Now, admittedly, this concept might be better if more of the people in the blog’s photos actually said what they were doing to help the 99%, besides writing statements on paper. But the spirit ain’t bad.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has its share of problems, namely, the lack of any coherent demands, the lack of focus, and the general sense of a movement with lots of gripes but few answers. But they’re not wrong to point out the negative consequences of large income disparity in the US. And while the income gap isn’t nearly as dramatic in Canada, there’s a strong sense that we’re moving in that direction.

The fact is, while these people claim to be in the so-called 1% of Americans, and most of us aren’t, we’re pretty much ALL of us part of the luckiest 0.00001% in the world – we hit the mother of all jackpots just by being born here in Canada, having enough food to eat, a roof over our heads, security and safety and education and healthcare and the chance to grow to be an adult. It’s worth it for all of us to think about how we can do more to give something back.

(Not for nothing, but this goes back to my long-standing call for Quebec to raise university tuition for those who can afford it and increase bursaries and financial aid for those who can’t. More access to opportunity benefits everyone. Just sayin’.)

Oh yeah. Here.

Let’s compare the two. Here’s Obama:

“That month makes a difference,” the president said. “It means that kids are losing a lot of what they learn during the school year during the summer. It’s especially severe for poorer kids who may not see as many books in the house during the summers, aren’t getting as many educational opportunities.”

[ . . . ]

“We have got to identify teachers who are doing well. Teachers who are not doing well, we have got to give them the support and the training to do well. And if some teachers aren’t doing a good job, they’ve got to go,” Obama said.

And here’s his fictional model, Congressman Matthew Santos, played by Jimmy Smits on the West Wing, circa 2005:

“America is 49th in the world in literacy. That’s down 18 spots in the last four years. Why? Well, for starters, the 180-day school year, that’s based on the agrarian calendar. But we’re in a global economy now. Japan’s at 243 days; Germany’s at 240. ”

[ . . . ]

“… which is why we need to end teacher tenure and get rid of failing teachers.”

Life imitating art? In the case of Santos/Obama, it’s certainly not the first time.

A new survey of Quebecers’ attitudes on education shows that two out of three prefer to have the right to send their children to any school in the province they choose, public or private.

The poll, conducted for The Gazette by Léger Marketing, asked whether students other than those now allowed, including franco-phones, should have access to English-language schools if they wish.

A total of 66 per cent of a representative sample of Quebecers agreed that they should – including a 61-per-cent clear majority of francophones.

Non-francophones were even more overwhelmingly in favour, at 87 per cent.

It’s about time that the francophone majority realised that they’re the ones getting most hurt by the current policies. After all, their kids will grow up learning French at home regardless, and without a strong foundation in English, their opportunities will be very limited in today’s world. Then, there are the anglo parents who would prefer to send their kids to French school so that they could grow up fluent in French, but opt instead to send them to English school in fear that their children will lose their right to choose.

This poll is long overdue and I hope the provincial parties will actually take notice, rather than resorting to the same rationalizations as the SSJB. The protectionist stance that the Quebec government has taken with schools has not preserved the status of French; it’s impeded the potential of Quebec. Unfortunately, it’s not likely to change anything in the short term. But in the long term, it may demonstrate that there’s a real willingness to embrace change and institute policies that open doors instead of chaining them shut.

Iran’s hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.

With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation’s 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic’s late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Iran still has strong moderate factions, and since taking office a year ago Ahmadinejad has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners. His administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.

Hey Mahmoud, what’s wrong? Can’t stand the blogging competition?

I think the actions of Stephen Harper’s government leave Canadian children confused and bewildered when they compare political actions against the educational principles taught in this country.

The Canadian education system encourages our children to become citizens who respect justice, equity and multiculturalism. School boards place much importance on non-violence and co-operation.

My son tells me that school kids aren’t allowed to respond with physical violence even if other kids hit them – instead they are told to get a teacher or adult to intervene in these incidents. In the end, the troubled kids pay the consequences, but in a non-violent way.

In a similar vein, Harper’s views on the current crisis in the Middle East are completely contrary to school polices which emphasize avoiding violence and encouraging dialogue and discussion.

Because everyone knows that if Israel just complains to the teacher instead of hitting back, the teacher will send Hezbollah to the corner and then force it to apologize. </Sarcasm>

Something tells me that the problem lies not so much with Harper’s position on Israel, but with the policy of the schoolboards that – apparently – not only fail to teach any context whatsoever in their history classes, but also seemingly fail to teach kids anything about how the world really works.

Damian was, of course, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial. However, I think the quote is a good one, and it popped into my head when I read about today’s ruling against teaching creationism in schools:

A federal judge on Tuesday banned the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District, saying the practice violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

[ . . . ]

The school district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed teaching intelligent design was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in high school biology classrooms.

Before you jump down my throat, I’m in no way implying that Holocaust denial is comparable to creationism. What I am saying, however, is that there’s a clear difference between fact and invention – as in the case of Holocaust denial – which I think we all recognize fairly easily. What many people fail to recognize, however, is that we must also make a clear distinction between fact and belief.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism (repackaged as “intelligent design” or whatever you rename it) is a belief. It is based on faith, not evidence, and cannot be proven for the simple reason that it cannot be disproven.

