14 Arrested at University of Toronto - Step up the fight for Free Education!
Posted by Geoff on April 30th, 2008
14 students at UofT, including Fightback supporters, have been arrested on false charges for fighting for free education. The charges include assaulting a police officer and forcible confinement, which could lead to serious jail time. The students have been released on strict bail conditions, which include not associating with each other outside of court and classes and not protesting anywhere on the University of Toronto Campus. These conditions clearly violate the Charter rights of the accused. The University is trying to crush this movement under repression before it takes off. Solidarity action is needed now!
–Below added by Graham: –
It is too bad that the article unfairly paints the CFS as some yellow union. The writer misunderstands the Federation’s tuition fees position. The CFS has a position of complete elimination of tuition fees as they are considered a barrier to access. This position is widely known as the CFS continues to be attacked by the right-wing for having the position. Also, the “Day of Action” is not an annual event, it is something that is decided by the membership to hold or not and it was decided at the general meeting of members that this year’s organising would focus on local organising and campus campaigns (of which there are many). Also, CFS-Ontario did vote to hold a “Day of Action” this coming fall.
As a side issue, the CFS does not have dozens of full-time organisers, it has 5 for the whole country. This includes organising its dozens of campaigns that range from countering date rape, discrimination (as in their anti-Islamophobia campaign and challenge the ban on MSM blood donations), the campaign for campus sustainability, etc.. The national days of action are organised by volunteers and student activists on campuses and requires resources that the CFS membership mobilises, not as some top-down initiative.
The Canadian Federation of Students continues to call for the bogus charges against the student activists to be dropped and condemns the criminalization of dissent on campuses.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
What an absolute joke this post is. I noticed that the word “false” was added here in what is basically a cut-and-paste of the original article from Fightback. Absolutely nowhere in the original article did it say why the charges against the students were “false”, or even that they were false at all. Unless you can come up with concrete proof as to why the charges of assaulting an officer and forcible confinement are “false” (which I don’t think you will be able to do, since I was able to uncover any witness reports of the incidents), I can only assume you inserted the word “false” in there to fire up your (equally as laughable) readership.
Further judicial investigation is needed to uncover the nature of the events, which is probably why the students in question have been barred from associating with one another outside court (doing so could hamper the investigation and proceedings). Interestingly enough, the Fightback article did make mention of the students’ “militant” tactics. I was not there myself, but I can easily draw the conclusion of how “militant” and “peaceful sit-in” are almost oxymorons. My guess? The protests went south in terms of disturbance, and the university has every right to ensure its student body and staff are not subject to disruptive demonstrations.
Prove me wrong- post better support for the protests than this stupid tripe. And don’t flower it up, either.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Correction: I meant to write, “UNable to uncover…”
April 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
A little more on the fracas that happened at UofT. First, to whoever posted the first link (was it the moderator? Where does the word “moderate” come in, then?), it would do your readership good- and be wholly less insulting to it- if you were to post from various sources, not solely those from the far left. Frankly, a top couldn’t spin faster than you did with the first post. After three pages of googling, I finally found the Toronto Star’s version of the events:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/420102
According to the Star, a few professors claim to have been confined to their offices (one even reported being tripped- how mature) as the protesters demanded meetings with officials. Hence the charges of forcible confinement.
Further discrediting your orginal post from Fightback is the fact that it- along with about half a dozen other lefty web sites (I feel downright silly using their ridiculous names, but “Anarkismo” was one of them)- recycled basically the same version of the story, word for word, in their retelling of it. However, according to the Star (the ONLY source I found which actually seemed to have talked to witnesses), no student was forcibly removed from the sites of the protest by the police (at the alleged behest of senior U of T officials); all left on their own accord, and were charged a month after the incident. I doubt that “assault of an officer” was ever one of the charges, since it seems only campus police were nearby the scene.
My position stands: the original post is but one example of the careless rabble-rousing people like to do here without even a moment’s reflection on how one-sided- or downright untruthful- their sources are. Utter ridicule.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Graham, you also wrote:
“The CFS has a position of complete elimination of tuition fees as they are considered a barrier to access.”
Uh, does it? A quick visit to the page on the Founding Principles of the CFS reveals this position on tuition:
“To achieve our ultimate goal - a system of post-secondary education that is accessible to all, which is of high quality, which is nationally planned, which recognizes the legitimacy of student representation, and the validity of student rights, and whose role in society is clearly recognized and appreciated.”
Methinks “complete elimination of tuition fees” might just be your spin invention. “Accessible to all” doesn’t necessarily mean “free”; it could mean easier loans with lower interests, tuition freezes, better outreach and endownments, etc. The CFS would look pretty darned stupid asking universities to eliminate their tuitions outright when the CFS itself- duh- collects money from participating student unions to further its activities.
Again, this detour was simply to draw attention to the stinky spinning I feel going on here.
The CFS has a position of complete elimination of tuition fees as they are considered a barrier to access.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Briefly to AC before I reply to Graham. How do we know that the students were forcibly removed by the police? Because we were there inside and outside the building (I was personally outside) and witnessed the bruises of hand-prints on people’s arms where they were grabbed, and more bruises on the back as people were dragged. Anyway, AC is clearly an anonymous right-wing net-nerd who enjoys playing a provocateur role on left wing sites so I wont fuel his need for conflict any further.
Graham, at no point does the article paint the CFS as a yellow union and it is completely disingenuous for you to allege this. The article distinguishes between the CFS leadership, which has taken a passive and reformist stance in recent years, and the CFS as an organization which can and should be the main avenue for mass student mobilization against tuition fees. It is news to me that the CFS has the position to eliminate fees - if that was the case then why does the slogan “FREE EDUCATION” never appear on CFS banners or literature? It may be CFS policy on some hard-drive in an office but what good does that do if it is never promoted or defended?
