.jpg)
To his credit, Carson Jerema quickly replied to my last post on Macleans magazine.
Jerema took issue with the fact that I had called attention to the numbers (they looked wrong) he reported over the FAUST-STU admin contract proposals regarding salary increase. Jerema reported in his story, that professors had asked for 30% in salary increases for the life of the contract, and the administration offered 20%. Jerema informed me in the comments section that he got his numbers from the benoit report. However, upon reading the report I was perplexed as these figures do not actually appear in the report. What does appear in the report is a tabulation of administration's proposed salary increases and the professor's salary increases.
The professor's numbers are directly compared to what the administration offered over a three year period.
The confusing part is that four pay scales are listed for Assistant, Associate, Full Tenure, and tenure at highest pay.
What Jerema did was calculate the average percentage of increases per year for each of the four different payscales. He then took each payscale's average increase and added the percentages together for each of the three contract years. That gives you a much larger number something like 20-30% in yearly increases. Then he added each of the yearly totals (3 years) and averaged them out, getting the 20% admin. and 30% professor's numbers. It makes no sense to add three different payscales together. What he should have done was average out the four payscales, add them, up for admin and professors, and you would get the average yearly increase for each side. The article is worded in such a way that one could, if they were really knowledgeable of the negotiations, know exactly what figure Jerema was presenting (e.g. "salary increases closer to 30 per cent for the same pay scales over the same period") However, at the very least it's a sneaky and confusing way of presenting the proposed salary increases. No other news stories that I've seen (other than quotes from the administration) represents the proposed salary increases this way. It serves to portray the professor's demands as unreasonable (building a classic straw-man argument) which bolsters Jerema's over-reaching thesis, turning rationale and reason on its head. That's the Maclean's spin for you, and the type of muck-raking tabloid "journalism" that this magazine engages in.
If Jerema had been fair, he would have presented the following numbers from the Benoit Report:
Stu Administration: --total average salary increase = 5.3% --total after inflation (3.1%) = 2.2%
Professors : --total average salary increase = 7.2% --total after inflation (3.1%) = 4.1%
So really, to be fair, after talks broke down the professors were looking for a total raise after three years averaging 4.1% after inflation. What they got after binding arbitration was something like 2-3%, just barely the rate of inflation. It's sad really. And with this in mind, it's a disgrace that the STU SU took sides against professors. The STU SU did untold and long-term damage to their own school.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Carson Jerema and the Pimple Patrol at Macleans Strike Again...
Have a read of Carson Jerema's latest article entitled : Student representatives worthy of applause
Many students this past winter remember the ugly labour dispute at St. Thomas University. Many students and members of the community were surprised to see the St. Thomas Student Union take on a more combative and hands on role during this strike. Jerema believes the STU SU should be commended for taking the side of the employer during a heated labour dispute, opposing professors and the part-time instructors also in the professor's union. This is a another shot, in a line of shots coming from macleans magazine that has a consistent bias.
Jerema makes note of the unprecedented role the SU played by taking sides in the dispute by openly endorsing the administration's offer to the faculty association. Although this is certainly a novelty, I'm not convinced it's worthy of distinction or commendation. What is unprecedented, and what Jerema fails to note in his article, is that the administration is responsible for the strike (which many supported and felt was justified, both morally and legally), and it was the administration that brought the negotiations to a stand-still and locked out the professors during the Xmas holidays. The lock-out is the event that has no precedent in the history of faculty and administration dealings in Canada. They never happen and it surprised everyone when they did it.
Furthermore Jerema's representation of the faculty association's demands are doubtful and his claims were called-out in the comments section. Jerema's arithmetic should be closely scrutinized here.
I categorically reject some assertion's made that professors do not deserve a real union and that their association should not be allowed to engage in workplace actions, such as a strike. The idea of the spoiled university professor is a myth, and the logic that the already well paid have no right to work through their representatives to maintain and improve working conditions is wrong-headed and just plain stupid (for the record Jerema, I know you didn't say this in your article). What the author failed to mention was that many part-time faculty were making more on strike-pay than their regular salaries paid.
The increasing workload put on professors and the increasing use of part-time instructors was a significant issue in this dispute. Over working professors which leads directly to many universities relying on casualized labour in the form of sessionals and stipends directly leads to lower quality education. These part-time lecturers go without office space, often without benefits, and ofcourse receive appallingly low pay for their level of education and amount of responsibilities. This is a trend going on throughout our country's universities and it needs to be addressed as it is hurting the quality of our university education. With this in mind, the aims of the faculty association are in line with the interests of students. In this respect the faculty association should be commended.
