Student Protests in Quebec
It seems to me that the current Quebec student’s strike– in response to the government’s plan to raise tuition– is a matter upon which reasonable people might disagree. However, increasingly I hear more and more unreasonable people chiming in on the matter, patronizingly referring to the student action as baseless, self-indulgent, deluded or childish. Typically, these dismissals and accusations, coming from columnists like Rex Murphy and Margaret Wente, have a sneering, I-Know-The-Real-World tone to them, that reflects a particularly middle-brow, middle-aged, entitled sensibility. It’s been driving me fucking crazy.
In March, over 200, 000 students marched in the streets of Montreal. That’s an awful lot of people, and it warrants some respectful consideration. Personally, when students protest I pay attention. I’m middle-aged now, and I like to know what they think, how they experience the rapidly evolving world, to which we (those generations that came of age before the Internet) are cultural migrants. Because of this, I try to move toward them when it comes to understanding an issue, I want to see it through their eyes rather than try to get them to see it through the eyes of my peers. I want to understand where they’re coming from rather than tell them where they’re going, and I do this for all sorts of reasons, but primarily because I think it will make me a better, more empathetic person.
In the last 15 years the world has changed more than it has in all the centuries it was built upon. The Internet is a more important invention than the wheel, and it’s entirely reasonable to assume that the model by which we’ve successfully lived for 100 years, might not be the model by which we’ll successfully live for the next 100 years. The seeds of a movement like Occupy, that seems so disorganized, loud and dirty to many, will very likely bear revolutionary fruit, and I think that this seismic shift in the way we think about our society, is a wave that’s breaking right over the heads of those who dismiss it as aimless, bongo-playing dilettantism. As Fran Liebowitz said, “ In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country capitalism triumphed over democracy.”
We need to think about that, and perhaps respond to it.
My cousins are students in Montreal and they’re brilliant and so well informed that they’ll make your head spin. And what they are doing in striking and taking to the streets is a purely democratic act. A lot of their money is invested by the government in a way that they don’t agree with and they’re asking the government to redirect that money toward something that they agree with—education. I want to live in a country where post-secondary education is affordable to people. They think of that as a core value. What is wrong with that?
As Dave Eggers said, “The truth is not two-sided, it’s round.”
The mocking tone of certainty issuing forth from elders on this issue lacks grace, empathy and hope, and perhaps even worse, it lacks imagination. I think that we should see what happens, how the students proceed and what goals they might achieve, before jumping in and telling them that they’re wrong and that when we went to school we had to walk 15 miles in the snow.
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Query::$comments_by_type is deprecated in /home2/michafe9/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1525
Thank you! I’m so damned tired of reading dismissive articles and listening to sneering little comments on CBC–just because other students in other provinces have to pay more, doesn’t mean that Quebec students should suck it up and take the tuition hikes. These are the people that middle-aged folks like me expect to be paying juicy taxes in a few decades to support my geriatric health care and support needs.
It is easy to focus on that small group of dangerous idiots (probably not even students) who like to put on black masks and break things, but that does not represent the REAL message of hundreds of thousands of students.
Well done, Michael, well done.
Nobody sneers like Rex Murphy.
I hope Wente has to stand in line a a food bank one day (I did).
I think that there’s a real false analogy that’s made between what Quebec students pay in tuition and the Rest Of Canada. Why does it matter? If one province were to institute the death penalty, then should all?
And I simply don’t buy the financial burden put on the Rest Of Canada argument. It’s much more a cultural, where-do-we-place-our-values, kind of situation than it is a financial one. More and more and more, especially from younger, student generations, we’re going to see challenges to a capitalist structure that is no longer working the way that it was intended, and we’re going to have to sit down and think hard and long about the messy, painful solutions, and if we don’t, well, those changes are just going to break right on over us.
Oh, I submit to you this entirely excellent Blog post by Mike Spry who was stirred from his sleep to respond to Margaret Wente’s piece in the Globe and Mail:
http://mikespry.org/2012/05/01/margaret-wente-hates-herself/
Divide and conquer worked damned well in reducing unions to empty, toothless husks. I fear that the constant harping on how much “better they have it” in Quebec than in TROC as far as tuition goes may have the same effect.
Yay. You speak sense. The argument about what others pay is a moot at best and inane at worst. You may as well tell a fit person to gain some weight as after all the majority of north Americans are overweight. In Scotland in fact University is free for Scottish students – should this be the model then? Now I’m not a 100% behind CLASSE but I am for a more equitable distribution of wealth and tax paid services.
What is passing as journalism on this topic is as you put it no more than comfortable middle class poopooing.
I may not fall in step with CLASSE but I thoroughly support the public getting off their behinds and making a statement. Shame on our governments and press if they can’t respectfully listen.
Your closing line has the elegance of an épée.
I’m conflicted. A post secondary education is an investment in the future that offers increased chance of employment at a higher salary scale while hopefully flexing mental muscle. As with most investments there is an upfront cost. Are these costs generally out of whack with what one would reasonably expect to earn in the workplace post graduation? I have not seen a good answer to this question… In other words are the costs so onerous that it negates the benefit of a higher education?
