Ryerson’s Highest Rollers
January 18, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment
Every year, the Government of Ontario publishes university staff whose salary exceeds $100,000. Below is the list of Ryerson’s highest paid staff, and the highest salaries are in bold.
RONA ABRAMOVITCH Advisor, Outreach & Access $100,434.45
SANDEEP AGRAWAL Associate Professor $121,021.38
MEHRUNNISA ALI Associate Professor $108,809.32
HEKMAT ALIGHANBARI Associate Professor $105,258.04
JAVAD ALIREZAIE Associate Professor $104,635.63
ASHER ALKOBY Assistant Professor $136,538.88
LARISSA ALLEN Executive Director, Human Resources $204,746.43
KEITH ALNWICK Registrar $164,126.58
LAWRENCE ALTROWS Professor $135,103.96
MANUEL ALVAREZ-CUENCA Associate Professor $122,806.69
DAVID AMBORSKI Professor $137,333.40
LAMYA AMLEH Associate Professor $120,643.92
ALEXANDRA ANDERSON Associate Professor $101,593.12
D. SCOTT ANDERSON Associate Professor $170,570.72
DIMITRIOS ANDROUTSOS Associate Professor $126,856.71
ALAGAN ANPALAGAN Associate Professor $119,279.63
MERCY ANSELM Instructor $130,855.63
LARRY ANTA Senior Programmer/Analyst, UNIX $108,023.70
MARTIN ANTONY Professor $140,442.56
SEDEF ARAT-KOC Associate Professor $120,276.51
ERROL ASPEVIG Professor $212,101.28
MALEK ATAY Professor $128,008.96
LESLIE ATKINSON Professor $136,753.12
CHRISTOPHER AYLWARD Associate Professor $138,558.28
RON BABIN Director $131,631.58
KIRK BAILEY Professor $144,767.16
ROBERT BAKER Executive Director, Development $103,765.47
DOUGLAS BANTING Professor $132,971.72
MARSHA BARBER Associate Professor $124,389.91
THOMAS BARBIERO Professor $119,218.97
SUSAN BARNWELL Professor $131,107.56
LUISA BARTON Regional Co-ordinator, Nurse Practitioner Program $131,812.64
SAHRI BAUM Counsellor $104,951.26
HEATHER BEANLANDS Associate Professor $118,993.09
KAMRAN BEHDINAN Chair, Aerospace Engineering $157,854.15
AKUA BENJAMIN Professor $126,780.34
IDA BERGER Professor $115,038.72
JUDITH BERNHARD Professor $110,248.71
SANJIWAN BHOLE Professor $143,178.56
GEORGE BIELMEIER Professor $129,996.28
ELIZABETH BISHOP Senior Librarian $118,766.78
EDWARD BLINDER Instructor $111,207.02
STALIN BOCTOR Dean $206,957.15
FERNANDO BONILLA Manager, Information Technology Security $111,140.23
J. PAUL BOUDREAU Chair, Psychology $134,800.12
MARTA BRAUN Professor $145,274.08
DIANA BRECHER Counsellor $101,385.16
MANFRED BREEDE Professor $121,298.12
ANNE-MARIE BRINSMEAD Associate Program Director, Arts $100,496.98
JUDITH BRITNELL Professor $139,217.11
JULIE BROWN Director, Development $108,050.34
MARGARET BUCKBY Professor $126,457.37
RICHARD BUDNY Professor $121,005.32
MIKE BURKE Associate Professor $111,038.88
TARA BURKE Associate Professor $110,137.60
ROBERT BURLEY Assistant Professor $113,027.80
JENNIFER LIS BURWELL Associate Professor $105,455.00
JUN CAO Associate Professor $100,808.64
DALE CARL Associate Professor $115,522.52
ELIZABETH CARLSON Assistant Professor $108,069.68
MARIA CARVALHO Professor $116,640.28
AMY CASEY Special Assistant, Provost/Vice President, Academic $140,599.12
CARLA CASSIDY Dean $188,121.88
BARBARA CECCHETTO Assistant Registrar $113,339.05
CHUCK CHAKRAPANI Senior Research Fellow $125,442.29
ANTHONY M. Y CHAN Professor $141,835.24
PHILIP CHAN Associate Dean $145,828.16
VINCENT CHAN Associate Professor $107,101.33
DEBORAH CHANT Professor $138,299.34
MICHAEL CHAPMAN Professor $133,661.37
JANET CHAPPELL Director $141,268.35
CAROLE CHAUNCEY Professor $118,350.84
DAVID CHECKLAND Associate Professor $102,554.64
DAOLUN CHEN Professor $127,123.19
YANG CHEN Senior Distributed Systems Specialist $103,542.29
YAO-CHON CHEN Professor $114,954.24
MELINDA CHENG Project Director, HRMS Implementation $111,424.17
OPHELIA CHEUNG Senior Librarian $101,975.80
RICHARD CHEUNG Professor $122,653.33
TIMOTHY CHIU Manager, Accounting & Treasury $112,868.17
ALICE CHU Professor $141,918.68
CLARE CHUA-CHOW Associate Professor $131,297.20
JOON CHUNG Associate Professor $103,033.80
KATHRYN CHURCH Associate Professor $100,876.57
BRIAN CLARENCE Professor $123,939.55
COLEEN CLARK Assistant Professor $130,648.58
SCOTT CLARKE Chief Internal Auditor $135,725.55
KENNETH CLOWES Professor $121,168.04
SUSAN CODY Associate Professor $142,184.04
MARIANELLA COLLETTE Associate Professor $104,548.40
MARION COOMEY Associate Professor $109,599.24
LINDA COOPER Professor $137,715.92
PHILIP COPPACK Associate Dean $134,485.36
JOHN CORALLO Director, Ancillary Services $158,050.16
PATRICIA CORSON Associate Professor $113,303.53
MARION CREERY Director, Student Services $169,233.74
WENDY CUKIER Associate Dean $184,459.26
WACLAW DAJNOWIEC Senior Research Associate $123,595.98
BRIAN DAMUDE Professor $117,188.24
PETER DANZIGER Associate Professor $108,579.68
CHARLES DAVIS Professor $139,686.56
DAVID DAY Associate Professor $106,012.48
NELLIE DE LORENZI Associate Director, Consulting & Client Services $123,827.87
LUCIA DELL’AGNESE Professor $112,672.01
MELANIE DEMPSEY Associate Professor $115,183.20
DENNIS DENISOFF Associate Professor $112,856.29
YOUCEF DERBAL Assistant Professor $113,473.37
MICHAEL R. J DEWSON Vice Provost, Faculty Affairs $217,178.18
RAMDHANE DHIB Associate Professor $104,168.39
JAMES DIANDA Professor $121,495.60
JUDITH DIMITRIU Professor $125,233.92
CHEN DING Assistant Professor $101,260.76
MICHELLE DIONNE Associate Professor $102,075.82
ROBERT DIRSTEIN Director, Office of Research Services $115,480.34
HUU DOAN Associate Professor $122,931.19
KATHLEEN DODDRIDGE Manager, Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity $112,605.07
FAITH DONALD Associate Professor $117,463.05
LINYING DONG Assistant Professor $105,022.35
HITESH DOSHI Professor $130,764.68
MICHAEL DOUCET Professor $131,542.62
DANIEL DOZ Dean $177,957.53
GAIL DUFFUS Director, Administration $104,011.51
KAREN DUPLISEA Associate Professor $103,750.25
DAVID DUSSELDORP Manager, Database Administration $110,095.66
CHERYL DYSON Instructor $123,421.71
SAID EASA Professor $147,489.57
FARHAD EIN-MOZAFFARI Associate Professor $106,998.54
BRUCE ELDER Professor $156,722.02
GREG ELMER Associate Professor $118,265.12
AHMED EL-RABBANY Professor $105,240.28
SHERRY ESPIN Associate Professor $116,663.88
MARIA ETKIND Professor $115,394.52
CHRISTOPHER EVANS Associate Dean $134,669.40
ELIZABETH EVANS Director $128,868.20
RICK EVERATT Senior Network Specialist $104,337.10
LIPING FANG Chair, Mechanical Engineering $136,458.16
CARLYLE FARRELL Chair, Global Management Studies $134,045.72
GENEVIEVE FARRELL Instructor $112,133.87
ZOUHEIR FAWAZ Professor $171,797.46