To be fair, I agree with Jerema that compensation for students is necessary and just. However, it is not significant that the faculty union was named in the lawsuit, as that is standard procedure (to sue all party's involved, regardless of actual liability). It is not likely that the faculty association could ever be held legally liable. The administration caused the dispute, they are in a contract with students to provide education, and they clearly broke that contract. Therefore they should pay, and congratulations to the STU SU for doing it.
In times of crisis, people and organizations show their true colors. STU SU should be suspect for acting in the interests of the administration, running counter to the interests of students.The STU SU's actions this past winter should be a wake-up call to students at St. Thomas: your "union" has demonstrated a huge conflict of interest.
For the record, it's obviously a hard place for a student to be in. The nature of a dispute like this makes the students a valuable tool or a potential bargaining chip, and that's precisely what happened. Students should be wary of an organization purporting to stand up for student rights, that sides with the same administration that charges exorbitant tuition fees every year. It is also more than likely, that the actions of STU SU prolonged the dispute by taking sides, and weakened the bargaining positions of professors.
In the parlance of trade unionism, there are two terms that apply to what the STU SU did, scab and yellow dog. Scab obviously applies more directly to a picket line and crossing it, however it is generally used as a more general terms of someone who sides with the stronger side in a dispute (i.e. the employer).
Yellow Dog is more of an uncommon term, however it is useful here in that it adequately describes STU SU's actions. Yellow Dog unions (or company unions) are an old trick in the book of tricks in order to control dissent in the workplace or in this case, on campus. Yellow Dog unions appear to be independent bodies but in actuality they are designed to create the illusion of a union or representation from an independent organization to an employer or university administration (case in point). During the negotiations the STU SU organized students to occupy a room in the hotel where negotiations were taking place in order that the administration could use these students as a pressure tactic on the professors.
Historical research on the Canadian and American student movement demonstrates the university administration's almost constant vested interest in controlling and co-opting the student movement. This was especially apparent during the civil rights movements in the US and Canadian university administrators, in turn, saw the need to control what they saw as a growing tide of student unrest and rebellion. They have been successful in some places and not so successful in others. New Brunswick, I'd argue is one of those places where administrations have been successful in co-opting student leaders. The actions of STU SU is indicative of this trend in New Brunswick and students should be alarmed. We pay for these organizations and they should be independent.
The fallout form this ugly chapter in St. Thomas University's history is clearly detrimental to the institution. Many professors merely put in their hours and go home as soon as they can and many friendships and working relationships have been ruined. The spring convocation this year was clearly absent of the usual accompaniment of faculty wishing to see their students graduate.
Many students this past winter remember the ugly labour dispute at St. Thomas University. Many students and members of the community were surprised to see the St. Thomas Student Union take on a more combative and hands on role during this strike. Jerema believes the STU SU should be commended for taking the side of the employer during a heated labour dispute, opposing professors and the part-time instructors also in the professor's union. This is a another shot, in a line of shots coming from macleans magazine that has a consistent bias.
Jerema makes note of the unprecedented role the SU played by taking sides in the dispute by openly endorsing the administration's offer to the faculty association. Although this is certainly a novelty, I'm not convinced it's worthy of distinction or commendation. What is unprecedented, and what Jerema fails to note in his article, is that the administration is responsible for the strike (which many supported and felt was justified, both morally and legally), and it was the administration that brought the negotiations to a stand-still and locked out the professors during the Xmas holidays. The lock-out is the event that has no precedent in the history of faculty and administration dealings in Canada. They never happen and it surprised everyone when they did it.
Furthermore Jerema's representation of the faculty association's demands are doubtful and his claims were called-out in the comments section. Jerema's arithmetic should be closely scrutinized here.
I categorically reject some assertion's made that professors do not deserve a real union and that their association should not be allowed to engage in workplace actions, such as a strike. The idea of the spoiled university professor is a myth, and the logic that the already well paid have no right to work through their representatives to maintain and improve working conditions is wrong-headed and just plain stupid (for the record Jerema, I know you didn't say this in your article). What the author failed to mention was that many part-time faculty were making more on strike-pay than their regular salaries paid.
