A year of ups and downs for students

At the stroke of midnight, 2007 will come to an end; another year come and gone and with it many successes and failures, many highs and lows.

CBU managed to be the sole university in Nova Scotia that increased its enrollment in 2007, the CBU Women’s Capers won the CIS national soccer championship, and celebration of the 50^th anniversary of CBU’s Beaton Institution were all highs.

The biggest bumps in the road – their drop in the MacLean’s rankings and the vandalism of their soccer field – were managed well and countered. The university took a positive step in publically recognizing the flawed methodology utilized by MacLean’s and the women won CIS nationals in spite of the dimwitted vandal (or vandals).

John Harker, President of CBU, believes that 2008 could be a year of significant achievements. In a recent interview with the Post, he mentioned he believes that the university is on the verge of getting their own nursing and education degrees and, in doing so, become a master of its own destiny.

While these programs will no doubt help the university, the extent of their impact remains unknown. It seems as though the university will gain a newfound level of legitimacy from increased programming. However, unless that intangible change translates into increased numbers of students and increased revenues, it will mean very little.

A report early in 2007 stated that universities in Atlantic Canada are facing a climate of continually declining enrollment for some time. This means that all universities in our region will be forced to do some soul searching and ask some tough questions. It is in this area that CBU has taken some of the most serious criticism.

An editorial published in the Post charged that CBU based its strategic plan on the rankings of a magazine. It was a charge that resounded with many within the university – both faculty and students.

In light of the criticism, the question remains: What is CBU’s vision, its goals in the short and long term, and, more importantly, how will it achieve these goals?

National titles and increased international student enrollment are all fine and well, but sports titles last for one year and international students faced increasing differential fees that make a post-secondary education in Nova Scotia increasingly less affordable.

The same question exists at the federal level as well. A recent report issues by The Canadian Council on Learning argues that a lack of long term vision for Canada’s post-secondary education system will eventually cripple public education and place Canada at a significant economic disadvantage.

Many critics argue that a publicly funded education system is inherently inefficient because it relies on the government’s purse. To an extent, the current state of publically funded post-secondary education in Canada proves their point. It is true that the current state of our post-secondary education system operates poorly; however, it does not mean that a publicly funded education is necessary inefficient.

This is a significant distinction because it means the solution is not de-regulation and privatization of our post-secondary education system. It means that the solution is greater coordination at all levels of government and better oversight.

The Canadian Council on Learning shows that many other industrialized countries have systems in place that monitors the state and quality of post-secondary education in their respective countries and provides important information to help guide policy. Australia, the United States, the European Union, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand all have such reporting and monitoring systems; however, Canada has no such reporting and monitoring mechanisms. The absence of such mechanisms jeopardizes our post-secondary education system and places it at a huge international disadvantage.

One thing is clear: the post-secondary education system in Canada needs a better long term vision, one that can only be guided by improved policy and reached by greater accountability.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 31, 2007.

AIMS off the mark on PSE

On December 18, the Herald published an editorial by Charles Cirtwill, the President of AIMS. In his editorial, he called for a “radical re-think” of how we fund post-secondary education in Nova Scotia.

His argument ended in suggesting that the Government of Nova Scotia should stop funding post-secondary institutions and give all of the money normally allotted for institutions to students through “an enriched student loan program, expanded bursaries and grants, debt relief, and, if you must, student incentives in fields where we have a demonstrable skills shortage.”

He arrives at this overly simplistic solution to the post-secondary education problems facing Nova Scotia’s university students after giving nothing more than a shallow refutation of what he called, “the three basic truths that drive out collective decision-making about post-secondary funding.”

The three basic truths Mr. Cirtwill identified are that governments set tuition fees, that universities are not businesses, and that supporting institutions is the same as supporting students.

He argues that the government pays universities to lower their fees; that universities are business because they have assets, human resources, and exchange a service for a fee; and that we give money to post-secondary institutions only because we want to support students.

After attempting to refute the “three basic truths” his argument flows like this: the government does not set tuition fees, universities are business, and when we invest in post-secondary education we do so ONLY to benefits students and ourselves, therefore, we must stop giving money to post-secondary institutions and give all post-secondary education funds directly to students.

Tuition fees are determined by the difference between government funding and the operational costs. This means that while the actual decision to set an institutions tuition fees is made by the respective boards’ of Nova Scotia’s post-secondary institutions the government sets the reality in which a decision must be made. Even though, as Mr. Cirtwill points out, cost cutting measures can reduce tuition fees to a degree, the manner in which he characterized tuition fees over simplified the complex reality in which that decision takes place.

