The cancellation of Ann Coulter’s speech at the University of Ottawa was not a victory for her opponents, who celebrated shutting her event down last night; it is a victory for the organizers who paid for Coulter’s (non)appearance.

The organizers of Ms. Coulter’s Canadian tour have hit the public relations jackpot: Their tour is the lead story across America’s right-wing media establishment. All the money in the world could not buy advertising with the same level of impact they are receiving from the earned media stemming from the U of Ottawa cancellation.

The American conservative non-profit organization, the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, is likely going to make a fortune as donations pour in from their American right-wing base – significantly more than the $10,000 or so dollars it cost them to bring Coulter to Ottawa. (In American politics, whipping up the right wing base always results in donations.)

Conservative activist Ezra Levant benefits from making a further mockery of Canada’s human rights commissions by pursuing a human-rights complaint on behalf of Ms. Coulter. (He has in the past referred to the “human rights racket” and has written a book critical of Canada’s human rights commissions.)

He also stands to make a fair amount of coin from his association with Ms. Coulter. This controversy positions him to embark on an American speaking tour talking about yesterday’s event, collecting a substantial speaking fee and selling his book to a new-found American audience.

Unlike the Fenians, the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute is unlikely to quietly return to their side of the border after decisively defeating their Canadian opponents. Within conservative movements, CBLPI has developed a strong brand from this event. This brand – combined with the war-chest they’re in a position to be building from the Coulter cancellation – will enable them to form campus clubs at universities across Canada. These chapters could serve as front organizations to add Canadian universities to the right-wing speakers circuit.

The culture wars have come to Canada.

“University students are expected to pay back so much money, plus interest, after furthering there [sic] education when most do not start getting a livable salary right after schol. [sic] Why is there not more assistance when it comes to student loans?” crazy4u79 asked Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper spent the next minute and 15 seconds speaking in generalities and did not really answer the question.

“One of the things that is obviously a big concern to us over the past years, we know that younger people and new graduates have been particularly hard hit in the recession,” he stated to begin his response to the question. “That’s why we’ve introduced a number of specific programs in the last couple of years.”

I went to Ottawa and covered the 2008 Federal Budget for Maclean’s. The government did introduce changes to student loans, but they were administrative in nature and didn’t provide any substantive relief to student loan payees. The student loan system was broke both administratively and financially.

The government addressed a lot of the administrative problems and Mr. Harper’s administrative changes have helped make the student loan repayment process easier, but his government did nothing to address the overwhelming financial problems with the Canada Student Loans Program that destroys the lives of so many recent graduates.

Mr. Harper has refused to lower student loan interest, refused to increase the grace period for students to find jobs, and did nothing in the last budget to truly address the issues facing recent graduates.

To add insult to injury, one of the programs he cited in response has nothing to do with the question. The Prime Minister cited Pathways to Education as one of his government’s “specific programs.” The problem is that Pathways to Education does not assist recent graduates. The word “pathways” should have been a hint to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Harper’s record on the student loan file is weak and he couldn’t defend it. To use Internet lingo, his answer was a “HARPER FAIL.”

“University students are expected to pay back so much money, plus interest, after furthering there [sic] education when most do not start getting a livable salary right after schol. [sic] Why is there not more assistance when it comes to student loans?” crazy4u79 asked Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper spent the next minute and 15 seconds speaking in generalities and did not really answer the question.

“One of the things that is obviously a big concern to us over the past years, we know that younger people and new graduates have been particularly hard hit in the recession,” he stated to begin his response to the question. “That’s why we’ve introduced a number of specific programs in the last couple of years.”

I went to Ottawa and covered the 2008 Federal Budget for Maclean’s. The government did introduce changes to student loans, but they were administrative in nature and didn’t provide any substantive relief to student loan payees. The student loan system was broke both administratively and financially.

The government addressed a lot of the administrative problems and Mr. Harper’s administrative changes have helped make the student loan repayment process easier, but his government did nothing to address the overwhelming financial problems with the Canada Student Loans Program that destroys the lives of so many recent graduates.

Mr. Harper has refused to lower student loan interest, refused to increase the grace period for students to find jobs, and did nothing in the last budget to truly address the issues facing recent graduates.

To add insult to injury, one of the programs he cited in response has nothing to do with the question. The Prime Minister cited Pathways to Education as one of his government’s “specific programs.” The problem is that Pathways to Education does not assist recent graduates. The word “pathways” should have been a hint to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Harper’s record on the student loan file is weak and he couldn’t defend it. To use Internet lingo, his answer was a “HARPER FAIL.”

