View from CBU

Conservatives swing and miss with student loan reforms

2008-06-26T07:35:00.001-07:00

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed them or not, but a series of ads for the Canada Student Loan Program has been running on Canadian television stations. You can also see the ads on the Internet, on buses and in transit stations have been running from February.

It has been uncovered that these ads have come at a significant cost. Access to Information documents obtained by the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness revealed that the advertising campaign had a total price tag of almost two million dollars. Of the two million dollars, $1.4 million was used for public relations and the rest went towards production and testing.

Human Resources and Social Development Minister Monte Solberg defended the ads. The government argues that people over-estimate the cost of education and doubt their ability to acquire the necessary funding to pay for their education.

Solberg was quoted as saying, “So we are unapologetically advertising very heavily to make people aware that there is assistance available to them, and when people do take out student loans, it's a very good investment in their future.”

How useful the ads were is questionable; they actually said very little about the program. Julian Benedict called the ads “a feel-good campaign” and I would have to agree.

If the ads are not saying how wonderful the program is, they talk about the recent investments made by the federal government that are meant to streamline and modernize the program.

While the new web portal is a small step forward, there are still many issues that the government needs to address. While there are many issues that haunt the program, some of the more pressing ones are the levels of interest charged on student loans (7.75 per cent), the absence of an independent ombudsperson and collection strategies that the Coalition for Student Loan Fairness called “ruthless”.

A recent report found that 40 per cent of university grads, 52 per cent of college students and 63 per cent of students attending private colleges either fell behind or defaulted on their loans. Another interesting fact was that 75 per cent of defaulted student loans occurred in the first three years. All of the facts point to the problem of huge loans accruing vast huge amount of interest making it far more likely that someone will default or fall behind on payments.

When someone goes into collection, they get to deal with the National Collection Centre (NCC). The Coalition for Student Loan Fairness managed to obtain documents from the NCC. The training and organizational culture of the NCC creates collections agents that are vicious and whose behavior borders on despicable.

The average salary in the NCC is around $50,000 (plus benefits) and collection’s agents are also eligible to receive a commission for their work. Training documents pointed out that collections agents are told that most people they contact will be “single parents on social assistance” or people with “medical or financial hardship.”

Nevertheless agents who obey orders and chase commissions are told to advise debtors that “settlement offers are rarely accepted” and that “the debtor must never be told that the payment of accrued interest will result in automatic approval [for loan rehabilitation], or that this is a factor in the decision.”

The facts conflict with the image put forward by the government’s two million dollar public relations campaign. Students are left with huge debt, lots of interest and vicious collections agents. When they are wronged or have problems, they have no independent ombudsperson to whom they can turn.

Solberg responded to criticism. "We've made huge changes," he said. "In fact, they're the most fundamental reforms to student financial assistance in a generation... so we are stepping up to the plate."

You can step up to the plate Mr. Solberg, however, stepping up to the plate does not mean much if you swing and miss.

CBU students try to start up a Habitat group in the CBRM

2008-06-14T10:26:00.001-07:00

Once again, members of the Cape Breton University community have stepped out of the institution's halls and classrooms and into the streets of Cape Breton. CBU students and faculty have begun the necessary work that they hope will result in more affordable housing in Cape Breton and safer homes for those who would not normally be able to afford them.

To help achieve this goal, members of the CBU community have begun the push to form a local branch of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is an organization that taps into volunteer labour, donations and a revolving fund derived from operations that provides affordable and safe housing to low-income residences and helps break the poverty cycle in which many people are living. Habitat has been tremendously successful in other areas, but for it to be a success in Cape Breton, local residences have to step up and show their commitment.

Some of us may have a hard time believing that there are those who cannot afford a home in the local housing market; however, according to the Halifax Coalition against Poverty, a single person on social assistance in Nova Scotia earns $5,422 per year ($12,473 below the poverty line). According to the provincial government, the average income in Cape Breton is below the provincial average and the number of homes in need of repair is above the provincial and national averages.

These figures mean that even though the housing marketing in Cape Breton is relatively affordable, there are many who are at risk because of poor living conditions.

"We are concerned that so many of our neighbours are currently living in very poor conditions and that the housing stock in many of our CBRM communities is not holding up well. Habitat for Humanity could be part of the solution," said Tasha Dunn a student involved in the movement.

Tapping the resources of the local community and identifying interested parties is the group's next step. Next Monday (that's June 16) there will be a Public Information Session to help them achieve this goal. The meeting will take place at 5:30 pm in room CE 265.

The need for a Habitat branch was identified by the CBRM Housing Revitalization Committee, a committee initiated by CBU, and on which there are representatives from all levels of government.

According to CBU professor Dr. Tom Urbaniak, a group of community studies students stepped forward to meet the need. Two students – Martin Osuru and Dayna MacKay – made a presentation about Habitat to the committee.

"The members were very impressed and were very grateful for what the students have been doing," said Urbaniak.

The situation for many living in Cape Breton is more urgent that we realize and all parties involved are hoping that things will begin to move quickly once the meeting is held next Monday.

CBU's students and faculty continually involve themselves in the community and, more importantly, involve themselves in ways that benefit the community and those in it. A Habitat project will change the lives of many Cape Breton residence who are in desperate need of help and it will also change the lives of those that volunteer. Habitat projects help transform the ways in which we are civically active and in doing so help us realize responsibilities that lay outside of ourselves and our immediate families. Ultimately Habitat creates homes, transforms individuals and creates stronger communities.

Students need to protect their rights

2008-06-14T10:25:00.000-07:00

It's the time of year when many students are out looking for a summer job or, if they are lucky, have already found one. If you are lucky, you've managed to find a decent job with a fair boss that will let you stick around until school goes back in September; however, many students are not that lucky.

Many students get stuck in low wage positions and many end up working for people who think the Labour Stands Code is a quaint document that they don't really need to worry about. I have had a few jobs and bosses like these and, like many of you, I have contemplated quitting because of something the boss or a manager had done that I was convinced was unfair (and possible illegal).

The Labour Standards Code is what is used to determine if a business, bosses or managers actions are unfair and illegal. Summer students don't have unions to protect them, but every employee in the province is protected by the rules and regulations laid out in the Code. I want to take some time to highlight important sections that students should be aware of:

Seeing as it is the summer, an important area to touch on is vacation time. While not all students work year round, those that do are eligible for vacation time – two weeks after 12 months of work. You should also be earning vacation pay and building it up year round, unless you have it included in your hourly rate, and you can use that to fund your week or two of time off. If you end up quitting a job and you have unused vacation pay, the employees is required to pay you the balance within 10 business days.

Since we take summer jobs to make money, the section of the Code dealing with pay protection is important. According to part of the Code, you must be paid at least twice a month and you must receive your pay no longer than five business days from the end of the pay period.

I'm not sure how many people end up at McDonald's or Tim's or any other place that requires a uniform, but if you do you should know that the employer is not allowed to deduct the cost of the uniform if it results in you earning less than a minimum wage.

I can't explain the entire Code in the 600 words I am allotted this week, but you can get a brochure on the Internet that explains the Labour Standard Code in detail if you want to know more. If you want the brochure enter http://www.gov.ns.ca/lwd/employmentrights/docs/labourstandardscodeguide.pdf in the address bar of your web browser and it will give you a pdf document. Read it, know it and make sure you act if your employer doe something they shouldn't.

If your employer does do something that is against the Code, don't be afraid to speak out. Confront them, raise the issue and find out how they respond. If it was a mistake, they'll probably fix it. If they don't fix it, know you still have other avenues.

Summer jobs are bad enough without having to worry about employers breaking the law and violating your rights as outlined by the province. The best way to protect yourself this summer is to know your rights, make sure you tell the students you are working with about their rights and take action of something happens.

CBU convocation set for Saturday; LeBlanc, Mann to receive honourary degrees

2008-05-06T11:49:00.000-07:00

SYDNEY - More than 700 students from 34 programs will graduate from Cape Breton University Saturday at its annual spring convocation, including its first class from its campus in Egypt.

Chancellor Annette Verschuren will be on hand to confer the degrees, diplomas and certificates, and also pay tribute to two honorary degree recipients: Beatrice LeBlanc and Kenneth Mann.

LeBlanc is an humanitarian and advocate for women and children who have been threatened by abuse. A native of Arichat, she relocated to Sydney 40 years ago and, in 1981, began working at Cape Breton Transition House, where she is executive director. Mann, a noted scholar, author and world leader on aquatic ecology research will be recognized for his innovative and influential career.

Saturday’s convocation ceremony starts at 2 p.m. in the Canada Games Complex.

2008-05-06T10:35:00.001-07:00

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,"

W.B. Yeats

Valedictorian: Cindy Butler

2008-05-06T09:05:00.000-07:00

I would like to take this opportunity to congradulate the valedictorian for the class of 2008, Cindy Butler. She has worked hard as tutor coordinator for the students' union for the last year and she will be addressing students, their families, faculty and staff this Saturday. I'm glad to see the best candiate won.

A lot of people make convocation possible

2008-05-05T12:16:00.000-07:00

It is no secret that layoffs and general doom and gloom are sweeping through the hallowed halls of CBU. Many unfortunately individuals found out last week that they were being laid off because of predicted declines in enrollment.

There were some worries that these layoffs would result in union actions that would interfere with the President's Dinner or convocation or both. Thankfully, these fears proved to be unfounded and there are actually people who are getting laid off working extra hours to make sure convocation can happen. These people deserve so much thanks, gratitude and respect.

If you read my columns or posts or listen to my rants you know what I think of convocation. Regardless of what I believe, it is an important thing to a lot of people and an event that marks the climax (even if it is the most boring one you'll ever have) of four years (or more in some peoples' cases) of hard (or slack-ass) work.

To those people facing layoffs but continuing to work for the students of CBU, thanks for being bigger than most, putting students above politics and making one of the most important events for a lot of people possible. This year's grads owe you their day and their ceremony, they best not forget.

Convocation 2008

2008-05-05T12:07:00.001-07:00

I know I don't usually do blogposts (I usually just post by columns), but I've decided to put some extra effort into this site and see what happens.

