’t pick daisies. I don’t write song lyrics. I recognize the inherent self-indulgent nature of blogging so I’ll call myself a narcissist before you get the chance to. I’m cliché in that I’m twenty-something, semi-informed and still feel entitled to my opinion. Though I like to think I’m authentic and original in that I don’t pretend to be anything else.
If you’re easily offended, I’m probably not the blogger to follow. If you don’t get what I mean when I say “bandwagon leftism” (the drug of choice, in my opinion, of many Canadian university students today …well, that and ‘E’) you probably won’t like what I have to say. Beyond that, I look forward to an interesting debate.
You can check out some of my past posts on my personal blog at http://robonlinecourse.blogspot.com/.
As well, feel free to send comments to robynoncampus@gmail.com.
