Nursing school sold, Ryerson continues to commodify

This week, Ryerson University announced that it has sold the naming rights of its School of Nursing. The School is Canada’s largest in the field of nursing and is now, officially, the Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing.

Three years ago, Ryerson’s Senate (then Academic Council) and Board of Governors wrestled over how to re-write the University’s Academic Naming Policy. In the end, the policy stipulated that there had to be a vote within the academic unit to approve or deny the proposed name change. Ryerson’s article makes no reference to the percentage of faculty who voted in favour of the name change.

The school will be named after the mother of long-time Board of Governors representative Jack Cockwell, at a cost of $5 million.

Cockwell is a director of the right-wing C.D. Howe Institute, a think-tank and policy research group. It has produced research that promotes marketizing the public school system to allow families “greater choice” for elementary and secondary education through providing tax credits for private schools. It has also used personnel from the American Educational Policy Institute, an organisation that argues for higher tuition fees, to research strategies to properly fund graduate education, that include (unsurprisingly) higher tuition fees.

If market theory were to truly be applied to the post-secondary education system, it would not be the donors who decide on naming of Academic units. Nor would it be a faculty vote, as per Ryerson’s policy. It would be a decision of the 1405.7 students in the School of Nursing who pay well-over $9,931,000 a year in tuition fees. In fact, assuming it takes four years to graduate, these students’ contribution is seven times that of Cockwell’s one-time payout. Nevertheless, students graduating Fall 2008 will have the name of a South African nurse on their degree, only because her son makes a lot of money, and donated a small (likely tax deductible) portion of it.

The absurdity of market forces dictating how our public institutions run is most apparent when colleges and universities sell pieces of their public image, such as their programs’ names. Thanks to people like Cockwell, high tuition fees and ancillary fees are privatizing higher education. If, however, people like Cockwell really wanted to apply free market principles, then they would allow students to decide on the program name that will appear on their degree. They would also consent to more student representation on the Board of Governors and Senate and less criminalizing of student dissent as they pay such a large portion of the university’s operating costs. Strangely, the more students are forced to pay, the more rights they loose. This goes to show that those calling for a market-based approach to higher education, like Cockwell, really don’t know Jack about the system.

Student debt causing doctor shortage?

The National Post recently ran the article “Student debt dictates who enters medical field” which paints a shockingly honest picture of the societal dangers of high-cost post-secondary education programs like medicine.

There is a significant body of research that points to the fact that rising tuition fees are a barrier to participation in post-secondary education. Especially problematic are the once-deregulated fees paid by students in professional programmes, (though this is not to downplay the fact that other students, like international students, are also treated like cash cows via enormous tuition fees[1] [2] or provincial health fees).

Generally, the justification for high tuition fees is that students will make their money back in reams throughout their working careers (false). Applying this logic to the field of medicine however, pushes graduates who are keen to pay off their massive student debts, to choose jobs and work locations based on pay alone.

Medical graduates are not choosing to be family practitioners despite the growing need. They are leaving rural areas and even the country for work rather than providing their much-needed service in smaller towns. To some, this is an outrage—young professional medics who have milked society for its tax dollars to get them through school and then abandoning it for more money in other jurisdictions. But the sad reality is that it was their society, influenced by the baby-boomer generation and out-of-touch politicians who chose funding continuous tax cuts with unsustainable tuition fee increases. Not to mention that this will further the cycle where only the sons daughters of doctors go on to become doctors and lawyers themselves, thereby narrowing the accessibility of the field medicine.

Until Canadian society comes to grips with the fact that funding tuition fee reductions is an important tool in strengthening society, medical professionals will continue to disappear out of desperation to live a life unsaddled by debt.

Other Links
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Mending_Mediare.pdf
http://www.albertadoctors.org/bcm/ama/ama-website.nsf/AllDoc/74866DED8CF4801E87257103005494EF/$File/add_janfeb06.pdf
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/22/brian-day-s-diagnosis-the-president-of-the-canadian-medical-association-explains-how-to-fix-our-health-care-system.aspx

The university-military industrial complex

Jim Prentice must have been a busy man on May 16. The Minister of Industry made two separate announcements for a total of $6 million from Lockheed Martin to fund research at Dalhousie University and the University of New Brunswick. For many of us in Ontario, these announcements flew under the radar.