Today’s ruling banned the teaching of creationism because it violates the separation of church and state. I think the real reason it ought to be banned from science curricula is because it isn’t science. After all, there is no constitutional ban on teaching Holocaust denial in history class, and yet I’m sure we would all call for the dismissal of any teacher who tried, simply on the grounds that it’s wrong.

I have no objection to the teaching of creationist theory in a course about religion, humanities, or cultural studies. But high school biology teachers who teach creationism as scientific fact are muddling fact and belief. People are entitled to hold a belief, but when teaching science, they need to stick to facts.

And so, to restate Damian’s point, everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, but not his own facts.

Three students have been expelled from an elite private school for posting pictures of Nazi rallies and Jews being tortured on a Web site and then using anti-Semitic slurs to lash out at a student who objected. The boys, one of whom is Jewish, thrown out of Royal St. George’s College after posting “heinous” images of the Holocaust on a chat board used by several private schools, headmaster Hal Hannaford told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Is it just me or is there some kind of cold comfort to the fact that idiotic teenagers looking to rebel see Nazism as a kind of “worst of the worst” tough image to adopt?

If they were trying to get a reaction, they sure got one. Let’s hope those kids learned their lesson that antisemitism is not, in any way, “cool”.

Now, it’s been announced that it will be phased out entirely by 2008.

In sharp contrast to the controversy stirred back in 1997, most people in Quebec seem to be backing this new plan, with polls showing about 75% in favour of the elimination of instruction and replacement of it with a “culturally inclusive” course about religion in general. Quebec is a fairly secular society these days, and it seems most people are inclined to accept that education belongs in the classroom and religious instruction belongs in the home.

As it happens, I agree. Ironically perhaps, since I’m a product of religious school myself.

Many Americans are surprised to know that religious instruction still exists in public schools here. It’s admittedly not been a huge issue since most of Quebec outside Montreal is overwhelmingly Catholic by denomination, even if their level of adherence to the religion varies. The Protestant schoolboards were mostly English and that was where most of the Jewish kids went if they weren’t attending private Jewish schools. By the time my generation attended, they were fairly secular and the religious aspect was mostly nominal.

But the system still created awkward situations. And in some cases even the new linguistic system as it stands can ostracize kids if they’re the only ones opting out of religion classes. That’s not cool. Montreal is a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city, and even if this diversity isn’t reflected province-wide, schools that offer only Christian instruction are really limiting when we consider how many religions coexist among the student populations.

Religion doesn’t really have a place in public schools, in my opinion. But parents should still have the option to send their kids to (heavily subsidized) private schools if they feel religious instruction is important. That’s what a large portion of the Jewish community does. I think we’ll be seeing more private Christian schools cropping up after 2008, to fill a need that the phasing out of such education in the public system will create. And that’s okay too.

It’ll be interesting to see whether this gets more press in the coming days, or how people will react.

The Israeli Embassy in London released a statement condemning the boycott as a biased and adverse move which, far from promoting peace efforts, it ignores and sabotages progress made between the Israelis and Palestinians.

“The resolutions are as perverse in their content as in the way they were debated and adopted. The AUT ignored overwhelming academic and public rejection of the proposed motions.

“The fact that no AUT member who wanted to argue against this decision was allowed to speak, and the case for the Israeli universities was not presented to delegates, speaks volumes about the relevance and fairness of this debate,” the embassy statement read.

If three years at Concordia taught me something, it was that the notion that academia supports a free exchange of ideas is utter hogwash. The academic milieu is perhaps the most totalitarian, dictatorial, one-sided environment imaginable, where you either toe the party line or find yourself pounding the pavement.

But this goes beyond the pale. A mob of anti-Israel, politically-motivated professors decided that these top-quality, world-renowned Israeli universities are not acceptable to them, and here are some of the reasons why:

Pro-boycott activists were hopeful that their motions stood a better chance of being passed this year after they were turned down in 2003. One reason for their optimism, they said earlier this month, was that they have now received the unequivocal support of the Federation of Unions of Palestinian Universities’ Teachers and Employees, a sister union of the British association. The Palestinian federation has recently released a statement endorsing the British call to boycott Israeli universities.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post earlier this month, Sue Blackwell, a Birmingham University lecturer and one of the leaders of the boycott proposal, told the Post that she “completely agreed” with comparisons between Israel and the former Apartheid regime in South Africa.

Universities are supposed to teach truth, not propaganda. But with the twisted “truths” currently being taught in Britain and in campuses across Europe and North America, it’s hard to imagine what will soon pass for “truth” among new graduates.

In the meantime, the students continued to make asses of themselves and an unholy mess of things as they protested at Wal-Mart. This was an obvious repayment to the labour unions for all the money they gave them to fund the protests in effort to topple Charest’s government and restore their buddies the PQ into power. Not that it would require much effort at this point. Roadkill would have an easier time getting re-elected than Charest, who is down to a 23% approval rating according to the latest CROP poll.