DEBORAH FELS Associate Professor $121,681.54
TAMAR FERNANDES Manager, Human Resources Services $116,472.76
XAVIER FERNANDO Associate Professor $113,529.95
SEBASTIAN FERRANDO Chair, Math $115,963.52
ALEXANDER FERWORN Associate Professor $121,712.01
CAROL FINE Professor $114,792.40
BLAKE FITZPATRICK Professor $125,748.61
GABOR FORGACS Assistant Professor $105,751.68
TYLER FORKES Executive Director, Alumni Relations $140,764.93
BRADLEY FORTNER Program Director $115,356.54
DEBORA FOSTER Professor $128,143.28
MARY FOSTER Chair, Marketing $159,550.30
VALERIE FOX Director $173,600.03
ELAINE FRANKEL Professor $127,509.76
JACOB FRIEDMAN Associate Professor $111,834.72
LARRY FULLERTON Professor $131,277.72
ALAN FUNG Associate Professor $103,310.44
IRENE GAMMEL Professor $145,580.67
ROBERTA GARCIA Director, Development $107,135.62
STEVEN GEDEON Assistant Professor $106,712.02
PETER GEE Assistant Director, Financial Services $142,181.06
GEORGE GEKAS Associate Professor $145,358.36
NOEL GEORGE Associate Professor $102,183.28
PURNIMA GEORGE Associate Professor $107,583.38
USHA GEORGE Dean $185,829.32
VADIM GEURKOV Associate Professor $109,479.00
AHMAD GHASEMPOOR Associate Professor $123,379.70
KIMBERLEY GILBRIDE Professor $127,756.41
SUZETTE GILES Senior Librarian $106,687.84
CHARLES GILLIN Chair, Sociology $144,894.16
DESMOND GLYNN Program Director $127,092.90
JEAN GOLDEN Professor $153,550.48
PEDRO GOLDMAN Chair, Physics $155,320.23
KATHRYN GOODING Manager, Human Resources Consulting $113,243.30
ABBY GOODRUM Associate Professor $120,744.72
RYBURN GOODYEAR Professor $131,660.64
MARK GORGOLEWSKI Professor $129,251.81
ALLEN GOSS Assistant Professor $131,171.27
CHRISTOPHER GRANDISON Professor $110,757.72
DIANE GRANFIELD Senior Librarian $108,782.83
CANDACE GRANT Faculty $102,047.04
KEN GRANT Associate Professor $168,892.10
LINDA GRAYSON Vice President, Administration & Finance $253,946.66
DAVID GREATRIX Associate Professor $116,451.06
DEBORAH GREENFIELD FINDLAY Director, Development $105,712.05
XIJIA GU Associate Professor $118,767.12
LING GUAN Professor $180,235.24
ABDELAZIZ GUERGACHI Associate Professor $107,042.78
CATHERINE GULLO Program Manager $100,768.49
LOUDANSKI GUMBS Security Systems Administrator $103,415.63
SEPALI GURUGE Associate Professor $107,244.20
DZUNG HA Associate Professor $111,990.28
CHARMAINE HACK Associate Registrar $120,647.77
MURTAZA HAIDER Associate Professor $127,121.24
BRANKA HALILOVIC Manager, Academic Services $103,346.33
LESLIE HALL Associate Professor $108,428.40
DENIS HAMELIN Associate Professor $121,493.31
IAN HAMILTON Director, Campus Planning & Facilities $174,363.44
KEITH HAMPSON Director, Distance Education $130,030.58
JULIA HANIGSBERG General Counsel/Secretary, Board of Governors $210,707.34
FRANCIS HARE Professor $131,931.80
ERIC HARLEY Assistant Professor $110,568.04
JOHN HARNESS Information Systems Security Officer $146,478.37
SANDRA HART Manager, Campus Recreation $105,438.85
STACEY HART Associate Professor $113,178.32
STEPHEN HAWKINS Director, Computing & Communications Services $138,558.06
VIOLETTE HENEIN Manager, Budgets & Projects $103,086.12
JANET HERCZ Director $126,460.95
JUAN HERNANDEZ Director, Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity $126,278.99
DARRICK HEYD Chair, Chemistry & Biology $113,571.81
ROBERT HUDYMA Associate Professor $109,279.52
GERALD HUNT Chair, Human Resources & Organizational Behaviour $142,841.04
ANDREW HUNTER Assistant Professor $101,711.44
DAVID HUNTER Associate Professor $108,853.80
MICHAEL HUNTER Professor $131,435.60
CATHERINE HURLEY Director $117,653.34
ALI HUSSEIN Professor $136,033.97
MICHAEL INGLIS Assistant Professor $161,820.31
GREG INWOOD Professor $106,789.00
WINSTON ISAAC Director $114,237.29
KARIM ISMAILI Chair, Criminal Justice $120,828.14
NAVA ISRAEL Program Manager $112,200.43
MOHAMAD JABER Professor $122,151.85
ROBERT JACKSON Senior Librarian $109,215.10
A. HERSCH JACOBS Professor $121,246.92
FARROKH JANABI-SHARIFI Associate Professor $114,029.64
LORRAINE JANZEN KOOISTRA Professor $137,955.30
MUHAMMAD JASEEMUDDIN Associate Professor $116,433.00
KOUROUSH JENAB Assistant Professor $101,503.60
KNUD JENSEN Professor $144,998.42
CAROLYN JOHNS Associate Professor $103,656.88
DAVID JOHNSTON Professor $150,184.74
KENNETH JONES Dean $221,259.65
BASSAM JUBRAN Professor $141,609.08
ADAM KAHAN Vice President, University Advancement $369,730.66
MOHANDAS KANNOTH Supervisor, Technical Support, Student Information Systems $101,168.30
PAUL KANTOREK Professor $127,704.88
GEORGE KAPELOS Associate Professor $108,112.96
ALAN KAPLAN Associate Professor $131,824.54
SHEIKH KARIM Professor $127,704.88
MAHMOOD KASSAM Professor $143,633.28
JOHN KAWALL Associate Professor $127,167.92
ANTHONY KAY Manager, Student Information Systems $110,095.66
RONALD KEEBLE Professor $142,088.18
KATHLEEN KELLETT-BETSOS Chair, French $121,588.48
PAULETTE KELLY Professor $126,990.08
SUANNE KELMAN Associate Professor $104,789.86
GERARD KENNEDY Professor of Distinction $125,466.83
DIANE KENYON Executive Director, Marketing & Communications $176,788.46
GUL KHAN Associate Professor $126,419.86
MOHAMMED KIANOUSH Professor $118,532.57
LEV KIRISCHIAN Associate Professor $120,621.08
ARNE KISLENKO Associate Professor $104,013.52
MARIA KJERULF Assistant Professor $114,777.28
PAUL KNOX Chair, Journalism $122,647.20
MUSTAFA KOC Associate Professor $112,051.44
MICHAEL KOLIOS Associate Professor $142,475.89
STANISLAUS KOO Manager $100,526.88
MITCHELL KOSNY Professor $140,841.58
SRIDHAR KRISHNAN Chair, Electrical Engineering $159,964.58
WALTER KRYSTIA Instructor $107,419.44
CHRIS KULAR Assistant Professor $108,423.86
KRISHNA KUMAR Associate Professor $120,442.40
MOHAMED LACHEMI Associate Dean $160,467.43
MAXINE LAINE Assistant Director, Student Services $132,259.25
KUNQUAN LAN Associate Professor $150,989.91
TAMMY LANDAU Associate Professor $105,814.70
RACHEL LANGFORD Director $100,792.80
EDDIE K. L LAW Associate Professor $113,296.80
PETER LAWRENCE Professor $128,183.76
JOSEPH LEE Professor $126,806.96
MARILYN LEE Professor $126,867.97
MADELEINE LEFEBVRE Chief Librarian $152,866.02
WEY LEONG Associate Professor $104,415.56
YEW-THONG LEONG Associate Professor $137,247.13
JURIJ LESHCHYSHYN Professor $114,692.62
IARA LESSA Associate Professor $103,597.48
BRIAN LESSER Assistant Director, Development & Support $140,149.52
AVNER LEVIN Chair, Law $157,131.11
IRA LEVINE Chair, Professional Communication $193,379.01
SHELDON LEVY President $391,217.00
SHIRLEY LEWCHUK Communication Coordinator, Faculty, Communication & Design $104,153.38