The increasing workload put on professors and the increasing use of part-time instructors was a significant issue in this dispute. Over working professors which leads directly to many universities relying on casualized labour in the form of sessionals and stipends directly leads to lower quality education. These part-time lecturers go without office space, often without benefits, and ofcourse receive appallingly low pay for their level of education and amount of responsibilities. This is a trend going on throughout our country's universities and it needs to be addressed as it is hurting the quality of our university education. With this in mind, the aims of the faculty association are in line with the interests of students. In this respect the faculty association should be commended.
To be fair, I agree with Jerema that compensation for students is necessary and just. However, it is not significant that the faculty union was named in the lawsuit, as that is standard procedure (to sue all party's involved, regardless of actual liability). It is not likely that the faculty association could ever be held legally liable. The administration caused the dispute, they are in a contract with students to provide education, and they clearly broke that contract. Therefore they should pay, and congratulations to the STU SU for doing it.
In times of crisis, people and organizations show their true colors. STU SU should be suspect for acting in the interests of the administration, running counter to the interests of students.The STU SU's actions this past winter should be a wake-up call to students at St. Thomas: your "union" has demonstrated a huge conflict of interest.
For the record, it's obviously a hard place for a student to be in. The nature of a dispute like this makes the students a valuable tool or a potential bargaining chip, and that's precisely what happened. Students should be wary of an organization purporting to stand up for student rights, that sides with the same administration that charges exorbitant tuition fees every year. It is also more than likely, that the actions of STU SU prolonged the dispute by taking sides, and weakened the bargaining positions of professors.
In the parlance of trade unionism, there are two terms that apply to what the STU SU did, scab and yellow dog. Scab obviously applies more directly to a picket line and crossing it, however it is generally used as a more general terms of someone who sides with the stronger side in a dispute (i.e. the employer).
Yellow Dog is more of an uncommon term, however it is useful here in that it adequately describes STU SU's actions. Yellow Dog unions (or company unions) are an old trick in the book of tricks in order to control dissent in the workplace or in this case, on campus. Yellow Dog unions appear to be independent bodies but in actuality they are designed to create the illusion of a union or representation from an independent organization to an employer or university administration (case in point). During the negotiations the STU SU organized students to occupy a room in the hotel where negotiations were taking place in order that the administration could use these students as a pressure tactic on the professors.
Historical research on the Canadian and American student movement demonstrates the university administration's almost constant vested interest in controlling and co-opting the student movement. This was especially apparent during the civil rights movements in the US and Canadian university administrators, in turn, saw the need to control what they saw as a growing tide of student unrest and rebellion. They have been successful in some places and not so successful in others. New Brunswick, I'd argue is one of those places where administrations have been successful in co-opting student leaders. The actions of STU SU is indicative of this trend in New Brunswick and students should be alarmed. We pay for these organizations and they should be independent.
The fallout form this ugly chapter in St. Thomas University's history is clearly detrimental to the institution. Many professors merely put in their hours and go home as soon as they can and many friendships and working relationships have been ruined. The spring convocation this year was clearly absent of the usual accompaniment of faculty wishing to see their students graduate.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Hello my name is Carson Jerema...
Read this article, don't worry it's short, but what it lacks in length, it makes up in sheer entertainment. I mean what kind of trash is this? The tuition debate is over because Stats Canada released a report about university access? The tuition debate will be over when tuition is eradicated. End of story. What's funny is the writer of this story, Jerema, clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, and gets taken to task quite extensively in the comments section.
It boggles my mind, it seriously does, when people and tabloid rags like Macleans take aim at the student movement. They are openly hostile to a movement demanding lower tuition. Why? It's the moral equivalent of arguing against socialized medicine (and yes there are those who do that) they're called right-wing ideologues who oppose things like socialized medicine and the idea of socialized education as hand-outs to people who 'don't deserve it'. Arguing for tuition increases is the most elitist and barbaric line of "reasoning" a person could engage in. If you read the comments section, you'll see that luckily there are people who get it and have a grasp of reality.
For those with a conscience and a backbone, University ought to be for those who want to go and for those that have the ability. Unfortunately for us, there are too many in this country that believe they deserve to be in university because their parents can pay and that because of this they have some sense of entitlement to their position in whatever university and program they are in.
Someone wrote in the comments section refuting the author:
We have a choice as young people who choose to go to university. We can recognize education as a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of social class, ethnicity, age, gender, use what we've learned in these institution and fight for equality in our universities and in society, equality so that other youths who grow up in modest surroundings know that they have no limits dictated by hostile ideologies and privileged oligarchs. Or you can choose to look upon your position in university as privilege and either do nothing to change the system or actively fight against the movement trying to socialize education.