Anyway, there were reports of women and children shopping at Wal-Mart being pushed and shoved around. The protesters blocked entrance to the store with shopping carts and decided to provoke police yet again. Traffic was tied up on the Decarie Expressway for hours.

The bottom line is that this “victory” for the students is actually a massive loss for Quebec. No government will try again to cut bursaries for years. And nobody will even dare suggest lifting the tuition freeze; they’ll be too scared. That means that Quebec’s postsecondary education will remain chronically underfunded and will continue to fall behind the rest of North America in terms of quality.

What many students fail to understand about education is that it’s an investment. And, like any investment, you have to put in some money and effort up front to get a payoff later. Ironically, if tuition was double or triple what it is (in other words, a bit closer to what it should be), we wouldn’t see such massive strikes and protests. Students who had to cough up serious money for their classes would actually attend rather than engage in a massive strike where the chief victims are themselves.

The unions know exactly what they’re doing. But most of the students who are tacitly or overtly supporting them don’t understand. They think it’s “cool” to fight for the communist ideal, but I can’t imagine any of them would ever want to experience life under true communism. They talk about “accessible” education, but have no concept of the notion of accessible quality education.

To Jean Charest: grow a spine. Quickly. You desperately need one.

To the students: You love communism so much? Fine, go live in a communist country and quit hassling Wal-Mart shoppers and Friday afternoon commuters… you know, people with actual jobs. Come to think of it, just get a friggin’ job and quit griping about a measly $2,000 in university tuition.

The Quebec government is welcoming two Supreme Court decisions on the province’s language laws.

The court ruled against an attempt by francophone parents to win the right to free access to English public schools.This is an English-rights issue in a way… but in reverse. It’s not anglophones in Quebec who are the second-class citizens here, it’s francophones. The oppressive language policy allows us English kids to become fluently bilingual in grade school, but doesn’t allow French kids to learn English at an early age and become fluently bilingual. That’s why so many people feel stuck in Quebec – especially those who live outside Montreal, where English instruction in French schools is often of poor quality.

Quebec is my home but it’s also a very closed, defensive society. Paranoia about English means that restrictive legislation designed to “protect” French actually holds Quebec Francophones hostage here. It’s a policy of fear with no basis in reality, since all evidence indicates that learning a second or third language at a young age helps, rather than hurts, kids’ language skills in their mother tongue.

And of course all the politicians who merrily protect these laws don’t care; they send their kids to private schools, where many of them do learn to be fluently bilingual.

There was a bit of a silver lining, as a second ruling tried to make it easier for immigrants to have access to English schools. I predict that the legislation will be reframed to avoid that as well.

And so, Francophone parents will continue to be restricted by policies intended for the “common good”. Not much changes.

Last week, the McGill Daily reported that the PQ youth wing and that major Quebec labour unions were supporting the student strikers, in an effort to topple the Charest Liberal governement and get the PQ re-elected. Yesterday, the Liberals angrily accused the unions of funding the strikers, lashing out at them for mixing issues:

Liberal party whip Norm MacMillan says unions appear to be piggybacking on the student strike in order to advance their own contract negotiations with the government.

“Everybody’s in negotiations right now: civil servants, teachers in universities and CEGEPS,” he notes.

MacMillan says some union money may even have paid for buses to help the students mobilize large demonstrations.

The university students federation doesn’t deny some funding has come from outside groups.

It’s not exactly news that the labour unions in Quebec overwhelmingly support the PQ and have been engaged in a bitter battle with the Liberals since their election. And the student cause seems to be a popular one; a Léger poll conducted two weeks ago found that 24% of people think that the government should cave to the student demands, and another 48% believe that a portion of the $103 million in cuts should be re-invested into the bursaries program. Furthermore, 44% of people said they would be willing to forego a tax cut in order to put the money back into the bursary program.

In the media circus surrounding the protests, rock-throwing at police, arrests and threats of cancelled semesters, the voice of dissenters is getting drowned out.

I’m talking about the students who actually want to go to class. The ones who want to graduate eventually. The ones who recognize the value of their education, and are willing to make an investment into it. Though disorganized and quiet, there are an awful lot of them. And they’re tired of being deprived of classes they paid for, of having their opportunities that they’ve worked hard for yanked away from them, and of the general attitude among their fellow students and even professors that they’re “selfish” or just plain “wrong”.

Times like this, I’m glad I’m not still a student. Because it’s tough enough dealing with the pressure without having to face the Quebec reality: that this is a socialist province where everyone seems to think that society “owes” them. Everyone wants to take out of the system, nobody wants to contribute into it. This is how we end up with massive economic failure. (But of course, the students and the labour unions have a perfect solution to this: tax the rich more. Never mind what happens when all the rich leave the province; they’ll just tax the next richest.)

Or, to quote the CASSEE spokespeople:

Members of the CASSEE say they’ve tried holding demonstrations.

Blocking traffic and offices works better, they say.

“We started by drawing up petitions, we held protests; our pressure tactics have escalated,” said Xavier Lafrance, another CASSEE spokesperson, and a political science student at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

[ . . . ]

Funding for higher education could be raised, they said, by ensuring private corporations pay their taxes – in full.