If you are a CBU student or a relative of a CBU student, I am sure you are aware that convocation will be held on Saturday, May 10. Last year, around this time, I wrote, what some people referred to as a derogatory and disrespectfuly, but what I considered an thought provoking piece. Nevertheless, people wrote me nasty e-mails and verbally confronted me in the street and hallowed halls of this institution (it was great!).

I this article I explaned the roots and meanings behind the rituals of convocation and argued that the meaning of the rituals means that convocation has nothing to do with celebrating students achievements. The garbs, the silly hats and robes, the wizard-like get ups and all such nonesense are all rooted in traditions and rituals that are meant to celebrate the power of the powerful.

Tradition states that the more colourful the robes the more "important" the individual that is wearing them (where "important" means the more powerful). I believe I concluded, "Therefore, convocation is nothing more than a chance for academics to behave like peacocks..." or something along those lines. I stand by that article and everything contained therein. I will not recant or apologize or power or beg....to hell with that.

Plesant surpsises for CBU students and university

2008-05-02T07:30:00.000-07:00

Both students and Cape Breton University received some long overdue good news last week. The provincial budget proposed a new "grant" program for students and the province's education minister, Karen Casey, announced that CBU could go ahead with its plans to offer their own Bachelor of Education program in 2009.

In an attempt to live up to a previous promise, the Conservative government is freezing tuition for the next three years and offering a new "grant" program. Under the proposed program, students that apply for debt relief would have the first 20 per cent of their loan, up to a maximum of $1,560 annually, turned into a non-repayable grant.

Student groups – ANSSA and the CFS – have applauded the move calling it a, "Big win for students." ANSSA executive director, Paris Meilleur said she was pleased that the province was heading in the right direction; however, it is only "one of the puzzle pieces."

I could not agree more. For a student to qualify for the maximum rebate of $1,560 a person would have to be awarded an overall amount of $7,800. When we subtract the non-repayable portion of the award we are left with approximately $6,200 per year in debt. Over four years, the normal length of time for an undergraduate degree, the person the most in need (based on student assistance calculations) would have to repay close to $25,000. The students who need assistance the most will still be buried in debt for years.

Introducing a small non-repayable grant for students is a step in the right direction, but it is barely a baby step.

Also, CBU has received permission from the education minister to begin their BEd program, pending the approval of from the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. Fortunately for CBU, Minister Casey decided not to accept the recommendations put forward by her education review panel. Without a doubt, the move was the result of terrific pressure and outrage that manifested in Cape Breton in the aftermath of the report's release.

Dr. John Harker, President, Cape Breton University, acknowledged the role played by the community and said that, "The voices of our university, of our community were loud and clear and today we are moving forward in this exciting, new chapter of education and towards the great future of Cape Breton University."

The additional 40 seats will generate some much needed revenue for the university that recently has had to come to terms with some unpleasant realities it will face in the near future.

Both stories – increased student aid and CBU's BEd program – are the result of what happens when the public mobilizes behind an issue. Students have been working hard to bring attention to the horrible situation of students brought on by years of poor provincial fiscal policy. The pubic also made its feelings about the review panel's recommendations blatantly clear. We can't mistake the government's decisions as examples of political altruism. Instead, they were example of political necessity.

The decisions were necessary because without the proposed "grant" program and without the Bed "approval" the government would have lost a tremendous amount of face and suffered for it the next time Nova Scotians went to the polls.

The "grant" proposal is a good idea, but it is not enough and is an attempt to remove the student debt monkey from the governments back. However, as I showed, the student debt issue is not solved; students will still owe tens of thousands of dollars unless more is done.

The province is starting to move in the right direction, but they are moving at a tortoise's pace when they should be responding with a greater sense of urgency.

Surprise in store for Nova Scotia's students?

2008-04-21T03:44:00.001-07:00

The results from the public review of the Nova Scotia Student Assistance Program are in and opinion is clear: the program is not assisting students; it is acting as a burden and a worry and something must change.

A public review of the Nova Scotia Student Assistance Program found that more needs to be done to ease the burden placed on borrowers, make applying for loans less complicated, lower or remove parental contributions from student loan applications, use broader considerations for cost when calculating student need, and provide more education about the program's operations and tools.

In light of the report, education minister Karen Casey has been hinting to the media and student leaders that there will be a "surprise" for students in the upcoming provincial budget. One hopes that the surprise will be that the government will listen to the opinions expressed during the public review of the student assistance program. The opinions expressed by respondents during the review provide the government with a blueprint for rebuilding the assistance program and creating an effective institution that truly meets the needs of students.

If the government is willing to provide front-end grants for those with the greatest level of need, they will be able to ease the burden of those that need it the most. By making the process more open and transparent, there will be fewer mistakes made and less time spent processing applications so students can get the money they need with less of a wait. By eliminating the weight placed on parental contributions, the program will take into consideration the fact that parents have numerous other expenses, that there is no way to make parents contribute even though their income must be stated and that (unfortunately) some parents just do not care to pay for their child's education. By increasing the considerations that go into measuring a students' costs associated with their education a more accurate picture of student needs will be created and more people will be able to have access to education as a result.

The suggestions put forth from the panel are a wonderful way to create a progressive, fair and helpful institution. However, the student assistance program is only one problem facing the post-secondary education system right now.

According to John Harker, CBU President, "dark clouds" are on the horizon because of the new funding formula used by the province. Eventually, the province will allocate funds to universities based on the number of student enrolled at the institution. Given the demographics of the surrounding area and the expected impacts on universities throughout the province such a funding formula will force the university into offering early retirement packages and making staffing and programming cuts to make up for the shortfall.

Such a funding formula results in much leaner institutions that will have a harder time increasing student enrollment because they will offer fewer programs and, therefore, will find themselves locked into a cyclical problem of minimal funding-minimal enrollment. The new funding formula places universities that are centrally located in the province at a natural advantage and will further add to the brain drain faced by communities located at the province's periphery.

There are many problems facing the post-secondary education system in Nova Scotia and while changes to the student assistance program are a step in the right direction, they will not be a PSE silver bullet. Whatever "surprises" are in store in the next budget, I hope they are the first step of many. If the provincial government is too busy patting itself on the back over the first necessary step of many, the rest may take too long to materialize.

2008-04-21T03:40:00.000-07:00

The provincial government of Nova Scotia recently announced more than $200 million in new education spending initiatives. The two initiatives are a three year tuition freeze and a bursary program worth $66 million dollars. The initiatives are meant to fulfill the promise of Premier MacDonald's government to bring tuition to the national average by 2010.

The MOU states that over the next three years universities are not allowed to raise tuition fees (or any other fees) that would make tuition more expensive for students. To help lighten any inflationary blow, the province is serving up $180 million in direct funding to universities. Also, unlike the last MOU, this new agreement includes international students.

The inclusion of international students is overdue; they have seen drastically increasing fees to attend school in Nova Scotia. If Canadian studying in Nova Scotia thought that they had it bad when they saw their university bill, they should have looked over the shoulder of an international student who was paying close to twice as much.

The new MOU is also the first step towards helping Premier MacDonald's government meet their promise to reduce tuition to the national average by 2010. The second step is a new $66 million bursary program.

The bursary program will make Nova Scotians studying in their home province eligible for $761 in 2008-09, $1,022 in 2009-10 and $1,283 in 2010-11. For those students that come from out of province, 31 per cent, they will be eligible to receive a $261 bursary in 2010-11.

Kaley Kennedy of the Canadian Federation of Students called the bursary program "discriminatory" and Mike Tipping of the Alliance of Nova Scotia Student Associations said that it could compound the problem of declining enrolment.

While I agree the bursary program's exclusion of non-Nova Scotian students is problematic, it is a decision that grows from necessity.

The reality is that Nova Scotia gets money for its education programs from the federal government and the federal government uses a per capita formula to determine how much money the province will get. The problem is, however, that the per capita funding formula does not consider those coming from out-of-province.

My two concerns with the new bursary program are how sustainable it is and if it is the most effective use of $66 million in education funding.

Any student, regardless of income levels, will be eligible to receive a bursary beginning next year. However, some of the students receiving a bursary would be able to foot the bill for their books at tuition without it. My issue is that this is not a needs based grant program, it is a flat out, across the board give away. By providing a bursaries to every Nova Scotian studying in-province, the provincial government is refuse to acknowledge that part of the problem with the post-secondary education system is that it disproportionately affects people from certain income brackets, lower-middle and lower income households. By providing those that are at a greater disadvantage with the same help as everyone else, the government is making sure that, comparatively, they are still at a disadvantage.

Why did the government of Nova Scotia offer an across the board bursary instead of a needs-based bursary? Simply put, their option was politically sexier. It appealed touched more people and they hope that it will get people off their backs about the education issue.

The new programs have not been created in a vacuum and are not perfect (I have yet to see a policy that is). The biggest issue preventing Nova Scotia's post-secondary education system from flourishing is that we are under a federal funding formula that is inherently unfair to Nova Scotia. We have more out-of-province students than anywhere else in Canada and until the formula changes, we are at a natural disadvantage. Until this changes, there will only be small victories for PSE in our province.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post

Dr. Ann Dale Speaks to CBU Students and Guests

2008-03-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

"Politicians at various levels lack a sustainable development ethos," stated Dr. Ann Dale at the recent installment of the Shannon School of Business's Visiting Scholar Lecture series. Dr. Dale was the second speaker in the series; the lecture series will take place over five years and plans to draw leading business scholars from around the world.

Dr. Dale's current research focuses on sustainable community development, something she defines as a process of reconciling ecological, social and economic imperatives. If this is her operational definition of sustainable community development, to say that politicians lack a sustainable development ethos means that politicians have a low level of ecological literacy and that this has resulted in a "lack of shared meaning". Dr. Dale believes that this lack of shared meaning creates the political grid lock we are witnessing around the issues of the environment and how to solve environmental problems.

Dr. Dale told the audience that the federal and municipal levels of government can have the greatest impact. The federal government would formulate national policies, such as efficiency standards that would bring out country's laws in line with the toughest international standards in existence, while municipal governments could put in place tougher zoning regulations and by-laws.

The crowd that gathered in CBU's Royal Bank Lecture Theatre heard Dr. Dale's desire to have access to clear air, water, food and housing enshrined in our country's Charter. She does not know if it would pass but added, "It would be quite the debate, though."