Graham, you used to call yourself a Marxist and a Trotskyist. Marxists call for the CFS to vocally demand free education and start organizing a campaign of student strikes and mobilizations to achieve this. A decade of lobbying and on-again-off-again demos which go nowhere has achieved nothing. Every time Fightback supporters and other activists have put this forward we are told that the student body is too apathetic and inactive. Quebec disproves this. The actions at UofT students disproves this. Students are willing to fight if only they are given a lead - a lead that should be given by the CFS. This should not be just a sporadic action at a single university, it should be a coordinated campaign of occupations and strikes across the province and the country. It is great that the CFS is supporting the UofT students (it would be a betrayal if they did otherwise), but the CFS, with its significant resources at its many offices around the country should not be “supporting” - the CFS leadership should be leading.
Yes, the CFS is attacked by the right-wing and in response they move to the right to accommodate them and further alienate the base. The only way to defeat the right is to undercut them by mobilizing a mass movement around free education. The Venezuelan revolution is also attacked by the right - in response the revolution has radicalized and brought more workers and poor into the struggle.
Fightback would be more than willing, more than happy, to withdraw this criticism of the CFS leadership if only they would come out publicly for a campaign for free education that will lead up to student strikes and worker-student solidarity. People may say this will not be easy. OF COURSE IT WON’T BE EASY! This should have been the tactic adopted in 1995-7 when the tuition hikes were first implemented when it would have been easiest to mobilize. In the intervening time we have had over a decade of failure and it will take a while to re-instill confidence in the movement. But first of all there has to be a recognition that these are the only tactics that will work and then build towards them.
Unfortunately Graham, it seems that in response to some ultra-lefts, who look at the ineffectiveness of CFS policy and advocate disaffiliation, you have moved to a reformist position that any critique of the leadership is a denunciation of the entire organization. This is the classical line used by bureaucracies against the left. The bureaucracy is not the organization, it is not their own personal property, it is the property of the mass of students who will force their organizations to take a class struggle position sooner or later (sooner if the left is organized and not scared to voice criticisms!)
Graham, you have to make a choice, are you a reformist or are you a Marxist? Do you vocally demand a class struggle position of free education, student strikes and worker-student solidarity, or do you stand with the status quo? We used to discuss politics at length and I still consider you a friend - but I’ve been very concerned about your political evolution over the last few years. Calling yourself a Marxist means acting like a Marxist and for the sake of clarity I hope you resolve this contradiction one way or another.
From your comrade,
alex
http://www.marxist.ca
May 1st, 2008 at 10:06 am
Alex,
You still haven’t responded to Graham’s points about inaccuracies in the article. Even if the article claims to be criticizing the “leadership” of the CFS, the facts should at least be correct.
Your positions seem to be contradictory. On the one hand you argue that the CFS is top-down in its organizing. On the other, you argue that the CFS “leadership” needs to act as a vanguard to provoke students into action. I’m surprised you would invoke the Quebec example as support for the latter argument, given that the 2005 student strike was organized and directed by grassroots general assemblies of students, not the handful of leaders in Quebec student federations.
It’s also important to note that the 2005 Quebec student strike was not organized on the demand of “free education” as you imply, but rather to restore a $300 million grants program that was cut by Jean Charest. In fact, the mobilizing for the 2007 Quebec student strike on the demand of “free education” failed. Many activists I have spoken to from ASSE place a large chunk of blame on the lack of member education and preparation before strike votes. This seems to fly in the face of your proposal for top-down organizing by the CFS “leadership” to push its membership into militant action before doing the necessary groundwork and education.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hi Angie J,
As a Common Front activist who was directly involved in the 2007 student mobilization in Montreal, I can probably answer some of your concerns, and correct some of the misinformation that you have.
First, on the 2005 student strike, let us examine the three point platforms that CASSEE ran (Coalition de l’ASSÉ Élargie, a coalition including ASSÉ affiliates and other student unions, representing the radical wing of the student movement):
1. An end to all the reforms of AFE, not only the 103 million cut to bursaries
2. An end to the entire project of privatizing and decentralizing the CEGEP system
3. That all demands are to made with the intent to move towards free tuition and an eradication of student debt.
One can see that the demand is not simply a return to status quo (i.e. restoring the 103 million cut), but an end to all changes that have taken place before. The third platform is the most important, it talks of free education and eradication of student debt. This is the main demands of CASSEE that managed to mobilize over 200 thousands students (and workers as well). The demand of free education was not hidden in some hard drive in an office, or in an obscure resolutions, but it is the main demand put forward to wide population of students.
The media (and FECQ/FEUQ) of course tried to limit the scope of the student movement to simply restoration of the 103 million grant.
On the 2007 student strike, it was not the demand of free education that caused the failure of the mobilization. Instead, it was the failure of the ASSE activists to mobilize the students. Seeing the massive 2005 student strike as a reference, many current ASSE activists thought that just by declaring “Free education is a right” and declaring “unlimited general strike”, they could mobilize students. They assumed that Quebec students are already militant, so they just need to declare the strike and wide population of students will support them.
It is not the demand for free education that caused the failure. I will give you a great example why this is not the case. Common Front managed to mobilize 3-day strike at Dawson College (the biggest Anglophone college in Montreal with 8000 students) with demand of free education (also $10 minimum wage, free day care, right to strike). Now, Dawson college has never had a history of militancy, the population is not radical as other francophone CEGEPs. (Even in one of ASSE congress before the strike, they laughed at the idea of Dawson going on strike). But we managed to pull of a general assembly of almost 900 people with over 95% strike vote. (Usually, the GA couldn’t even have 100 people).
Why did Common Front succeed? Because we mobilize on the ground tirelessly, explaining to each student why we ought to have free education, not on moralistic reason, but on working class reason.
The success of 3-day strike at Dawson shattered the myth that students are not ready for free education demand!
For more comprehensive analysis and report, you can read articles on Fightback website about the strike, and also commonfront.org website\
Ted
May 1st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Sorry Alex, but your alleged observation seems to me as non-credible as the original post is fallacious. You were in Toronto, were you? Did you actually talk to anyone who said, “The POLICE gave me these bruises?” If you actually saw bruises (and I’m sorry, but I can’t help but seriously doubt your claim, it’s so vague), how do you know they didn’t come from general tussling amongst the people inside the building? Did you actually see officers arrive at the scene? I take these claims to task, like all the other bogus-sounding claims about the protests I found on a multitude of lefty web sites, because they are in direct contradiction with the ONLY source I found that produced quotes from witnesses: the Toronto Star. Anything to say about that?