[ . . . ]

“Aggressive unionism is a Quebec tradition,” added Mathieu Cousineau DeGarie, a third CASSEE spokesperson.

“We at the CASSEE want to revive that tradition.”

So they continue to strike. And I continue to rant. Because nothing will improve while the student unions are allowed to hold the Quebec education system – and its students – hostage. No government has the political capital to change the situation; only the students can make a difference by rallying to oppose their oppressors. Sadly, their voices seem too scattered, and students opposed to the strike have no choice but to grumble and sigh.

A five-hour blockade at the Port of Montreal ended yesterday in a standoff with riot police and the arrest of six students protesting against cuts to financial aid.

The typical accusations of “police provocation” on the part of the student shit-disturbers followed, of course.

It goes beyond mere rock throwing and idiocy, though. Votes to strike at several university campuses are threatening the semesters of students who actually want to attend class. Most of my friends are absolutely livid that their semesters may be delayed or even cancelled. To quote one friend at UQAM:

Now the students are saying they don’t give a d*mn if our term is cancelled. I am really pissed at them, and considering suing my student association. If it is cancelled, I want my $1000 back. It is not by throwing that much money out the window that we are “helping future generations”… And then these idiots throw rocks at policemen and block streets.

But the union leaders and protest agitators don’t actually give a crap about the students they’re supposed to represent. None of them care about losing out on class time, since few if any actually ever set foot in a classroom. None of them care about graduating since they don’t actually intend to ever graduate. None of them care about the effect of a delayed semester on summer or other job prospects, because none of them actually ever intend to get a job. Never mind that Quebec university tuition is so cheap, they could pay it off easily if they actually got a job instead of spending their days throwing rocks at police. Where’s the fun in that?

It’s all well and good to try to protect students against spiraling or unreasonable tuition hikes. But things have gotten way out of control. The tuition freeze is crippling Quebec education, but no government can lift it without paying a severe political price. This has disastrous long-term effects on the health of Quebec’s economy and society in general. Accessible education is one thing; accessible quality education is another altogether. If the student agitators get their way, Quebec will have free education that’s completely, utterly useless, creating an entire generation of people who intend on living off the backs of the state.

Unfortunately, the students who understand this basic fact are disorganized and lack a powerful political voice. So as the strikes and protests continue, who is going to stand up for the rights of students who actually want an education?

The FEUQ is demanding that the Charest government rescind its decision to transform $103 million worth of student bursaries into loans.

Federation spokespeople maintain that this move is not an effort to rebuild an image some might say was tarnished by the violent incidents that occured at their Monticello demonstration last week, but rather to make the public aware of the issues at stake.

Just to clarify: they’re mad because students will actually have to repay the money they get from the government. Cause that would mean students would actually have to get jobs when they graduate… you know, the kind that pay money.

It’s so much better to live off of handouts that nobody expects you to ever repay, isn’t it? Then you can stay in school forever, taking one class at a time that you never attend, and spend your time organizing protests and drinking fair-trade coffee.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the student protests and strikes are jokes. Quebec students pay a pittance in tuition compared to anywhere else in North America. But the way the student unions work, the people elected to leadership are the ones who promise more strikes, more fights, more protests.

The tuition freeze in Quebec is sort of like ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Everyone knows that they’re damaging, but it is suicidal for any government to even suggest revoking them. And so we have a university system that is cash-strapped and an endless cycle of students coming to believe that it’s more honourable to live off of handouts than to actually work for anything.

*Sigh*.

I disagree. And I’d like to explain why, by addressing his arguments:

A/ This isn’t the US, private schooling is not something that should involve getting a second mortgage. If you are absolutely hell-bent on sending your offspring to private school yet can’t afford it right off the bat, make a few sacrifices if you value your child’s education that much.

Private Jewish school tuition, last I checked, runs in the neighbourhood of $6,000 a year or thereabouts. Per child. That may not force most families to get a second mortgage, but it’s not pocket change either. And when you factor in the fact that many families are paying this for two, three, four kids at a time, you can see how it quickly spirals out of reach for parents quickly.

B/ Wouldn’t a reduction in our overall level of taxation provide people with more than enough spare money to do this, rather than providing selective credits, vouchers, etc. from which only taxpayers with children could profit? (To coin a phrase, wouldn’t that be democracy in taxation?) Moreover, how many new civil servants would have to be hired to administer the granting of vouchers, or other things along those lines?

Of course it would, and that argument can be made about pretty much any government subsidy program. In general I believe in less government spending and greater tax cuts.

But education is something that is government-funded, at least in the public sector. Everyone pays school tax, whether they send their children to public schools or not. So parents who opt for private schools are in essence double-taxed, as they pay both for the private school and for a spot in a public school that their kids aren’t using.

C/ If parents want to send their children to fully-subsidised schools that won’t cost them much of anything, they already have that option in the form of public schools. Sure, they may not be all that they’re cracked up to be, so maybe some sort of public education reform might be in order (and one may argue that the creation of a public school curriculum that actually teaches something and is available to all might be a more equitable and responsible use of our money).