Her message seemed well received by the audience a combination of people from on and off campus. The diverse audience suggested the importance of her topic and message for our island. Cape Breton has lost population, businesses, jobs and its economy has suffered as a result, these are all characteristics of what Dr. Dale (and other academics) refers to as uneven development. She began her lecture by arguing that places that are unevenly developed and in need of re-development must be careful not to over develop.

The day after her lecture, Dr. Dale was kind enough to sit down with me for a few questions. During our chat, she echoed the message from the previous night's lecture: that Cape Breton is in need of re-development and that we must be careful not to over develop and destroy the island's natural beauty, something she considered to be Cape Breton's biggest asset.

She described the development process that Cape Breton must follow as finding a "delicate balance". One that can draw in the professionals and skilled individuals an area needs to grow and, at the same time, find ways to reconcile the economic with the ecologic.

Dr. Dale was the second lecturer in the school of business's series. So far the lecture series has attracted Dr. Joel Bakan, the best-selling author and award winning documentary film maker behind "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power", and now Dr. Ann Dale. Dr. Dale's is the Canadian Research Chair in sustainable community development, a Trudeau Fellow (2004), a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, and an award winning author for her 2001 book, "At the Edge: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century."

CBU's ability to draw such academics says a lot about the institution and such an event benefits not only the university, but the larger Cape Breton community as well. When such events take place, it is a chance to bring together students, professors, business people, and community members from a wide range of backgrounds together. When such a diverse group of people share a room and their knowledge with one another, you generate debate and discussion that is rare, invaluable and a true part of what a real university education is about.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, March 31, 2008.

Fightin' for Freddie: CBU Students Help a Freddie Mabalot Say in Cape Breton

2008-03-29T16:50:00.000-07:00

In September 2005, a Filipino man, Freddie Mabalot, collapsed aboard the Saga Ruby, a cruise ship docked in Sydney. Freddie applied for refugee status in 2006, but the Department of Immigration and Citizenship refused to approve his application.

The reason for his refugee application and collapse was that he was suffering from end stage renal disease, kidney failure, and he needed dialysis. The dialysis was the only thing that would keep him alive and he would not be able to afford the treatment if he had to return to the Philippines, two of his family members had died because they could not afford the treatments for their diseases.

Many people from the local community took up Freddie’s cause and one group of CBU students had a chance to work on Freddie’s behalf through a project, a community intervention. Students in the Bachelor of Arts and Community Studies program are required to perform a community intervention as a major project and one group of students was approached with Freddie’s case.

Aimee Hynes, Bhreagh Lafitte, Elise Boissonneault, Lauren MacDonald, Lorelle Burke, Tammy Besso and Vincent MacDonald were the group members and their professor, Jane Connell, told them about Freddie and his case. According to Vince MacDonald, “after a little debate, we knew this project was exactly what we would like to pursue.”

The group held several events that raised money for Freddie and awareness of his case. The group held and organized a coffee house in Sydney featuring local musicians that took in over $1,000, a presentation by Freddie’s lawyer, Lee Cohen, and two group members took Freddie to a luncheon where they met the Federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. At this meeting, Freddie and the two students presented Minister Finley with a package showing the support for Freddie from the local community.

Other members of the community helped to support Freddie during his ordeal. Social worker Anna Deveaux at the Cape Breton Regional Hospital who met Freddie during a session of dialysis; the Sisters of Notre Dame who were the first to take Freddie in and care for him; and people at the Cape Breton Regional Library.

According to Freddie’s lawyer, Lee Cohen, the support from the local community was one of the main reasons behind the government’s decision to let Freddie stay while his application was reviewed.

The ordeal must have been especially taxing for Mr. Mabalot because his family was in the Philippines. To make matters worse, his wife, Cynthia, and his two children, Abigail and Cyndirelle have not been able to see Freddie since he landed in hospital in Sydney in 2005.

Freddie’s case is a situation that shows Cape Bretoners at their best. People were asked to step up and many did and one man owes his life to those people.

Freddie's case also shows what can happen when students are encourages to look beyond the book and classroom during their education. As group member Vincent MacDonald wrote in an article in the Caper Times, “It is our experience that school projects and homework is something to be done before your go out on Friday or before you and your friends leave for a weekend trip. However, this is not the case for our Community Studies group from Cape Breton University.”

This case not only highlighted issues in our immigration system, it showed what a small community is capable of and what a university education can (and should) be about. Freddie’s lawyer said he had a one in a million shot at staying in Cape Breton while his application was being reviewed, if he was told to return he would have likely died. The support of our community helped this man and his family beat one in a million odds, this is a proud moment for everyone involved.

92% VOTE YES

2008-03-14T04:43:00.000-07:00

The unofficial results are in from the CBU Students' Union's referendum to leave the CFS and 92 per cent of students voted to leave the national organization.

Total votes: 366 (10.7% of student body)

Yes votes: 337 (92%)

No votes: 23 (6%)

Spoiled: 6 (2%)

The unofficial results are in from the CBU Students’ Union referendum on its membership with the Canadian Federation of Students: 92 per cent of voters said that they wanted to leave the CFS. This reverses the decision made by CBU students in 2001 when they voted to join the CFS.

It is hard to tell what happened during the referendum in 2001, the only available documentation was a pamphlet from the side in favour of joining the CFS and a press release stating the results. Even though the students’ union is required to keep minutes from all meetings of the student representative council, the board of directors of the students’ union, there were no minutes on record from the period when the union decided join the CFS. Students from CBU and current and former union employees that were with the union in 2001 have stated that there was no side against joining the CFS during the initial referendum.

This means that when the initial referendum to join the CFS was held only one view was represented. Based on current students’ union regulations, this referendum would have been in violation of the union’s by-laws and elections act, as there must be a side in favour and opposed to the motion upon which the membership will vote.

At the beginning of the 2007-08 academic year, the CBU Students’ Union decided it wanted to ask CBU students whether they wanted to continue with their membership with the CFS. The idea was first brought to the student representative council and they voted in favour of the referendum and approved the dates and times of polling. Their notice was submitted stating the dates and times of polling and the CFS acknowledged receipt of the document. CFS by-laws also call for a petition signed by 10 per cent of the student body to be submitted. Even though this would have only required approximately 300 students, a petition with the signatures of 500 students was submitted and this was when the troubles began.

At first, the national chairperson of the CFS, Amanda Aziz, said that even though someone named Amanda signed to acknowledge the receipt of the petition, it never showed up at their national office. Then the CFS admitted that it was sent to the right building but to the wrong office and another person named Amanda signed for the package. Finally, in 2008, several months later, the CFS admitted that they received the petition, but they said they received the petition too late and, therefore, refused to acknowledge the referendum. The CFS said that they would give CBU permission to hold a referendum in the fall of 2008. However, there is no reason that the union should have waited until the fall of 2008 because there is no way to tell if the CFS would have cooperated then either.

To say that a petition was late would imply that there was a clear deadline in CFS by-laws, however, that is not the case. The only deadline mentioned in the by-laws of the CFS is the deadline for the notice of the referendum. The notice is defined as the dates and times of polling and the notice must be delivered at least six months prior to the polls opening; there is no deadline stated for the receipt of the petition.

Several students, including myself, have spent the last week and a half speaking with students about CFS and their relevance to CBU students. Unlike the referendum when we joined, there was a side against de-federating in this referendum and a side in favour of de-federating, of which I was a part.

The message resulting from the referendum was clear: CBU students want out of the CFS and if they refuse to acknowledge these results, it is nothing more than democratic meddling on the part of the CFS and another example of them ignoring the needs of CBU students.

Cost of education a factor in outmigration

2008-03-11T05:04:00.001-07:00

Our province has more universities per capital than anywhere else in Canada; however, according to recent Statistics Canada data, only 57 per cent of university graduates stay in the province. Attempts to explain this range from the student’s original place of residence to job options to income earned. The many explanations offered ignore one central issue: student debt.

Roger Taylor, a business columnist for the Chronicle Herald, argues that the students’ original place of residence and employment options available after graduation are two of the most important factors that affect a students decision to stay in the province.

In his column, Taylor pointed to Statistics Canada data that showed 30 per cent of Nova Scotia post-secondary students come from outside of the province; more than three times the national average of eight per cent. He also states that the highest employment rates in the United States and Canada are found in Canada’s Atlantic Provinces; according to Statistics Canada, Nova Scotia’s unemployment rate was 9.1 per cent and the national average was 6.6 per cent.

Where are all of the graduates going? Alberta.

A recent column in MacLean’s On Campus stated that one in five workers in Alberta come from outside of the province and that of the people with post-secondary certifications of some kind or another – diploma or degree – more than 6,500 came from the Atlantic Provinces.

Some people do not believe that a mobile labour force is a big issue. They argue that a mobile labour force is similar to mobile capital; it flows from one place to another depending on the number of jobs and how much the available jobs pay. Not everyone holds such beliefs.

Several provinces are going further than merely disagreeing with the benefits of a mobile labour force; they are actively working to entice workers to voluntarily stay in the province in which they received their post-secondary education. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick all offer tuition rebates and tax incentives in an attempt to get people to stay out of the pool of workers willing to migrate.

In Nova Scotia, the government has launched a program, Opportunities Nova Scotia, which actively works to keep graduates and workers here and goes a step further, the program goes to Alberta and Ontario and attempts to convince Nova Scotians working in those provinces to return home. The province argues that the cost of homes, life style, crime rates and proximity to family members means that you can stay close to home, keep in touch with your family and make your dollar go farther.

Whether answers are coming from columnists, the C.D. Howe Institute and think tanks or the provincial government; there is one key factor that is left out: the affect that the cost of an education has on a graduates finances and future goals.

Upon graduating, the average student in Nova Scotia is approximately $25,000 in debt. This means that most university graduates leave university with a financial monkey on their back the size of a small mortgage or a decent-sized car loan. When you combine high debt rates with a high rate of interest on loans from the Canada Student Loans Program, students are faced with incredible monthly payments for years to come.

The unavoidable fact is that Nova Scotia has the highest tuition rates in Canada, on average, and that means that we will have some of the highest debt loans in the country. Starting life off in the “real world” is financially debilitating and it is no wonder many students head west to the money; expecting anything less would be unrealistic.

