On Nov. 5, a group of current and former students will come together for a Day of Action to protest the fact that the government of Ontario does not pay their entire tuition bill.
I love protests; they’re one of my favourite parts of democracy. Putting pressure on our elected representatives is not only a right, but an obligation of all citizens. The problem with this protest, however, is that it is funded by levy fees collected on a mandatory basis—my fees and yours—by the Canadian Federation of Students for the purpose of lobbying on our behalf, for policies ostensibly to benefit us. But the CFS and their protests are a waste of our money, and the policies they advocate are wrong for students.
First of all, their approach is politically unwise. This year’s protest is not only about tuition. The protest’s goal is to “Drop Fees for a Poverty-Free Ontario,” a statement which is insulting in its lack of sophistication, as it suggests that university tuition fees are the cause of poverty in the province. Furthermore, the CFS is diluting their message by attempting to tackle too many issues. At the protest, many will hold Drop Fees signs that were printed and thrust into their hands by staff members of the Canadian Federation of Students. Others will display banners for various communist parties. Some will wave Palestinian flags. Some will carry placards advocating an immediate end to the war in Afghanistan, or their support for war-resisters. In other words, the crowd at the CFS Day of Action will look like a who’s who of left-wing causes.
Don’t get me wrong, while poverty reduction is an important goal, the CFS and UTSU should stick to post-secondary education policy. Every deviation from that issue is another dollar of student money wasted. This soup of diluted messages is exactly what puts a bad taste in the government’s mouth and it ruins the rest of the meal.
Secondly, the policies being advocated by the CFS and UTSU are contrary to their stated goals of making post-secondary education more fair and equitable. I share the goal of the CFS and UTSU to increase access to education. The problem is, it’s a waste of resources to provide free education to rich people. Why should the government pay for students who can afford to pay higher fees to attend U of T for free? Upper-class students should not be allowed to piggy-back on the tax dollars of the middle and working classes. But that’s exactly what a universal elimination of tuition fees would amount to.
Instead, the government should look at a couple of other alternatives. One excellent option is to allow for an increase in tuition fees that is proportional to the income of a student’s family. If a student’s parents can afford to pay full price, then the extra dollars paid by that student should go toward funding poorer students. From a policy standpoint, this means a “progressive” system of user fees that is based on income (not unlike our current progressive tax system), and more funding to bursaries and zero or low-interest loans for students from less privileged backgrounds. This system would provide more access to education, and would ensure that regardless of income, if you’ve got the grades then you can go. It’s simple, and it meets our shared goals of fairness and social justice.
Another alternative that has been explored in other jurisdictions is Income Contingent Loans. Under the ICL system, students would not pay their tuition bills while they are students who earn little to no income. Instead, the cost of their education would be paid-off by them once they’re enjoying the fruits of that education. If you make more money, you pay a larger amount of the bill—just like in our current tax system where high-income-earners pay a larger share of tax revenue.
These are only a couple alternatives, both of which are better policies than those advocated by the CFS and UTSU, and both are more likely to be adopted by the government. It’s time for the CFS and UTSU to get real. It’s time for students at this university, across the province, and across the country to start demanding better from their self-appointed advocates.
Comments
This is an excellent article looking at just some of the many problems of the drop fees campaign. UTSU's actions done on the behalf of all U of T students and with their money should be done more carefully without so quickly dividing students. I do disagree with the proposed alternatives here, regardless, this is a great article for taking a critical look at this campaign.
Nov 5, 2009 at 03:35 PM
I'm a student in Political Science and Common Law at the University of Ottawa, and we too are members of the CFS. However, we just joined the CFS this year after having a very split referendum vote on the issue in February. I personally agree with the article's perspective that the CFS doesn't do enough for the students, and I don't believe my money should be going into campaigns that I may not even participate in or even agree with. That's not to say I'm against lowering tuition fees, but I feel that the Student Federation (or Union at U of T) should be able to choose which campaigns they want to be involved with. We were still part of last year's provincial day of action, and this was before we were members of the CFS.
I believe that we should be trying to make education more accessible, and I agree that the view has been clouded over and the whole goal cannot really be attained. I believe you are right that there are alternative ways to make education accessible to all.
I'm glad someone has presented a more logical view than that put forth by the CFS, because it shows that students are really thinking about accessible education and not just about not having to pay anything.
Nov 5, 2009 at 06:20 PM
Well written Gabe, with a viable alternative solution.
Nov 5, 2009 at 07:00 PM
Interesting note on which to end quite a liberally-biased article, Gabe. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that the UTSU representatives are "self-appointed?"