I think there’s some confusion about the Reid plan here. The intention was never to fully subsidize private schools (i.e. no tuition), it was to fully subsidize the secular portion of the private schools’ education. The religious portion – which is not available or offered in the public system – is subsidized at 0% and would continue to be. So essentially, parents would be paying only for the part of the program that isn’t available in the public system.

Quebec used to have religious schoolboards – Catholic or Protestant. If you were neither, you could either send your kids to one or the other (usually Protestant), or you could fork over the dough for private school. Now, we have linguistic schoolboards, which is a step in the right direction, but the public schools still offer Catholic or Protestant religious education courses. The Jewish option doesn’t exist in the public sector, so the private schools fill a void. And parents who select them usually aren’t doing so because they’re snobby or find the schools posh (a laughable thought, considering the state of disrepair of my high school), but because they want their kids to learn something about their background and culture that they can’t get in the public system. Ditto with the Greek schools, which are fully government-subsidized in their secular programs – students can’t learn Greek language or culture in the public system, so these schools fill that void.

So sure, parents have a choice of where to send their kids to learn the 3 Rs. But they don’t have a choice if they want their kids to have some cultural or moral education as well.

D/ If private education becomes financed entirely (or mostly) by the Government and available to all, who’s going to be left to go to public schools? Considering that private schools are located mainly in large urban areas and their surroundings, I don’t see how inhabitants of rural areas are supposed to benefit from your position on democracy in education.

There would still be plenty of people left in the public system, out of choice or convenience. If the Quebec government increased secular funding to the Jewish schools to 100%, thousands of Catholic kids wouldn’t suddenly enroll. In fact, it’s doubtful if the schools’ admission would go up at all, considering that parents who can’t afford the tuition currently receive financial aid. Anyone who wants to send their kids to Jewish school is probably already doing so.

But the broader issue is the underlying claim that if private schools are more accessible, they’ll steal students from the public system. But by creating a sort of “protectionism” for the public schools, it gives them a disincentive to improve or to hold themselves to higher standards. Give parents a choice and schools will have to shape up to compete. Many already have. It’s doable.

E/ Government funding of private schools only makes some sort of sense if public schools are privatised and forced to live up to the same standards as other private schools. I can’t quite see that happening, though. No matter what, it sort of negates the point of private schools, i.e., that they’re not public.

There’s no need to privatise public schools. There is a need to fund public schools better. And the one argument against the Reid plan that I think is valid is that of opportunity cost: the money going to the Jewish schools is needed more by the public schools. There’s something to be said for that. But that’s a problem of chronic underfunding, not one of an ideological impasse. In theory, the public school system should be able to meet the needs of most people to the greatest degree possible, with the private system filling in the holes where needed.

For the record, I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the Jewish school system. Grade school was fine, but by high school it was a bit much. But I do think that parents ought to have the option, which is why I was in favour of the Liberal plan.

Those asking me for clarifications ought to be satisfied now… hopefully.

After discussing the matter with his cabinet for the first time, Charest acknowledged that the plan was doomed to fail without the backing of the population.

[ . . . ]

“With the Marguerite Bourgeoys school board not wanting to pursue this and with the very strong reaction within the population of Quebec, this initiative is not one that’s going to be able to succeed,” Charest said.

If all 15 schools had signed on, the program would have cost $10 million a year. The seven schools that signed agreements will still get a portion of that total for the remainder of the school year before the program is abolished. Charest has authorized Reid and Citizens Relations and Immigration Minister Michelle Courchesne to work with the school boards and cultural communities to find an alternative.

Worse than a leader people disagree with is a spineless leader. Charest will likely find that retreat with his tail between his legs is much more politically costly than an unpopular plan in the first place.

Ironically, there’s no public outcry against the Greek schools who receive this funding model. Greeks, I suppose, are less politically objectionable than Jews.

At least one prominent person has the courage to tell it like it is:

Marcus Tabachnick, chairperson of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, said the project should have continued.

Stressing that it was his personal opinion and not necessarily that of the board, Tabachnick said the controversy hinted of anti-Semitism.

He said he’s been asked by at least one reporter for the origin of his last name and his religion.

“I’m disappointed,” Tabachnick said. “I think in the last few days we’ve seen the ugliest side of Quebec.”

Unfortunately, his is one of the only voices making that argument. A Leger poll suggested that 90% of the population of Quebec was against the initiative.

At times like this, I’m reminded of something I’ve said before: If an opinion poll was held in Quebec, asking people if the Jews should pay more tax than everyone else, the initiative would overwhelmingly be favoured.

I guess this proves that point.

Update: Judging by Tommy Schnurmacher’s tirade on the subject, he agrees with me… and then some. Not that I’m too surprised.

Far from a last-minute decision made behind closed doors, Charest said, allowing Jewish day schools to form an association with public school boards and boost their secular funding is an idea that has been in the works for more than 10 years.

The premier angrily denied reports the decision was related to financial contributions to the Quebec Liberal Party by members of the Jewish community.