JULIA LEWIS Director, Centre for Environmental, Health, Safety & Security $137,270.98
JAMES LI Associate Professor $128,629.76
ZAIYI LIAO Associate Professor $107,289.04
PHILIP LIM Manager, Career Centre $107,007.97
DER CHYAN LIN Associate Professor $106,009.04
HOWARD LIN Professor $124,336.12
IAN LINDSAY Professor $116,329.52
SERGEI LIPNITSKI Audio-Visual Systems Technology $105,315.31
NINA-MARIE LISTER Associate Professor $106,391.20
GUANG JUN LIU Associate Professor $131,625.29
GUOPING LIU Assistant Professor $103,802.64
ALI LOHI Chair, Chemical Engineering $170,410.72
JOHN LOVE Director $153,274.50
HUA LU Professor $124,259.20
JULIA LU Associate Professor $103,621.36
GRACE LUK Professor $125,601.64
PETER LUK Professor $110,183.47
JANET LUM Associate Professor $121,346.31
NGOK-WA MA Professor $149,101.16
IAN MACBURNIE Associate Professor $103,155.08
MICHAEL MACDONALD Geomatics Lab Coordinator $105,723.45
KEITH MACINNES Instructor $100,497.45
ROSS MACNAUGHTON Professor $153,011.38
VANESSA MAGNESS Associate Professor $113,520.00
MARGARET M MALONE Associate Professor $101,311.44
MICHAEL MANJURIS Professor $151,405.04
DAVID MARTIN Director $128,833.56
STEVEN MARTIN Director, Commercialization & Industrial Liaison $128,143.43
HESHAM MARZOUK Chair, Civil Engineering $160,028.71
DAVID MASON Professor $125,714.56
ANASTASE MASTORAS Professor $119,015.44
PAULA MASTRILLI Program Manager, Nursing $108,320.32
MAURICE MAZEROLLE Associate Professor $126,220.34
CATHERINE MCCARTHY Associate Professor $123,348.79
LYNDA MCCARTHY Associate Professor $107,708.12
ELIZABETH MCCAY Associate Professor $126,610.06
KIMBERLY MCCOLLUM Senior Distributed Systems Specialist $104,433.05
KRISTIINA MCCONVILLE Associate Professor $102,270.48
MARSHA MCEACHRANE MIKHAIL Director/International Liaison Officer $100,526.63
BERNARD MCEVOY Professor $131,277.72
ERIN MCGINN Director $125,415.25
PATRICIA MCGRAW Associate Professor $117,101.56
TIM MCINERNEY Associate Professor $111,645.53
DOUGLAS MCKESSOCK Professor $162,058.72
MEHRAB MEHRVAR Associate Professor $151,103.37
ROBERT MEIKLEJOHN Instructor $165,904.89
AGNES MEINHARD Associate Professor $121,702.32
NAGI MEKHIEL Professor $111,248.04
RENA MENDELSON Professor $141,382.40
MOURAD MICHAEL Manager, Network Systems $109,297.15
WIESLAW MICHALAK Associate Professor $118,629.48
LEO MICHELIS Professor $131,745.20
RICHARD MICHON Associate Professor $113,644.93
CATHERINE MIDDLETON Associate Professor $133,035.38
BARBARA MIELNIK-VOGEL Associate Professor $102,968.28
EARL MILLER Director, Organizational Learning $110,095.66
JOHN MILLER Professor $127,305.94
TONY MINHAS Lead Distributed Systems Specialist $101,172.81
PAUL MISSIOS Chair, Economics $117,709.65
ANNICK MITCHELL Chair, Interior Design $146,797.32
KEN MOFFATT Associate Professor $114,877.37
FARAHNAZ MOHAMMADI Assistant Professor $103,944.07
JANE MONRO Professor $152,092.48
COLIN MOOERS Professor $131,997.52
JOHN MORGAN Professor $120,173.56
MARCIA MOSHE Associate Dean $132,481.24
RAYMOND MOSS Professor $149,957.30
GILLIAN MOTHERSILL Associate Dean $128,096.20
DOUG MOXON Director, Marketing & Production $102,486.91
ELIZABETH MOYER Assistant Director, Client Services $115,937.67
HOWARD MUCHNICK Faculty $108,269.56
MICHAEL MURPHY Professor $150,206.46
ZITA MURPHY Librarian $101,949.28
BERNADINE MURRAY Assistant Professor $101,857.08
ROBERT MURRAY Chair, Philosophy $109,294.44
STAN NAKAGAWA Senior Distributed Systems Specialist $101,823.03
JANET NANKIVELL Director, Development $109,207.84
DAVID NARANJIT Professor $115,721.64
DAVID NAYLOR Professor $122,738.61
JAN NEIMAN Manager, Pension & Benefits $101,284.67
PATRICK NEUMANN Assistant Professor $102,270.48
MARY NG Director $122,816.90
ROY NG Faculty $113,552.46
OJELANKI NGWENYAMA Professor $133,113.04
MARY JO NICHOLSON Professor $150,992.40
JAMES NORRIE Associate Dean $166,901.06
GALINA OKOUNEVA Associate Professor $104,172.36
SHEILA O’NEILL Professor $126,313.72
STEPHEN ONYSKAY Senior Research Associate $103,071.62
GARNET ORD Associate Professor $109,330.80
PATRICIA O’REILLY Associate Professor $105,338.12
DIANE OSSHER Director, Business Systems $129,614.64
JUDY PAISLEY Associate Professor $123,326.10
JOSHUA PANAR Professor $133,824.88
MELANIE PANITCH Director $105,360.56
RUTH PANOFSKY Professor $110,810.37
MARCELLO PAPINI Associate Professor $130,176.63
FERNANDO PARDO Faculty $112,956.84
JOAN PARSONS Librarian $102,320.88
ANA PEJOVIC-MILIC Associate Professor $117,093.73
KATHERINE PENNY Director, Experiential Learning $130,943.56
BHAGWANT PERSAUD Professor $135,695.36
WAYNE PETROZZI Professor $132,269.24
WADE PICKREN Associate Professor $123,658.72
ART PIERCE Instructor $110,151.89
BRUCE PIERCEY Director, Publications & Web Services $109,056.40
PETER PILLE Professor $134,001.44
DIANE PIRNER Assistant Professor $212,167.04
WADE PITMAN Manager, Purchasing & Payments Services $102,371.86
WAYNE PITTENDREIGH Professor $117,279.76
MICHAEL PLASSE-TAYLOR Assistant Professor $103,747.68
MALGORZATA PLAZA Associate Professor $102,770.48
LEO PLOTKIN Manager, Administrative Systems, Human Resources $101,833.05
PAUL SOON HU POH Associate Professor $119,432.08
CARMEN POLICELLI Lead Distributed Systems Specialist $130,470.51
MURRAY POMERANCE Professor $140,165.46
GORDON PON Assistant Professor $105,780.36
CHEUNG POON Professor $141,609.08
CAROLYN POSA Coordinator, Financial Aid $109,330.73
NADIA POTTS-GOMEZ Professor $111,715.31
JOAN POWER Professor $112,404.48
FRANKLYN PRESCOD Assistant Professor $118,215.63
FRANCES PRYCHIDNY Professor $109,739.44
RONALD PUSHCHAK Professor $121,176.20
SOPHIE QUIGLEY Professor $114,954.24
KAAMRAN RAAHEMIFAR Associate Professor $108,909.72
KEN RADWAY Program Director $112,798.49
MARY ANNE RAIT Financial Systems Administrator $103,324.53
SERGIY RAKHMAYIL Assistant Professor $120,435.72
DAVID RASMUSSON Manager, Administrative Systems, Finance $110,095.66
ANN RAUHALA Associate Professor $106,610.80
COMONDORE RAVINDRAN Professor $144,506.01
MANUEL RAVINSKY Associate Director $124,417.85
MARION REID Faculty $108,336.16
MONIQUE RICHARD Professor $116,329.52
ROBERT RINKOFF Professor $131,229.96
CLAUS RINNER Assistant Professor $100,813.96
COLIN RIPLEY Associate Professor $105,004.56
GLORIA ROBERTS-FIATI Professor $111,349.12
LAWRENCE ROBINSON Manager, Safety & Security $102,525.99
ARTHUR ROSS Professor $130,006.12
NEIL ROTHENBERG Faculty $107,747.74
DERICK ROUSSEAU Associate Professor $119,798.61
JANE SABER Assistant Professor $126,338.88
ALIREZA SADEGHIAN Chair, Computer Science $130,965.23