If you're into the game of mud-slinging (which it seems you are), there are plenty of sources that indicate the disingenuous and "self-appointed" nature of International Relations Society elections. Care to comment?
Nov 5, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Hear, hear.
Nov 5, 2009 at 07:36 PM
I guess it's impressive to some people for you to bring up other policy initiatives besides lowering fees. Unfortunately, some of them are unwieldy.
We know wherever income contingent loans have come in, we have seen fees skyrocket and student debt balloon because it involves a net privatizing of the cost of education. It also means low income people spend a lifetime paying off their fees. Look at New Zealand where the average white male pays off their debt in 10 years and the average Maori woman takes 35.
Income contingent aid is definitely a viable solution, which is why the CFS lobbies for more grants. Tuition fees would be acceptable if there were a lot more grants around.
Let's consider your last proposal - income-contingent fees. This is not theoretically problematic but consider the implementation. Who would decide how much a family earning $40K should pay? 80K? $500K? If a school needed to raise a certain amount to operate, and it had less wealthy students, wouldn't that mean the poorer students at a poorer school would have to pay more? For example, the poorest 10% of students might get free tuition, and at Queen's that might include those of us whose parents earn $45,000, but at Ryerson, your family might have to earn less than $25,000. Where are all the assessment officers and appeals boards going to come from? Doesn't it make sense to use the income-contingent fees we already have (e.g. TAXES) to charge people? Rich people already pay more for their education - through income taxes.
Anyways, it must be nice to not have the theme of poverty run through your university education, but it is the backdrop for many of us. Kudos to the UTSU for continuing the fight.
Nov 5, 2009 at 07:56 PM
By and large, I agree. CFS and UTSU's campaigns are poorly designed and will never be successful without change. Although, it's funny that this comes from a student that advocated for increased tuition to reduce class sizes in 2006.
Nov 5, 2009 at 08:04 PM
Disclaimer: I have no personal connection to any of these people or the IR department. It merely saddens me to see such lousy argumentation in what is supposed to be an eloquent and insightful arena.
In regards to the comment about allegations of corruption in the IR society, I'd like to suggest that you review some of you argumentative faux pas. As much as ad hominem is a lousy argumentative strategy, responding with ad hominem attacks really solidifies your claim to the moral high ground.
Anonymity helps a lot, make sure to use a pseudonym to avoid having your name associated with such lofty standards of decorum. Challenge his arguments on their own merits - while hypocrisy is a lousy character trait, it doesn't automatically make him wrong. Neither does the fact that he argued for increases to tuition fees in 2006. Why would you want to perpetuate the same sort of typecasting and ideological restriction that plagues modern politics? What, because he though one thing before, he can't think another thing now? If anything, the fact that he changed his mind on some issues means he's actually considering the facts instead of sitting there and reciting things based on ideological affiliations.
In terms of the actual article, I think his broad argument, regarding to how much the Drop Fees protests suck is pretty solid. While I'd also quibble on the specifics of his proposed solutions, I do agree that the actual implementation now is pretty bad. I was actually walking past one of these with a friend today and I was thinking, "Man, these aren't effective or anything, they're just loud and annoying". The protests are poorly run, don't have a targeted message and lack focus. If there's an action plan, a series social argument or any sort of meaningful discussion going on, it certainly isn't being presented to the public at large. All they see are a raggedy bunch complaining that they don't have enough drinking money.
I'd love to pay less for school. But I'd love even more to have some of the money I pay be used to represent me in a meaningful, adult way, as opposed to what amounts to a haphazard "here's stuff we don't like, please fix it" approach.
Nov 5, 2009 at 09:03 PM
Gabe, you took the words right out of my mouth. I've been telling anyone who will listen that simply decreasing fees is a regressive policy for the last 2 years.
Now, ICL has a lot of problems (notably that it provides a perverse incentive - the amount of government subsidies you receive is inversely proportional to the economic benefit your education provides to society), but even that would be better than the pie-in-the-sky "no fees" policy that CFS/UTSU advocate.
You make a good point that CFS does a disservice to what ought to be it's core constituency (students) by presenting a broad slate of totally unrelated political issues. If I thought the NDP platform was perfect I'd just join the NDP. I really don't need a union that does nothing but parrot them.
There are plenty of other organizations - political parties - to advocate on broad social justice platforms. If our union doesn't speak out on the issues that uniquely affect students, there is no one else to do it. Where was UTSU when they condensed the exam schedule without any consultation? Where is UTSU on onerous university policies like forcing students to give up their intellectual property to a private corporation (turnitin.com)? Protesting for national day care and a $10 minimum wage, no doubt.
