Archive for the ‘Concordia’ Category
Ten years ago today, this was the scene at Concordia University:
The riot was a culmination of more than five years of tensions at Concordia between the radical left-wing CSU groups, which were dominated by members of the pro-Palestinian group SPHR, and pro-Israel groups like Hillel.
Concordia Hillel had invited Benjamin Netanyahu, who at the time was the former Israeli PM, to speak on campus. The radical anti-Israel groups saw this as a reason to mount a mass protest, which quickly turned into a full-fledged riot. Protesters smashed windows, hurled antisemitic slogans at ticket-holders, assaulted and beat up several attendees, and were eventually contained by police. Five people were arrested and faced charges in connection with the riot. The rioting also inspired two documentary films, a rash of ill-advised free speech restrictions on campus, and worldwide infamy for my school.
I’d graduated from Concordia the previous spring, after spending three years on campus dealing with the events that led to that flashpoint, and they were fresh in my mind. As it happened, September 9th 2002 was my first day of my first post-university job, and news of what was happening back at my former campus filtered to me as I was sitting in my new office immersed in training materials.
In a way, the riot was the catalyst that inspired me to start this blog a couple of months later. I focused a lot on the goings-on and events at Concordia for the first couple of years, though the posts eventually tapered off as I gained more distance from my university years. But at the time, as a recent graduate with a lot of friends still directly involved in the day-to-day events on campus, I had a lot to say, and this blog gave me a platform to share news and views about the events that followed.
Now, a decade later, Benjamin Netanyahu is once again Israeli Prime Minister, the radical Left is busy bringing down Quebec governments and staging pots and pans protests, and Concordia University is in the hands of a new generation of student leaders who, since 2003, have been mostly moderates. However, some students have noted that the situation isn’t necessarily any less hostile to Jewish students, just quieter. Concordia has hosted an “Israel Apartheid Week“, an event by the ever-present SPHR, for the past 8 years running. Despite the presence of a couple of new pro-Israel student groups at Concordia, the tensions continue. It’s not difficult to see why Jewish students continue to choose McGill over Concordia by an overwhelming margin.
Furthermore, on university campuses across North America and Europe pro-Israel students are still dealing with having their right to free speech denied, barrages of anti-Israel propaganda from campus activist groups, “boycott Israel” events and other such nonsense. A recent study by the University of California, published in July of this year, found that:
“Jewish students are confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus which focus specifically on Israel, its right to exist and its treatment of Palestinians. The anti-Zionism and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements and other manifestations of anti-Israel sentiment and activity create significant issues through themes and language which portray Israel and, many times, Jews in ways which project hostility, engender a feeling of isolation, and undermine Jewish students’ sense of belonging and engagement with outside communities.”
Another report released earlier this year found that “More than 40% of students confirm anti-Semitism on their campus; some 41% of students have encountered anti-Israel remarks made in class by professors.” From North America to Europe, the situation for Jewish students remains pretty grim.
As Quebec students continue to lobby for free or cheaper education, it’s worth asking just what sort of education they will be receiving.
Interesting food for thought by Henry Aubin in the Gazette, with a perspective of the high dropout rates among university undergraduates in Quebec:
According to the organization that represents university heads, CREPUQ, Concordia is the Montreal school with the highest dropout rate. UQÀM is hard on its heels. Université de Montréal is substantially better, though still worse than the Canadian average. McGill is the only Quebec university that graduates a greater share of its students than the national average.
Aubin’s analysis — both of dropout rates and of areas of study — completely ignores/disregards CEGEP. Surely any analysis of post-secondary dropout rates or of the value of trade diplomas versus university education needs to take the CEGEP system into consideration. I don’t have statistics handy, but the CEGEPs typically have higher dropout rates than either universities or high schools. And they’re free. Because of that, students have the freedom to experiment, to switch programs, to veer off from one course only to circle back on another course later on. All without wasting any money, other than failure fees or some textbook costs. But those who do graduate are either completing pre-university programs or are getting those trade degrees that Aubin thinks we desperately need.
And here, I disagree with Aubin’s conclusion. A healthy society doesn’t just need more trained monkeys to fill jobs; we need thinkers and educated people with ideas. We need people to challenge the status quo. We need not only employees but entrepreneurs, not only functionaries but luminaries.
The thing is, not everyone is cut out to be a luminary. And in the fight for “accessible” education, we tend to forget that providing people with the keys to the castle doesn’t mean they’re all going to be kings and queens. Life is, after all, what you make of your opportunities.
There’s a spurious correlation at work in Aubin’s article. Studying geography, sociology, liberal arts or political science does not cause one to drop out. But these disciplines tend to attract the most politicized (in Quebec, that means far left-wing) students and professors. They also tend to have less clear career paths for students after graduation, which may be contributing to those same students’ disillusionment with university education — and with their prospects for success in general. Hence the higher rate of participation in the protests, compared to, say, business or engineering majors.