The funding was part of a deal for 17 C-130J Super Hercules aircraft between the Canadian government and Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin is one of the world’s largest weapons, including nuclear weapons, manufacturers. According to Corpwatch.com, Lockheed’s former vice-president Bruce Jackson chaired the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, a bipartisan group formed to promote George Bush’s plan for war in Iraq.

Universities are public institutions that educate students through public funds. The increasing amount of private money driving research is an issue that academics and students are fighting across Canada. The increasing presence of the military on Canadian campuses is also being resisted by many students, staff and faculty.

It’s interesting that such a deal was hatched when students are not in school. Despite this, students and community members protested this announcement.

The RFP’s next issue will be taking a hard look at Canada’s media and how events are portrayed, whose voice is being heard and which opinions are ignored. Public money funding research at a public institution to further Canada’s contribution to war is a contentious issue. In order for the general public to fully understand how they’re implicated in funding Canada’s war machine, it is critical that the media makes these links. Only then will Canadians have a clear enough vision to form their opinions on Canada’s role in foreign conflict, or occupation.

Maclean’s and its take on democracy

Carsen Jerema is a writer for the conservative virtual rag “Maclean’s On Campus” whose blog is focused “On education and the irrationality of university politics.” In “University Students: Ignorant, Apathetic Dolts?”, he argues that student democracy has never existed and that students’ unions are bastions of élitism. Or something…it’s hard to fully comprehend or absorb this 1100 word rant. But the notion that students’ unions are somehow anti-democratic is factually inaccurate and not fair.

Most students’ unions, by their very nature are anything but anti-democratic—elections every year, annual general meetings open to all members, faculty-based council representation, committees that are open to all members, mechanisms for rank-and-file students to call general meetings and referenda, and a membership base that includes some of the most active and concerned people in the country. Painting all students’ unions with the same anti-democratic brush is as ridiculous as labeling the Canadian University Press (CUP) or any of its member-newspapers, a threat to free speech, because they survive on students’ money and sometimes write self-gratifying articles that few people might read.

Thousands of students regularly look to their students’ union to pick up their health and dental cheques, transit passes, or handbooks (and when mishaps occur, students express their opinions). At the very least, accessing these services suggests that students do participate in their students’ unions. Voter turn-out can always be improved and the responsibility for that rests as much on elected representatives and activists, as it does on student journalists. Student journalists have a responsibility to help inform and engage their readers.

Rather than fueling the neo-conservative onslaught against the unions students have built for themselves, student journalists, bloggers and professional journalists should think about writing less cynical, more constructive editorials. The press should be critical of students’ unions.

Perhaps hope for Jarema’s reform is unrealistic. He’s the same blogger who finished an article on April 18 that says “Call me an elitist but a higher education is not a right, and nor should it be.” As most students know, anyone who writes about post-secondary education with this level of bias and disregard for the complexities of the topic should be disregarded.

Indeed, Maclean’s On Campus helps to reinforce its new raison-d’être: sensationalizing complex issues, calling for the death to the public sector and the long life of a Eurocentric, neo-conservative, neo-liberal Canada.

The Year of the Student Code of Conduct

If college and university presidents had an annual dinner where they honoured the past year by naming it, 2007-08 would most certainly be the year of the Student Code of Conduct.

Of the dozens of stories written about codes of conduct, most have focused on key issues: the rights of students to engage in political discussion; surveillance of students while off school property; and the changing relationship between students and administration to one of policing by conduct officers .

Historically, disciplinary action by the college or university was limited to academic offences. Criminal matters were left to the police. The policing of students by Canadian post-secondary institutions has resulted in attacks on free speech and the criminalization of protest. The preference for discipline over dialog on campuses can be traced back to a 1998 meeting of the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS). The meeting themed “the First National Conference on Student Discipline” was kicked off by a keynote speech by Peggy Patterson, who believed “…student discipline provides us one of the best teaching tools there are.” At the time it may have seemed unlikely that such a conservative model of learning could make a comeback from the days of corporal punishment. Patterson’s legacy lives on, however, through the less conspicuously titled conference “Canadian Conference on Student Judicial Affairs.” It has been held annually ever since.

This past year, Brock , Trent, Ryerson, the University of Ottawa and others have all dealt with issues regarding student codes of conduct. At Ryerson, students employed drawn out negotiations in order to delay the implementation. At the University of Ottawa, this fight is ongoing.