To the cowardly UTSU supporter posting under a pseudonym: let me know when you're ready for a campus-wide referendum on the existence of UTSU. They don't have a mandate and we all know it.
Nov 5, 2009 at 10:55 PM
There seems to be a measure of consensus that advocating for the accessibility of education for people regardless of how much money they or their parents have is a valuable endeavor (though I find this antithetical to the assertion that fees should increase). What is missing here is any acknowledgment that there are multiple barriers facing students, not just high tuition fees. Forms of social inequity such as racism and sexism, also, obviously, affect students. For example, there is the fact that racialised people and women earn lower average incomes than the overall average. This why we refer to "socio-economic inequity," because inequity is not tidily separable into economic and social categories independent of each other.
Given this, any argument for accessible education that does not take up issues of social inequity, including poverty, not only misses part of picture, it borders on inaccurate. Far from lacking sophistication, the fact that this campaign recognises how these issues are related is an enormous strength. Strategically, working with other organisatios opposing regressive cutbacks that disproportionally hurt marginalised people does not dilute the message of access, it adds political clout.
Nov 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM
I'm not sure I understand why someone would criticize a slogan for lacking sophistication. Any public communication in protest form naturally boils down issues to their simplest form: a phrase, a chant, etc.
Journalism does this all the time (see: headlines at the top of the newspaper page, which never express the complexity of the story itself).
I don't think it would be particularly effective to have slogans that are the length of a paragraph or page that express the complete complexity of an issue. I mean, slogans are not essays. They don't need sophistication.
Nov 6, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Let's get clear with the slogan:
"Drop fees for a poverty-free Ontario"
The slogan implies that a reduction in tuition fees will create a poverty-free Ontario. Clearly, that is not the case, because poverty is much more complex than that. Forget "sophistication" - the slogan is misleading.
Nov 6, 2009 at 01:57 PM
During the last provincial election this same union supported rosario marchese because he was about freezing tuition fees.I proposed an eventual elimination of tuition.The varsity and this union completely ignored that platform as "impossible".But that was before the economic crisis and now it is clear that this should have been brought forth in the last election.The NDP tried to tie their platform to mine after the election and I called the party on it.So good luck with your fight but the partisan backing of the NDP will ensure that this movement will fail.A copy of my platform is available at www.georgesawision.com.
Nov 6, 2009 at 05:45 PM
A cogent argument, Gabe, against what is an entirely solipisistic, self-serving campaign devoid of consideration.
I've managed to speak with a number of people at various levels who've spent decades on poverty issues in the GTA, Ontario and across Canada - all of them are gravely insulted by the connection touted crudely by the CFS. It cheapens the gravity of poverty issues, it's unseemly and patently hedonistic.
Further, it provides stark relief of the luxuriant, nay decadent, privilege afforded students who can cavort around on a work-day waving placards instead of studying or working to pay off their purportedly crushing debt.
Rent control fails to reduce costs of living, there is simply no evidence to suggest that tuition-control will be any different.
Nov 7, 2009 at 03:19 PM
Great article.
I'm still waiting for change.
Nov 7, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Loving the discussion. Keep it up!
Nov 7, 2009 at 04:08 PM
First, I'd like to reiterate that Income-Contingent Loan Repayment Schemes are a bad thing. Sure, it qualifies for an alternative suggestion but it's one hell of a bad one. I think "U of T grad..." covered most of the reasons. ICLRs = bad!
Secondly, I too found that the message was somewhat diluted and trivialized by the "...for a Poverty-Free Ontario". I still haven't seen a good explanation from a CFS representative on the web about this. I can understand why other anti-poverty groups have been so offended by that aspect of the campaign.
Finally, omitting the "... for a poverty-free Ontario", the campaign makes sense. Fees are way, way too high! Some would argue against free tuition (I like that idea) but even those people should be able to say that tuition is too high. I'm a grad student, I pay $6,600 a year. That's kinda nuts. I'd like to see that lowered because I don't think I should have to suffer to become an asset to the canadian economy. And it's not the poor subsidizing the rich. The rich pay much higher taxes, so they're paying more for the subsidizing. And it REALLY helps the poor who find tuition such a major barrier.
That said, rent control is also a big financial barrier. Rent control is also much harder to tackle. I don't think a student group is wrong if they pick one over the other - both have a major impact. All students, however, can relate to tuition, something unique to students, and is probably why it is much more often taken on by a student union (and the CFS) as a key issue.
Nov 10, 2009 at 08:55 PM
Post a Comment