When I was at Concordia, the Arts & Science and Fine Arts faculties regularly rabble-roused in campus politics, while the JMSB (business) and Engineering faculties routinely stayed out of such things. I remember the oddity of being a marketing student in a communication studies class, the frequent scapegoat for a room full of self-described “anti-capitalists” who liked to wax poetic about the evils of corporations. Some of them have since graduated, and are probably working for the aforementioned “evil” corporations. Others are still out rabble-rousing. Plus ça change.
That’s not to say that there isn’t an important point being made in Aubin’s article. McGill is the only university in Montreal with lower-than-average drop0ut rates. It’s also the only university to attract a majority anglophone student body, largely from other provinces. As a Léger poll published in the Gazette last month indicates, there’s a stark difference between how education is valued among anglophone, francophone and allophones in this province:
Among younger Quebecers, we see the same divergence. About 85 per cent of Quebec allophone students and 80 per cent of Quebec anglophone students see a university degree as a minimal requirement [for success], compared with just 40 per cent of francophone students surveyed by Léger.
It’s a classic chicken-or-egg situation. CEGEP has been free and university has been cheap for over four decades. Like a ten-dollar diamond, nobody attributes much value to a cheap university degree.
“Accessible education” should mean that anyone who deserves to go to university should be able to, regardless of financial circumstance. It doesn’t mean that university should be open to everyone, whether or not they care about getting a degree. Because then, it becomes a farce of itself.
The student tuition protests have dragged on for 14 weeks now and show no sign of ending anytime soon. With the city under siege and anger rising, the media has been flooded with analysis and op-ed pieces of all stripes. But there are some things that nobody’s saying, probably because they’re afraid to rock the boat. That doesn’t make them any less true, though.
It’s been nearly five years since I graduated, and since then, it appears that CSU politics at Concordia haven’t improved by much:
For the second year running, copies of Concordia University’s student newspaper, The Link, vanished overnight at the height of the campaign for a new student government. And while editor-in-chief Misha Warbanski doesn’t know who to blame, she’s sure of one thing — this is no coincidence.
Back when I was a student there, the Link was blatantly biased, being controlled by pro-Palestinian students who would get involved in the paper with an eye towards influencing campus politics through the media. I don’t know the current landscape, but if today’s campus politics are anything like what they were then, the things reported by the campus and mainstream media are only the tips of the iceberg. Corruption, dirty tricks, propaganda, “joke slates” designed to slander the opposition, and the ever-present ripping down posters are just some of the things that students seem to confuse with democracy.
I must say I’m glad to be out of there.
Two Montreal universities, Concordia and Université de Montréal, have announced that they will take in students who were supposed to be studying in Lebanon this fall:
With the largest population of Lebanese-Canadians on their doorstep, Concordia University in Montreal and the University of Montreal have reopened closed application processes to students stranded by the war in the Middle East.
The two Quebec universities say they are fast-tracking applications from students who had planned to attend institutions in Lebanon this fall.
“It’s important that the current generation still have access to education,” said Guy Berthiaume, vice-rector of development and alumni relations at the University of Montreal.
[ . . . ]
Since Friday, Berthiaume said they’ve received more than 100 calls, mostly from local Lebanese-Canadians and many who were recently evacuated from the war-torn region.
The university is waiving tuition for the exchange students and is also raising funds for them.
“They will need money to live, pay rent and buy food,” said Berthiaume.
Meanwhile, an Israeli-Canadian friend of mine is having trouble getting her student loan and bursary application sorted out, because her parents live in Haifa and they can’t send in a bunch of the related paperwork because they’re, you know, living in bomb shelters.
Don’t expect any special treatment or fast-tracking there, though.
Lowy out. Lajeunesse in.
And for the student unions, it looks like it’s no more mister nice guy:
A grandfatherly Al Pacino lookalike with a non-confrontational style mirroring his training as a psychiatrist, Lowy was admired for his warmth, grace and intelligence.
Yet critics sometimes pined for a leader with a harder edge willing to stare down fractious students and quell faculty rivalries.
When the time came to replace him, Lajeunesse, bilingual engineer and president of Ryerson University in Toronto, who spent seven years heading the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, was alone on the short list.
Search committee chairperson Alain Benedetti cited Lajeunesse’s research credentials, “excellent management skills and track record in managing change.”
In other words, enough with the excitement already.
In other words, the student unions are going to have a hard time walking all over this guy, or so it seems.
He hasn’t wasted any time stirring the pot, either. His office isn’t even finished, and already he’s beating the war drums:
Concordia students may be taken aback by Lajeunesse’s blunt endorsement of higher tuition.
“If you go to university, your income is going to be vastly superior to that of someone who didn’t. I think it’s only fair you should pay for that privilege.
“I’m not saying I think students should graduate with $100,000 in debts. But I think it’s a bit unfair that those who don’t go to university should be paying for those who do.