Ignatieff told a group of high school students in Newfoundland that he will be proposing changes to the Canada Student Loans Program during the next election. He says he will lower the interest rate on federal student loans and will propose a loan-forgiveness program for graduates working in the public service.

CSLP is in serious need of reform, especially the interest costs placed on students in repayment. The federal government charges a 2.5 per cent above the prime interest rate for student loans. Most provinces charge 1 per cent above prime with a few charging only the prime rate.

A lot of borrowers who are in collection are there as the result of a punishing payment schedule that fails to account for the economic situation facing recent graduates.

Ignatieff states that the federal government needs to take a leadership role in post secondary education by creating a dedicated transfer payment for post secondary education.

To encourage universities to recruit, enroll, and graduate students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, Ignatieff proposes the federal government create financial incentives for schools.

These ideas represent good public policy. For many years, post secondary education policy has been driven by political desires to funnel money into schemes that will deliver votes from upper-middle to upper class families.

During the 2008 federal election campaign, the Liberals proposed replacing current federal tax credits with in-study grants, to provide significant relief for student loan borrowers in their repayment phase, to create more needs-based grants, and to guarantee every student a loan of $5,000.

Ignatieff’s appears to be making post secondary education a major part of his pre-campaign speeches. If he continues, Canada may finally have a serious debate about higher education.

After years of scandal and inaction, both the provincial and federal governments have cut funding to the troubled university.

Now, with funding cut, the university is being forced to make substantive changes. Having started to make the changes to governance structure demanded over the last five years – and ignored despite scandal after scandal – the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is demanding both levels of government reinstate funding to the institution so that it will continue to operate independently and remain wholly owned by FSIN. The demands are being backed by both the federal NDP and the federal Liberal Party.

Yet, no one is asking the big question – is a separate university for aboriginals located in Regina the best model to address social mobility for Canada’s First Nations?

Having seen a better model, I say no.

The First Nations University of Canada needs to be more than a building in Regina. The fact is – surprisingly – more aboriginal students in Saskatchewan are attending the Universities of Saskatchewan and Regina than FNUC, according to the Regina Leader-Post. But the people who are not necessarily being served are those on reserves and in communities outside Regina. It is time for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations to look for a new model. I suggest they look at the First Nations Technical Institute on the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Ontario.

FNTI offers a wide range of post-secondary options to members and non-members of the Mohawk nation, including reputable college diplomas, undergraduate degrees, and Masters degrees. Instead of reinventing the wheel, FNTI partners with established institutions to bring post-secondary education to its people. Students can earn a diploma from three of Ontario’s public colleges, an undergraduate degree from Ryerson University, or complete a master’s from Queen’s or Wilfrid Laurier.

Beyond degrees and diplomas, FNTI offers a wide range of certificate and “university diploma” programs that meet the needs of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.

With over 2,000 graduates, FNTI is a First Nations success story. Research shows that students from lower-socio-economical backgrounds are less likely to travel far to attend higher education as living at home keeps their costs down, and research also shows that having post-secondary options within a community increases the percentage of the population which obtains post-secondary education. It is for these reasons that FNUC needs to be revamped and given a strong outreach mandate.

The federal and provincial governments should step up and offer funding for FNUC to have a leading role in spreading the FNTI model to First Nations across Canada.

]]> http://www.gotocampus.com/educations/first-nations-students-deserve-better.html/feed 0 http://www.gotocampus.com/educations/ditch-the-bishop-as-chancellor.html http://www.gotocampus.com/educations/ditch-the-bishop-as-chancellor.html#comments Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:46:38 +0000 admin http://www.globecampus.ca/blogs/colemans-campus/2010/01/22/ditch-bishop-chancellor/

As reported by journalism students at University of King’s College in Halifax, a very small group of students at St. Francis Xavier University have started a Facebook cause to petition their university to change its practice of automatically appointing the Roman Catholic bishop of Antigonish as chancellor of the university.

This follows the resignation in September of bishop Raymond Lahey after police say they found child pornography on his laptop. He is now awaiting trial on charges of child pornography.

The student union has started an unscientific poll on their website.

Normally, I don’t pay much attention to a Facebook group of about 60 people (at the time of publication). Frankly, I find the obsession with small Facebook groups to be annoying; however, the Unews.ca story lends itself to an interesting discussion.