“There is absolutely no link between political financing and the decision taken by the government,” Charest said at a late- afternoon news conference. “If some people want to piece together events to say there is an appearance, they can always try to do that, but I am here to say clearly that’s not the case.”

Sounds liek a standard-issue denial. But there’s much more than simple political criticizing going on here.

First of all, the decision had initially been approved by two public schoolboards, who signed on:

And Reid was acting with the approval of the two school boards involved, the Lester B. Pearson School Board and the Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys, which voted in favour of the deals at their own meetings and passed the requests up the line, Charest said.

Both schoolboards would also get additional funding for participating. But little attention is being paid to that.

Also, there’s a clear double-standard at play, since Greek schools in Montreal are already 100% funded:

Charest said that despite criticism the government is creating a precedent, the Greek community already has associations with school boards that entitle its schools to more funding. The Liberals had decided to give private Jewish schools associated status as early as 1994 but lost power to the PQ, which did not implement it.

[ . . . ]

[Former PQ education minister Pauline] Marois added that in the nine years the PQ was in power, the government refused just such a request from Jewish leaders for reasons of fairness and because the government wanted to get away from the religious aspects of education as part of the transformation from religious school boards to linguistic ones.

“My biggest fear is that this has the reverse effect sought by the Jewish community and by the minister, that it raises the objections we see today and it leads to intolerance between one group and another,” Marois said.

“The minister is creating a climate of tension, insecurity, and is not acting in the interests of all.”

Marois admitted, however, that despite her criticism of the deal with Jewish private schools, the PQ did nothing to reverse the same associated status the Greek schools enjoyed when the PQ was in power.

So funding Greek schools does not create a “climate of tension”, but funding Jewish schools does. That’s crystal clear, I suppose.

Marois even went so far as to suggest that the Jewish schools should refuse to sign on for the plan, ostensibly to avoid being criticized by the likes of her party.

Anyone notice a pattern here? When people “suspect” the Jews, it’s beacuse we brought it on ourselves by doing things that “create a climate of tension”. Marois’ comments were a bit more subtle than Parizeau’s infamous “money and the ethnic vote” speech… but not much.

The plan is simple, on the face of it. Jewish schools, previously getting 60% of their funding from the government, will now get 100%. In exchange, they sign a deal promising “cultural exchanges” with public schools, in order to foster better community relations and understanding.

But Charest’s government would never escape scrutiny for this move. Any sympathy for the Jewish community’s added financial burden of providing security for schools in the wake of the UTT firebombing has long faded. Reverting to type, the Quebec public sees a potential scandal involving Liberals, Jews, and money… and smells blood.

This from the Gazette’s Don Macpherson:

But, as everyone but apparently the government could have predicted, the increase is likely to worsen relations between Jews and non-Jews.

Other than the government, Jews and other religious groups using it as a precedent, nobody supports the decision. As the chief editorialist for the usually Liberal-friendly La Presse, Andre Pratte wrote yesterday the government managed to fan not one controversy but three: public funding of private schools, public funding of ethnic schools and the place of religion in publicly funded schools. And it awoke “the old demon” of anti-Semitism. The title of the editorial was an incredulous single word:”Incomprehensible!”

In other words, it’s bad policy because it gives fodder to the antisemites.

Now, Charest’s government is being attacked by the PQ for supposedly granting this extra money as a payout for the Jewish community’s support of his party:

Quebec Opposition leader Bernard Landry demanded Tuesday that Premier Jean Charest reconsider his decision to increase the funding of private Jewish schools from 60 to 100 per cent, which is the same as public schools.

Landry and Parti Québécois education critic, Pauline Marois, also called for Education Minister Pierre Reid to step down from cabinet because of his poor management of the education portfolio.

Landry said that Charest must make public his reasoning behind the decision in order to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest linking major contributions from the Jewish community to the Quebec Liberal Party.

Bernard Landry went on camera and called for Pierre Ried’s resignation. Never mind that there’s zero foundation. Never mind that the PQ has a long history of taking care of its friends (metro to Laval, anyone?) or that the Jewish community has its own reasons for supporting the Liberals and doesn’t require a cash incentive. Never mind that there are no ways to prove the allegations.

The Societe St Jean Baptiste is calling for an inquiry into the matter because it may have been “politically motivated”. Anyone who knows the SSJB knows how ridiculous that is.

Personally, I think an increase in public education funding should have been a higher priority. But I also know from experience that most of the Jewish day schools are desperately cash-strapped. Far from the stereotypical “posh” private schools, most of the buildings are falling apart, the facilities are in urgent need of replacement, and the textbooks are so old that my grade 10 history book had only 9 provinces listed in Canada. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating… but not by much.

Many families who send their kids to Jewish school can’t afford the tuition, and the schools work out financial aid for any family who needs it. Given all that, I can’t imagine any of the Jewish schools turning up their nose at more money.

The problem isn’t the added cash. It’s the fact that the government can pour money into union coffers, other ethnic communities, rural communties and just about anyone else’s pockets without people batting an eyelash. After all, we’re the most heavily-taxed province in Canada and there’s no shortage of people getting handouts. But the minute a dime goes to the Jewish community, it’s an “appearance of conflict”.