Personally Alex, I enjoy being called a nerd provocateur, though when it comes to picking holes in outrageous spin, I’m an equal-opportunity dork. I haven’t actually said anything about my feelings on protesting student tuition; I find it more constructive to point out when readers are reading near-absolute BS about events. No one here- not one person, not yet- seems at all concerned that extreme liberties are being taken here when reporting events that involve issues people care about. It doesn’t matter how much you love the topic, or which side you’re on- you should at least be concerned when someone spins it ludicrously just so they can get your attention.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Oh and by the way Aleax, I’m a female. That’s “provocatrice” to you.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pm
AC - your ignorance astounds me.
First, it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, but up to the accusers to prove guilt.
Second, Alex is a personal friend of mine as are some of the accused. He lives in Toronto. He was there. I have heard from the accused that they were staging a peaceful sit-in (a long established method of protest), when they were brutally and illegally (no injunction, no enforcement order!!??) removed.
This is an attempt to silence these activists and stop this movement before it gets off the ground.
Also, it is my understanding that these charges are being pursued by the university, not the crown. That alone should set off some red flags.
I find the bail conditions the most appalling part of this whole charade. These students were forced to sign on the dotted line and agree to outrageous conditions, or stay in jail and miss their final exams!
The bail conditions prevent these people from talking to one another or demonstrating on campus. This is a clear violation of their charter rights.
How are they supposed to defend themselves if they are prevented from talking to the witnesses - the co-accused!
Shame!
May 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
AC, get a grip. If you want your evidence, check Youtube, cause they have a video from a cellphone
May 5th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I just viewed the footage. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That’s it? All I saw were a couple of students being hauled up to their feet and moved to the door when they resisted an order to leave; which is ENTIRELY WHAT ONE SHOULD EXPECT WHEN ONE REFUSES AN ORDER TO VACATE THE PREMISES. If they got bruised in the process, it was entirely of their own doing because from what I can see they’re the ones thrashing around in tantrums. The police should be commended for remaining calm in the face of such whining, spoiled beligerence. I see no brutality to speak of; only screaming students behaving like five year-olds. They deserve a crack on the ass and a “Go home to your mother!” for good measure.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
A funny thing happened tonight as I followed Adam’s advice to “get a grip” and seek out You Tube footage of the damage (and I use that term lightly) that went down at U of T when a few protesters decided to have themselves a sit-down in front of a prof’s door. The funny thing was that- just as I opened the link and began viewing the footage, my own three-year-old son walked into the room, threw himself on the floor and began wailing and writhing because I had turned the TV off. And as the two cacophonies mounted in volume, I realized that I couldn’t tell the difference between a bunch of students wailing at police and a three-year-old throwing a spectacular tantrum. I mean, the two sounds were practically indistinguishable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EchZt44_e8g&feature=related
Nor was my reaction to my son’s tantrum much different from that of the officers who arrived at the scene at UofT: I picked him up, moved him a few feet to his room (much like the cops cleared the way for profs to exit their office- OK, now I believe they were actually summoned to the scene), and stood back to think, “I could be catching the game on TV instead of listening to this crap.”
What I didn’t find in my search for the aforementioned “grip” was ANY evidence of police escalation and brutality. And for all the dramatic words written here- I’m talking to you, Alex, Mike, and Adam- insisting that these poor students fell victim to yet another violent quashing of the movement by the Man- I see nothing more than the same type of histrionic artifice and exaggeration created by the students at the scene, specifically to prop a stance on a cause that was either poorly organized, or just poorly thought-out to begin with.
What’s my point here? It ties directly in with the moanings here about the shortcomings of the student movement in general; how the absence of grass-roots organization, mobilization, and support from the larger (presumably unionized) working force have supposedly contributed to the stagnation of the movement. Friends, if this is what the student movement has become- a group of limp-bodied drama students who caterwaul at the mere arrival of law enforcement (let’s not forget, WHEN THEY THEMSELVES HAVE BARRICADED PROFS IN THEIR OFFICE- how’s that anything like a peaceful, meaningful sit-in?), then you may as well take out your nails and hammers now, the coffin’s coming right up. Such antics are very hard to separate from reasonable demands made by level-headed, reasonable people, and obscure the reasonable nature of those demands- a pause in fee hikes to examine alternative ways to make university more accessible.
It’s taken me this long to get to my position on the role of tuition and access to higher education. My own un-academic, anecdotal view is ambivalent at best. In countries where university education has historically been free- Germany, Malta- students have been known to kick around at uni for years while the government (and the taxpayers) foot the bill for some students’ indecisiveness. Moreover, in countries where both private, tuition-based universities and near-tuition-free institutions exist (Brazil, the UK, France, and a host of others), guess which ones end up being the most exclusive? The free ones (so much for accessibility for the average Joe). Neither does this mean the most financially needy can access these free schools; in Brazil, rich families are known to pay for their children’s entrance to a private school in order to eventually gain entrance to the free exclusive ones. However, the Chinese and Indians- with their very different government systems- routinely churn out legions of highly-competitive workers from their free (China) and near-free (India) universities. Such is reality.
Given the things I know and have mentioned above, I support reasonable tuitions at universities, to keep them competitive yet accessible, but I also support greater government initiative in providing low-interest loans and encouraging universities to increase the amounts of their endowments allocated to scholarships. It’s a pedestrian articulation of an opinion compared to the manifestos written by some here; but I feel much more comfortable lobbying it considering I do it free of any exaggeration.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:29 am
I’m posting this on behalf of AC, who’s been unable to post a response to this website for some time.
“A funny thing happened tonight as I followed Adam’s advice to “get a grip” and seek out You Tube footage of the damage (and I use that term lightly) that went down at U of T when a few protesters decided to have themselves a sit-down in front of a prof’s door. The funny thing was that- just as I opened the link and began viewing the footage, my own three-year-old son walked into the room, threw himself on the floor and began wailing and writhing because I had turned the TV off. And as the two cacophonies mounted in volume, I realized that I couldn’t tell the difference between a bunch of students wailing at police and a three-year-old throwing a spectacular tantrum. I mean, the two sounds were practically indistinguishable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EchZt44_e8g&feature=related
Nor was my reaction to my son’s tantrum much different from that of the officers who arrived at the scene at UofT: I picked him up, moved him a few feet to his room (much like the cops cleared the way for profs to exit their office- OK, now I believe they were actually summoned to the scene), and stood back to think, “I could be catching the game on TV instead of listening to this crap.”