The 2008 federal budget /// The facts for students

2008-03-04T02:14:00.001-08:00

With the 2008 federal budget, the Conservative government took its first steps towards setting an education agenda. The budget included approximately $500 million dollars on education related initiatives; however, the bulk of that money, $473 million, will not be put to use until 2009.

Spending initiatives in the Conservative budget include: funding to start in 2009 that will replace the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, funds to begin streamlining and modernizing the Canada Student Loans Program in 2009, and more than $25 million dollars invested into creating new scholarships for graduate students.

While many have been quick to praise the budget; student groups are more cautious, especially considering the vast majority of their education spending does not take place until the fall of 2009, after the next legally mandated federal election.

The planned extinction of the Millennium Scholarship Fund

In his budget speech, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the Conservative government will not be renewing the mandate of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation (MSF). Instead, the federal government will be taking the budget of the MSF, $350 million dollars, and creating the Canada Student Grant Program (CSGP).

The CSGP would receive $350 million in 2009-10, $400 million in 2010-11, $415 million in 2011-12 and $430 million in 2012-13.

According to Finance Minister Flaherty, the CSGP would target low – and middle – income Canadians, approximately 245,000 by government estimates. Low – and middle – income students would receive monthly grants of $250 and $100, respectively.

The Liberals argued that the new program was a re-branding of a former Liberal program. However, commentators have been quick to point to differences, not all good.

Zach Churchill, CASA national director, said that, “The Foundation was the only group that was doing research on access issues. Looking at Aboriginal students, low income students, and first generation students.”

“We haven’t seen any indication from the government that the federal research will be picked up,” added Churchill.

The Education Policy Institute was quick to point to a major flaw in the new programs design: the number of people eligible for support. The government estimated that 245,000 would be eligible for support through the CSGP; however, the Education Policy Institute places the number closer to 500,000, more than twice the expected amount. Such a miscalculation on the government’s part would mean that the program’s cost could more than double and would place increased stress on other areas of government spending.

Some commentators argue that the MSF operated outside of the government and the new program, the CSGP, will now be more transparent and accountable because it is a government-run program.

While many Canadian students will have access to these grants they will not be enough to fund someone’s education alone. To fill the financial void, many Canadian students will turn to the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). The government announced plans to invest more into the CSLP beginning in 2009 as well.

Plans to “modernize and streamline” the CSLP

Beginning in 2009 and stretching over four years, the Conservative government allocated funding of $123 million dollars for the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP). The money will go towards the modernization and streamlining of the program, making loans more accessible to part-time students and making the program’s webpage more user-friendly.

NDP Education Critic Denise Savoie said that the investment in the CSLP was not enough and that improvements to the CSLP were vague.

“They do talk about streamlining the Canada Student Loans Program, but the devil is going to be in the details on that. There’s really no details,” said Savoie.

Savoie was not the only one concerned about the lack of detailed plans for the overhaul of the CSLP. Julian Benedict, the co-founder of Coalition for Student Loan Fairness, wrote an article for MacLean’s online that stated:

$100 million will now be earmarked for an as yet undefined “modernization” strategy. Here, voters might ask this question: after dozens of meetings with post-secondary groups, and thousands of e-mails from Canadians across the country, why is it that the feds are still unable to define exactly what is wrong with the student loan program? In any event, insiders say that this is really a slush fund aimed at those provinces which still haven’t signed on to integrated loan programs — many still have concerns about how much flexibility they will lose if such agreements are signed with the federal government.

Benedict was also quick to point out that there is no money set aside for an Ombudsman, something the United States did in 1998; no new regulations to reign in collections agencies working on behalf of the CSLP and no funds dedicated to reducing the 8.25 percent interest rate charges on student loans.

The latter of these issues seems to be Benedict’s most severe criticism of the program. He argues that as long as interest rates are as high as they are, borrowers will start life in a financial stranglehold and that borrowers are financially propping up the CSLP.

“So the next time you meet a student loan borrower paying 8.25 per cent in interest or more on their loan, thank them for subsidizing the existing loan system — they are doing it whether they can afford it or not,” wrote Benedict in his editorial for MacLean’s.

Federal Budget and Students /// Comment

2008-03-03T02:59:00.000-08:00

With the release of the new federal budget, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government finally carved out an education agenda that has been sadly missing from its past budgets. The federal budget included money to replace the Millennium Scholarship Foundation (MSF), provide scholarships to doctoral students, increased funding for academic research and allocated funds to “modernize and streamline” the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP).

The MSF, a Liberal brainchild, was created in 1998 with an endowment of $2.5 billion. The MSF was set to expire in 2009 and the Conservatives have introduced the Canada Student Grant Program to fill the void of the MSF. At $350 million dollars the new grant based program will dole out grants to students based on the level of income, not need: $250 per month for low-income students and $100 per month for middle-income students.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the Conservative government expects around 240,000 students to take advantage of the new program. However, Canada’s Education Policy Institute argues that the Conservatives made a fatal error when calculate the number of participants the program will have to support. They argue that independent students will also be eligible to receive grants and since the vast majority of independent students would be classified as low-income, they will be eligible for the $250 per month grant. Because of their eligibility, the Education Policy Institute’s Canadian office places the number of eligible students at 500,000, more than twice the amount projected by the government.

This crucial error means that the program could end up costing approximately $1 billion; far more than the $350 million set aside. While, on the surface, the program sounds like a step in the right direction, the grossly underestimated number of participants could threaten the programs existence in future years or threaten other government programs if it breaks the $350 million mark.

Zach Churchill, National Chairman of CASA, added that, ““The Foundation was the only group that was doing research on access issues. Looking at Aboriginal students, low income students, and first generation students. We haven’t seen any indication from the government that the federal research will be picked up.”

Alex Usher, of the Education Policy Institute, agreed with Mr. Churchill and said that, “There will nobody speaking for access anymore in terms of research.”

The MSF and the Canada Student Grants Program worked to provide better access to post-secondary education for Canadian students. The Canada Student Grants Program also makes the same amount of money available to more students, mirroring the overall Conservative budget approach that was described by Liberal Leader Stephane Dion as a mile wide and an inch thick.

This means that there will have to be other effective mechanisms in place to help students gain access to quality post-secondary education. Where do hundreds of thousands of students turn? The Canada Student Loan Program (CSLP). The CSLP is also marked to receive $123 million to “modernize and streamline” the program.

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the money will go towards making online access and management easier, to help make loans available to part time students and helping students who have trouble repaying their loans.

Streamlining is great, but the government failed to address the largest problem faced by students because of the CSLP, high interest rates. Student loan borrows will continue to prop up the problem plagued program with the money the federal government collects in interest rates. Instead of fixing the core problem of the program, the Conservative government merely applied a $123 million Band-Aid.

The programs and spending initiatives are plentiful and between two of the initiatives they totaled more than $450 million. However, the amount does not guarantee that they were the most effective fixes for the problems that face students. For example, no longer will needs based research be conducted and the core problems of the CSLP have yet to be corrected. Until these topics are given the attention they deserve, the real issues surrounding access to education will not be understood and student borrowers will continue to prop up a loan program regardless of whether they can afford to do so.

Premier breaks silence on CBU's BEd

2008-02-25T04:21:00.001-08:00

On February 14, Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald finally broke his silence on the education review panel’s report and recommendations. It was his first official statement on the matter since the report’s release on January 16 and it was long overdue. His statement came the day after his education minister, Karen Casey, met with John Harker, CBU President.

During the meeting between Harker and Casey, Casey received a mammoth dossier that was full of letters, petitions and media coverage that supported CBU’s push for their own bachelor of education program. Harker also outlined the university’s arguments for their own BEd: the province must look beyond the status quo, improve equity and access to education and that a BEd at CBU would help with Nova Scotia’s economic development.

After their meeting, Harker was quoted in the Cape Breton Post saying, “We had a pleasant and a useful opportunity to ensure that our views are very clearly understood.” According to President Harker, Minister Casey “got it”. However, we will not know for certain until sometime in March when Minister Casey makes her decision.

The next day, Premier MacDonald said, “I have no intention, as premier, to ever see that program [CBU’s joint program with MUN] leave Cape Breton University,” he added that, “I have no problem with the current situation.” However, the premier was not as supportive of CBU’s push for their own bachelor of education program.

So, even though granting CBU their own bachelor of education program would most likely mean that CBU would phase out their program with MUN, he is okay with the MUN program at CBU and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that leave the province under that agreement, but he is not okay with CBU starting their own BEd program that would keep all those thousands of dollars within Nova Scotia’s economy.

The premier has “no problem” with CBU’s current arrangement because it does not disrupt the status quo, something his government seems completely dedicated to maintaining.

In response to the premier, President Harker said, “We have a premier from on the island and I would hope that he soon says, ‘Let’s not have a Halifax centred approach to this.’” To deny this would deny that the province is not developed around an urban core and that the benefits of the core are expected to spread from the centre to the periphery, something the province has tried to do with Halifax. But, for some reason, the premier did just that.

“To suggest this is a Halifax-centred approach, and that’s unfair to say that, he knows, and all presidents know that we did not put forward the report,” said Premier MacDonald. Of course Mr. Premier, this had nothing to do with you or your government, it just happened to be the recommendation of a panel hand picked and appointed by your education minister.

I believed it from day one and this quote from the premier continued to re-enforce my belief that the panel was nothing more than a feeble attempt to distance the government from a decision they knew would end up being politically problematic. His attempt to distance himself (and his government) from the panel’s decision was the only smart thing he has done during the whole review process.

The initial public response to the panel’s report was outrage and for close to one month the premier, the leader of this province, said nothing. Opposition leaders, public figures and academics spoke out and, finally, one month later he decided to break his silence by re-affirming his support for the status quo and shot back to a criticism with “not fair”.

The premier needs to do his Cape Breton MLA’s a favour and diffuse this issue. If he fails to do so, his MLAs will become the target for Cape Breton’s collective rage the next time we step into a voting booth.

Election results announced...Stuart and McCarthy claim victory

2008-02-15T06:19:00.001-08:00

On Thursday, February 14, Matt Stuart and Ricky McCarthy were declared winners in the 2008 CBU Students’ Union General Election. It was an interesting election in which low voter turnout, a protest campaign and acts of God did everything they could to complicate matters for the Chief Returning Officer, Aaron Fisher. After the polls were closed and the ballots counted, the unofficial results were 82.4 percent for Stuart and McCarthy, 17.4 percent of people voted, “no,” and 0.2 percent of ballots cast were spoiled.