ZIAD SAGHIR Professor $133,922.65
IAN SAKINOFSKY Professor $113,416.32
FILIPPO SALUSTRI Associate Professor $104,960.20
JUDITH SANDYS Associate Professor $129,765.00
ELAINE SANTA MINA Associate Professor $168,742.45
MARCUS SANTOS Associate Professor $112,257.92
NAJAM SAQIB Assistant Professor $126,216.56
PHILIP SCHALM Program Director $104,700.81
KENDRA SCHANK SMITH Chair, Arch. Sci. & Land Arch $125,928.88
DAVID SCHLANGER Professor $148,421.88
PERRY SCHNEIDERMAN Chair, Theatre School $132,007.46
DIANE SCHULMAN Director, Secretary of Senate $127,517.05
RKENNEDY SCULLION Associate Registrar, Enrollment Services & Student Records $136,007.29
ALAN SEARS Associate Professor $115,785.72
REZA SEDAGHAT Assistant Professor $102,628.56
SEAN SEDLEZKY Manager, Program Design $104,464.31
DEBAPRIYA SEN Assistant Professor $101,718.88
KHALED SENNAH Professor $129,134.10
BHARAT SHAH Professor $133,496.60
ABHAY SHARMA Chair, Graphic Communication Management $133,360.12
MARION SHARP Assistant Manager, Human Resources Business Systems $109,001.96
ALAN SHEPARD Provost/Vice President, Academic $279,707.66
JOHN SHIELDS Professor $133,455.72
ANITA SHILTON Dean $197,130.27
FARID SHIRAZI Faculty $105,158.80
SOURAYA SIDANI Professor $158,047.44
MYER SIEMIATYCKI Professor $139,537.64
SUSAN SILVER Associate Professor $115,435.68
EDWARD SLOPEK Associate Professor $110,507.49
TIMOTHY SLY Professor $125,053.20
CLAUDETTE SMITH Program Director $148,619.05
DONNA SMITH Professor $121,465.60
JOYCE SMITH Associate Professor $105,005.74
PATRICIA SNIDERMAN Professor $136,913.37
JOHN SNYDER Chair, Image Arts $140,730.44
BARBARA SOUTAR Assistant Registrar $127,953.65
MIKHAIL SOUTCHANSKI Assistant Professor $102,124.23
KAREN SPALDING Associate Professor $106,988.89
JOSEPH SPRINGER Professor $125,938.60
RONALD STAGG Professor $133,824.88
PAUL STENTON Vice Provost, University Planning $199,383.07
MARY STEWART Professor $119,187.40
SHELAGH STEWART Professor $130,201.68
PETER STRAHLENDORF Associate Professor $183,157.28
CAROL STUART Associate Professor $111,529.12
PAMELA SUGIMAN Professor $117,121.52
STEPHEN SWALES Assistant Professor $114,226.12
BETH SWART Professor $187,088.64
DARIA SYDOR Chair, Accounting $181,993.10
JIM TAM Associate Professor $111,353.24
DONALD TAVARES Professor $126,912.96
DEIRDRE TAYLOR Professor $138,759.31
ERIC TERRY Associate Professor $122,321.24
KOKCHU DONAL THAM Professor $128,696.60
NEIL THOMLINSON Chair, Politics/Public Admin $111,710.92
JAMES TIESSEN Associate Professor $135,982.52
BOZENA TODOROW Assistant Professor $158,479.67
ELIZABETH TROTT Professor $123,416.58
MONIQUE TSCHOFEN Associate Professor $104,220.00
DAVID TUCKER Chair, Radio & Television Arts $113,519.76
KILEEN TUCKER SCOTT Director $164,283.58
SANDRA TULLIO-POW Associate Professor $102,725.08
GINETTE TURCOTTE Professor $122,746.80
OZGUR TURETKEN Associate Professor $116,415.11
JOHN TURTLE Associate Professor $110,572.62
HOLLIDAY TYSON Program Manager $117,073.24
VAPPU TYYSKA Associate Professor $111,392.90
SIMANT RANJA UPRETI Associate Professor $104,994.13
MANDANA VAHABI Associate Professor $104,086.72
DAVE VALLIERE Chair, Entrepreneurship $128,165.31
AHMAD VARVANI-FARAHANI Associate Professor $104,191.68
ANASTASIOS VENETSANOPOULOS Vice President, Research & Innovation $303,330.14
BALASUBRAMAN VENKATESH Associate Professor $101,128.32
ROSEMARIE VOLPE Counsellor $102,934.68
JANICE WADDELL Associate Dean $129,937.53
RICHARD WADE Professor $133,824.88
CATHERINE WALKER Nursing, Practice/Placement Manager $102,633.39
PAUL WALSH Associate Professor $104,712.64
PHILIP WALSH Associate Professor $114,642.20
J. BRAD WALTERS Director $107,272.48
NANCY WALTON Associate Professor $108,865.53
SHUGUANG WANG Chair, Applied Geography $129,118.00
MOSTAFA WARITH Professor $118,636.92
KERNAGHAN WEBB Associate Professor $122,321.24
BETTINA WEST Assistant Professor $103,035.26
WALLACE WHISTANCE-SMITH Associate Professor $115,120.64
DOUGLAS WHITE Professor $128,942.60
PETER WILSON Instructor $103,356.54
ROBERT WILSON Professor $127,704.88
SHARON WILSON Professor $153,306.63
SUSANNAH WILSON Professor $127,699.24
DANUTA WINIARZ Senior Manager, Budgets $122,134.12
MARGERY WINKLER Professor $118,507.24
JANICE WINTON Executive Director, Financial Services $196,424.93
DENISE WOIT Professor $117,810.79
GIDEON WOLFAARDT Associate Professor $130,246.48
NEIL WOLFF Associate Dean $147,706.12
SIU-MAN WONG Manager Projects $103,915.72
KEN WOO Assistant Director, Communications Support $130,574.42
KATHRYN WOODCOCK Associate Professor $107,761.40
ISAAC WOUNGANG Assistant Professor $110,527.45
ROBERT WRIGHT Professor $123,654.78
BIN WU Professor $161,667.78
JIANGNING WU Associate Professor $123,046.92
R. STEPHEN WYLIE Associate Professor $104,290.68
FENGFENG XI Professor $121,641.48
MARGARET YAP Assistant Professor $112,149.04
MAURICE YEATES Dean $175,990.86
JUNE YEE Associate Professor $122,539.24
JEFFREY YOKOTA Associate Professor $120,867.20
SHUDONG YU Associate Professor $111,928.41
FEI YUAN Professor $117,194.89
YVONNE YUAN Associate Professor $113,724.67
AYSE YUCE Chair, Finance $131,587.52
CHARLES ZAMARIA Professor $121,600.24
MARGARETH ZANCHETTA Associate Professor $104,412.20
DONNA ZATHY Instructor $105,961.14
O. MEHMET ZEYTINOGLU Professor $156,431.20
LIAN ZHAO Associate Professor $110,130.10
SAEED ZOLFAGHARI Associate Professor $130,872.38
BARUCH ZONE Assistant Professor $110,072.32
MALGORZATA ZYWNO Professor $127,849.72
Poor to pay more under McGuinty’s HST
January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment
Rich people and corporations get a break
Graeme Z. Johnson
In short, unless you are wealthy, or happen to be a large business, the HST will be bad for you.
The McGuinty Liberals claim that the HST, along with other proposed corporate tax cuts, will make Ontario more competitive in attracting business and investment. The bill, if passed, would cut corporate tax rates from 14 to 12 per cent, with the eventual goal of dropping rates to 10 per cent.
At the same time, with the introduction of the 13 per cent HST, the prices of many products that had previously been exempt from PST would jump by eight per cent. This means that much of the money previously collected from big business would now be taken from individual consumers.
Not all consumers will be affected in the same way, however. Because sales tax is a form of regressive taxation, the proportion of overall income that is paid by low-income people is much higher than that paid by those with higher incomes.