“Socially, it’s not the best way. I’m not one to support zero debt, necessarily.”
He notes Quebec tuition is a third what Ontario students pay.
“Tuition rates are not a deterrent to going to university. Maybe at $20,000 they would be, but not at $5,000.
“Obviously, when it’s cheaper to send your kids to university than daycare, something is out of whack.”
Finally, some sensible talk on the tuition issue. But those are also fighting words. And my experience with the Concordia Student Union tells me that they’re not going to take this sort of challenge lying down.
Ah, this is why we’re not seeing the word “homeless”, because Olivier used the magic “l” word, “lifestyle”, which, if you’re a liberal, is a magic talisman against all criticism of the way one lives, unless combined with one of the evil “c” words, “capitalist”, “consumerist”, “Christian”, or “conservative”, in which case your lifestyle is an open target for derision. Olivier calls the way he lives a “lifestyle”, so we’re not allowed mentioning any of the negative aspects or possible consequences lest we be painted as close-minded and judgemental.
[ . . . ]
Yup, a whole article about a homeless guy talking about his “lifestyle” in only the most positive terms, not mentioning any drawbacks to living on the street or daring to suggest that this guy might not be playing with a full deck. That would be downright insensitive and judgemental and mendicantophobic. Hooray for “diversity and culture”, the subject of this week’s Link!
Embracing diversity and culture does not mean we have to condone lazy, parasitic, or just plain unbalanced behaviour… a fact long lost on student rags like the Link. Someone who belives it’s more noble to mooch off friends than to actually do an honest day’s work is not exactly a wonderful role model for a bunch of university students.
After Concordia allowed the Netanyahu riot to set a precedent by initially not allowing Ehud Barak to speak, it seems free speech is now only a privilege of the side of rioters. A planned speech by US Ambassador Paul Cellucci at UQÀM was cancelled for “security concerns”:
Following on Concordia University’s decision last month to call off a speech by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the Universite du Quebec a Montreal yesterday cancelled an address by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.
Cellucci was to have spoken at 2 p.m. yesterday at a conference organized by the Raoul Dandurand chair in strategic and diplomatic studies.
[ . . . ]
Nobody was able to say what the nature of the security risk was, but this week a group calling itself Bloquez l’empire (Block the Empire) sent out a statement by e-mail urging Montrealers to rally to “stop Cellucci from speaking.”
The University claimed that RCMP and US Security Officials recommended cancellation. But spokespeople from both deny that claim, and say the decision was made by the University.
The violence-rules contingent is crowing over their success:
Cellucci represents a regime whose ambitions to political and economic domination are expressed ruthlessly, but have the merit, at least, of being openly acknowledged. His legitimacy, especially after the concerns raised about election fraud in the US, should not be recognised. The only place Cellucci should be allowed to speak is before a tribunal, trying him for complicity with crimes against humanity.
The cancellation is a minor victory, and a little indication of what can be done – especially around the coming visit of Bush to Ottawa (30 November-1 December).
If this keeps up, it will kill free speech everywhere. Mob rule is being permitted far too much success. Eventually, only one viewpoint will be represented: that of the groups willing to resort to violence to suppress all speech besides theirs.
Concordia has set a very dangerous precedent. What people need to realize is that yesterday, it was an Israeli former PM who wasn’t allowed to speak. Today, it was a US ambassador. Tomorrow, it may be your speech that’s suppressed.
This is an issue that affects us all.
Nov. 5, 2004 — Media coverage of a statement issued by Federation CJA yesterday may have caused misunderstanding about Concordia’s position regarding inviting Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia. Concordia’s position has not changed and the university’s primary concern remains the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and our guests.
As Dr. Lowy outlined in his update to the community of Oct. 25 and subsequent opinion page pieces in the Toronto Star, The Gazette and Le Devoir:
“Concordia is presently reviewing its physical plant and general environment. Changes recommended by experts will be considered so that all speakers can then be welcomed on campus. And this will be done in a timely fashion with an eye towards implementing the necessary changes this academic year. Until then, we will continue to hold off campus under Concordia auspices any event considered not secure in our present facilities. Freedom of expression will continue to be supported as it always has been at Concordia.”
This has been Concordia’s position and remains Concordia’s position.
The university is examining possible locations from a security viewpoint with the intent of making the necessary modifications so an event of this kind can be held with the proper level of security, dignity and respect that such a visit demands.
In the light of the work that remains to be done, this will certainly not be possible in this calendar year. The university will try to make this possible before the end of the academic year.
This is spin 101: try to please everybody and offend nobody by saying contradictory things in the same statement.
The fact is, Concordia initially said no to the Barak speech, citing security concerns. Now they’re saying they hope they can host him in the current academic year on campus. Whether they admit it or not, that’s a reversal. And the right thing to do. But I wish they weren’t so cowardly about admitting it.