With subsidized educations the deal is that society invests in the education because it benefits society as a whole, not only the individual. But as tends to happen with subsidies the true costs and values become twisted and distorted, and even devalued. I’m not sure that it is understood how great an investment society makes in university educations. But I am quite sure I have no idea how much of that cost is actually directed to education and how much goes to… well, wherever it goes. To my mind salaries of university presidents seem to be overly generous, but this is a small part of the overall numbers. Where are the costs inventoried? If the public has an interest, shouldn’t it be available? Polls have shown repeatedly that Canadians don’t mind high tax levels if the money is plowed back into improving competitiveness, infrastructure, etc… But we all know too often that isn’t the case.
I didn’t get a degree. I got a two year business diploma, mostly because I had no idea what I wanted to do, a degree was a greater investment in time and money then I wanted to make at the time, I was kind of interested in computers, and there was the promise of paid co-op work terms. I got lucky. The personal computer boom took off and I had a long uninterrupted period of reasonably stable and reasonably well compensated employment. I had to leave home to find employment, but I did find it. Do graduates now have that same opportunity? I’m not sure… but it seems they do not.
In my limited circle of friends and family it seems like most graduates found employment at good salaries. Not necessarily immediately, but is it necessarily a systemic failing if graduates have to tread water for a couple of years before getting their feet under them. What is the truth elsewhere? What other factors may be unreported? Do new graduates now ‘interview’ as well? Have language and presentation skills changed? I don’t know about the current market but we’ve often been lead to believe there are lots of skilled job openings that go unfilled in Canada? Is this the case, and if so is it because we are churning out the wrong type of graduates? Have education standards slipped? It doesn’t seem likely. From what I’ve seen of kids homework these days standards seem tougher.
There are a lot of questions the public doesn’t have answers to, but a degree is also NOT a guarantee that you will find employment in your chosen field, and never has been. Does society OWE graduates a guarantee of employment at a certain level of pay? I’ve had a running ‘discussion’ on a couple of fronts on this topic. There is a certain segment that indeed seems to think a degree is a guarantee. That slips a little too far into socialism for my liking…
So confused…
Master Toad:
It is certainly a matter upon which both reasonable and unreasonable might disagree.
One of the things that I think the Quebec educational system does well is in the CGEP program, a transition stage where one might move from high school to university, or get a more vocationally directed degree. One of the points that Mike Spry made in his piece was that it’s a presumption and perhaps a faulty one, that people take university degrees in order to fulfill an economic (job) agenda. In the “soft arts” people learn how to think, to build arguments, which one hopes might be transferable to jobs but certainly is no guarantee. What it does help foster is better citizens, an educated, thoughtful class of people who might hold governments accountable. We might consider that educations benefit society not strictly because of the economic payback of fat taxes down the road, but in creating happier, healthier, more thoughtful people who will contribute to a better society.
But what I question is the financial involvement required by society at large. I agree we all have an interest, but what is the proper level? I’ve seen 17% quoted as the students portion of the cost of a university education. Are those costs all purely focused on the educational component of the experience? Not likely. So perhaps we have a common interest with the protestors; an interest in making sure the money universities take in from all sources are allocated to education as much as possible, and that finances are documented and transparent.
Another factor that needs to be understood is the background effect. Apparently even more important than financial standing is familial background. If parents were university educated, or if you are a member of certain immigrant populations, finances are not a barrier. Regardless of hardship and sacrifice, or whether the finances are readily available, these students find a way to go to university. Conversely, children of parents that weren’t university educated have much lower participation rates. Could understanding this help get more students into university AND better distribute aid to those that most need it… and maybe even help keep costs down?
The current funding model does bring to mind the well meaning but completely backwards home owner energy efficiency subsidies; the government taxes the population at large to provide funds to people wealthy enough to own homes, to make those homes more efficient and comfortable. Of course a large percentage of taxpayers do NOT own homes… and taxation is a factor in that for at least some. Similarly, a large percentage of people paying taxes which support universities are not themselves highly paid, nor beneficiaries of a university education.
I guess I’m not saying the sentiment isn’t valid (or I am saying it is)… I’m questioning if the result turns out to be what is desired…
Mighty Toad:
You make excellent points, and from here I can’t even hear you yelling.
I can’t even begin to fathom how universities spend their money. There is research, there is tenured salaries, there are sabbaticals, there’s the construction of ivory towers, there are teams of fundraisers, high profile sports teams…It goes on and on. I think part of the students argument is that, like you, they want greater transparency, accountability and the money that they spend, dedicated to their education, as opposed to a drunken medievalist conference in Australia. The question, beyond what “we’re” paying for, is what are the students actually paying for?
And I couldn’t agree with you more about how important it is to create avenues for everybody, beyond those who are situationally positioned to get a university/college education, access to post-secondary education. I mean, it’s really dead obvious that should be the primary goal, isn’t it? And your analogy to the home owner efficiency subsidies is bang on, showing a well meaning but wholly delusional act that ends up pandering to a voting class rather than those who most need the economic benefit.
Toad:
I just came across this passage from Chris Hedges on education and thought I would share it:
“We’ve bought into the idea that education is about training and “success”, defined monetarily, rather than learning to think critically and to challenge. We should not forget that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers. A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, which fails to understand that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death.”