Some of the greatest increases will be seen in basic living expenses such as electricity, natural gas, propane, home heating fuel, gasoline and telephone services – making this a tax grab that is almost impossible to avoid, and further restricting the already tight budgets of middle- and working-class people as well as the unemployed. Indigenous people, according to Statistics Canada, are 12.4 per cent more likely to be unemployed than non-Aboriginal people, and are also more frequently in the lowest income brackets, which makes it hard not to see harmonization as discriminatory tax reform.
There are some exceptions, however. Many people hoping to own their own home in the near future will be pleased to know that the purchase of new homes will be exempt from HST – that is, as long as that home costs more than $500,000.
As if that was not enough, many Aboriginal leaders consider the HST to violate Indigenous groups’ treaty rights to tax exemption. According to Stan Beardy, Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), “for the people of Nishnawbe Aski, the right to tax exemption is based on the spirit, intent and letter of Treaties 5 and 9 which are protected by Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 … [t]here is no doubt that an unmodified HST would be seen as a new tax in violation of this NAN Treaty right.”
Under the current taxation system, First Nations people receive a point-of-sale exemption from PST upon presentation of a status card. With the introduction of a single, blended tax, to receive exemption, goods will either have to be purchased on reserve or delivered to a reserve.
Increases in the cost of home heating fuel and propane will also unfairly target residents of rural Northern communities, of whom a disproportionate number are Indigenous. Additionally, higher gasoline costs could significantly restrict the mobility of rural dwellers who must travel longer distances to work or school and most likely do not have access to public transport.
The BC government, which also plans to introduce its own version of the HST, claims that it will actually reduce consumer costs since “[u]nder the current system, taxes are paid at every step in production and passed on to consumers.” Any lowering of consumer prices, therefore, would only be created through voluntary price reductions by producers, manufacturers and retailers. Although it would be nice to believe that companies would pass these savings on, a brief look at the pricing practices of oil producers over the past decade should explode any illusions of corporate generosity.
In order to win over the public to this obvious corporate handout, the McGuinty government has proposed a one-time, $1,000 rebate to lower-income people and families which, according to TD Economics, would not even cover the increases consumers would see in the first year, estimating that the HST could cost individuals up to $2,000 more than the current sales tax.
So, if you happen to be a large corporation, or the type of person who can afford to purchase a house worth over half a million dollars, then the HST will be great for you.
For anyone else, you might want to consider contacting your local MPP.
Tell your MPPs you oppose McGuinty’s HST. Find them online.
Who do you believe?
January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment
Tories and Generals, or Malalai Joya, Afghan MP?
Shawn Whitney
WELL, IT SEEMS that the Tories have recognized that their own ship of lies is sinking like the Edmund Fitzgerald. They spent the better part of the week attacking Richard Colvin. Then they set the attack dog generals on them, including master pitbull, General Rick Hillier. They all denied that anyone knew anything about anything - which makes one wonder what qualifies them to lead anything more complicated than a lemonade stand.
Well, now the Tories have changed their tune alright. Now they knew right from the very start something was amiss. Huh? Were they just testing us all week? Feeding us the big lie to see how gullible we are, and then, when they can hold a straight face no longer, they shout: “psych!”?
Somebody should have told their generals that this was the plan, because their story was still the old one, right up till the last minute. Then, suddenly, whooomp, everything was different. As Defense Minister, Peter MacKay put it: “Obviously there were concerns about the state of prisons,” he said. “There were concerns about allegations. There were concerns about information found in reports. There were concerns.”
I also have concerns about Peter MacKay, but they are a little different than his concerns. I’m concerned that he’s going to give himself whiplash.
Perhaps he read or listened to the CBC interview with Malalai Joya, the former Afghan MP - thrown out of the Afghan Parliament for raising embarrassing questions about the human rights records of our “democratic allies.” On November 19, Joya stated unequivocally that this was not news to people living in Afghanistan:
“What [Colvin] has been saying is what I’ve heard from my people,” she said. “Many of the victims are women and children detainees who have been raped,” she said. “It’s not new for our people.”
What is clear is that were it not for pressure from people outside of the Tory government, with their paranoia, they would have hidden everything forever. The only real concerns that MacKay and his ilk had was that it would get out that what we were (and are) creating in Afghanistan is a corrupt torture regime. The key difference between them and the Taliban is that the former are willing to do our bidding almost without question. In return for obedience, we’ll let them torture whoever they want.
This article originally appeared on RedBedHead, a blog by Toronto artist and activist Shawn Whitney, on November 28, 2009.
Kick the Tories while they’re down
January 7, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment
Shawn Whitney
PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN Harper has had a remarkably easy ride over the past two minority governments. He’s been incompetent on the economy and undermined the population’s faith in their H1N1 plans. He’s been mean-spirited and taken every opportunity to attack the arts, Muslims, the unemployed, et cetera. He’s lied, broken promises, had a government that has gone against the sentiment of the vast majority of Canadians on the war in Afghanistan and climate change. He had Maxime Bernier as Foreign Affairs Minister, the incompetent dolt who leaves classified government documents at his girlfriend’s house, and Rona Ambrose as Environment Minister, though she had no knowledge or qualifications for the job.
How does he survive? It’s not anything to do with his ability to keep his people under control. This is a useful myth. If anything, the Stalinist-like paranoia of this government should itself be an easy target for the opposition parties and media. Nor is it about his particularly skillful ability to spin the government’s message in a way that connects with people. He’s just not personable.
No, it’s the result of a politically weak opposition in parliament.
I’ll admit that I’m not one of those people who thinks that the NDP should link up with the Liberals to unite “progressives.” I think for the NDP, trying to differentiate themselves would be a disaster. And it would be counter-productive to the needs of the vast majority of the population.
The Liberals are a party of business, like the Tories, though they are, in their language, more pragmatic, consensus-builders, etc. than the latter. But we shouldn’t forget that it was the Liberals that sent our troops to Afghanistan. And it was the Liberals, under Chrétien and Martin who slashed social spending to eliminate a deficit created in no small part by cuts to taxes for corporations and the wealthy under Tory Brian Mulroney. And, of course, the leader of the Liberals is notorious for having supported torture by the US government to gain information from “suspected terrorists.”
However, this perfect storm of timidity and political consensus - disguised behind occasional bouts of oppositional fervour over silly technical side-issues (like Bernier’s forgetting his briefcase) – couldn’t last forever. Sooner or later, they would be hoisted on their own petard – just as with enough manure and rain, something eventually must sprout.
The prisoner scandal appears to be that thing. Even with lickspittle, Tory-toad columnists Rosie DiManno and Christie Blatchford working overtime to justify every inhumanity the Tories and their military enforcers implement, the Opposition has finally found something that they can nail the Tories on. And the Tories’ attempt to smear a man of obvious ability, commitment and honour, has blown up in their faces. They are now fighting a rearguard action to try and prevent a public inquiry on the prisoner torture issue. They have clearly lost the initiative and everything they now do simply looks like cover-up and back-pedaling.
This breach in the Tory fortress and sense of purpose and momentum by the Opposition - with the Liberals having to hide Ignatieff to be able to take advantage of this opportunity - could help to reinvigorate not only the anti-war movement, but also other broadly anti-Tory forces across the country. This moment won’t last forever – that’s for certain. And the Opposition has demonstrated an uncanny ability to discover ways of missing any opportunity that comes their way. The social movements, the union movement in particular, need to be taking this opportunity to put the boot in to the Tories - over EI, social spending, Afghanistan, Omar Khadr, climate change and more.
If we miss this chance, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for several more years of Tory government, including the possibility of a majority next time around. And that is a possibility just too depressing to consider.
This article originally appeared on RedBedHead, a blog by Toronto artist and activist Shawn Whitney, on December 1, 2009.
Commerce Society denies access to AGM
January 3, 2010 by admin · Leave a Comment
David Thurton
The Ryerson Free Press was denied access to the Ryerson Commerce Society’s Semi- Annual General meeting.
The meeting held in the business building in November allows business students who fall under the society, to vote and approve measures.
Two days before the meeting the Ryerson Free Press e-mailed the commerce society asking for permission to attend the meeting.
The society’s president Naeem Hassen replied saying that the RCS didn’t have enough room to accommodate the RFP.
The RFP sent another e-mail to Hassen. But the president didn’t respond.
Another e-mail was sent to the RCS’s president saying: “As the newspaper that is in part funded by student fees from students in the faculty of business, it is of great interest for our readers that the Ryerson Free Press report on the various motions that are going to be debated at your meeting.”
