Turning points in history usually fly by unnoticed, only to be discovered in retrospect. But we’re pretty sure that 20 years from now, U of T students will look back at this as the week when everything changed.
The Faculty of Arts and Science Council has approved a program of flat fees for full-time undergraduate students. Next, the proposal will go to the Business Board, and eventually Governing Council. If it passes without amendment, by 2011, new students taking three to six courses will have to pay for five.
The proposal is deeply flawed, and it has been rushed through in a mere two weeks without proper deliberation, debate, or scrutiny. The diversity of opposition on campus is revealing. Student unions are, predictably, opposed, as are leftist groups on campus.
But the economics department also voted against the initiative. Several professors criticized it at the meeting. The Program Fees Implementation Committee, which reports to the faculty, had one student, the president of the Arts & Science Student Council. He claims that the only consensus reached by the committee was that September 2009 was too soon to implement the plan, due to lack of research. It’s clear this is not a normal policy change, with a broad coalition behind it. This radical proposal, a taking place at the largest faculty at U of T, will dramatically alter the culture and social makeup of our university.
Much has been written about the impact flat fees will have on student engagement. But there are even more important issues at stake. Flat fees are a tuition increase seemingly targeted at students least able to bear it: those who work long hours, parents, and caregivers.
With the flat fee threshold set at three courses—lower than other universities implementing flat fees, which have set thresholds at four or 4.5 courses—these students will have to pay full tuition or drop to part-time status. As part-time students, they will not receive interest-free OSAP, and will have access to fewer scholarships and bursaries. Even basic benefits like daycare subsidies are tough to obtain without full-time student status.
There has been a lot of arm waving about increased financial aid under the new system, but the fact is that Arts and Science will be in deficit years into the future with or without flat fees. It’s difficult to imagine where new aid would come from. There has also been no discussion of how it would be distributed. Would any be available to part-time students? What about students who don’t qualify for low-income bursary programs but must still finance their education through OSAP and bank loans?
We also note a number of troubling aspects to the Faculty of Arts & Science Committee meeting that passed a revised version of the initial plan on Monday.
The meeting itself was rushed. Twenty minutes was taken up by Dean Meric Gertler’s initial presentation in favour of the proposal, which left only an hour for discussion. Critics voiced their concern, and Gertler was given the chance to respond. No one else was granted such extensive speaking rights.
The initial proposal would have taken effect in September 2009. Under the revised plan, students with a course load of four credits will be considered full-time in September, and the threshold will be lowered to three credits for September 2011. The revision does not change the nature of the proposal, only lengthens the timeline. This is by no means a concession—it’s an obvious attempt to assuage the harshest critics in the here and now, to the detriment of future students who will be offered no part in the discussion.
This timeline shows that flat fees are a long-term change, though they are being pushed through due to a short-term problem—the suspension of endowment payoutsin the face of the recession, resulting in a $5-7 million forecasted deficit. Once implemented, flat fees are here to stay. Flat fees is a permanent response to a supposedly immediate problem.
At the meeting, Gertler was asked whether an increased course load would affect student life. Gertler stated that there is “no systematic evidence” that an intensified course load adversely affects student life. In fact, there is no evidence either way, because no one has conducted the research.
If systematic evidence is Gertler’s priority, you would think he would have supported a motion put forward by the St. Mike’s registrar, to effectively see how things go in 2009 and wait until later to pass the changes for 2011.
Gertler shot down this proposal on the basis that he wouldn’t ever want to be subject to the complaints he’s heard over the past two weeks again. Apparently, whatever burden flat fees will place on students is nothing compared to how public opinion taxes Meric Gertler.
But for the sake of future students, we hope that Gertler, Governing Council, and President David Naylor think hard about what all of those complaints mean. They mean that Arts & Science students don’t want to be burdened by yet another financial concern. They mean that undergrads are desperately trying cling to their fleeting extra-curricular lives. They mean that the needs of the students, the heart of this university, are being denied once again. If this is the turning point that defines this administration, then they should have turned down the other road.