Originally, two teams were supposed to be running for President and Vice President, but one of the teams missed the All Candidates Meeting, a mandatory meeting that you are disqualified for missing. They were granted an appeal with the Election Committee and one member of the disqualified slate showed up late. After their appeal was denied by the Election Committee they rogue slate attempted to appeal the Election Committee’s decision to the union’s board. This had never been tried before and the union’s by-laws were unsurprisingly vague as to whether the board could actual overturn the decision of the Elections Committee. The board decided they could not veto the early disqualification and the rogue slate was sent packing for a second time.

What do we know about this rogue slate whose perceived alienation was not enough to motivate them to mobilize a successful protest vote? The slate was composed of Jeff Black and Guitar Phil (I have not heard his last name). Jeff Black was running for President and his involvement in the Students’ Union was limited to a stint on the board; he was removed from the board after he failed to show up for meetings. Phil, to my knowledge, has had very limited involvement in the Students’ Union and since Mr. Black’s involvement was cut short by his absence we can say his knowledge was equally limited. Maybe it was better they were disqualified to begin with.

Their disqualification meant that there was only one slate running and students had to vote either “yes” or “no” for them. This was the second time in recent history that an acclamation took place and the voter turnout for this non-campaign was even smaller than the last time; a total of 494 people voted out of a student population of more than 2,500. The protest “no” campaign could not even get people interested enough in the election campaign to mobilize a significant portion of the student body. The voter turn out was both pathetic and abysmal.

To complicate matters further for the Chief Returning Officer and Elections Committee, the university was closed down at 6:00 pm on the second day of voting and this meant that there would have to be an additional two hours of voting on Thursday and the results were postponed. Thursday evening the ballots were counted and the results were announced with a dark cloud of a looming appeal hanging over the head of the Election Committee.

The rogue slate that has been the monkey wrench to the election’s gears has said they are considering appealing the results. I certainly hope they drop the matter. They have been turned down twice and their appeal will have to go to the union’s board, a group that already turned them away once. They claim they were told the wrong date of the All Candidates Meeting and I would be tempted to believe them if they did not show up late for the second meeting.

Mr. Black missed several board meetings before he was removed, missed the All Candidates Meeting and then the slate was late for their appeal; I see a pattern.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, February 18, 2008.

CBU SU Elections

2008-02-11T03:40:00.000-08:00

On February 13 and 14, students at Cape Breton University will vote for their union’s next president and vice president. As it stands right now, there is one team running. Each year our union holds general elections around this time and each year a small and insignificant percentage of the student body turns out to vote, I will never understand this phenomenon.

I fear that this year’s union elections will continue this worrisome trend because the 2008 General Election has only one team running for president and vice president. There was a second team, but they were disqualified. What has resulted from their disqualification is a yes/no vote for the only team still standing. The team that was disqualified believes that they were treated unfairly and that the process was slanted against them. In response to their perceived injustice, they began what, at the time of writing this column, was an unofficial vote no campaign.

So what happens if the majority of students vote “no”? The election machine will have to be restarted, nominations will be opened again and then there will be another campaign and another vote. It will mean more work for those involved, but if that is what the majority of students want, then that will be what happens.

By the time you read this it will be Monday and half way through the campaign. If you do not know how to vote, there is still time to figure it out. There will be a public debate, the candidates will be out in classrooms public speaking and you can ask them questions directly when you see them around the school. What is most important is that we get involved in the process: ask questions, make your decision and place your vote.

Our students’ union is given the task of managing close to 500,000 dollars of our money; however, each year, students actively fail to participate in the process that decides where and how that money will be spent. I am sure we could understand the problem that is manifesting itself in student organizations throughout our region as a smaller example of the voting trends that plague our age group, the reason that no politician or statesman will ever take us as a serious threat.

Most people our age share a common cynicism about politics: they do not believe they can trust politicians and, therefore, do not believe there is any reason to vote. At the student level, they look at the last three scandal plagued years of the CBU Students’ Union and ask, “Why bother?”
Students, and young people in general, have become so alienated by the political system they ave decided to give up on changing the political system. Indeed, they do not even try to rage against the corruption that, they believe, is inherent in the system and democratic process. I, for one, have never understood this approach.

Plato wrote that, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” The only way to change the political system and avoid the fate of which Plato spoke is with a check mark next to a candidate you think can actually initiate change.

On February 12 and 13, make sure you bring your Driver’s License, CBU Student ID or some other type of photo ID and place your vote.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, February 11, 2008.

The issue that won't go away: CBU's BEd

2008-02-04T04:10:00.000-08:00

It is an issue that will not go away. CBU has tried to get its own Bachelor of Education program for close to 20 years and each time has been turned away. Their most recent attempt was defeated by the recommendations of a four person panel appointed by the province’s education minister, Karen Casey.

The panel found that Nova Scotia produced more education graduates than was needed. This discovery, based on some simple supply and demand calculus, led to several recommendations. The report concluded that something had to be done about the “oversupply” of education graduates. They recommended that resident Bachelor of Education programs be continued and have their admission rates frozen, except for Saint Francis Xavier. The report recommended that Saint Francis Xavier’s Bachelor of Education program have its enrollment increased.

The report then said that the government should not approve new Bachelor of Education programs and it should clamp down on programs being offered through Nova Scotia’s universities, such as Cape Breton University’s program that works in partner with Memorial University Newfoundland.

No new programs and the scrapping of cohort programs. The panel, appointed by the minster of education, momentarily took the legs out from underneath Cape Breton University. The university had been riding high on the news of in nursing program and then the panel’s recommendations struck CBU like a sledgehammer to the gut. The shock did not last for long.

John Harker, President of CBU, said he, like many others, was shocked by the panel’s recommendations. I am shocked by their recommendations insofar as they run contrary to Premier MacDonald’s stated goals. However, such thinking has become central in the province’s strategy to develop Halifax as a core, with communities in the immediate periphery getting the leftovers and those far away getting table scraps.

How can Cape Breton, the second largest population in Nova Scotia, outside of Halifax not have its own Bachelor of Education program? It is a question that many people in Cape Breton have been asking and it is an issue that is becoming more and more politicized. The province’s opposition parties – NDP and Liberal – have come on side with their Cape Breton constituents and are lending their support to CBU.

Support has also poured from the Mi’kmaq community. A letter issued by the chiefs of all Atlantic Mi’kmaq communities stated that, “…if CBU had a bachelor of education degree we believe more aboriginal students would achieve their dream of becoming teachers, role models and leaders.”

The panel’s recommendations not only fly in the face of what the community wants, but also runs contrary to the current labour market and the purpose of higher education.

The panel only examined the province’s need for teachers; however, they did not examine world wide or nation wide demand. Their supply-demand calculation was not only simplistic, but overly simplistic with an extremely narrow and unrealistic sampling. The recommendations put forward by the panel suggest that the Province of Nova Scotia can somehow go against the international trend of an increasingly mobile labour force.

Even if their argument based on a narrow supply-demand calculation was correct, which it isn’t, it also ignores the purpose of a higher education. If we were to limit admission to university programs based on some supply and demand formula, I am sure we would have far fewer people in university. A higher education is not only about a bigger pay cheque and professional advancement; it is also about personal growth and the development of one’s intellectual capacity.

From the minute the panel was appointed by the minister of education I was doubtful of our BEd request. It looked like a poor and transparent attempt to distance herself from a result she already knew. I do not want to sound cynical, but it seems that CBU is fighting an uphill battle. The community has rallied behind this cause and will continue to do so; we are fighting a battle this is at once difficult and necessary and it will not go away.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, February 4, 2008.

Interview with the Corporation's Joel Bakan

2008-02-02T15:07:00.000-08:00

CT: The Corporation is a unique study of CSR and offers an interesting view of corporate nature. Was the initiative behind the project academic or personal?

JB: Probably a combination of both [academic and personal]. When I first became aware of the nature of the corporation I was surprised; it was at Oxford where I was studying law. The first time I looked at corporate law, I learned that there were two fundamental principles of corporate law. One, the corporation was treated as a person and I thought that was strange, almost bizarre. The second thing I found bizarre was the kind of personality the law gave the corporation. The principle that creates the personality [of the corporation] is the best interest principle. What it says is that every action that a director or manager of a corporation takes has to be justified as being in the best interest of the corporation, meaning of the shareholder. Everything the manager does has to be justified as serving either the short- or long-term interests of the shareholders. In effect, what the law does is state that the corporation always has to act in its own self-interest. The law has created this entity as a person and imbued it with a personality where it can only act in its own self-interest.

I had done psychology as an undergrad. In psychology, I learned that a person who can only act in his or her own self-interest is usually diagnosed as a psychopath or sociopath. That was kind of when the penny dropped intellectually for me. As well, I have been, personally and politically, of a more activist nature. I was attracted to law because I wanted to do something good for the world and work for justice, not drive a BMW. I suppose my personal inclinations have always been skeptical about any forms of concentrated power and the corporation has become that.

In the mid 1990s when I was working as a law professor at UBC, I realized that we were entering a new era in terms of corporate power largely because of the dynamics of globalization, de-regulation and privatization. I thought that it was interesting that the corporation was not just a sort of business entity making widgets and providing goods and services, it is really becoming a governing institution in the world and yet we know very little about it, as citizens. Lawyers, however, do know a lot about it. I thought it would be important to share what is almost a Masonic secret as to what the true nature of the institution is.

CT: Both the book and the movie were hugely successful. Were you surprised by the level of interest that it sparked and all of the attention they received.

JB: I was surprised, the book became a best seller in several countries and it’s been published into over 20 languages and the film has gone around the world. Looking at it from the time when I started the project, I would have never imagined this level of success.

I planned to write the book, originally, as an academic book and then I realized I wanted to speak to a broader audience because I thought the message was one I wanted to share with the public. So I started to write a popular book. It was shortly after that when I met Mark Akbar who I knew as a filmmaker, not personally, who had made a film “Manufacturing Consent” about Noam Chomsky and I admired that film a great deal. I met him at a social event and we began talking, I told him about the work I was doing and he said he wanted to make a film about the book. I said that I hadn’t started writing the book and he said that I should write the book while working on the movie with him and that’s what ended up happening.