Hassen said no again. However this time he said:
“We will not be providing press passes at the SAGM. It will be closed for membership purposes only.”
The Ryerson Free Press still went to the meeting. However, this newspaper was greeted at the door by the commerce society’s general manager Abdul Snobar.
Snobar said that the meeting was for commerce society members only. He said that the RFP did not represent business students and as a result were not allowed entrance. He also said that the RFP was funded by the Continuing Education Students’ Association of Ryerson and not the commerce society.
However, the Eyeopener was still allowed to attend the meeting, despite different funding sources and the commerce society’s claim that they were not issuing press.
Outside the meeting sat the RFP. Many other business students sat outside too typing on their laptops and bible sized text books opened on their laps.
“You have to provide your employees with the power to make decision,” said a hospitality student holding cue cards as he rehearsed a presentation that was due in the next few minutes.
Students. All busy. All concerned about mid-terms, final projects and not concerned or aware that the organization that represents them and they fund was holding an important meeting.
“I don’t know. What’s (RCS) it about,” said one business student who refused to give her name.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment
MAYBE
Sachin Seth
President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Some are ecstatic, some are confused and some are overcome with anger.
I thought it was an odd decision. Especially given the other nominees which include the Cluster Munition Coalition, a group that strives to clean up cluster bombs and decrease accidental civilian war deaths and Dr. Denis Mukwege, an inspired young Congolese physician who opened a hospital to treat female victims of sexual abuse.
Inspiring, to say the least. Deserving candidates, no doubt.
And then there’s the victor, Barack Obama. A Harvard law school graduate, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor, junior senator and president of the most “powerful” country in the world. A stunning resume, but where are the accomplishments? The peace work, the advocacy, the results?
That’s what so many are asking. What so many are wondering. And while I, a supporter of Obama, do not think he deserved the award based solely on his accomplishments to date, I do believe the award was given for a reason, and a just, sane reason at that.
Now hear me out. Obama won the prize not just for what he has achieved in less than 10 months (which is quite a bit if you look at it with an open mind) but for how he changed the game and reshaped the face of a nation so hated and demonized for so many years. For the potential of peace on a plethora of fronts.
Obama is in the process of sewing together the gaping wound that is America’s international reputation; not an easy feat. It’s something that no other modern Democratic or Republican candidate could do in two terms, let alone a quarter of one.
The fact that the Norway-based committee stressed it made the prize decision based on Obama’s efforts to date was a little strange. I don’t really believe that to be the case, nor does anyone else, even the hardest and strongest Obama supporters. Obama doesn’t believe it either, rightfully so.
Strengthening the international reputation of the most “powerful”nation in the world contributes to peace in many ways. His efforts toward nuclear disarmament are commendable. His decision to end the missile-defence system in Poland led to strengthened ties with Russia, a nuclear powerhouse. His administration has striven for peace with India, another nuclear nation.
His efforts to strengthen relationships and mend ties between Americans and Muslims was politically risky, but so right and groundbreaking morally.
His confusion on Afghanistan is warranted, no one knows what the hell is needed there, and the answer given (”more troops”) isn’t a surprising one. But he’s taking his time and not rushing.
Some view him as the “do-nothing” president or the president of “inaction.” I view him thoughtful and rational, and I’d rather he take weeks to decide the fate of thousands of
American soldiers than make a quick decision (like the last guy) and put so many soldiers in harm’s way just because of political pressure from both sides of the spectrum, without thinking it through and weighing the options. That’s called reasoning.
His no-nonsense discussions with Iran, without preconditions, a proposition he was so ridiculed for during his campaign, showed the world he is committed to nuclear disarmament and a more peaceful Mid-East.
His speech in Cairo, though predictable, reaffirmed that idea. His quoting the Qu’ran was a great way to connect with an overwhelmingly large global group so alienated by American ideological extremists.
We elected him for that reason. Because he’s intelligent, thoughtful, peaceful, multi-racial and ambitious. It’s been less than a year. How many ambitions are achieved in 10 months? None. But the path to realizing those ambitions has been laid.
Oz
Let me make it a bit clearer by using a crude but wonderfully applicable analogy.
Think of Obama as Dorothy and his path to peace as the yellow brick road. When Obama crash landed in the White House after a whirlwind electoral campaign, he was curious, ambitious, excited and ready to overhaul the system. Soon he realized that that’s not possible, at least not as quick as he thought. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people to please and political and social hurdles to vault.
Just as the Afghanistan war became more brutal and a reassessing of the plan was needed (just as Dorothy tried to find out from the munchkins how she could get back to Kansas), Obama was given hope, something he’d given, in abundance, to millions around the world.
The Peace Prize committee are the munchkins, they are Glinda (the good witch). They gave Obama direction, thanked him for his bravery and pushed him, inspired him (as he inspired us) to continue his work. To keep on going. After all, he doesn’t want to be the guy who won the prize and did nothing to deserve it. And no, he’s not already that guy.
There will be obstacles (the wicked witch, the fake Wizard of Oz) however Obama/Dorothy prevail in the end, defeating the evils that stand in their ways. Yes you can think he was awarded prematurely, but only if you view the award as something given only for hard results.
More results will come, the award is faith in that.
In fact, the award was also given because he’s changed the world’s mood. He’s made global citizens happier and more tolerant in times of economic uncertainty, global racially charged fear, terrorism and war.
However there are many who wonder if Obama’s ego has been so inflated that he believes himself the saviour of America and the world.
But to those of you who ask that, I ask why is he so “humbled” by the award? Why is it the man, the president, started off his acceptance and justification speech by talking about his two children? Yes, he has speech writers, but only he heard what his kids said that morning. And he remembered.
Yes Obama is a little egotistical, he is, after all, the president. But don’t forget, we gave him that ego (see: road to ‘08 election).
Finally, for those who believe Obama didn’t deserve this prize, you hold a valid view. I too believe Dr. Mukwege or the Cluster Munition Coalition deserve an award of recognition for peace work.
My argument is that Obama’s victory isn’t unwarranted or undeserving. His accomplishments to date are impressive, his future is full of possibilities and the peace prize was awarded to him by a panel “instructed to encourage international co-operation, arms reduction and acts of engagement” for his initiative and to ensure he keeps working towards his, and our, ultimate goal.
Peace.
Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment
YES
Sara Torvik
Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu…and Barack Obama: even though you may be thinking “one of these things is not like the other,” all the names on this list have one thing in common. All are Nobel Peace Prize winners.
There is no doubt that US President Barack Obama is a very well-liked and respected man, both in America and around the world, but news that he was named the latest recipient of the prize threw a lot of people for a loop. The general consensus seemed to be that this was all way too soon and that Obama hadn’t really done anything this early in his presidency to deserve such a great honour.
But is that really true?
If I had to be honest, and go against the grain, I’m not really sure that I agree with the “he-hasn’t-done-anything-to-deserve-it” commentary. There is now so much more communication, multilateralism and sincere effort coming from the White House than when George Bush was president that all the comments about Obama not doing anything yet don’t really make sense. Heck, it wasn’t just America that was celebrating when he won the election last November. There seemed to be a global party around the world when that happened, and it doesn’t seem as if there are as many people willing to admit that they dislike America ever since Obama came into office. That’s a step in the right direction, if you ask me.
To add to it, the Nobel Committee has also specifically cited Obama’s denuclearization effort, which is pretty huge. I am well aware that Obama is probably not going to save the world and that the United States is still in the midst of two wars but I have to appreciate his trying: a) not to antagonize the entire planet and b) to encourage countries to put down the nukes, his included.
Now that he has the Nobel Prize in his hands hopefully that will inspire him to keep doing things that are good for America and the rest of the world over the course of his presidency instead of getting lazy or apathetic later on.
According to the Associated Press, there are many misconceptions about the Nobel Prize, including the idea that it is always awarded to people who have made successful efforts for peace, human rights and democracy. More often than not, according to the website, the prize is awarded to “encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.”
Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing when they gave it to President Obama.
Do you think Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? Let us know what you think. Email opinions@ryersonfreepress.ca.
Students need solidarity, not sabotage
December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment
Johan Boyden
The thirteen defederation campaigns against the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) have become a topic of debate beyond the politics pages of the English-speaking Canadian campus press.