What I didn’t find in my search for the aforementioned “grip” was ANY evidence of police escalation and brutality. And for all the dramatic words written here- I’m talking to you, Alex, Mike, and Adam- insisting that these poor students fell victim to yet another violent quashing of the movement by the Man- I see nothing more than the same type of histrionic artifice and exaggeration created by the students at the scene, specifically to prop a stance on a cause that was either poorly organized, or just poorly thought-out to begin with.
What’s my point here? It ties directly in with the moanings here about the shortcomings of the student movement in general; how the absence of grass-roots organization, mobilization, and support from the larger (presumably unionized) working force have supposedly contributed to the stagnation of the movement. Friends, if this is what the student movement has become- a group of limp-bodied drama students who caterwaul at the mere arrival of law enforcement (let’s not forget, WHEN THEY THEMSELVES HAVE BARRICADED PROFS IN THEIR OFFICE- how’s that anything like a peaceful, meaningful sit-in?), then you may as well take out your nails and hammers now, the coffin’s coming right up. Such antics are very hard to separate from reasonable demands made by level-headed, reasonable people, and obscure the reasonable nature of those demands- a pause in fee hikes to examine alternative ways to make university more accessible.
It’s taken me this long to get to my position on the role of tuition and access to higher education. My own un-academic, anecdotal view is ambivalent at best. In countries where university education has historically been free- Germany, Malta- students have been known to kick around at uni for years while the government (and the taxpayers) foot the bill for some students’ indecisiveness. Moreover, in countries where both private, tuition-based universities and near-tuition-free institutions exist (Brazil, the UK, France, and a host of others), guess which ones end up being the most exclusive? The free ones (so much for accessibility for the average Joe). Neither does this mean the most financially needy can access these free schools; in Brazil, rich families are known to pay for their children’s entrance to a private school in order to eventually gain entrance to the free exclusive ones. However, the Chinese and Indians- with their very different government systems- routinely churn out legions of highly-competitive workers from their free (China) and near-free (India) universities. Such is reality.
Given the things I know and have mentioned above, I support reasonable tuitions at universities, to keep them competitive yet accessible, but I also support greater government initiative in providing low-interest loans and encouraging universities to increase the amounts of their endowments allocated to scholarships. It’s a pedestrian articulation of an opinion compared to the manifestos written by some here; but I feel much more comfortable lobbying it considering I do it free of any exaggeration.”
May 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You state that in Germany and Malta where tuition is free students hang around for “years”. Is this the standard 4-5 year undergrad, followed by 2-3 year masters? From my experience university takes years, and I anecdotally know people who have taken 7 years in an undergrad while accumulating debt. It is amazing how young we are when we enter university– this makes it difficult to know what you want to do and study. I believe people should have that option. What about the students who are forced to work part-time jobs here to pay for the high cost of tuition and living. I’ve personally had to work 25 hours per week while completing a B.Sc. with labs, but in the end I’m competing for work and/or masters positions with people who haven’t had that tax on their time and were more able to direct it to studying.
“in countries where both private, tuition-based universities and near-tuition-free institutions exist (Brazil, the UK, France, and a host of others), guess which ones end up being the most exclusive? The free ones (so much for accessibility for the average Joe). Neither does this mean the most financially needy can access these free schools; in Brazil, rich families are known to pay for their children’s entrance to a private school in order to eventually gain entrance to the free exclusive ones”
Thank you so much; this is a great argument on why we should not have private and public schools, but should have public education for everybody. Let’s use our resources to ensure that everybody can have a quality education, not just the rich. Clearly the mixed public and private system doesn’t work.
“I support reasonable tuitions at universities, to keep them competitive yet accessible”
Define reasonable. I can reason that providing free post-secondary education benefits all of society and the rewards will be worth the investment. Who exactly would publicly funded, zero-tuition Canadian universities be competing with?
“It’s a pedestrian articulation of an opinion compared to the manifestos written by some here; but I feel much more comfortable lobbying it”
Well, that exactly what we children of the working poor are here for; to make YOU feel more comfortable while you comfortably lobby government and make connections that will secure a comfortable career for you.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I’m not going to contribute much here, as most of it has been said. I just wanted to focus on this little sentence.
“However, the Chinese and Indians- with their very different government systems- routinely churn out legions of highly-competitive workers from their free (China) and near-free (India) universities.”
I don’t know about India, but I’ve been living and teaching English in China for a while now, and I can guarantee you, of the dozen universities where I’ve taught at various times, not one of them has been free. The cheapest seems to cost about 4000 RMB, but maybe I haven’t seen any of these free universities. Hell, a couple of other foreign teachers and I pooled our cash together, and doled out three different one year tuition “scholarships”, which was just us handing money to certain students. They were unable to afford the next year of tuition, which says to me that it isn’t free.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Alex White, thank you (and I mean that sincerely) for the perspective you provided from your experience in China. Clearly, I should have researched that point a little better. But in a way, your statement echoes support to the idea that even in communist countries (for pete’s sake!), unversities cannot be as internationally competitive without fees.
To the other Alex: add some perspective to your woe-is-me parade. First of all, so you have to compete against other students, from all backgrounds, for jobs- since when is that news?
Perspective number two: any employer who WOULDN’T hire you- a bust-his-ass student who held down 25+ hours of work a week AND completed an undergrad with labs- is an idiot. Perhaps I’m ignoring the nature of hiring in the science field, where actual marks may matter more than actual work skills and employment acumen- but I doubt your working experience ever put you at a disadvantage (I argue it does the contrary).