The most recent case of a code being applied to students is at the University of Toronto, where 14 students there were arrested for protesting increasing tuition fees and a 20 percent increase in their housing fees.

At a rally against these actions at the University of Toronto today, one speaker listed off incidents from the past where student occupations won significant gains: childcare on campus and no-sweat university apparel, for example. At these occupations, far more students participated but none faced mass arrests as has recently occurred with the case of the so-called Toronto-14.

It seems that colleges and universities are following in close step with the general trend towards a Canadian surveillance state. More and more, risk-averse administrators prefer to quash debate on campus than allow an empowered student body to grapple with important issues. Nevertheless, when organized and working in solidarity with each other and other campus stakeholders, students will do more than withstand the push to police the student body. They will more likely be the catalyst for important societal changes.

However, it may get worse before it gets better. More institutions are toughening codes of conduct while already high tuition fees continue to outpace inflation by 200 percent. Perhaps we’ll soon see a “First National Conference on Crushing Student Dissent” or, a “Council of Student Conduct Officers”. And we’ll likely see some students point fingers at each other while the reals culprits sit comfortably in their leather chairs far atop the ivory tower. But it seems inevitable that as this relatively sleepy generation of students begins to wake up, realise their collective power and join together, that these student codes of conduct will become as antiquated as the corporal punishment of yesteryear. One thing you can be sure of, either way, we at the Ryerson Free Press promise to continue the important political dialog that our campuses are so keen to quash.

Students to confront environmental problems at upcoming meeting

This weekend hundreds of college and university student representatives will gather to discuss issues such as fair trade mass purchasing programs, campus anti-racism initiatives, indigenous rights and how to protect education as a right in the face of market forces. Among these themes will be also be a debate on how to further students’ role in the environmental movement.

It has been barely a year since the students’ unions that comprise the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) vaulted their organization squarely on to Canada’s environmental scene. Since then, students have concentrated their efforts to contribute to the work of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Polaris Institute, the Sierra Youth Coalition and others.

This move could not have come too soon.

Consider that Canada’s oil sand reserves, which are on par with Venezuela as the largest known supply of crude in the world, just after Saudi Arabia[1], are under increasing pressure to triple their output in the next ten years, despite being one of the “dirtiest” sources of energy on the planet.

Consider that Canada’s fresh water reserves are under increasing pressure from the US cities[2] and private bottled water companies.

If students are going to translate local campaigns such as those designed to curb driving cultureand stopping the commodification of water, they must continue their collective work at the national level.

Other Links:

The Water Front Documentary—Trailer

Official energy statistics from the US government’s e Energy Information Administration—International Petroleum (Oil) Production

Baby boomers need to take responsibility for new graduates’ angst

A recent study out of the University of Alberta[1] shows that students experience depression and angst up to seven years after they graduate from university. While this is a serious issue that should receive more attention, responsibility of this problem should not be laid at the feet of youth and students. For example, the Globe and Mail completely ignores massive student debt and lower wages than their parents, as an obvious source of this depression and frustration.

Instead, Globe author Tralee Pearce points to children returning to their parents’ home as the reason for high levels of depression—as if young people hate their parents that badly. Common sense would suggest that economic factors are the real force sending young graduates home to their parents. As a result of this omission, the Globe’s underlying thesis is that parents must exercise tough love, and evict their “boomerang” kids before depression sets in. Make no mistake, this is generational warfare. Baby Boomers paid a fraction of what students today are forced to pay for an education. It’s unsurprising that unprecedented debt levels might be causing new graduates’ angst.

In addition to the need for more research, the Baby Boomer generation must take responsibility for advocating tax cuts over reducing the costs of post-secondary education. Most importantly, attention needs to be paid to the lower starting salaries, fewer job prospects and high debt levels that recent graduates face. This will be the only way that we can have honest debate on the source of their new graduates’ angst and growing feelings of dispossession.

The most ominous sounding research project goes to…

The University of Guelph, one of Ontario’s pre-eminent destinations for naturalists, announced that it was the recipient of $25 million from China to fund the “International Barcode of Life (iBOL) Project”. Despite the University’s best efforts to tout its importance, this might not broadcast the kind of PR image that the University of Guelph wants to be saddled with.