From my outlook, this confirms that students are correct to be vigilant against the recent dangerous anti-student developments on campuses.
Those developments have included the attacks on academic freedom and free speech against Palestinian solidarity activists, the heavy-handed approach of many university top administrators to student demonstrations, and the exposure of cross-Canada training workshops with sitting MPs – “how-to” sessions on uniting disparate folks from Zionists and anti-abortion activists against local student unions, Public Interest Research Groups, and the CFS. This, and such things as MP Peter Kent’s interference in the students’ union elections at York University, are a marked escalation of Conservative party anti-student tactics (from mainly offering a secret slush-fund to right-wingers seeking election).
But now the signers of a well-circulated letter (“From the left to the Canadian Federation of Students,” which includes some well-respected activists with integrity) assert that the right is not alone in its disstatisfaction with the CFS. Postings on the anti-student Maclean’s blog also claim it’s the right with some on so-called “left.”
Let’s put aside the fact for a moment that their rallying call – destroying the CFS is more democratic than its continued existence – is as strikingly wrong-headed and ideologically narrow as their strategic evaluation that, to win a stronger student movement, “left” students should unite with forces representing, beneath the astro-turf camouflage, big business’ interests. This discussion will have a lasting impact on the character of the student movement in Canada. It is not idle talk.
Regardless of who is organizing these campaigns, right-wing governments have much to gain by effectively silencing the students; the most organized voice of the youth who are always a dynamic part of any resistance. Working communities are wrestling with an economic wrecking ball, as the recession continues to destroy jobs and families; and we’re footing a billion-dollar bill for an imperialist war in Afghanistan.
That’s why the most favourable scenario in the context of these defederation campaigns is that they fail, amounting to a huge waste of time that took students away from vital campaigning. The worst case is that students and all the people’s movements become much more vulnerable to attack from the right. In fact, the way forward lies in placing greater emphasis on mobilization and resistance rather than just communications strategies and lobbying – exactly what countless genuine CFS grassroots militants across the country are actually debating and engaging in, with campaigns like Drop Fees.
It is helpful to reflect on the history of struggle for student unity across Canada. Campaigns for greater access to quality, democratic, public post-secondary education, afterall, began well before the elite gilded doors were finally burst open by a post-war influx of veterans (fresh with the memories of Great Depression era-struggles for accessibility of health care, education, unemployment insurance and other social programmes, and united formations of students like the Canadian Youth Congress).
Working people need education like we need medicine. It is life. It connects us with our ancestors. It preserves our traditions of struggle, our achievements. It defines what and who we are. These demands temporarily corresponded with corporations that required an educated workforce in the 1960s, with a state-funded mass infrastructure expansion of schools, relatively cheap or even zero tuition fees, grants, and expansion of French-language post-secondary education to include scientific and technical training.
To many it appeared that, through struggle, Canada too might obtain the UN Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ important goal: that post-secondary be free in countries which can afford it, by then the case in most European states and almost all socialist countries like the USSR, many of them poorer than Canada. In 1976 Canada signed a UN covenant promising to gradually introduce free education at all levels.
The subsequent neoliberal assault on post-secondary education, however, viciously eroded earmarked federal post-secondary funding, forcing working families to pay for post-secondary through savings and wages, not corporate taxes, and facilitating the plunder of education for corporate profits. But as a recent letter from progressive students in defence of the Federation has noted, the urgent necessity of a federal role in post-secondary has never changed. Rejecting the narrow and flawed framework of Canada’s Constitution (which places education as a provincial matter) students have long fought for a federal-level movement that reflects the multi-national reality of the Canadian state.
Inseparably intertwined in that fight was unity with fellow youth and progressive forces in Canada and around the world (often expressed through the International Union of Students). As Manitoba student activist Brian Latour has commented, “when you are a large civil society organization like a student union or a labour union, solidarity and coalition building is not something you maybe get around to at some point when everything is peachy, it is something that you make time for.”
This unity of the students and their allies was won through countless skirmishes and trench warfare in the battle of ideas over the place and future of education in society. The students were not only poorly equiped, with uneven and limited access to even the basic tools of campaigning like resources for research, publication, education, mobilization, and coordination; they also faced an orchestrated campaign of surveillance, even infiltration by political police in the form of the RCMP and, much later, the CSIS.
The shameful complicity of top university administrators, right-wing students and their various organizations (fraternities, campus conservative associations, etc), government and Big Business against the students is well documented. The ruling class and their political parties have even colluded with the ultra-left in trying to divert the efforts of students into limited service delivery and impotent strategies and tactics. But that is not the basis from which student unity flows. The basis lies in students need. The fight for student’s rights is therefore the fundamental purpose of any students’ union.
Thus we see the story of the students’ movement – sometimes misguided, occasionally tragically so, but also brave and noble: the development and then painful demise of the Canadian Union of Students in 1969; the emergence of a militant left pole in the Quebec students movement (ANEQ); re-grouping of the English-Canadian student movement during the 1970s with the National Union of Students later re-named the Canadian Federation of Students in 1981; the deliberate splitting of the left pole in Quebec (producing today’s ASSÉ and the Federations); the deliberate splitting of the CFS during its courageous campaigns of the 1990s (forming the reactionary Canadian Alliance of Student Associations); the magnificent united fights of the Quebec students in 2005.
If there were not progressive central student organizations, we would have to create them.
Certainly criticism can be made of the CFS – it is not all sorts of blemishes and defects. There are real problems, so let’s get to work to solve them. The desire for unity amongst people’s movements is not accidental, nor can it be permanently extinguished. Because of our common interests against Big Business, this desire constantly finds renewed expression and depth, even in the face of major setbacks.
As others have noted, those claiming the Federation can’t be reformed and must be destroyed have to face the objective necessity for students to have a cross-Canada organization to advance their rights to more accessible, quality and democratic education, student aid, housing, affordable transit, well paid and meaningful work, healthcare, peace, and many other causes. Indeed, apart from organization, what other power do students have?
And that’s a damn good reason for keeping and strengthening the Canadian Federation of Students – not only for our generation but generations to come.
Unholy Alliance?
December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment
Conservatives and ultra-leftists unite against CFS
Brian Latour
Recently, there has been much hullabaloo about the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) in the student media, as well among the usual suspects over at Maclean’s (here’s hoping the National Post somehow takes Maclean’s down with it). It’s mostly the usual stuff regarding disaffiliation campaigns, but with a twist this time. The interesting thing is that it doesn’t seem like it is just Tiny Tories anymore. A website titled “Dear CFS” appears to be run by a section of the Montreal radical left which is opposed to the CFS and actively working for disaffiliation campaigns. Signatoried to the letter include Yves Engler, author of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. As someone who identifies as an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist if you want to get picky) and proudly carries my red card, yet is also active in my CFS-affiliated student union (to the point where I sometimes catch myself referring to it as “Local 103”).
First, the CFS is far from perfect. Student union bureaucrats, especially at universities which have an active right, a history of right-wing governance, or a hostile student media, often fear conflict which could threaten the prospects of the re-election of a “progressive” slate and the self-preservation of any sort of official progressive politics at a university. They think that everyone is out to get them and to some extent they are right, as evidenced by the exposure of Tiny Tory plots over the years. However, this understandable paranoia can cause sections of the bureaucracy to start to become insular and bureaucratic, which results in some of the issues that we see in our student unions.
Also, despite what it says on my hoodie, there is a difference between the CFS and a student movement. The CFS is a bureaucratic (meant without any negative connotations) mass membership organization, somewhat analogous to labour unions, with elected positions, an office, a big (by activist standards) budget, and a lobbying machine. While a student movement, where one has any presence, is a grassroots movement of students organizing in their spare time with every student an organizer. And as we all can figure out, a bureaucracy detached from a movement inevitably results in all sorts of issues. And perhaps the praxis of the CFS does need a lot of work. This is an organization that needs more organization at the bottom and to move a little from the liberal politics of awareness to the radical politics of disruption and fucking shit up.
All that said, there are things in this supposedly left critique which ignore a number of progressive CFS-led initiatives.