Perspective number three: Based on my husband’s experience (we paid for his Masters- supplemented by loans and scholarships), more and more Masters programs are seeking out students who have actually accumulated work experience after their undergrads. This preference ends up attracting a more serious, high-quality and diverse student body, which increases the university’s profile. So while it might be nice for everyone to have the option to faff around uni for years while they’re making up their minds, it’s simply still a waste of money compared to asking adults to grow up and get cracking.
You asked me to define what I think a “reasonable” tuition would look like. It’s hard to put it into dollar numbers, because the demands of the economy would play into it- but I think governments, unversities and students should all split the costs, and that governments should offer loans that are easy to access and do not require a firstborn to pay off. I would even support the idea of making the first two years of unversity free- so that those who truly do want higher education are motivated to stick to it and finish in such a time frame that does not end up costing taxpayers undue amounts.
Some of the most competitive employees I know- including members of my own family- don’t have Masters, either. I was lucky enough to come from a modest background with parents who saved for my education, but not without limits. I got in and out in four years- anything beyond that I was expected to cover myself (something I completely agree with). I happen to believe my own work ethic and personal financial investment to further certification has contributed to my success; but once you calculate exactly how much my (non-existant) government lobbying (I don’t have time for that crap, I work) and lofty lifestyle is costing you directly, please, by all means, send me the bill.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I had the fortune of asking an Indian student today about unversities in India. He responded that unversities there do have tuitions- but these are affordable to many, about 1000$/ annum or semester (he didn’t specify), and of excellent quality (witness, as I have, the new frontier of engineering- it comes from India).
Hearing this, I couldn’t help but ask myself if the fees at Canadian unversities- as they are, adjusted for our comparatively higher standard of living- aren’t so bad after all. Tuitions across the country range from $1,917 (Quebec, 2006) to the highest rates in Nova Scotia ($6,500 in 2006). Don’t forget, higher taxes in Quebec account for those lower fees; any way you slice it, someone somewhere is footing the bill.
I also asked myself: as I was lucky enough to have parents who could afford to pay for my undergraduate education, why should someone like me have been allowed to benefit from free education, had it been available? Wouldn’t the funding that would have put my relatively comfortable behind through school have been better used creating bursaries for those most in need?
Considering the price tag of unversities in the States (which, as a whole, are still the best in the world), I think Canadians get pretty good bang for their buck. What stands here is a philosophical difference between how we view unversity access: most here see it as a right. I don’t- I see it as the right investment, one that should be made more readily available only to those most in need.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Your parents, had the system been fair, would have paid for you to go regardless of the tuition fees. Education is not free just because you do not charge tuition fees. The middle class or affluent working class (clearly your class from your statement above) pays more in taxes than the poor and working classes through a process of progressive taxation (it is progressive in Canada up to the middle income bracket) and the fact that middle income families buy more and therefore pay more in GST and the like (non-progressive taxes — which put unfair strain on the poor during the time of purchase).
The question is not whether you deserved to go to school because your parents could pay, it is whether you took the spot of someone who was actually more deserving of education because of merit but couldn’t pay the tuition fees or was discouraged because of not wanting to spend their life in debt repayment.
Your privileged position of not seeing education as a right exposes your contempt for a just and fair system where people have to compete on a level playing field. Like most right-wing ideologues you do not want to compete in a fair system and you use your privilege to try to exclude those more deserving and better based on anything other than your parent’s wealth.
There are a limited number of positions in University and every time tuition goes up it excludes another group of deserving and bright people from the less fortunate end from going to school and lets people like yourself get in instead.
All the research shows this. All the economic models say the same thing. If you think that merit should be the only deciding factor in getting advanced education then you have to go with a system of zero tuition fees. Even a graded or get a break on tuition if you are poor doesn’t cut it because of the complex nature of measuring wealth and ability to spend and because undeserving well-off people get student loans and invest them and actually make money while they go to school.
Oh, and your nonsensical statements about the US and India just go to show that you have no understanding of these things. Education in the US is expensive to the point of excluding all except the most exceptional of the working class in the US, not only at the PSE level but also at primary and secondary level. There is no university system for the poor and working class in the US but there are two tiers (one for the rich and one for the debt-ridden middle class) for everyone else.
There is no question that there are great Universities in the US but if you think that they are great because they exclude the deserving poor from attending because they have to let dunces like Bush get “gentleman C’s” all the way through university, you just may be one of those people who did not deserve that expensive education.
Also, India is a “developing” nation with a limited tax base for things like PSE and it still has to keep tuition low (your friend is not obviously not from Karala Province as tuition is lower than $1000 a year) or students go on massive protests like the one in 2002. It is student action like the one above that keeps governments like in India scared enough to make PSE access a priority.
Standard of living has nothing to do with the economics of PSE tuition fees or tuition in New Brunswick wouldn’t be the second highest in the country. PSE tuition is dependent on a policy choice, either the government wants to have a merit based system or it wants to let its buddies from the higher classes have their children have access over more deserving people.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Wow Graham. How arrogant and ignorant to suggest AC butted another more deserving student out of line, for the simple fact that her folks managed their money and saved well. Your message smacks of a class obsession so excessive and unwarranted it lapses into incoherence - how else to qualify a phrase like “…if you think that they are great because they exclude the deserving poor from attending because they have to let dunces like Bush get “gentleman C’s” all the way through university, you just may be one of those people who did not deserve that expensive education”? Please post actual studies (not conducted by a Marxist) with actual evidence (not dribbled up my MR, Fightback or other commie idealogue sinkholes) that support such claims. Until then, I laugh and laugh.
See here, Ahab: Students themselves are a considerable factor in their being empty-pocketed come uni time (i’m talking undergrad studies, here). I spent two months on the road last fall giving scholarship workshops to Grade 12 and 11 students and their parents on how to look for and apply for scholarships. You wouldn’t believe the dumbfoundedness from students and parents alike when I tell them that, every year, hundreds of thousands of dollars of scholarship funds aren’t given out because - wait for it - nobody bothers to apply for them. And when I ask those same grade 12 students how much time they’ve invested to date in researching and applying for scholarships - because ideally students should start looking in grade 10 so they can earmark the ones they qualify for and start getting their portfolios ready - the reaction once again is largely the same: “Um, I haven’t. Before the end of the school year, I guess.” (Which is precisely why they DON’T deserve to go to uni) Or this one, which takes the cake: “Um, I just figured I’d get a loan.” Ironically, the latter travesty serves up a common point on which you and I agree: Students are effin’ lazy and apathetic when it comes to their uni education. Though I’ll lay it on the table right now that it’s because they (and their parents) would rather wail at government about tuition fees than focus their time and effort on self-sufficiency. The amount of scholarship money out there for students of financial need, women (good god, two years ago U of M gave an automatic $3000 scholarship to first-year female engineering students as an incentive for more women to enroll in engineering. Just for enrolling!!), first nations kids, kids who volunteer, kids with disabilities, is so staggering it makes me want to spit every time I hear yet another student whine about his/her student loan coming late.