According to Mr. Cirtwill, universities are businesses and since we do not cover the operating costs of all business to the extent we cover those of post-secondary institutions we should stop. We should stop because we only give post-secondary institutions public money because we want to support students. We want to support students for both “altruistic” and “selfish” reasons. While it is impossible to be both altruistic and selfish at the same time, I’ll ignore this contradiction.

Mr. Cirtwill is wrong. We give money to post-secondary institutions for many reasons, not one. To name a few, we give money to post-secondary institutions because they are essential for a vibrant and lively economy and because they attract immigrants that increase an areas creative capital, population (when it is desperately needed), and social diversity. Mr. Cirtwill would have us believe that the correlation between the location of universities and the economic success of areas is an accident.

If we were to follow Mr. Cirtwill’s advice, our post-secondary institutions would receive no money, be forced to compete with one another, drastically cutting costs (and, therefore, quality) or face a mass exodus of Nova Scotian students to other provinces. Such an exodus would force massive cuts in some institutions and the shutdown of other institutions. Since there is such correlation between economic success, creative capital, and the presence of universities, losing university would be a direct blow to the economy.

To completely cut funding to post-secondary institutions is typical of AIMS’s view of government spending on social services. They repeated argue that greater government spending necessarily means inefficiency while ignoring that an actual measure of inefficiency is the proportion of effort to achieve a desired end.

The “radical re-think” championed by AIMS would throw our post-secondary institutions into a downward spiral of cannibalistic competition and cost cutting actions that will serve no one, certainly not our students.

Nova Scotia's students, universities looking for new deal with province

The Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia's universities will expire as of March 31, 2008. This past week, a committee of student leaders, university presidents, and government bureaucrats began meetings to develop a new MOU before the expiration of the current agreement.

The current MOU capped tuition increased at Nova Scotia's 11 universities for two years and, in the third year, saw a province wide tuition free. According to a spokesperson for the Nova Scotia Department of Education, last year the province spent $12.4 million on universities.

The new MOU will be an important indicator of how genuine Premier MacDonald was when he committed to reducing the province's average tuition to the national average by 2010.

If Premier MacDonald is sincere in his desire to reduce the average tuition in Nova Scotia, the new MOU will have to look drastically different that the agreement that is currently in place. In order to reduce the tuition to the national average by 2010, the new MOU will have to start taking progressive steps in that direction; this MOU cannot guarantee tuition increases. Also, future provincial budgets will need to allot more than last year's total of $12.4 million on universities.

There are four student representatives on the committee, three of whom are members of the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations and one of whom is a member of the Canadian Federation of Students. With this system of proportional representation, each student group appoints the people they want to have as their group's representatives on the committee.

The Cape Breton University Students' Union has no representation on the committee. This is because we are members of the Canadian Federation of Students and they only get to appoint one representative to the committee. Even with our status as a member of the Canadian Federation of Students, the Cape Breton University Students' Union was shut out of some of the most important negotiations related to education in the last few years.

ANSSA has been especially vocal in the lead up to the negotiations. They have been arguing that Nova Scotia's post-secondary education system has suffered for long enough and that continuing at the status quo runs contrary to the direction of many of the province's policies.

ANSSA is also hoping to have the province introduce some sort of protection for international students through the new MOU. Currently, international students are charged differential fees that, in many cases, result in them paying almost twice as much as a Canadian student. Our province needs to attract more immigrants; not just for population and demographic reasons, but for what they can contribute as productive members of our society – they have skills and knowledge we need in Nova Scotia. To put universities in a situation where they can charge exorbitant international differential fees when they need to attract and keep international students is completely counterproductive.

University presidents will justifiably be looking for more money to invest in their universities' crumbling infrastructure. Buildings are old and energy inefficient, windows have drafts, and ceiling tiles have mould; something needs to change.

The new MOU will be a sign of whether Premier MacDonald is willing to put his money where his mouth is. If this new MOU is signed and it does not move to far from the status quo, very little will change. Our universities in Nova Scotia have faces cuts and tight budgets for far too long and students have been the ones taking the brunt of the assault on our post-secondary education system. If Premier MacDonald wants to changes things, this MOU is the time to start.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 17, 2007.

Nova Scotia's archaic student loan system finally undergoes a review

The Nova Scotia Student Assistance Program (NSSAP) recently paid a visit to students at Cape Breton University. The stop at CBU was one of several consultations across the province where student loan borrowers were given the chance to provide input on the system that has been described as archaic. Those in attendance voiced a wide range of concerns; varying from the time it takes to receive a loan to the loan's consideration of parental income.