From “Drop Fees” to “No Means No” to “Target Poverty,” it seems as though rather than hijacking campaigns, the CFS is at the forefront of creating and pushing campaigns. I don’t think the CFS attracts bad press to external campaigns it signs on to, if anything, it grants them a bit of legitimacy, resources and muscle, and may generate some positive publicity or an increase in support for the issues on campus. In Manitoba, instead of attempting to co-opt social justice organizing, the CFS and local student unions are the only mass membership organizations really making an effort to mobilize their members or even lend some bureaucratic support for any sort of campaign these days. This might be different over in Montreal, but in my experience, I have seen the CFS take part in campaigns, but I have never seen them attempt to co-opt them.
As for CFS-Services, I don’t see any problem with student-run services, especially under the model they have with CFS-Services as a legally separate branch of the CFS. In fact, I would say that students do benefit from some of these services, especially bulk buying and economies of scale. Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, all of the t-shirts ordered by the CFS or by individual student unions through their bulk buying programs are made by a worker co-op of single mothers in El Salvador – hardly the corporate behemoth that CFS-Services is portrayed as.
Surprisingly. part of the left critique coming out of Montreal is based on the argument that the CFS should stayf out of solidarity campaigns, and focus on “student issues.” This is more offten a common refrain of the right.
Why should this be “deeply problematic”? First off, there are more to “student issues” than just the ones which are seen as directly affecting students. Attacks on students are just one part of something bigger, capital’s global known as neoliberalism. We should be building coalitions and working in solidarity with people opposing an incredibly brutal intensification of the capitalist system around the world, not dismissing it as “unrepresentative.” The CFS is a civil society organization and a democratic organization of students. Why should it be prevented from taking stances on issues?
Also, copyright is a “student issue” (did I mention I hate this dichotomy of student issues and non-student issues?). We often come across it in our research, and the commodification of knowledge and culture has deep implications for any student doing any sort of research.
Furthermore, the CFS represents a broad cross-section of society – women, LGBT students, students of colour, Aboriginal students, and international students from nations oppressed by global imperialism. It seems a little privileged to argue that the CFS, as their representative, should completely ignore their issues and refuse to take positions in support of their rights, especially given what myself and others have seen about the racist nature of our university.
It also seems awkward to complain about the CFS taking stances on issues such as gender when above the authors are complaining that “While quick to pay lip service to marginalized and disenfranchised communities, evidence of actual progress is hardly forthcoming.” The authors decry the CFS for not making progress, then complain about the CFS taking stands on these issues. Do they want this acutal progress or not?
It is also absurd to claim that it is inapproprate to claim that the CFS is adopting campaigns such as Palestinian solidarity. I wish the national CFS, my provincial wing, or my local student union did, but they don’t (I wrote about this issue a few months ago). Also, CUPE Ontario and CUPW have voted to endorse the BDS movement against Israel – would it be logically consistent for these activists to also call for a decertification of these unions on that basis? Are they opposed to CUPE Ontario and CUPW’s endorsement of the BDS movement as well? Also, as someone who has a bit of experience in the Palestinian solidarity movement, I was under the impression that one of the goals of the BDS movement was to get large organizations to sign on and use their political and economic clout to end apartheid in Israel. It seems absurd to me that any Palestinian solidarity activist would oppose a civil society organization representing hundreds of thousands of students signing on to a BDS campaign. If anything, this only advances the cause and should make genuine Palestinian solidarity activists happy.
Finally, to address the notion that these “matters of urgent importance to all students” are going untouched, that is flat out wrong. It is the absolute height of absurdity to claim that the tuition issue has gone untouched when it is pretty much the biggest thing the CFS has done last year, and the CFS has been routinely and unfairly criticized for focusing too much on tuition. Has the writer of this document ever seen this?
Some people may say that any “other” issues should be ignored until such time as the CFS has won on all the “core student issues,” but when you are a large civil society organization like a student union or a labour union, solidarity and coalition-building is not something you maybe get around to at some point when everything is peachy, it is something that you make time for. If we all decided to stop doing solidarity work until we’ve sorted out our own issues, no solidarity work would ever get done.
All in all, the CFS is far from perfect and I am sympathetic to genuine left critiques of the organization. And I am very intrigued by radical student federations such as ASSÉ in Quebec. But all that aside, I think we’re better off with the CFS than without. If you’re going to convince me that opposition to the CFS is a left position, you’re going to need a lot more than recycled Tiny Tory talking points and a rejection of any sort of solidarity campaigns.
This is an edited version of an article that was originally posted on the Canadian Dimension blog.
Health care in the Great White North
December 3, 2009 by admin · Leave a Comment
As Americans debate the merits of nationalized health care, Norman Otis Richmond reflects on our own system in Canada.
Before coming to Canada in 1967, I honestly knew of only two Canadians: Harry Jerome and Norman Bethune.
Jerome was an African-born in Canada and a world-class sprinter who competed in the 1960, 1964 and 1968 Olympics. One of my schoolmates from Fremont High School in Los Angeles, Richard Stebbins, competed against Jerome in the 1964 Olympics. At one time in my arrested development, I even believed Jerome was the only Black person in the Great White North.
I knew about Bethune because Chairman Mao Zedong mentioned him in The Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong. I must confess many of my neighbours in South Central Los Angeles were aware of Mao, Zhou Enlai and Zhu De and other leaders of the 1949 Chinese Revolution.
Bethune (March 3, 1890-November 12, 1939) was a Euro-Canadian doctor in the 1930s who was a pioneer in socialized health care. He also worked in Spain and China to support the struggles against fascism in those countries. He was a medical innovator and developed the first mobile blood-transfusion service in Spain in 1936. Many feel that Bethune is as important to health care in Canada as Tommy Douglas, the father of Canada’s health care system.
Born in Gravenhurst, Ontario, Bethune was to the left of Douglas.
“Twenty-five years ago, it was thought contemptible to be called a socialist. Medical reforms, such as limited heath insurance schemes, are not socialized medicine. They are a bastard form of socialism produced by belated humanitarianism out of necessity,” Bethune said at the Symposium on Medical Economics in 1936.
There is a wide body of work both in film and books on the life and times of Bethune. The National Film Board of Canada and Hollywood also have work about him.
Many progressives recommend Ted Allan and Sydney Gordon’s volume, The Scalpel, the Sword: the Story of Doctor Norman Bethune. This work was published in 1952, revised in 1971 and reprinted in 1981. A Canadian film, Bethune: The Making of a Hero, was made in the 1990s.
Adrienne Clarkson, a Chinese-Canadian and former Governor General of Canada from 1999 to 2005, has attempted to repackage Bethune and present him merely as a humanitarian in her new book Extraordinary Canadians Norman Bethune. But Bethune was for the total transformation of Canadian society and the world.
I, along with millions who have had children born in Canada, am in debt to Bethune. My son was born on November 10, 1987. He wasn’t due until March of 1988. I was preparing for a trip to Africa when he was born prematurely. The child weighed in at one pound, nine ounces or 710 grams. He jumped the gun after only 26-and-a-half weeks. He stayed in Women’s College Hospital until April 4, 1988.
The issue of health care is the most burning question in the United States at the moment. President Barack Obama is under attack by the right for his stand on health care. President Obama seems to have taken a single payer’s system off the table in the current debate.
Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of BlackAgendaReport.com, has pointed out: “President Obama seems to have changed his promise from health care to coverage, not care. He’s turned the crusade for health care into a crusade for universal health insurance.”
When President Obama was a senator from Illinois, he spoke forcefully for a single payer system and said it should be a human right. Not so in 2009. President Obama has repeatedly said he is not a socialist. The hard right has repeatedly said that he is a Marxist who follows Karl and not Groucho, Harpo or Chico.
However, socialism’s obituary was prematurely written. Venezuela and other nations have joined Cuba and are opting for what they call “21st century socialism.”
Denzel Washington gave a splendid performance in the film, John Q, which was filmed in Toronto. However, Hollywood did not reward him for his role in this film. Many observers feel that Washington was punished for playing in a film that points out the contradictions in the health care system in the United States. But he was rewarded for portraying a corrupt Los Angeles policeman in Training Day.
The Canadian health care system is clearly more humane than the American system. However, all is not well in the Great White North.
A recent report from Member of Parliament Olivia Chow (New Democratic Party) revealed: “Presently, four million Canadians are unable to find a family doctor and nurses continue to be overburdened… In fact, each patient that is added beyond a nurse’s capacity increases patient mortality by seven per cent, while citizens who are unable to find a general practitioner go undiagnosed and minor illnesses become life-threatening.”
Please let me know what you think. Email me at norman.o.richmond@gmail.com.