CT: Did you find that process helpful at all in your writing?

JB: It was very complicated, very different. Film is a multi-sensorial medium. I was not a filmmaker (I am a film buff) so it was very interesting. I am interested in trying new things and I jumped write into this. But yes, it did help me with my writing. My background is in academia and what filmmaking helped me with was storytelling, which the book benefited from. But the film benefited from the kind of rigour and analysis that is normally associated with book writing. I really think the book and the film benefited from each other.

CT: The film effectively goes through a personality checklist that outlines the traits a psychopath normally possesses. You said that the nature you outlined of the corporation comes from the laws and who it has to serve and how it has to serve. Do you think that the nature of the corporation is related to the legal system or the economic system or are they all entangled?

JB: They are all entangled. Fundamentally, the corporation is a legal institution and is not like you or I. It was created by law and cannot exist outside its creation by the legal system. If a group of people get together and say they want to invest in a project, they are not a corporation. They become a corporation when they are registered by the government as a corporation and are given a charter by the state that says they can operate as a corporation. What that means is that a collective entity, a group of people or investors, is treated by the law as one entity and is given rights and obligations. Corporations are treated as artificial people and can own property, enter into contracts and function in the economy. Its shareholders and directors are given certain protections from liability, so it is a very elaborate legal edifice. Once it is created as a legal entity, it has to do things. There it becomes an economic entity.

CT: Your book and movie states that the problems the corporation creates, it creates for everything around it. Many people offer corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a solution to the problems created by the corporation. What impact can CSR have on preventing and managing problems created by corporations?

JB: CSR if you actually take it seriously and talk about it genuinely is illegal. It is illegal in the sense that if a manager or director says, “I am going to not drill a well in an area because it is environmentally sensitive even though drilling that well would be legal and to the great benefit of my shareholders,” that manager would be acting illegally. Because the laws compel managers to do whatever is necessary to serve shareholders’ interests. If a manger actually puts more weight on social interests than on shareholder interests that manager is acting illegally. If that manager says that they are putting weight on social interests as a strategy for serving shareholder interests, i.e. British Petroleum presents itself as an environmentally friendly company, that’s okay. For it to be legal, it must be strategic. My problem with it is that strategic CSR creates a genuine limit on how far it can be taken, that’s the limited promise [of CSR]. The peril of CSR is that increasingly people are coming to believe that CSR can be a substitute for public regulation and to me that is a very, very dangerous belief. The suggestion is that we can trust corporations to be responsible on their own, we don’t need governments any more and, therefore, we should de-regulate; there is a twinning of de-regulation with CSR and to me that’s dangerous.

CT: You said that de-regulation along with legal decisions were what got us to this point. What were some of the reasons for such drastic de-regulation in the market?

JB: I think that if you go back to the 1980s, the oil crisis back in the early 1970s and the kind of stagnating economies and high inflation that were around, it was the solution that was proposed by many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, President Ronald Regan, Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher and our own Brian Mulroney. The belief was that the state needed to get out of the economy insofar as the state as involved in trying to protect other values.

Neo-liberalism is the term usually used to describe that and that involved three fundamental policies, which are all related: privatization, de-regulation, and the liberalization of international trade. That trilogy of ideas has been entrenched in our political and economic thinking to the point where it is almost illegitimate to speak of more government involvement in the economy in order to protect other people from externalities. Neo-liberalism derives much of its support from the simple idea that it advocates limited government, that you have smaller government. That is a myth and a lie, you don’t have smaller government, you have government and the state shifting its power from one set of interests to another. You still have government and the state creating corporations, enforcing property rights and enforcing contract rights. You need a massive intrusion by the state to have a so-called free market. You can’t have a market without a legal system, without rights, courts and prisons to put people away for violating contracts and so forth. What neo-liberalism does, it says, we want to leave all of that, we want the state to be involved and protect the interest of property, but we don’t want it to protect the interests of workers, the environment or these things that get in the way of using property to make a profit. It is a myth to say that neo-liberalism is about the state getting out of the economy; it is about the state getting out of one thing that it has traditionally done and that is to protect the public interest.

CT: There is still continued support for de-regulation and programs that tout de-regulation, such as Atlantica. Do you think that people have enough of an awareness of the dangers of de-regulation? Do think the picture people have in their minds of de-regulation is an accurate one?

JB: No, I don’t think it is an accurate picture because they derive that picture from mainstream media. The large companies, the private broadcasters, are some of the leading champions of de-regulation [and] were one of the first industries to move towards self-regulation. The advertising industry that funds the broadcasting industry also was also one of the first to move to self-regulation. These are the industries that produce our information about de-regulation and they are strong champions of de-regulation. I’m not saying that media people sit in a room wringing their hands and writing conspiracies, I don’t believe that. I do believe that there is going to be some effect on the output if the process that goes into producing the news is driven by profit and an ideological commitment to de-regulation, I think you would be naïve to believe otherwise. So, people don’t have a sense of [de-regulation].

I think what many people believe, and its not their fault, is that corporations do have the ability to be socially responsible, therefore, they can be trusted, therefore, they don’t need to be heavily regulated and that regulation destroys economic value and that it is an illegitimate intrusion of the state into people’s lives. I think that package of ideas is what people believe when we talk about these issues.

CT: So many people rely on corporations and they, as an institution, have become so deeply ingrained into our society. It seems as though we can’t get rid of them, that we need to find a way to live with them. What do you think we can do to live with them?

JB: It’s a very difficult issue and I don’t think there is any kind of magic bullet. I do think that we have to realize that as we move towards a greater role of corporations in governing our society, we’re moving away from democracy. I think part of what we have to do in our own minds is realize that we are at a bit of a crossroads and we are at a point where something that most people value, democratic governance, is actually at risk. I think people need to reactivate themselves as democratic citizens and realize that the extent to which they get totally caught up in themselves as individual islands of consumption is a dangerous place to be and if we care about the kind of society that our children are going to be a part of we need to realize that the current direction we’re going is neither sustainable nor just nor good for us. I think that if people actually understand that, we can begin to forge solutions. I’m not a utopian thinker and I’m not a revolutionary thinker, what I think we need to do is take the institutions we have that are governed by the right principles and try to make them operate in accordance with those principles.

The principle that needs to be resurrected is the idea that it is the people’s, through their democratic representatives, responsibility and right to ensure that corporations act in ways that are more likely to serve the public interest. We’ve lost sight of that idea and that’s the fundamental idea underlying the public regulatory system and that system is not working well now and wasn’t working that well 20 years ago either. But rather than giving up on the idea of democratic sovereignty over the economy, I think we need to make that idea work. For me, morally and politically, that’s the right ideal. If we live in a democracy, then our civil society should be governed by democratic ideals.

CT: You said that with neo-liberalism came de-regulation, and that de-regulation resulted a shift in the government’s focus. Where do you think the government needs to shift its focus to fix the problems that have been created?

De-regulation is effectively a form of de-democratization. If the government says, we are no longer going to be concerned about something it is basically off loading and diminishing its responsibility and its sovereignty and, therefore, is diminishing our responsibilities and sovereignty as citizens because in a democracy governments represent us. De-regulation in shrinking the government’s role in trying to advance the public interest and is shrinking our role as citizens. So I think where things need to start is to breathe some life into regulatory structures that already exist. We have agencies and laws and we need to make them work. A fundamental part of making them work is to increase their independence from industry. Talking quite pragmatically there are several ways that can be done: campaign finance is an important area, lobbying is an important area, ensuring that agencies of government exist at arms length from the industries they regulate and insuring that agencies are properly staffed, that they can actually enforce the laws that are their responsibility to enforce. Those are practical and politically doable things that can be done to severe the influence that industry has over government.

CT: A lot of what you’re saying is that there are institutions that exist that can regulate, they just need some teeth. Many of the institution you spoke of were national institutions. How can national institutions regulate corporations that now have the ability and capital to transcend the nation-state?

JB: That’s the $64,000 question. In this day and age I don’t think we can operate only at the domestic level anymore. I think we need to think about regulation at an international level as well as the national level. There are institutions that exist, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), that have good standards and no teeth at all. I think the same thing needs to happen at the international level that needs to happen at the domestic level; that is to make the ILO have the same kind of clout as the [World Trade Organization]. There is no reason that cannot be the case. Why should a country be able to get away with flagrant breaches of ILO standards while if there is a breach of WTO sanctions you’ll be hauled in front of a tribunal and there will be trade sanctions placed against you?

Kyoto is an attempt, as much as we can argue about whether it works, it does represent an attempt by countries to get together and cooperate on a global scale. We need to work at both ends, the state is sandwiched between political currents at the international level and political currents at the domestic level and we need to realize that. As involved citizens, we need to operate at both of those levels.

Best films of 2007

2008-01-21T20:46:00.000-08:00

No Country for Old Men 89.22%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:02
Director(s): Joel and Ethan Cohen
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly MacDonald