The Ontario government plans to introduce legislation that will require students to stay in school until they reach the age of 18, said the province’s minister of education Saturday.

If the rules aren’t followed, students would be forced back to their desks or sent to alternative learning programs by a court order, said Education Minister Gerard Kennedy. If that fails, a student could be ordered to spend time in jail, but that would be rare he adds.

The McGuinty government is spinning this as a “carrot, not stick” and an “exciting opportunity that strikes them as a real win for themselves”. Somehow I doubt most high school dropouts will see it that way.

Students need to want to stay in school because they believe in their future opportunities, not because it’s illegal not to. The Ontario government is taking an education system that clearly has problems, and trying to mask them with a new law that will do very little other than cause bureaucratic headaches.

In the meantime, Quebec – with our extraordinarily high high school dropout rate – is probably watching carefully. But with calls every so often to scrap the Cegep system, it’s hard to take the government’s commitment to postsecondary education seriously. Cegep, which is free and is open to “mature students” over 21 who never finished high school, provides a great second chance for dropouts to get back into the education system. It’s probably the best innovation that has ever come from a government. Scrapping it won’t solve our dropout problem, it will make the whole system worse.

The only way to reduce dropout rates is to provide students with clear incentives to stay in school. Both Quebec and Ontario are failing miserably on that score.

Members of Grantsburg’s school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum “should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory,” said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

One of the key problems with many religions is their inability to accept natural facts and explain them. The Catholic Church maintained the Earth was flat long after it was proved that it was round, and that the sun revolved around the Earth long after the opposite was proved to be true. Millions of people today equate science and faith, believing them to be simply “alternate theories” of the same event.

This discounts the whole basis of science: proof, verifiable data, and a willingness to change theories in the face of new evidence. None of these are present in faith, which is a personal matter that has no place in public schools.

I think part of the problem in the evolution versus creationism debate is the word “theory” in scientific circles. A scientific “theory” is not just a guess. Science uses the term “theory” on the assumption that there is no such thing as fact, because new evidence could always emerge. But a theory is as rock-solid as it gets in science; it’s a conclusion drawn after experiments and supporting research. This leads many religious people to falsely assume that a scientific theory has equal validity to a faith-based one.

Personally, I don’t believe that these Wisconsin students will never understand that. I was educated in a religious school where creationism was taught over evolution, and I got over it. That doesn’t mean it’s right to mislead and falsely educate students just because of politics. Especially in public schools. It’s one thing for students to be taught that many people believe in creationism. It’s quite another for them to be taught that it’s as valid a theory as evolution. The politicos who made this decision should be ashamed of themselves.

Me to them: Hands off!

CEGEP is the best two years of many students’ entire academic careers. I’m far from the only person to say this.

For pre-university students, it’s a chance to adapt to a collegial environment before the pressure begins of choosing a major and a career path. For students in technical programs, it’s a chance to get a free education that will lead to a solid career path. For everyone, it’s a great social and academic environment, free of the trappings of the typical high school.

If a student switches programs in CEGEP, it costs them maybe an extra semester and a few textbooks. Switching programs in university can mean up to a year or more of extra tuition costs. CEGEP provides an opportunity to try out a few different things, during the truly formative years of one’s life, and find the path that suits them best before investing in a university degree in the subject.

CEGEP is one of the few things that Quebec actually got right. Work on funding education better, not messing up the system.

We don’t have today a “free marketplace of ideas” – not by any stretch of the imagination. What we have is a heavily subsidized production of “obscure jargons” – much noise, that is – with academics carving out, then jealously guarding, their turf.

Pompous wording, circuitous sentences and flaccid prose protect prerogatives and bamboozle students with buzz-words, elaborate models and unverifiable theories, leaving a trail of confusion that mediocre followers – in academia, media and politics, too – either mistake for profundity or just misuse when convenient.

I think that’s a little harsh. There are some very good professors out there, and I took more than my share of excellent, thought-provoking classes.

But Brenner and Troy aren’t attacking individual professors so much as the entire system of academia. And here, they aren’t too far off the mark. While their analysis is more bleak than anything, there is no denying that academia can be full of narrow-minded people who are oftentimes out of touch with reality. The overuse of jargon should be obvious to any first-year arts student. Too many professors have voiced concerns about the sacred cow of “publish or perish” being replaced by “toe the line or you’re out”. If your opinions are unfashionable, you’ll have precious little success finding a position anywhere.

I’d like to say things are getting better, but it seems that they are getting worse. Too many classes, instead of teaching students to become independent thinkers, instead require regurgitation of the professor’s ideas. It’s obvious this can lead nowhere positive, and maybe some soul-searching in academics is long overdue.

The kids come from Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Turkey and China. They’ve experienced famine, war and death. They know hatred when they see it.

When students from the All Rights Committee (ARC) and the Student Parliament at the Islington Junior Middle School [in Toronto] heard about the firebombing of the United Talmud Torahs (UTT) library in Montreal earlier this month, they responded quickly and collected $440 and 250 books to help UTT rebuild.