My point here is that there’s often a direct correlation between how much time a high school student (and his/her parents) is willing to invest in searching and applying for scholarships – and for that matter, into saving for uni in general - and how much money they’re likely to have earned by the time September of first year uni comes around. One thing that gets my blood boiling is hearing kids like my Grade 11 nephew say he’ll “just get a loan” to go to university. He’s had a good part-time job since last fall, yet as of this moment that disposable income goes toward his 5 Friends plan, iPod downloads and game rentals. His mom, instead of insisting that no less than 70% of of that income go straight into a university savings account, prefers the picketing approach of complainign about tuition fees.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Right-wing ideologue? Is this what I’ve been deemed here? That’s humourous. Except for the term “right-wing” (which I would accept, had I said governments should not foot ANY of the bill on post-secondary education, and had I stated that universities should have all the freedom they want to gild their meals halls-which, by the way, I didn’t), I suppose I fit right in with the rest of the ideologues here (especially the one who dedicated a whole post to asking you whether you were a Marxist or a Reformist).
I’ve seen posts painted with broad strokes, but your last one almost takes the cake (falling right in with those who wrote about the sky falling at U of T). First of all, you’re right- nothing is ever free in life, is it? I’m glad we all understand here that “free university” means “higher taxes”. In such a scheme, we would have to trust that the government was spending enough of these taxes to keep university of excellent quality, and not wasting money, or funneling undue amounts to certain institutions over others. Or, we could let universities establish their own fee systems- compounded by government subsidies to keep tuitions capped at reasonable levels- and build their credibility based on the type of returns their graduates get on their investments (in the form of number of grads reaching employment after PSE, reputation, donations back to the university, etc.)
Now, addressing other points you brought up. You wrote:
The question is not whether you deserved to go to school because your parents could pay, it is whether you took the spot of someone who was actually more deserving of education because of merit but couldn’t pay the tuition fees or was discouraged because of not wanting to spend their life in debt repayment.
This is silly reasoning, and just plain wrong from a certain angle. Anyone more deserving than me of education because of merit- I assume you meant academic merit- would have been accepted before me, and those with lower marks would have been placed lower on the acceptance bracket. As far as I can remember, no university asks for your statements of financial responsibility until you’ve actually communicated the desire to accept the invitation to attend. And this more deserving person would probably have been offered the same full-tuition scholarship I was offered by the university, owing to his/her deserving stature. Don’t confuse being accepted into university with being able to pay for it, unless you back your argument up a few years and address the growing failure of publicly-funded schools in poor neighbourhoods (in that discussion, I think we’d actually find common ground). And don’t give me the “discouraged against applying” round. Loads of unclaimed scholarship dollars languish in universities, non-profit groups, and special-interest groups year after year because the kids (and their parents) don’t have the good sense to seek them out and apply for them.
You also wrote:
Your privileged position of not seeing education as a right exposes your contempt for a just and fair system where people have to compete on a level playing field. Like most right-wing ideologues you do not want to compete in a fair system and you use your privilege to try to exclude those more deserving and better based on anything other than your parent’s wealth.
Whoa, friend. Never did I say “education” shouldn’t be free- I fully support free, level playing fields in primary and secondary education, and think we should be getting more from it. I just happen to think there’s no such thing as free post-secondary education, and that letting universities establish their own tuition schemes (with expenses shared by governments) allows for people to more wisely choose how they spend their money rather than what they give to the government at tax time. Picture this scenario: in the tuition-free scheme, a middle-class family will have a portion of its income go to funding free PSE. Suppose their son or daughter decides not to go to university, but instead to develop a different trade, perhaps a family business. Does the family not then have grounds to ask the government for a refund? Or should they simply be content knowing their dollars went to pay for the kid next door’s engineering degree (all six years of it), oh and by the way, he’s decided to work in the States, where he won’t be taxed as much? Hardly a balanced, level field, if you ask me. Just because we pay for the possibility for EVERYONE to go to college does not mean the money will get deservingly spent. If we’re arguing for more tax dollars to be spent on education, leave the universities as they stand, and pump the cash into more federally-funded day care centers, as well as smaller, more enriching, and well-staffed public high schools with superbly paid teachers.
Your second (entirely false) statement does little more than expose your own classism. I doubt you know a lot of right-wing ideologues personally, let enough well enough to assess the nature of their competitive personalities. Take me very seriously on this: I am perfectly happy to compete on any field, even better if it’s fair and level, against those poorer or richer than me (the more, the merrier), and have my performance judged entirely on my effort. If you want evidence, check how long I’ve stuck with this thread.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Sure, it is me that is being arrogant, ignorant, and classist. On the other hand your contempt for the poor is simply self-reflective, worldly, and inclusive.
I find it funny that the right-wing always break into personal stories of hardship and people using the system to get ahead or that their parents just didn’t spend enough time with them looking for the ever elusive scholarships. Nonsense. Your posts are based in the right-wing (you don’t have to be a rabid Milton Friedmanite to be labeled a right-wing ideologue) and I am assuming only an ideologue would bother spending so much of your time posting such tripe on a news blog dedicated to left-wing analysis. Your comments are completely without analysis or citation and yet you demand even more citation from anything posted by the contributors to this site. Your tone is combative and insulting and in no way do give any evidence that you really expect to engage in argument that is constructive. In fact, the only reason I respond is for the readers who actually care about these issues.