Make no mistake, the ideology of our student union does not make it possible for those who make it to the top of the student union bureaucracy to fight this fight. It also makes it extremely hard for a coherent movement on UNB's campus to form, especially if the "elected" leadership doesn't support the movement. Unfortunately infantile writers like Carson Jerema tow the CASA line.
Indeed, let's fight for it.
It boggles my mind, it seriously does, when people and tabloid rags like Macleans take aim at the student movement. They are openly hostile to a movement demanding lower tuition. Why? It's the moral equivalent of arguing against socialized medicine (and yes there are those who do that) they're called right-wing ideologues who oppose things like socialized medicine and the idea of socialized education as hand-outs to people who 'don't deserve it'. Arguing for tuition increases is the most elitist and barbaric line of "reasoning" a person could engage in. If you read the comments section, you'll see that luckily there are people who get it and have a grasp of reality.
For those with a conscience and a backbone, University ought to be for those who want to go and for those that have the ability. Unfortunately for us, there are too many in this country that believe they deserve to be in university because their parents can pay and that because of this they have some sense of entitlement to their position in whatever university and program they are in.
Someone wrote in the comments section refuting the author:
Again, decades of peer-reviewed research in the social sciences counters this idea. It is true that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to pursue university. But when tuition fees are eliminated, as in Bolivia, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are just as likely as anybody to pursue post-secondary education. Furthermore, scholarly research is near-unanimous in its acknowledgment that tuition fees are the #1 barrier (yes, they pretty much all call it a “barrier”) to access.
Education does have a price. But not educating also has its prices: poor health, more crime, greater poverty, and a growing income gap, to name a few social problems. Education is not just an investment in individuals — it is an investment in a healthy, democratic and vibrant society. A paradigm shift, indeed, is necessary: let’s fight for it.
We have a choice as young people who choose to go to university. We can recognize education as a fundamental right for all citizens regardless of social class, ethnicity, age, gender, use what we've learned in these institution and fight for equality in our universities and in society, equality so that other youths who grow up in modest surroundings know that they have no limits dictated by hostile ideologies and privileged oligarchs. Or you can choose to look upon your position in university as privilege and either do nothing to change the system or actively fight against the movement trying to socialize education.
Make no mistake, the ideology of our student union does not make it possible for those who make it to the top of the student union bureaucracy to fight this fight. It also makes it extremely hard for a coherent movement on UNB's campus to form, especially if the "elected" leadership doesn't support the movement. Unfortunately infantile writers like Carson Jerema tow the CASA line.
Indeed, let's fight for it.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Are tuition fee reductions a subsidy for the rich?
Alex Usher on Dale Kirby's PSE blog has written some pretty interesting things about tuition.
We all can agree that tuition, especially at UNB is way too high and that it should probably at the very least come down to the national average which is around 4500, and that's just for starters. I would go further than the freeze that is already in place and start reducing tuition fees until they are zero. Critics say it can't be done, but that's the same thing critics said about a proposed health care system back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, that it could not be done. At the very least, most can agree that tuition is too high and needs to come down.
However, Alex Usher from the Educational Policy Institute (one of those private think-tanks based out of the United States) has a different take on the issue. He believes that tuition decreases are regressive subsidies for wealthy students and because of this, decreases should be avoided. To be fair, Usher and EPI appear to advocate for student aid to be directed at low-income students in order to relieve the burden. Part of his argument rests on the fact that most low-income youth do not go to university and that the bulk of students in universities are wealthy/upper-middle-class students who would benefit the most from tuition decreases.
Well why would that be today? It could be b/c most low-income students cannot afford university and are too debt-averse to take student loans. We also know that during the 1960s and 1970s when tuition levels were frozen for many years, this changed the demographics of our campuses and for the first time in our country's history, people with working-class backgrounds went to university. So there is strong historical evidence to suggest that tuition decreases increase participation of low-income youth who can benefit from University the most. Unfortunately Usher's argument conveniently over-looks this.
And just to remind you who Alex Usher is, for those who don't know. He is one of the founding members of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations who went on to work for the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation and then moved to the EPI. CASA sided with the Liberals on Income Contingent Loan Repayment which was a serious proposal in 1995. It is a way for the federal government to completely privatize universities and have them funded solely by deregulated tuition fees, the 90% of people who couldn't pay would take out large loans which would be payed back over a life-time. Milton Friedman thought of it.