The automatic appointment of a senior member of the clergy is not unique to St. Francis Xavier; many university colleges appoint their local bishop or national leader of their church as chancellor. My home college at the University of Manitoba, St. John’s College, has the Anglican bishop of Rupert’s Land as chancellor.

The majority of Canadian universities were founded as Christian institutions and most of them continue to hold some remnant of this past in their institutional governance policies; be it allotted seats on their governing bodies to religious-based colleges, local diocesan official, a Christian based motto, the Christian cross in their Coats of Arms, or churches on their campuses.

It is one thing to pay homage to the past and recognize the Christian traditions following the Protestant Reformation that lead to the modern university; it’s another thing for a secular university to continue to have an individual as their titular head by virtue of their religious office.

A faith-based chancellorship has no place in the modern secular public university. A faith-based college within a secular university can benefit the mission of the academy, so long as membership in that college is not required as a condition of admittance to an academic program.

The problem at St. Francis Xavier is not that Bishop Lahey was able to become chancellor; prior to the discovery of child pornography on his laptop he was seen as a reformer within the Roman Catholic Church. The problem is that Bishop Lahey became chancellor without any screening by the university itself.

The automatic appointment of the local Roman Catholic bishop robs St. FX of the opportunity to install a truly inspiring individual as titular head of the university. The chancellor should be the embodiment of the kind of person the university believes its graduates should inspire to be. Presently, the primary qualification for chancellor at St. FX is obedience to the Pope and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Considering that number of the high officials of this church have been implicated in covering up the sexual abuse of children, a scandal that was partially enabled by obedience to Canon Law over civil law, this is not a message any institution should be looking to spread.

St. FX should immediately begin the process of changing its governing legislation to create a competitive process to find the best individual to serve as chancellor. This process can be internal to the Board of Governors, or, better still, an elected chancellor as chosen by the alumni.

There are many great Roman Catholics in our societies who are engaged in setting a proper Catholic example. (I wrote a defence of Roman Catholicism last March in my McMaster Silhouette column.) If St. FX wishes to pay homage to its Roman Catholic roots, it can very easily find a more suited individual among the laity than among the tainted officials of the Church.

In tweets after the news about Bishop Lahey broke, many St. FX alumni expressed disappointment that their degrees have been tainted by the signature of a man who is standing trial on charges of possessing child pornography.

St. FX has the opportunity to correct this grievous mistake and show the world that it is a leading Catholic-founded institution by appointing a Roman Catholic who has a track record of good works and is not simply occupying a particular position in the church.

Last week, Statistics Canada released the Consumer Price Index for 2009 showing inflation in Canada for last year averaging 1.3 per cent. This report, which very few students (or sometimes parents) pay attention to, has the greatest impact on student fees of any Statistics Canada measure  - it is the rate used by most universities to decide ancillary fee increases.

At first glance, the CPI report  is great news for students, with the 2009 yearly rate lowest in British Columbia  at 0.4 per cent and highest at 3.0 per cent in P.E.I. and New Brunswick , scheduled increases to indexed student fees will be at an all-time low in some parts of the country.

The indexing of fees to CPI is designed to prevent inflation from eating away at the value of student fee contributions to services and avoids constantly holding referendums to increase flat fees due to inflation.

Until now, the system has worked. CPI usually hovers between 2 and 3 per cent.

The lack of increase is not good news for universities as their human resource costs are not indexed to CPI; they are set by collective agreements. The increases in salary and benefits for employees of ancillary-fee funded services average 2 to 3 per cent at most universities.

The anomaly in CPI, caused by the downward pressure of the recession, has caused an imbalance between revenue and expenses.

It is for this reason that ancillary fee-funded university services such as career services and athletics are facing larger deficits. There are only two ways for universities to erase these deficits: cut services or increase fees.

Students will have to choose which “solution” they prefer. They can hold referendums to increase their ancillary fees or accept cutbacks to the services they fund.

The most desirable “solution” is to increase fees by an additional 2 per cent this year and leave the fees indexed to CPI continuing into the future. Hopefully, the economy will rebound and CPI will bounce back to a healthier rate.

The alternative is permanent cuts to ancillary-fee funded services, since future fees will never make up for a shortfall this year.

The student who is proposing the fee, Morgan Campbell, told The Journal  the fee would “go towards the operating budget, such as paying of TAs, maintenance of rooms, and provision of teaching materials.”

The Journal did a good job in covering a relevant  issue for its readership – the problem the university has filling its budget gap.

There is one problem with the idea, even if it is passed by a student referendum: The fee would be in direct violation of government policy.