And for your information, “right-wing” is not a label that I have attached to you, it is a political position that you have chosen to take on this site from day one. It is not the same as calling you a fascist (I have no evidence), a liberal (you give no economic analysis to suggest this position) or a conservative (though, I have my suspicions) as it carries with it little other than quality of not being on the Left. Your suggestion that tuition can be used to self-regulate people choosing the university road is evidence enough for the label. Only someone who can afford tuition would suggest that money be used as a barrier for people poorer than then to decide what to do with their lives. It would continue the class divisions and make sure that the rich continue to have easy access by excluding the working people from university.
Tuition directly relates to access of Post-Secondary Education the same way as user fees limit access to everything else in this economy. The same economic system that limits access to for-profit, user pay health care limits access to PSE. The higher the cost, the less able the poorer people are able to access it. You don’t have to be a Marxist to understand that relationship but it certainly helps in the explanation of why tuition fees continue to rise.
Also, the day that you start to discount Marxist analysis of the current economic system is the day that you stop understanding anything about capitalism. If you actually read anything on this site you would see that all business news agencies and writers understand class analysis. It is the basis for the understanding of the trade. If you don’t believe me then you should start using that education a little and read the business news agencies like Bloomberg and Thompson-Reuters.
Oh, and to respond with citations (even though you have never given any indication that you read anything on this site) you can see below. The research on access to education is vast and solid. And don’t give me any of that nonsense around low tuition fees being a gift to the rich. That pseudo statistical work has be disproven with simple math and a basic understanding of economics (as well as some extremely complex statistical analysis and understanding of the social economy).
Grants are more fair than loans. Tuition fees limit access to PSE.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityaccess/story/0,,2256304,00.html
http://www.cfsadmin.org/quickftp/Strategy_for_Change_2007.pdf
https://caut.ca/pages.asp?page=221
http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=11F0019M2005263
http://www.cfsontario.ca/mysql/FS-Tuition%20Fees-2005.pdf
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&call=807&do=article&pA=BB736455
http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/staticcontent/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/submissions-government/tuition.pdf
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/8/1023
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7432/128
May 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Graham, post 22: Well-said!
And I think university should be free, because my parents sure as hell didn’t come from that lucky 5% of the population that could save up for my education, or my twin sister’s, or my older sisters college education. Not to mention I have an older brother that didn’t go to college or university. How fuck are two working class parents in New Brunswick supposed to save up for four children to go to university or college in the province with the second highest tuition rates? I’d like to see a middle-class family do that.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Two words: K.O.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You all ought to know: I think I speak for many readers when I say that while I appreciate your arguments, I find there is too much malice in the tone and spirit of your writing. That goes for AC, RB, and Graham.
I know this is the internet, but it would be nice if we could pretend we were exchanging information in a public forum where people can see and hear you. Please try to maintain good manners, and resist the temptation that anonymity provides.
Many of the statements where simply ad hominem attacks, which convey more negativity to the writer than the one written against. If I continue to see this class of mean-spiritedness and immaturity, I shall redact comments for propriety. This style of debate is not becoming to the site, and we strive to maintain the highest quality.
Shame on you all.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Sorry you feel that way, Redactor. I meant the tone as I am rather fed-up with individuals that think this is a sounding board to write purposefully ignorant comments. I have more important things to do than to argue with people that have no other intent than to waste others’ time.
By the way, on a completely different topic, I believe that your comment is itself boarders on ad hominem by the strict definition in that it does not address the issue — which is not the mean spirited nature of the conversation but on the appropriateness of posting tripe for no other reason than to take up space — and it instead attacks the writers for being immature (as true as that might be). Also, I have to say that your anonymous comment about other people’s anonymous comments is rather ironic.
Apologies to the readers of the site if they find the comments section less than impressive. Feel free to just read the excellent article that are posted and ignore the ramblings that accompany them.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
To all readers who even bothered to read my ramblings (not that they’re that important): Whereas I thought my snark was in keeping with a general tone allowed on the forum, I was clearly mistaken, and I apologize- to Alex, Alex W, and Graham- for having let my decorum slide and for having overstepped the boundaries.
Graham has alluded that some posters post tripe just to take up space. It’s true, I post laregely for the stimulation of banter on a topic- who doesn’t, since it’s an open discussion forum (and yes, I do read the linked articles and do some side-searches before opening my yap)? But I think that all readers are savvy enough to assess the difference between immature or time-wasting arguments and those that are being painted as so simply for voicing dissent. Nonetheless, the Redactor pointed out that some of us need to holster the snark when levelling a point. Will do. Once again, my apologies- and my name is Alexandra.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Thank you both. There is the proper spirit of collegiality. Graham, your tu-quoque argument was totally specious. But I shall accept your contrition.
I consider the matter settled. Pease carry on.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I’ve just come back from a week away. I also issue my thanks to the readers for their gratiousness and an apology for the less than civil tone, especially if the tone offended those who wish this forum to retain a measure of intellectual decorum. Such pedestrian stuff will no longer emit from me. Thank you Redactor.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Jim, I think everyone can appreciate the difficulties your family faced when you and your sibs decided to attend university. Since you communicated that your parents weren’t lucky enough to be able to save for four children’s university fees, perhaps you could share what schemes enabled three of you to attend (assuming you meant your older brother couldn’t go because your family couldn’t afford it, and not because he decided not to go). Did you have to take out loans? Did you have to work part-time jobs, and/or adopt part-time study schedules? By the way, there is no sarcasm intended here; I think it would be very helpful to hear your full experience of how you got through.
Having shared this topic with British friends of mine- who pay modest university fees, but pay through the nose for private schools to enable their kids to apply to these universities- I think it boils down to a choice between making universities fair for all to potentially attend (meaning, abolishing all fees and levying taxes a considerable amount- you think middle-class families wouldn’t feel that?), or turning university education into an investment that all can potentially make if they so choose (reasonable fees and low-interest loans- ones that the lower middle-class can access) with accommodation for families of little means whose students are academically deserving. My point in arguing for the second option- and yes, partly to play devil’s advocate (because on the surface, free education for everyone would be great)- is that adopting a scheme of reasonable tuition would stem bureaucratic waste, and wouldn’t necessarily save anyone more grief since taxes would come into play.