Also Economist High Mackenzie, had this to say about Alex Usher's take on tuition reduction:
"[One] can only [come] to the conclusion that the poor are subsidizing the rich when postsecondary education is funded publicly by ignoring the tax system; implicitly assuming that the money to pay for postsecondary education is found on trees rather than raised from a real-world tax system. Taking the revenue sources into account turns the argument upside down. Why? Because we have a tax system that is roughly proportional to income; and income is much more unevenly distributed than postsecondary education participation.
A tax is regressive if the percentage of the payer’s income represented by the tax declines as the payer’s income increases. So again in direct opposition to the claim by critics of universally funded postsecondary education, it is the tuition fee that is regressive, because a flat amount of tuition fee makes up a lower proportion of a student’s income as her or his income increases. To repeat, it is the tuition fee, not universal funding, that is regressive.
To go further, as some have, and suggest that subsidized tuition is regressive reveals a total misunderstanding of the economic meaning of a “regressive” measure. A tax is regressive if the percentage of the payer’s income represented by the tax declines as the payer’s income increases. So again in direct opposition to the claim by critics of universally funded postsecondary education, it is the tuition fee that is regressive, because a flat amount of tuition fee makes up a lower proportion of a student’s income as her or his income increases. To repeat, it is the tuition fee, not universal funding, that is regressive.
We need to do a lot more to democratize participation in postsecondary education. We need to address much earlier in a student’s life the disadvantages related to income and socio-economic status that affect his or her ability to participate in postsecondary education. And part of doing more is recognizing the obvious—that steadily increasing tuition fee levels create barriers to access for lower- and middle-income students and have contributed materially to the increasing levels of debt with which students now graduate."
http://post-secondary.blogspot.com/2007/03/hugh-are-you-calling-regressive_21.html
We all can agree that tuition, especially at UNB is way too high and that it should probably at the very least come down to the national average which is around 4500, and that's just for starters. I would go further than the freeze that is already in place and start reducing tuition fees until they are zero. Critics say it can't be done, but that's the same thing critics said about a proposed health care system back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, that it could not be done. At the very least, most can agree that tuition is too high and needs to come down.
However, Alex Usher from the Educational Policy Institute (one of those private think-tanks based out of the United States) has a different take on the issue. He believes that tuition decreases are regressive subsidies for wealthy students and because of this, decreases should be avoided. To be fair, Usher and EPI appear to advocate for student aid to be directed at low-income students in order to relieve the burden. Part of his argument rests on the fact that most low-income youth do not go to university and that the bulk of students in universities are wealthy/upper-middle-class students who would benefit the most from tuition decreases.
Well why would that be today? It could be b/c most low-income students cannot afford university and are too debt-averse to take student loans. We also know that during the 1960s and 1970s when tuition levels were frozen for many years, this changed the demographics of our campuses and for the first time in our country's history, people with working-class backgrounds went to university. So there is strong historical evidence to suggest that tuition decreases increase participation of low-income youth who can benefit from University the most. Unfortunately Usher's argument conveniently over-looks this.
And just to remind you who Alex Usher is, for those who don't know. He is one of the founding members of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations who went on to work for the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation and then moved to the EPI. CASA sided with the Liberals on Income Contingent Loan Repayment which was a serious proposal in 1995. It is a way for the federal government to completely privatize universities and have them funded solely by deregulated tuition fees, the 90% of people who couldn't pay would take out large loans which would be payed back over a life-time. Milton Friedman thought of it.
Also Economist High Mackenzie, had this to say about Alex Usher's take on tuition reduction:
"[One] can only [come] to the conclusion that the poor are subsidizing the rich when postsecondary education is funded publicly by ignoring the tax system; implicitly assuming that the money to pay for postsecondary education is found on trees rather than raised from a real-world tax system. Taking the revenue sources into account turns the argument upside down. Why? Because we have a tax system that is roughly proportional to income; and income is much more unevenly distributed than postsecondary education participation.
A tax is regressive if the percentage of the payer’s income represented by the tax declines as the payer’s income increases. So again in direct opposition to the claim by critics of universally funded postsecondary education, it is the tuition fee that is regressive, because a flat amount of tuition fee makes up a lower proportion of a student’s income as her or his income increases. To repeat, it is the tuition fee, not universal funding, that is regressive.