“No Country for Old Men” is a movie that’s a western, but not a western; it’s a movie that’s a crime thriller, but not a crime thriller; and it’s an action movie, but not an action movie. With “No Country”, the Cohen Brothers have done a tremendous job of adapting Cormac MacCarthy’s novel to the big screen; however, they have done so without dictating too much to the viewer and without being slaves to the original work.
The movie is minimal in its dialogue and its images communicate more to the viewer than thousands of words in your typical Hollywood movie. The scenes are a combination of wide panoramic shots, which do the beauty of the Western country side justice, and tight shots of killers side stepping puddles of blood or the faces of Western heroes whose chiseled faces remind us of traditional codes of honour and concepts of Western justice.
The scenes and words come together into an amazingly well crafted cat and mouse chase featuring three main characters: Chigur (Javier Bardem), Moss (Josh Brolin) and a Texas Ranger (Tommy Lee Jones). Moss, while on a hunting trip, finds a scattering of corpses, animals shot to death, some “Mexican brown”, and a satchel containing two million dollars. Moss takes the money and hits the road running. Chigur, a psychopathic bounty hunter, is put on Moss’s train. With that, the two chase each other down across the country (and even across the border into Mexico). In the pair’s train, Chigur leaves a path of death; the only person to cross paths with Chigur and live was a gas station attendant who won a coin toss for his life.
Bardem’s performance is truly terrifying. Not since Anthony Hopkins played Hannibal Lecter in “Silence of the Lambs” has there been a performance as chilling. Not only is Chigur terrifying, he is also inventive. His weapon of choice is a slaughterhouse air gun that shoots a metal bolt into the head of his victim before it retracts back to its original position.
Bardem’s chilling interaction with a gas station attendant sums up his character, logic, and mindset. Bardem forces the attendant to flip a coin for his life.
“What’s the most you ever lost in a coin toss,” asked Chigur.
He flips the coin. “Call it.”
“But, I didn’t put nothin’ up,” replied the gas station attendant.
“Yes, you did. You’ve been puttin’ it up your whole life,” said Chigur, “you just didn’t know it.”
“Look, I need to know what I stand to win,” said the attendant.
“Everything, you stand to win everything. Call it,” said Chigur.
Not only does this scene provide a chilling window into the character played by Bardem, but it also sheds light on the meta-narrative that runs the entire length of the movie. Some have attempted to explain it in terms of good and evil, punishment or fate; however, I think these miss the mark. One reviewer said that Chigur is a metaphor for all of the violence in the world, Moss’s character is a metaphor for our measly efforts to escape and subdue violence, and the character played by Jones is a metaphor for civilization’s super-ego that tries to (and false to) make sense of it all.
Personally, I see Chigur not simply as evil, but as death itself. Moss, Moss’s wife, and the bounty hunter played by Harrelson are all characters who must come to terms with their fate, their destiny as decided by their choices. Their end at the hands of Chigur is a consequence of their decisions and the entire movie follows these characters as they come to terms with their eventually (and inevitable end). Jones’s character, coming to terms with the end of his career and his age ends the movie and, with the movie’s close, shows he has come to terms with his finitude. He describes a dream he had about his dead father:

In the dream I knew he was goin’ on a head and he was fixin’ to make a fire in all that dark and all that cold. I knew that whenever I got there that he’d be there. And then I woke up.

There Will Be Blood 87.50%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:38
Director(s): Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O’Connor, Ciaran Hinds, Dillon Freasier

The Bourne Ultimatum 85.25%

Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 1:56
Director(s): Paul Greengrass
Starring: Matt Damon, Julia Stiles

Before the Devil Knows you’re Dead 82.68%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:03
Director(s): Sindey Lumet
Starring: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, Albert Finney, Rosemary Harris, Michael Shannon

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street 82.39%

Rated: R
Runtime: 1:35
Director(s): Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helen Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman

Eastern Promises 81.87%

Rated: R
Runtime: 1:41
Director(s): David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts

Michael Clayton 81.78%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:00
Director(s): Tony Gilroy
Starring: George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack

Atonement 81.41%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:03
Director(s): Joe Wright
Starring: Keira Knightly, James McAvoy

Zodiac 81.31%

Rated: R
Runtime: 2:42
Director(s): David Fincher
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey, Anthony Edwards, Gary Oldman, Mark Ruffalo, Chloe Sevigny

The Simpsons Movie 81.01%

Rated: PG-13
Runtime: 1:27
Director(s): David Silverman
Starring: Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, Albert Brooks

Honourable Mentions: “The Devil Came on Horseback,” “Rescue Dawn,” “3:10 to Yuma,” “Gone Baby Gone,” “American Gangster,” “Breach,” and “Charlie Wilson’s War”

Best Actors:

Daniel Day-Lewis 90% (“There Will Be Blood”), Viggo Mortensen 88% (“Eastern Promises”), Philip Seymour Hoffman 87%(“Charlie Wilson’s War,” “The Savages,” and “Before the Devil Knows you’re Dead”), Christian Bale 86.33% (“Rescue Dawn,” “3:10 to Yuma,” and “I’m Not There”) and Russell Crowe 83.50% (“American Gangster” and “3:10 to Yuma”)

Honourable Mentions: George Clooney, Denzel Washington, Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Chris Cooper, and Javier Bardem

Best Actresses:

Naomi Watts 88% (“Eastern Promises”), Tilda Swinton 87.20%(“Stephanie Daley,” “Michael Clayton,” “Deep Water,” “Strange Culture” and “The Man from London”), Julia Roberts 82.00% (“Charlie Wilson’s War”), Helen Bonham Carter 81.50% (“Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”), Ciaran Hinds 75.25% (“Amazing Grace,” “There Will Be Blood,” “Margot at the Wedding” and “Hallam Foe”).

Honourable Mentions: Rosemary Harris, Rachel Nichols, Emily Blunt, Michelle Monaghan, Amy Adams and Keira Knightly

The essence of a union

2008-01-21T20:41:00.000-08:00

The recent controversy in the students’ union raises many questions, questions that go much deeper that the questionable actions of Ryan Dubois or past union scandals involving Scott Thomas and Austin Smith. To dismiss three scandals in three consecutive years as coincidence is a shallow explanation of the recent wave of union corruption. To have a trend of such infidelity, it must be more than merely personalities and individuals that make the union. Instead, it is my belief, that the recent wave of betrayal and contempt for students displayed by our elected and hired representatives is part of something much larger than three people; it is a systematic problem our union faces and is one that must be solved.
Under Scott Thomas’s administration in 2004-05, the students’ union took a new approach. They decided that the union’s main purpose was to generate activities in which students could take part. They moved away from lobbying and moved towards increased activities and campus activities. Following Thomas, the Smith administration in 2005-06 followed the same path. They stated their goal was increased activities for residence students, at the pit, and on campus in general. After the Smiths, this year’s union has continued the trend. They lost $11,000 on Frosh Week, spent oodles of money on The Pit – added a point of sale system and a new sound system – and took money away from many of the union’s services that they offer. Oh, and they got a pay raise (for what I am not sure).
Our union has undergone a slow metamorphosis from a powerful political force operating on behalf of students in 2000 to a glorified high school student council in 2007-08. Somewhere in this process, our student leaders lost sight of the union’s purpose and, as a result, the union failed to live up to its full potential and its members began to suffer. Somehow, this new direction of the students’ union attracted people less interested in the goals of the organization and more interested in self-advancement, self-aggrandizement and more willing to exploit loopholes and violate the spirit of the students’ union.
The Administrative Procedure and Policy Manual of the students’ union states that the spirit of the union:

The Students’ Union is a unique organization in that it is student driven and its leaders change year to year. These elections for new leaders are at the heart of our organization, that is to say, students serving students. We believe in the process that allows all students to participate in choosing who leads. If students form the central reason for the University College’s existence, it follows then, that students are the foundation of the Students’ Union.

The phrase “students serving students” penetrates to the heart of what our union is supposed to be. However, this passage also means students representing students, a group of elected and appointed representatives who provide a voice to the student body and bring their concerns to politicians and administrators or anyone else that can help. This passage also indicates that students, not the selfish interests of many of our more recent representatives, are the reason behind the union’s existence. This statement is clear; however, this year our union has set a precedent that violates the very spirit of the organization for which they work.
After spending a year dedicated to activities, pay raises, and cutting services, our SRC proved to be ineffective at ensuring the spirit of our union was upheld and that the students the represent were not betrayed. The SRC was put in place to operate as the union’s board of directors, the ultimate check and balance. However, they are effective as a check and balance only insofar as they are knowledgeable about the union’s by-laws and competent in their enforcement. The emergency meeting of the student representative council displayed their incompetence; one representative did not even know that students were allowed to watch the meetings.
The meeting focused on by-law 1.01, a by-law that has proved troublesome for some time. It reads:

Any student who is registered at the of Cape Breton University as a full-time, part-time, distance education, or correspondence student in any given academic year, including spring and summer sessions, is automatically a member of the Students' Union.

This by-law means that if someone registers for a second term course in September and none in the first term, they will be considered a member of the students’ union even for the term in which they will not be taking classes. This rubs people the wrong way since it ends up allowing people, like Mr. Dubois, to exploit the loophole created by by-law 1.01.
A lot of people have said the union should define membership based on the university’s definition of a student. This suggestion has proved to be unpalatable since it would mean that the university administration could de-register the union’s executive and effectively decapitate the leadership of the student body.
Some people have argued that membership should be contingent upon payment of union dues. However, union dues are combined with tuition fees and many people do not pay tuition fees until the end of September and some, for financial reasons, take longer to pay. This definition would result in two things: students who did not pay their union dues until the end of September would be without representation for a month and those that are having trouble paying their tuition fees, those who need the union’s help the most, would go without representation indefinitely. Such injustice is revolting in my eyes.
Alas, by-law 1.01 may be the best definition of a member of the union we have. The problem with such a by-law is that it requires thoughtfulness and an ability to weigh subtleties for it to be administered properly, things this SRC and union has proven they lack.
If the SRC showed the least bit of interest in serving their students and properly representing their constituents they would have asked Mr. Dubois questions at that emergency meeting. Instead, they turned it into a disgusting farce of an affair. If they had asked Mr. Dubois questions, they would have found out that even by his own definition of a union member, he was not a member of the union from September to December of 2007. If the SRC does not take immediate steps to rectify their mistake, they need to ask themselves why they are even bothering to call themselves representatives. In their current capacity, rubber stamp seems to be a more effective and accurate description of their role.
This complete failure by the union’s executive and the SRC to enforce their by-laws shows what happens when a union strays too far from its purpose and loses sight of the spirit of the union. Mr. Dubois must do the right thing: resign and pay back the wages he had no right to collect. If he refused, the SRC must show Mr. Dubois the door and demand that he return his wages.
This might begin to fix the problems created by the colossal failure of this impotent SRC.

Originally published in the Caper Times on January 24, 2008.