If you’re asking whether middle-class families in New Brunswick can really save for the second-highest tuitions in the country (is that 5% really accurate?), ask yourself what it would look like if they were taxed to pay for unversity instead. Abolishing fees outright, I think, would simply shift the burden on middle-class families from tuition time to tax time, and in the end they’d be paying the same price (who’s to say governments wouldn’t keep increasing taxes in order to keep universities competitive with their international counterparts?) In the end, I think you’d still be asking the same question.
And let’s not forget what RB stated about the bevy scholarships- NOT loans, people, but actualy gifts of money- that are available for the deserving. I think Rb’s experience refutes the claim that scholarships are “elusive”, under the current state of affairs, more people can’t go to university than already are. If more students applied for these instead of loans, it might free up some of the government’s available cash and enable it to offer lower-interest loans, and maybe a few more scholarships of its own. I don’t see why people who CAN pay for unversity shouldn’t have to, in order to free up finite resources for those who don’t have the financial wherewithal to do the same.
May 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
The 5% isn’t totally accurate… I just pulled that out of my ass, but I don’t have a “statistically proven” (or whatever) number in front of me right now. The matter stands though. Very few families from rural New Brunswick can save up for their children’s education, if any rural family could save up at all. I know middle-class families with two kids that couldn’t afford to save up (not discounting the lavish purchases needed to make yourself look much better than everyone else around you… just a jab against a few people I grew up with, not a generalized statement or attack against AC or Rb).
You asked for a bit of history… here ya go:
I made it through university by taking out student loans every year of my undergrad–and yes, I took an extra year, because I thought the learning was worth it, not because I thought more debt would be “cool.” I ended my undergrad with over 43 thousand dollars in debt. The only way I could do my masters degree is through university funding.
Scholarships… phht. If they aren’t elusive, they aren’t much. I received one needs-based bursary until the province ended that program; or at least it seemed like the government did at the time, because I knew many other people that were receiving the NB Bursary, and the money all-of-sudden dried up after my first year of university. Everyone I knew stopped getting money, too. Our student loan documents just said “0″ under “NB Bursary” for about two years. And one friend from high school was sent a letter asking her to pay some of her bursary back, because she moved in with her boyfriend, also a full-time university student from New Brunswick.
The three “merit-based” scholarships I got from the university, in five years of study, have amounted to $1225. Not much when measured against $43000. I applied two separate years for UNB’s “special bursary” (meaning you’re so broke, you’re actually in a deficit, meaning you can’t pay bills or buy food–and you’re not eligible for this special bursary if you don’t have a deficit when filling out the budget on their application form). The first year I applied, I was given $500, and $300 the second year. The maximum limit is $1000.
Just to flag another issue with these bursaries: obviously under-advertised, you know in September that you’ll be broke, you can’t apply until November or so, and you don’t get the money until February or March. Serious problems there! Wait four months for a cheque that will barely pay one month’s rent, if at all.
I also had part-time jobs throughout the school year except during my first year, and I’ve always worked in the summer.
My twin sister took time off after high school to work and decide what she wanted to do. Unfortunately, working minimum wage and low paying jobs in New Brunswick, does not allow a young New Brunswicker to save up for an education. She has taken out student loans to pay for school and has just finished her second year, and has also worked part-time through the the school year.
My older sister was a bit luckier in a way, because she went to college instead, and only had to take out a very small loan…
My older brother just has not gone to school. He has simply worked. In his early 30s with no formal education past high school, what prospects does he have in New Brunswick? I’ll guess we’ll have to wait and see how “Self-Sufficiency” pans out…
Since the implementation of tuition fees in Britain, even if “moderate,” university enrollment has decreased significantly and the “labour” government has admitted it to be one of its biggest mistakes. (We can probably all imagine what some of their other “big mistakes” are, ha.)
And in case you’re wondering, the middle-class wouldn’t have to be taxed any more than what it already is to facilitate the elimination of tuition fees. All it would take is some political will, because it would only cost about four billion dollars according to a study done by Michael Conlon for the CAUT. Oh, and how much did the Harper government just tack on to “new military spending”? Thirty billion dollars! Surely they could spare a few billion to pay for some education instead of more guns…
To Redactor: if by redacting comments you mean deleting what others have said; how dare you suggest you can sensor us? You may disagree with what others have said, just as I do. It may be frivolous or “specious” commentary, but it is our voluntary commentary. If the “red” in your name is an allusion to the colour traditionally associated with communism and socialism, and if you’ve done your history studies then you should recognize what happens when the right and ability to speak freely is stifled or eliminated, ad hominem irony aside…
The threat to redact our comments, if you have that ability, is absolutely petulant. If you are who I supsect, you should know better.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Sorry you feel that way, Mr. Stanley. But this is not a public bulletin board; it is a privately administered website. I can’t deny, however, that it is censorship - in the classical sense. I mean: It is absolutely a value judgment passed on certain acts of speech of behaviour.
But the Roman censor was a state-empowered magistrate, whose actions were backed by official force. I oppose this power, and anything resembling it. But my right and responsibility to our readers and users of this website oblige me to do “quality assurance”. So in that sense I do “censor” language, and try to protect people from personal attacks. The rule is civil commentary and debate; no personal attacks or childish bickering. Other than that, I pass no judgment on the content of any commentary.
People have the right to be shield from vicious personal invective, and to uphold certain standards.
If you don’t think so, then how about this: Next time to post on this blog, I shall respond by posting a colour photograph of a human turd, with the caption “This is what I think of you and your arguments.”
But maybe you would not find this objectionable. Most people would. So mind your manners.
After all, it is only my own actions and words I control. By providing a medium through which people can flame each other, I would be enabling that kind of behaviour. I hold myself to a higher standard.
Another option would be to post “caveat lector” or “caveat scriptor” by the comments option. That way people would be warned about what lies ahead, and what they can expect.
BTW, I am not who you expect. I am a very proper British matron type. Good day to you, sir.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“Next time to post on this blog, I shall respond by posting a colour photograph of a human turd, with the caption “This is what I think of you and your arguments.””
Ah, and thus you will perpetuate the irony of your ad hominem remarks.