To go further, as some have, and suggest that subsidized tuition is regressive reveals a total misunderstanding of the economic meaning of a “regressive” measure. A tax is regressive if the percentage of the payer’s income represented by the tax declines as the payer’s income increases. So again in direct opposition to the claim by critics of universally funded postsecondary education, it is the tuition fee that is regressive, because a flat amount of tuition fee makes up a lower proportion of a student’s income as her or his income increases. To repeat, it is the tuition fee, not universal funding, that is regressive.
We need to do a lot more to democratize participation in postsecondary education. We need to address much earlier in a student’s life the disadvantages related to income and socio-economic status that affect his or her ability to participate in postsecondary education. And part of doing more is recognizing the obvious—that steadily increasing tuition fee levels create barriers to access for lower- and middle-income students and have contributed materially to the increasing levels of debt with which students now graduate."
http://post-secondary.blogspot.com/2007/03/hugh-are-you-calling-regressive_21.html
Friday, July 25, 2008
Education is a right not a privilege
Personally, I don't fall for the arguments justifying tuition fees the way they are now, which basically runs like this: Students who graduate university make more money over a life time, so it is fair to ask them to pay high tuition fees upfront because they will be able to pay whatever financial assistance (lent to them) back once the student enters the labour market. And when your student union at UNB and government officials point to student aid as a way to create accessibility at universities, they are almost always talking about student loans = high debt (student debt levels are especially high in NB).
This is the Liberal Party's thinking, more-or-less, and it is flawed for several reasons. 1.) The estimated earnings in the above argument are almost always inflated to justify their argument. 2.) This discriminate against working class students who either don't go to university or are forced to take higher debt-loads. 3.) This discriminates against women and minorities, as women and minorities are known to earn lower wages/salaries which means they pay more interest on their student loans. 4.)The tax system could do the same thing, in a more fair and equitable way, as those who truly benefit, pay back the system through earning higher income and ultimately paying more taxes (as they should since they benefited from the system the most).
I personally stand behind the principle of zero tuition fees. No it will not happen tomorrow, but we can realize real change in tuition levels if students act in a principled and unified manner. Newfoundland and Quebec seem to be examples of this.
The Canadian Federation of Students stands behind the principle of zero tuition fees:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ADOPTED
October 1990
Education is a fundamental right of every human being without distinction of race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, political belief, economic, and social condition. User fees, in the form of tuition fees and ancillary fees constitute a barrier to accessing post-secondary education. In 1948, the Government of Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states, "Everyone has the right to education". In 1976, Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that states, "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education".
The cost of post-secondary education and increasing debt levels are significant factors in the decision students make about whether or not to continue their studies beyond high school. It should be recognised that students from low income backgrounds are much more likely to be affected by financial issues when deciding whether to pursue post-secondary education. It should also be recognised that these financial barriers disproportionately affect traditionally marginalised groups in our society.
Students participating in post-secondary education may face considerable financial barriers, including housing, transportation, and user fees. In addition, many students may forgo job earnings to attend a post-secondary institution. Of these, user fees account for the greatest up-front, universal barrier to obtaining a post-secondary education in Canada.
It is the responsibility of governments to fully fund post-secondary education. In the absence of adequate funding, post-secondary institutions often rely on private sources, such as user fees.
Policy
The Federation believes that a universally accessible post-secondary education system will only be achieved once financial barriers to obtaining that education are eliminated. In particular, this requires that post-secondary education be entirely publicly funded, user fees are non-existent, and students have access to student financial assistance for living expenses in the form of non-repayable grants. In the case where tuition fees do exist, the Federation supports their elimination beginning with tuition fee freezes, followed by progressive reductions. The Federation opposes the differentiation of fees on the basis of program, country or province of origin or student status, or for any other reason. The Federation supports reduced or rebated tuition fees for post-resident graduate students. The Federation opposes the justification that increased student financial assistance can offset the effects of higher tuition fees. In particular, the Federation opposes any form of income contingent student loan repayment schemes, as they are designed to facilitate a system of individual fees in which students pay the full cost of post-secondary education, and invariably result in massive tuition fee increases."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, some view university education as a privilege of their economic status and actively seek to restrict university access in order to make their university education more valuable in the job market. This is a throw-back to the early 20th century and 19th century when class divisions were harsh, and only the extremely wealthy went to university. We know now that extreme divisions in wealth and excessive class privilege is an affront on democracy and gives rise to dangerous ideologies and war, (e.g. see fascism, the First World War, the Second World War, and the state of America today).