Under the provincial regulations governing tuition and ancillary fees at Ontario universities, ancillary fees can only be used to enhance student life and non-academic services. Ancillary fees cannot be used for capital or operating expenses related to the academic mission of an institution.

In short, students technically cannot pass a fee which supplements the academic services funded by their tuition.

That said, the current Ontario Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities John Milloy has shown little interest in enforcing his own regulations. Many colleges are already charging supplementary fees for academic services such as libraries.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which represents full-time instructors at Ontario’s public colleges, announced a February 11 strike deadline at a news conference today.

Interestingly, the union has moderated its rhetoric and is even willing to accept binding arbitration to prevent a strike. “First and foremost, we want to reach a negotiated settlement,” OPSEU bargaining chair Ted Montgomery said in a news release. “If the Colleges won’t bargain that, we are willing to send all our outstanding issues to binding arbitration. The Colleges, however, must agree.”

The announcement by the union that it is willing to accept binding arbitration – a likely outcome if a strike happens –  puts the ball firmly in the court of Ontario’s colleges and their political masters in Premier Dalton McGuinty’s office.

(Colleges do not have the autonomy from government that universities enjoy and the government can issue directives requiring actions by the institutions – see Hassum v. Contestoga College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2008 CanLII 12838 [ON S.C.])

The question now is what the Premier plans to do. So far, he has offered empty platitudes calling on both sides to reach a negotiated agreement to prevent a strike. This lofty rhetoric is acceptable in most circumstances. This is not one of the those circumstances – the Premier has already poisoned the chalice by implementing flawed anti-labour provisions when his government rewrote the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

One of the primary reasons that students are caught in the crossfire was the decision by Ontario’s colleges to use their newfound power in an attempt to bypass the collective bargaining process and impose a contract – power granted to them by Mr. McGuinty’s government.

I e-mailed a spokesperson for John Milloy, Ontario’s Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities, after the union announced its strike deadline. The response from the government was to send me a link to a statement  issued by the Minister on January 13, calling for the two sides to return to the bargaining table.

It is time for the government to do more. The government has two choices: force Ontario’s colleges to accept the union’s very reasonable offer of binding arbitration, or force the two sides back to the table by setting a time and location for them to meet.

The government should also give Ontario’s senior college administrators a little more incentive to negotiate. The Minister should send a directive informing all college administrators making more than $150,000 a year – and there are a lot of them – that their pay will be cut off in the event of a strike.

I’m willing to bet the threat of a strike actually hurting them – instead of helping them balance their books – will assist them to act in the best interest of students.

Of course, the government can continue to whistle past the graveyard like it did during the York University strike – after all, that strike didn’t hurt anyone, did it?

[Additional information: Union bargaining chair Ted Montgomery's speaking notes provided to the media at today's news conference are available online.]

[Jim Wilson, Ontario's Official Opposition critic for Colleges and Universities, held a news conference this morning criticizing the government's handling of the labour situation. His remarks are available online: http://tinyurl.com/yb3gm2q.]

Ontario’s post-secondary education critic Jim Wilson warned this week that an unprecedented increase in adults applying to Ontario’s community colleges will cause an enrolment crisis if the government does not act immediately to meet the demand. He suggested a novel approach: how about using closed factories and vacant storefronts?  

The application deadline for September programs at the province’s colleges passed on Monday and, while numbers are not yet available, it is expected that applications will increase by almost 15 per cent, with a significant portion of this increase caused by a large jump in non-high-school students applying to upgrade or earn credentials to re-enter the work force.

Premier Dalton McGuinty didn’t dismiss the idea of using empty factories and storefronts, instead stating he would talk to his post-secondary education ministry about the idea. “It’s an interesting idea and I think it would be irresponsible of me to reject it out of hand,” Mr. McGuinty told The Canadian Press.

The Premier said he would address the space crunch in the March provincial budget.

Mr. Wilson’s rhetoric was overly political and accusatory towards the government, but he deserves credit for bringing attention to the space crunch and fulfilling the role of an opposition critic, which is to identify problems and suggest solutions. Colleges are the neglected little sibling of post-secondary education and there is rarely much political capital in devoting attention to them.

The Premier was wise to consider the suggestions and not to engage in a partisan counterattack by dragging out the ghost of Mike Harris – the typical response of his government to criticism from the Progressive Conservative opposition.

In the end, students are the winners this week, if the March budget ensures funding is provided to ensure spaces for qualified students at Ontario’s colleges.