Impotent SRC lets CBU students down

2008-01-21T20:36:00.000-08:00

The Silence

“Are students even allowed at these meetings,” asked Mandie Fitzner, SRC Representative for the School of Health, Education and Wellness at an emergency meeting of the council.
“Yes, we are,” responded myself and two other students sitting in the gallery.
Shortly after Ms. Fitzner asked her question, I began to worry.
I thought to myself, “Is her question representative of the level of knowledge each member holds?”
The repercussions of the members of the Student Representative Council not knowing such a basic by-law would be horrific. It would mean that they lacked a general understanding of the rights of their constituents, the people they are supposed to represent. In relation to this important meeting, it would mean the Student Representative Council would be incapable of taking part in any serious discussion about the matter at hand: the impeachment of Ryan Dubois, the CBUSU’s Chief Financial Officer.
He was facing the charge of impeachment because he had not been registered for any courses during the fall 2007 term. To make matters worse, he did not inform the students’ union that he failed to register for courses and the union did not find out about his actions (or lack thereof) until late in the month of December 2007.
“The union checked in December and this is how we caught this,” said Ian Lindsay, CBUSU President.
Once Lindsay knew of Mr. Dubois’ status, he notified Mr. Dubois, the executive held a meeting, and then the union called an emergency meeting of the Student Representative Council.
After Mandie Fitzner asked the gallery her question, the meeting was called to order. Ian Lindsay gave a brief presentation and said that he did not feel the union could move forward with the impeachment of Mr. Dubois because of the poorly constructed by-laws the student’s union was following. The by-law that the conflict revolved around was the first by-law in the students’ union’s manual, by-law 1.01. It reads:

Any student who is registered at the of Cape Breton University [sic] as a full-time, part-time, distance education, or correspondence student in any given academic year, including spring and summer sessions, is automatically a member of the Students' Union (CBUSU By-law 1.01).

Lindsay said that since Mr. Dubois was registered for courses in the winter 2007 term, he could not be impeached.
After Lindsay’s presentation, Mr. Dubois was given the floor. He contended that he spoke to lawyers and the council members were asked if they had any questions. After the chair of council asked if there were any questions, there was an awkward silence in the room. Some council members looked shamed and some looked stunned. One thing is for certain, the shame in the air was as thick as some of the skulls of the council members present.
The members of SRC sat so quietly the silence was deafening. Did they ask for some background information? No. Did they ask about other possible interpretations of the by-law? No. Did they ask for Mr. Dubois’s resignation? No. Did they ask why he consulted lawyers if he thought things were on the level? No. Did they ask why he did not inform the union of his actions? No. The SRC failed to ask the infinite number of possible questions floating around in the air. On January 11, the SRC, the voice of the students, went mute.
Did they care? Did they feel as though they let their students down? I do not know. What I do know is that many of the same SRC members who failed to ask Mr. Dubois questions went to drink with him in The Pit after the meeting was over.

The Aftermath

Once Ryan Dubois, Chief Financial Officer, Jill MacPherson, Vice President, and Josh Wrobleski, SRC Chair, finished their celebratory round of drinks, I found Ryan Dubois in his office in the Students’ Union Building and I had the opportunity to ask him a few questions.
Jill MacPherson, vice president of the CBUSU, said she would only answer questions if her answers would no be recorded. In other words, she would only talk to the press if there was no real record of what she said.
Mr. Dubois said he knew, all along, that he was going to be taking courses in the second term. However, when asked when he registered for the courses in the second term, he said that he registered for them late in December of 2007.
Mr. Dubois stated that he believed that this course arrangement still allowed him to be a member of the students’ union.
Dubois stated that, “Myself as well as two separate attorneys believe that as long as you are a fee paying member of the students union, meaning as long as you register for at least one course, then you are eligible to work here.”
It seems, by Mr. Dubois’s own admission, that he was not registered for any courses until late December. The CBUSU by-law required Mr. Dubois to be registered; however, he was not registered until late December. This would mean that he was not a member of the CBUSU until December and was, therefore, in violation of the CBUSU by-laws from September up to when he registered in December.
Mr. Dubois did not agree with this line of reasoning. He argued that because he had “intent to register” he was classified as a member of the students’ union. This is an interesting line of logic. This means that anyone, so long as they have the intent to register in a course at some point in the academic year counts as a member of the union and can use their services.
Based on the CBUSU by-law 1.01, if Mr. Dubois was registered for a course in the winter term and not in the fall term, he could work for the union and would, therefore, be a member of the union so long as he was registered in September. However, he was not.
Later in the interview, he changed his definition of a member of the union. Dubois added that, “It is the act of paying [that makes you a member of the students’ union].” Mr. Dubois’s statement contradicted his earlier statement that it was the “intent to register” that makes you a member of the students’ union.
This means that in the span of five minutes, he changed his definition of a union member from someone who intends to register to someone who actually pays union dues. By both definitions, Mr. Dubois was not a member of the students’ union from September to December and, accordingly, should not have been allowed to serve as an executive member, collecting a pay cheque.
When asked what he would say to students that were upset by his actions, Mr. Dubois replied, “I don’t believe that I did violate the spirit of the students’ union and clearly the law is on my side. I have made no violation of any of our policies or procedures.”
However, as Mr. Dubois’s own words showed above, he was in violation of the by-laws for some time and the law was not clearly on his side.
Why didn’t the SRC find any of this out? The SRC did not ask any questions. Why didn’t the SRC ask any questions? I do not know, they were; however, in an awful hurry to make it to The Pit.

Originally published in the Caper Times on January 24, 2008.

Education review deals serious blow to CBU

2008-01-21T20:34:00.000-08:00

“The Review of Teacher Education in Nova Scotia” dealt a serious blow to Cape Breton University. The unfortunate set back comes just after the university received permission to launch their own Bachelor of Nursing program.

The report not only recommends that the government deny Cape Breton University’s bid to have their own Bachelor of Education degree, it also recommends that the government ask Cape Breton University to discontinue its agreement with Memorial University, an agreement that allows them to offer a 16-month Bachelor of Education program.

The review stated that there are 1,029 people graduating with a Bachelor of Education each year and less than 400 new teachers required to fill the expected vacant positions. The report also stated that substitute teachers have a very hard time getting work each year and that approximately 700 substitute teachers are leaving the province or their profession each year because they cannot find work. While there is an oversupply of teachers in our province, there are shortages in certain specialized areas.

The review also recommended that the current programs, run by Nova Scotia’s universities, maintain their current admission levels with one exception. The only Bachelor of Education program that will benefit from the report’s recommendations is Saint Francis Xavier; the report recommended allowing 14 more people per year to enroll in their program.

The report’s recommendations have been criticized by the opposition parties and CBU’s president, John Harker.

In a press release, Harker said that, ““CBU is very disappointed, both for itself and for Nova Scotia, by the Report of the Review Panel on Teacher Education in Nova Scotia.”

He added that, “Minister Casey has shown, in meetings with CBU and elsewhere that, like Premier MacDonald, and before him Premier Hamm, Access to quality educational opportunities is important to the government. It is certainly important to us, and we are shocked that it does not appear to have shaped the thinking of the Review Panel.”

The report’s co-author fired back and said that, “Universities exist to advance their own interests and their own institutional goals, and they sometimes will embrace programs and initiatives which are substantially proven to be out of sync with government policy."

The report has generated a lot of debate around the education system in our province. Unfortunately, the debate has circulated around defensive posturing and each side protecting their position. In such an environment, debate about the real issues facing our education system will never happen.

The report says that in our current context, we have too many teachers. However, the report does not ask: How many teachers should we have? The report does not ask: How many teachers do we need to ensure a quality education for Nova Scotia’s students? The report passes a merely normative claim whose aim is to maintain the status quo when more is needed from our government.

Also, the report believes that our Bachelor of Education programs should only produce teachers for our province; it believes it is close to criminal to send our educated professionals elsewhere. In other words, in a global society, our province plans to, somehow, go against the grain. Even though the report states that teachers leaving our province is a negative, the report does not contain real recommendations to address that problem.

I agree with President John Harker when he said that the report does not align with the provinces’ stated priority of creating a strong education system. The report does not touch on how we can make our education system better; it states how to continue at the status quo. If the government does not begin facilitating some serious and critical debate, their stated commitment will prove false and students and teachers will suffer.

Originally published in the Cape Breton Post on Monday, January 21, 2008.

Much to watch in 2008

2008-01-11T06:38:00.000-08:00

The new year is officially under way and students are back to class. There are some things that never change with the beginning of each new term. There will be long lineups at the bookstore, book prices that are through the roof, long lineups in the student service centre where students are looking to drop some courses and add others, and of course there is the disappearance of the Christmas graduates, the students who go for the first term and figure out university is not for them.

Even though there are some things that remain constant, there are, however, others that will be unique to our coming term.

The Government of Nova Scotia will be releasing their findings on the student loan system in our province, there will be a new memorandum of understanding between the province and Nova Scotia’s universities, and CBU students will vote on whether to continue their membership with the Canadian Federation of Students.

Late in 2007, the provincial government started a review of its ailing and archaic student loan system. They toured the province and talked to people about their experiences, asked them what they wanted to change, and took feedback. The report will become available this year and it will certainly be interesting to see what recommendations are made and even more interesting to see what recommendations will be implemented.

The new MOU between the province and universities will also be finalized in 2008. The last MOU, which will expire at the end of March, did nothing to reduce the cost of education in the province. If the Premier MacDonald is sincere about his election promise to reduce the cost of tuition, his government will need to show it and it will need to manifest itself in the new MOU.

In March of 2008, the CBU Students’ Union will be holding a referendum that will decide whether they will continue as members of the Canadian Federation of Students. The SU has been a member of the CFS for close to seven years and pays tens of thousands of dollars in membership fees each year to the organization. While CFS has attempted to tie up the de-federation process, the CBU Students’ Union has followed their rules to the letter of the law and plan to continue with the referendum, even if the CFS does not cooperate.

The referendum will be an important moment in the history of the CBU Students’ Union; however, CBU students have a habit of not turning out to vote. Last November, a referendum was held and not enough people voted to reach quorum. It is not only for referendums, but each General Election for president and vice-president has extremely low voter turnout. This pattern is not limited to student politics; it carries through to politics at all levels.

Apathy oozes from our pores and seals our lips, it has to change.

If the provincial government does not act on the student loan recommendations, if they go back on their tuition promise, and if the referendum does not reach quorum it will be tempting to blame everyone else. It is easy to blame the system and those that compose the system; it is much harder and less comforting to turn that highly critical eye at ourselves.

If things do not go our way it is because the decision makers do not believe that they will be held accountable by those affected. Students have let their rage silence their voice instead of strengthening it. So long as we remain silent we will not be represented and this lack of representation will continue past our university years, it will haunt us for our entire life.

A year of ups and downs for students

2007-12-31T14:09:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-24T08:31:00.001-08:00

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

2007-12-17T05:54:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-10T04:59:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-27T07:59:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T05:05:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-21T05:03:00.000-08:00

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.