The events have received terrific turnouts across the province; a sign that people are genuinely upset with the program, that they want to be heard, and that they believe change is necessary. Some students have become emotional when describing the effect their student debt will have on their future. One young woman was quoted saying, `You can`t afford to buy a house, you can afford to buy a car, you can`t afford to have children. `

We may view such a statement as extreme; however, it describes the situation of many university graduates across the province. Imagine start life with $20,000, $40,000, or even $50,000 in debt. When you take these figures and consider that 60% of student borrowers get their funding from the federal government who, according to a freedom of information request filed by the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness, charges interest rates between 8.4 % and 11% (they borrow money at a rate of 4.1%.), it is not improbable.

Students in Nova Scotia face higher tuition fees, on average, than anywhere else in Canada. Logically, this leads one to conclude that they will be facing some of the highest student debt loads in Canada. The situation this creates is one where some of the financially worst off university graduates in Canada leave to enter into a job market with some of the lowest wages in Canada. Is it any wonder outmigration is a problem?

Of all the issues raised across the province at these consultations, the two most commonly voiced concerns were those surrounding single mothers and parental contributions. Under the current NSSAP structure, single mothers are denied social assistance when they are approved for a student loan. Not only does this practice make it harder on women to get access to post-secondary education, it increases the burden they face when they graduate and have to pay back massive debt loads.

However, the most contentious issue, by far, was the issue of parental contribution. Part of your student loan application asks you to supply your parents` income. This consideration has probably cost more students the loans they needed than any other. It makes the faulty assumption that a parent will automatically pay for their adult child`s education. There are, of course, the apparent flaws in this line of reasoning used by the NSSAP: there is no legally binding reason for a parent to pay their child`s way, it ignores other social and economic factors that would have to be taken into consideration, and it bases a students` loan, their responsibility, on someone else`s earnings.

The current student loan system is supposed to help individuals gain access to the post-secondary education system. However, if you are an 18 year old on the outs with your parents or a single mother, the NSSAP does very little to help you. I am glad to see that the provincial government has finally lived up to one of the promises they made to students; we have our NSSAP review, but we are still waiting for our tuition cut. The series of public consultations means that the provincial government is willing to admit that there are some problems with the NSSAP. However, what we do not know is whether all of the input will fall on deaf ears; I hope it does not. I would like to believe that the input will make its way to someone with enough political will power to finally stand up for Nova Scotia`s students, but we will not find out if that will happen until 2008.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, December 10, 2007.

CFS: Democracy When Convenient

The CFS has made it official, they are denying that they received CBU’s petition to de-federate. The CBU Students’ Union is not alone in their troubles; the Kwantlen Student Association in Surrey, British Columbia is also getting the CFS run around.

Last week, CFS members from around Canada attended the National Convention. You would think with the heads of every CFS local in one spot, that they would take some time to hear the concerns of their members.

That was what I thought. At least until I received an e-mail from the Kwantlen Students Association.

The Kwantlen Students Association submitted a resolution that would have raised issues concerning the CFS’s loan to the Douglas Students’ Union.

In 2005, the CFS gave a $600,000 loan to the Douglas Students’ Union because their university refused to release the union membership fees that they collected on their behalf. The reason that the university refused to release the membership fees was that the union had not undergone a financial audit in several years. When they finally opened their books to an auditor, the auditor found that the union was suffering from “gross financial mismanagement.”

What did the CFS do to ensure they collected on the loan? CFS’s legal council appointed Marne Jensen, the general manager of the University of Victoria Students’ Society, as the receiver-manager. She was given this position even though she already had a full time job with the UVSS and even though she lacked professional qualifications as an accountant.

The CFS National Executive decided to remove the Kwantlen Student Association motion from the agenda. A press release from the Kwantlen Student Association says that they managed to make phone contact with Amanda Aziz, the National Chairperson of the CFS, and she said the resolution was removed because it made “false statements” and the CFS National Executive felt the resolution was “out of order”.

The CFS has attempted to once again silence concern surrounding the Douglas Students’ Union controversy instead of sincerely dealing with the issue. If the KSA’s resolution was really making false and misleading statements, the CFS National Executive could prove the statement’s errors through discussion and the rest of the membership could see that.

Since they are unwilling to enter into discussion surround the KSA’s resolution, it means one of two things: the Kwantlen Student Association is right and the CFS is operating under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or they do not think their membership is intelligent enough to pick out logical flaws and lies that are propagated by another group.

Since the CFS is obviously in favour of urgent, practical, relevant, and uncontroversial discussion, what issues did make it through to the national agenda?