Canadian Alliance of Student Associations does not support freezes, they do not advocate for reductions in fees, and they have always disagreed with the Federation over this tuition abolition position. CASA has and does advocate for increased student aid (mostly reforms in student loan distribution), grants, and tax credits (which benefits upper-middle class families only) but that is as far as they will go. They have supposedly championed the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, however, it was more like a little bone that the Liberals threw to their Young Liberal lap-dogs in order to legitimize the existence of CASA.
This is the Liberal Party's thinking, more-or-less, and it is flawed for several reasons. 1.) The estimated earnings in the above argument are almost always inflated to justify their argument. 2.) This discriminate against working class students who either don't go to university or are forced to take higher debt-loads. 3.) This discriminates against women and minorities, as women and minorities are known to earn lower wages/salaries which means they pay more interest on their student loans. 4.)The tax system could do the same thing, in a more fair and equitable way, as those who truly benefit, pay back the system through earning higher income and ultimately paying more taxes (as they should since they benefited from the system the most).
I personally stand behind the principle of zero tuition fees. No it will not happen tomorrow, but we can realize real change in tuition levels if students act in a principled and unified manner. Newfoundland and Quebec seem to be examples of this.
The Canadian Federation of Students stands behind the principle of zero tuition fees:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ADOPTED
October 1990
Education is a fundamental right of every human being without distinction of race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, political belief, economic, and social condition. User fees, in the form of tuition fees and ancillary fees constitute a barrier to accessing post-secondary education. In 1948, the Government of Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states, "Everyone has the right to education". In 1976, Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that states, "Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education".
The cost of post-secondary education and increasing debt levels are significant factors in the decision students make about whether or not to continue their studies beyond high school. It should be recognised that students from low income backgrounds are much more likely to be affected by financial issues when deciding whether to pursue post-secondary education. It should also be recognised that these financial barriers disproportionately affect traditionally marginalised groups in our society.
Students participating in post-secondary education may face considerable financial barriers, including housing, transportation, and user fees. In addition, many students may forgo job earnings to attend a post-secondary institution. Of these, user fees account for the greatest up-front, universal barrier to obtaining a post-secondary education in Canada.
It is the responsibility of governments to fully fund post-secondary education. In the absence of adequate funding, post-secondary institutions often rely on private sources, such as user fees.
Policy
The Federation believes that a universally accessible post-secondary education system will only be achieved once financial barriers to obtaining that education are eliminated. In particular, this requires that post-secondary education be entirely publicly funded, user fees are non-existent, and students have access to student financial assistance for living expenses in the form of non-repayable grants. In the case where tuition fees do exist, the Federation supports their elimination beginning with tuition fee freezes, followed by progressive reductions. The Federation opposes the differentiation of fees on the basis of program, country or province of origin or student status, or for any other reason. The Federation supports reduced or rebated tuition fees for post-resident graduate students. The Federation opposes the justification that increased student financial assistance can offset the effects of higher tuition fees. In particular, the Federation opposes any form of income contingent student loan repayment schemes, as they are designed to facilitate a system of individual fees in which students pay the full cost of post-secondary education, and invariably result in massive tuition fee increases."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, some view university education as a privilege of their economic status and actively seek to restrict university access in order to make their university education more valuable in the job market. This is a throw-back to the early 20th century and 19th century when class divisions were harsh, and only the extremely wealthy went to university. We know now that extreme divisions in wealth and excessive class privilege is an affront on democracy and gives rise to dangerous ideologies and war, (e.g. see fascism, the First World War, the Second World War, and the state of America today).
Canadian Alliance of Student Associations does not support freezes, they do not advocate for reductions in fees, and they have always disagreed with the Federation over this tuition abolition position. CASA has and does advocate for increased student aid (mostly reforms in student loan distribution), grants, and tax credits (which benefits upper-middle class families only) but that is as far as they will go. They have supposedly championed the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, however, it was more like a little bone that the Liberals threw to their Young Liberal lap-dogs in order to legitimize the existence of CASA.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Higher Fees Higher Debt: McGuinty's Reaching Higher Plan
This is a good example of what the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations despises about CFS. They think this is going too far and that providing friendly alternatives and meeting with politicians alone is the way forward. What happens when the Liberals promise you one thing and deliver more debt and higher fees? Notice how moral and righteous McGinty looks while in opposition, a very articulate and compelling speaker, but he betrayed students in Ontario. Strong political action, wide support, and an actual campaign with teeth are what's needed for the student movement. CFS can be very combative with the government of the day and I believe this gets results. This type of action scares students in CASA because it often endangers their career aspirations in the Liberal Party or in the civil service.