Newsflash: Campbell didn’t get that big red nose from a clown shop

Community Colleges have a historic niche in Canada’s post-secondary education system. Not only do they help extend the participation of students from geographically diverse regions, but they are a relatively inexpensive alternative to university. Colleges also offer a range of practical training from technical to trades to general arts and science. British Columbia’s rich credit transfer system enhances the usefulness of the college sector by allowing students to chart a route from college into a university program with the minimum number of “wasted credits”, saving students in that province both time and money. Students in other provinces, particularly in Ontario, use the B.C. system to illustrate a transfer credit system that works, which should be the model for reform.

It is with this in mind that people may speculate that Campbell’s sudden move to assign university status to five provincial colleges was made in a similar state of mind as that which got him in trouble in Hawaii.

The Vancouver Sun likens Campbell’s bestowing of university status to Kwantlen, Malaspina, UCFV, Capilano and Emily Carr as “…a clown passing out balloons at a birthday party”, which may “…deflate the brand of B.C.’s highly regarded universities and specialized colleges.”

Meanwhile, to facilitate this metamorphosis, the province is redirecting funding in the opposite direction; transferring $16 million from universities to colleges. Expect a big push to increase tuition fees at B.C.’s newest universities.

Canada’s pitch to international students

On May 7, the Borneo Bulletin Online reported that Canada has unveiled a campaign to attract international students from Brunei. In case you weren’t sure, Brunei is a country located on the north coast of the island of Borneo, in Southeast Asia.

Leopold Battel, Canada’s High Commissioner to Brunei Darussalam, was quoted in the Borneo Bulletin saying, “Everyday, international students turn to Canada as a source of knowledge, innovation and creativity as Canadian universities and colleges offer a wide choice of quality programmes that meet the interest of Asian students, and also because the tuition fees and cost of living in Canada are among the lowest in the world.”

What is Battel measuring Canada against? Australia? New Zealand? The United States? Compared to almost anywhere else in the world, particularly in Europe, where some countries’ tuition fees are zero for domestic students and international students receive full scholarships, Canada’s fees are relatively high for both domestic and international students.

The dirty little secret is that Canada’s apparent benevolence in reaching out to young scholars abroad is that these students and their families are used by our institutions to subsidise our under-funded post-secondary education system. The more international students at an institution, the more money an institution gets.
The Borneo Bulletin Online also refers to Canada’s decision to allow international students to gain employment after graduation easier. The article reported this:
“Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley recently announced that international students can now gain valuable work experience through off-campus employment, resulting in the ability to obtain an open work permit under the post-graduation Work Permit Programme, with no restrictions on the type of employment and no requirement for a job offer. The work permit has been extended to three years across the country and this would provide international students with more opportunities for Canadian work experience and skills development.”
While this is a significant victory for international students in Canada, we should be clear that this is part of international advertising campaigns designed to allow Canada’s colleges and universities to reap the financial benefits of unregulated tuition fees for these students. At most institutions, this can mean three times higher than domestic students.

Apart from the continued fight for lower tuition fees for international students, Ontario students’ unions and the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario are gearing up for another fight for international students’ rights. Students are demanding that international students be moved back onto the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). OHIP covers hospital visits and basic medical care. In 1994, Bob Rae kicked international students off of OHIP and forced them to access a private insurance plan—UHIP.

UHIP can cost as much as $800 per student and doesn’t deliver access to the same quality of care as OHIP. Students are often denied medical care if they cannot pay upfront. If they do pay upfront, they can usually expect to have only 65 percent of their costs covered. Of course, this is not inclusive of the additional health and dental insurance he or she needs to purchase from their students’ union, which can be another cost of $150-$300.

This is the way I see it: OHIP is paid for through taxes. International students pay taxes just like everyone else. In fact according to the often-cited Asia Pacific Foundation 2004 study, International students contribute nearly $4 billion to Canada’s economy, excluding their much-higher-than-average tuition fees. So why aren’t they covered by the public Medicare system? Denying this to international students is wrong and needs to be fixed by the Ontario government. Maybe Battel’s pitch to would-be international students from Brunei wouldn’t be so outrageous if we are only referring to provinces like Manitoba, where no extra health care fees are levied, rather than Ontario.

While it might be too much to expect our decision-makers to understand that universal healthcare and access to education is important in its own right, let us hope at the very least that they will be compelled to reduce financial barriers in order to make Canada a competitive destination for international students.

Next Page »