There is a resolution from the Ryerson Students’ Union to label Israel as an “Apartheid State”. I may be wrong, but I fail to see how this has any relevance to student life in Canada. It seems that the CFS is content debating topics without relevance to their organization in an attempt to draw attention away from the actual state of the organization.

The CFS thinks that if they yell loud enough and silence everyone else, their version of the truth will take hold and become dominate one. What the CFS fails to realize is that the more you suppress the truth, the more you create dissent, and the truth gains more force, power, and volume. Eventually suppression of the truth reaches a point where so may have become disenfranchised and alienated by an organization that makes “false statements” and acts “out of order” that the truth explodes into the public sphere.

The CFS is sowing the seeds of their own demise and the truth will surface with more force and volume than could ever be predicted. When this happens, they have only themselves to blame.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, November 26, 2007.

A ghost named Amanda haunts CFS national headquarters

The Cape Breton University Students’ Union (CBUSU) is not the only student group getting a hard time from the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). In a press release dated November 16, 2007, the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA) announced that the CFS National Executive had decided to excise several of their resolutions from the agenda of the upcoming National General Meeting of the CFS. The CBUSU is suffering as well; they are tied up and tripped up by CFS red tape.

Bureaucracy and the death of democracy

When organizations start to develop into bureaucracies, the evolution happens because it is supposed to make the organization more efficient. As the organization grows, the bureaucracy thickens and what happens in the name of efficiency ends up being inefficient and frustrating.

The CFS started as a grassroots organization, it grew, and it now has around 500,000 members across Canada. Its beginning in the 1980s was humble, they promised to fight for students and to unite students from coast to coast. In the 1990s, they became more political, they took stances on such issues as the Gulf War. This politicization of the CFS resulted in some members leaving to form the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and a power struggle began.

The CFS and CASA have continued to fight for membership across the country effectively dividing the student movement into two camps; no longer were students united, they were divided and looking for more members to give them more revenue and more power. To ensure they did not lose their power and their revenue base, the CFS changed their bylaws to make it harder for members to leave their organization.

The CBUSU is experiencing this right now. CFS bylaws state that written notice must be submitted six months prior to the de-federation attempt and a petition must be submitted. The CBUSU submitted both, but the CFS is trying to argue that they did not receive the petition sent by the CBUSU.

That would be believable, except someone named “Amanda” signed for the package. Now, I am not calling them a liar, but when the National Chairperson’s name is Amanda Aziz and someone named “Amanda” signs for the package, something smells fishy.

Of course, there could be perfectly logical explanations. Maybe a ghost named Amanda haunts the CFS National Office in Ottawa and she has a thing for delivery boys.

This is just an example of how the CFS looks to tie up de-federation attempts.

The CFS lines up hoops through which dissatisfied members must jump before they can leave, and if they do not jump through each hoop perfectly, the CFS will not cooperate.

If unions manage to get the letter and petition into the CFS, they are forced to work with a committee composed of two union representatives and two CFS representatives; the committee makes the rules for the de-federation referendum. This means that if CFS wants to push a rule through the committee that will help them and hurt the union, the CFS will have the upper hand. If union does not give in to CFS favourable rules, the vote will be two “for” the rule and two “against” the rule. This tie would serve the CFS because as long as the committee cannot come to an agreement the de-federation referendum cannot progress.

Another aspect of bureaucracies is that they are terrific for helping someone avoid responsibility. They can claim that it was not their department, they were not aware of the action, they did not approve it, or they did not supervise the person that committed the act. Bureaucracies are as transparent as a Jack and Coke and that is what the KSA is experiencing with their resolution that was pulled from the CFS National Conference agenda.

The DSU Boogeyman

The resolution CFS pulled from the National Conference noted a $600,000 loan that CFS British Columbia and CFS National gave to the Douglas Students’ Union, a union that had not produced financial statements, or underwent an audit, in four years.

CFS BC and CFS National receive a significant chunk of their revenue from its membership, this includes you and I, and they felt it was responsible to turn over our hard-earned dollars to the Douglas Students’ Union. They turned over our hard-earned dollars even after a forensic audit accused the Douglas Students’ Union of “gross financial misconduct”.

National Chairperson of the CFS, Amanda Aziz, said that they removed the resolution from the agenda because it included “false statements” and was “out of order”; however, Ms. Aziz failed to explain what statements were false and out of order and why.

In contrast, the CFS National Executive left a resolution from the Ryerson Students’ Union that accuses Israel of being an “apartheid state”. There is not enough room in my column to get into this; however, if the CFS is willing to let statements such as this stay on the agenda it means only one thing: they are perfectly comfortable criticizing other groups, but they do not want that sharp critical eye glaring at them.