If it wasn't for CFS and campaigns like this, the Chretien Liberals would have deregulated university fees in 1995 and we'd all be paying back loans via Income Contingent Loan Repayment. Luckily CASA was a fledgling organization in 1995-1996, but one of the first thigns CASA did was shepherd through a resolution at their AGM in support of ICLR. Yeah debt-bondage over a life time, good call CASA.
Monday, July 21, 2008
UNB SU's new president
The elections for the 2008/2009 SU council went by without a hitch in March 2008. Campaigning was, like previous years, limited to postering, websites, and new this year, facebook. Voter turn-out has been at a low point for many years, especially after the online voting system was proven flawed in the 2007 by-election.
I have serious concerns about Bethany Vail's leadership, given she views the SU as merely an entertainment service for students. Listen, most students can entertain themselves and there is plenty going on in the city to meet people's needs. Students do not need to pay over 100 dollars each to be "electrified", "entertained", and "engaged." Whatever the fuck it means to "electrify" your fellow students, I don't know. Her platform is seriously out in la-la land and I am seriously not surprised when the provincial government walks all over student needs, year after year, when people like this get elected.
She also states under her "Entertain" plank in her platform (why, only Bethany knows) that the UNB SU fought to keep UNBSJ from closing, that's patently false, the undergraduate union did nothing to oppose UNBSJ's threatened closure. In fact there was a rally to oppose that last fall in which Bradley Mullins (outgoing president) was spotted in a suit and briefcase scowling at a small crowd of concerned students who were opposing the NB government's Commission on Post Secondary Education, photo will be posted soon. He then tramped back to his office to write a nasty little editorial for the Brunswickan to publish the following week which he criticized the Grad Student Association for opposing the Liberal Government's PSE reforms. I guess you've got to be creative when trying to finagle a job in New Brunswick, they're pretty scarce these days, but Bradley's got a good thing going as he clearly has cushy government-job ambitions.
Besides this, what about tuition? What about bursaries and needs-based grants? What about debt relief? What about all the things that matter? What are you going to do when the government attempts to steer the research agenda of the university? Are you going to electrify them?
Students, we need to start paying attention to our student union, it's the only way to improve our lives at this university, and we have to stop careerists and opportunists from getting these positions who are merely padding resumes and using their positions as platforms to jump off onto a cush government job with the Liberal Party. It's our money and we really have to consider if there is a better alternative to subsidizing the careers of young Liberals and young Conservatives through paying SU dues each year.
Don't just take my word for it, look at her website and see for yourself: Electrify, Entertain, Engage
I have serious concerns about Bethany Vail's leadership, given she views the SU as merely an entertainment service for students. Listen, most students can entertain themselves and there is plenty going on in the city to meet people's needs. Students do not need to pay over 100 dollars each to be "electrified", "entertained", and "engaged." Whatever the fuck it means to "electrify" your fellow students, I don't know. Her platform is seriously out in la-la land and I am seriously not surprised when the provincial government walks all over student needs, year after year, when people like this get elected.
She also states under her "Entertain" plank in her platform (why, only Bethany knows) that the UNB SU fought to keep UNBSJ from closing, that's patently false, the undergraduate union did nothing to oppose UNBSJ's threatened closure. In fact there was a rally to oppose that last fall in which Bradley Mullins (outgoing president) was spotted in a suit and briefcase scowling at a small crowd of concerned students who were opposing the NB government's Commission on Post Secondary Education, photo will be posted soon. He then tramped back to his office to write a nasty little editorial for the Brunswickan to publish the following week which he criticized the Grad Student Association for opposing the Liberal Government's PSE reforms. I guess you've got to be creative when trying to finagle a job in New Brunswick, they're pretty scarce these days, but Bradley's got a good thing going as he clearly has cushy government-job ambitions.
Besides this, what about tuition? What about bursaries and needs-based grants? What about debt relief? What about all the things that matter? What are you going to do when the government attempts to steer the research agenda of the university? Are you going to electrify them?
Students, we need to start paying attention to our student union, it's the only way to improve our lives at this university, and we have to stop careerists and opportunists from getting these positions who are merely padding resumes and using their positions as platforms to jump off onto a cush government job with the Liberal Party. It's our money and we really have to consider if there is a better alternative to subsidizing the careers of young Liberals and young Conservatives through paying SU dues each year.
Don't just take my word for it, look at her website and see for yourself: Electrify, Entertain, Engage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