The opinions expressed by the KSA’s resolution are growing in popularity and if they were false, you would think the CFS would have more to gain than lose by bringing them to an open debate. If, indeed, they were false, the CFS would have the moral, political, and strategic high ground; however, their continued adherence to the Harper communication playbook denies its membership transparency and continually draws negative attention to controversies in which the CFS becomes involved.

In light of growing criticism, the CFS is reverting to primitive political tactics: downplay and deny. It works like this, someone accuses you of doing something and in response you argue that the issue is not as big as your detractors are trying to make it seem and you try to remove yourself as far as possible from the controversy; this works to a point. Once someone proves your connection to the controversy, the downplay and deny strategy has to go out the window and honesty is the only possible way out; admit you screwed up, admit you realize it was a mistake, and say how you are going to fix it.

Does the CFS do this? No, they do not.

As it stands, their strategy concerning the DSU controversy is the five year old versus the boogeyman strategy: cover your eyes, repeat the boogeyman is not real, and hope as hard as all hell that your repetitive incantation will come true.

I can hear the National Executive Committee now, “The DSU controversy didn’t happen, we didn’t give them all that money, we didn’t get busted on national television, we didn’t really screw us this badly. The DSU controversy didn’t happen, we didn’t give them all that money, we didn’t get busted on national television, we didn’t really screw us this badly…”

Well, I hate to say it, no matter how hard you try, your words will not erase the past or create a new reality. You have one option: fess up.

There are many changes needed to the structure of the CFS. They need more transparency, otherwise they cannot slam the government for a lack of transparency; they need to be less bureaucratic, something they slam student loan for being; and, apparently, they need an exorcist or a priest to get rid of that ghost at their National Office.

Originally published in the Caper Times, November 21, 2007

Athletic Divide

If you hold a national soccer tournament and no students see it, does it really happen?

Sure, I may be exaggerating, but I do not think my point is lost. I spoke with CBU Students’ Union President, Ian Lindsay, the Monday after the CBU Women’s Capers won the CIS national title.

Lindsay said that many people from the community came to the games, but he was surprised because very few students attended. Many other faculty and staff members shared Lindsay’s surprise.

Personally, I do not know why everyone was so shocked.

Students on campus perceive a huge divide between themselves and athletes on campus. They believe that they are treated differently than athletes and they receive less attention for their accomplishments.

There is also a divide between varsity athletes and non-varsity athletes on campus. Non-varsity teams feel like the varsity athletes draw all the attention and funding while they are left looking for scraps. For example, the men’s rugby team at CBU recently won the Maritime Championship; there was no mention of this on the CBU webpage.

The perception of this divide, and the extent to which students perceive the divide, was evident at the CIS championships. Whether this divide exists to the extent that it is perceived is irrelevant. Students feel it, they believe it, and their actions reflect it; the university must take action to deal with this perception in a genuine and sincere manner.

If the university administration attempts to fix this with hollow words and false promises, the level of alienation the general student body perceives will get worse. If this happens, all of the national sports events in the world will do nothing to improve life on campus for the vast majority of students.

One recent bit of news provided students with some hope that the administration will make a genuine attempt at narrowing the gap.

On November 15, the Cape Breton Post reported that, “Charges have been laid against a 23-year-old member of the Cape Breton University Capers men’s basketball team after the schools soccer field was damaged days before a national championship.”

Jordan Wyse, a BACS student at CBU and a guard on the men’s basketball team, is facing two counts of mischief under $5,000. Students’ reaction to this announcement was one that echoed their perception of the athlete-student divide; people were shocked he was facing criminal charges.

On top of facing criminal charges, Wyse is suspended from the team and was one of four players who sat out the Caper’s season opener at MUN.

Wait, four minus one is three; something is not adding up. Why were four players benched that game? Were there other people involved? If so, who were these people? If other people were not involved, it seems odd that three players, aside from Wyse, were benched around the same time as the incident of vandalism.

These questions are floating around campus.

Until these questions are definitively answered and until this issue is treated with more transparency, students will be left to wonder; a cynical black cloud will form around any decision made and any punishment handed down.

I did not write this to re-cast that black cloud over the women’s victory; I write this with the hope that something will happen to correct the perception of disproportion that exists. If those responsible are treated no differently that any other student would be, all are held accountable, and the administration is up front with students, things will begin to change.

This is what students are hoping for; this is what students deserve.

Originally printed in the Cape Breton Post, November 19, 2007.