[ . . . ]

When the UTT arson happened, “we wanted to show the Jewish people that we care and that we think it should stop,” Sarah Gaikwad, 13, says.

The article says that every class in the school contributed something, as much as they could. These are the kids who are being taught the right values, and they should be applauded for their help.

All the schools have armed guards now in Israel, for obvious reasons. They guard entranceways, check bags of people going in, and basically stay on the alert for anything suspicious. It’s sad but necessary. And as much as I hated my friend’s choice of job, it did pay better than waitress or gas station attendant… and let’s face it, these days it wasn’t really any more dangerous. But as much as I love Israel, I was grateful that I live in safe, secure Canada, where schools don’t need security guards.

Not anymore.

This morning, on my regular drive to work, I passed by a local Jewish elementary school, as I do every day. Yesterday was the first day of classes after Passover for the students there, and I didn’t notice anything in particular since I went into the office very early. But today, I drove by while the kids were out in the schoolyard for recess. And in addition to the teachers at their regular posts inside the schoolyard fence, I couldn’t help but see the security guard standing just outside. He was wearing a big jacket saying “SECURITY” in huge letters, and wearing an earpiece, and he was watching the traffic and all the people around the school with an alert, hardened look in his eyes.

He was the only guard I saw, but there may have been others. I understand why it’s necessary. The U.T.T. firebombing makes extra security a necessity. From the parents’ point of view, the more the better – anything to protect their kids.

But it also saddens me immensely that it’s come to this. That here, in safe secure Montreal, we need security at elementary schools to prevent sickos with agendas from attacking children.

• Letters like this one are encouraging and nice to see. But they’re also easy. Too easy. It’s simple to act upset and shocked when assholes firebomb an elementary school. It’s harder to face down other forms of antisemitism that aren’t so obvious but are just as harmful. I’d like to see a flooding of support for the Jewish community when there’s a suicide attack in Israel. Instead, we get finger-pointing and Israel-bashing.

• Speaking of the UTT fire, Geoff has photos (via Celestial Blue). Disturbing to see the building that way. I can’t bring myself to drive by. Though the attack happened in the elementary school’s library, the high school is attached and so I spent 5 years of my life inside that building on a near-daily basis. I’m too used to remembering it as the place I dreaded seeing as we drove up every morning… and was happy to be let loose from every afternoon … only because it meant long days trapped inside boring classes. It meant a school that was falling apart, with leaky toilets and an ever-present smell of rotten fish. It meant all the things that are a normal part of high school. It never meant fear of being harmed or attacked. What will the building mean to the current students?

• Lynn has the latest about the Mel Gibson movie, and its convenient messages in the Arab world. Here’s a hint: It’s not a hit in Muslim countries because of Monica Belluci’s breasts.

• Michele has done a lot to restore my faith in the education system. It seems that there are actually teachers out there who encourage kids to think for themselves and debate!

• In the meantime, I’ve concluded that Passover must be sponsored by the gyms and fitness centres. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt in such need of exercise.

Finally, let’s just pause for a moment and appreciate the wonderful thing that is a LONG WEEKEND!!!

“[The students] were also told that certainly the booing of the American flag was more than just booing a flag,” [Principal Michael] Cristofaro said. “It was booing Americans and basically disrespecting the people the flag represents. I made that clear to them. I also apologized to the young lady on behalf of the student body.”

[ . . . ]

[Some letter-writers] called the incident another example of Quebecers’ and other Canadians’ disrespect for Americans. But Cristofaro suggests that notion is a stretch. “We have to keep in mind we are talking about teenage kids who are not always appropriate in every kind of venue.”

To say the least.

This reminds me a little of when the U.S. national anthem was booed at a hockey game right after the war broke out in Iraq last year. That, like this, might have been blown a bit out of proportion. But the fact that it happens at all says a lot, in my opinion. People are so accustomed to anti-Americanism these days that it just becomes one of those “no big deal” things. That’s exactly the problem.

Ironically, Wagar has changed an awful lot from the days when my mom was a student there… and the school was overwhelmingly Jewish.

So here’s my ten-second breakdown.

Healthcare: Mainly a provincial issue, but very little new money to help bail out the provinces. Instead of spending it on medicare or on, oh, important stuff like equipment, doctors and nurses, and patient care, the government’s gonna create yet another useless level of bureaucracy, this one to address “public health” (like the SARS crisis). Never mind that there are hundreds of times more people needing everyday healthcare. But it seems that there can never be enough levels of waste for the Libs.

Taxes: Breaks for small businesses and aid for venture capital financing. Both good things. Nothing much for big business (cause, of course, the Liberals can’t be seen to be getting too cozy with the devil). Oh, and a big chunk of cash to find “environmentally-friendly technologies”. I guess that’s the only way a Liberal government can fund business. Anyway the most important question is how much more of my own money will I get to keep on each paycheck. The answer? Not a whole helluvalot. Thumbs down.

National Debt: A commitment to pay it down considerably. This is good. The people don’t always see the debt as a priority, but reducing the debt means reducing interest payments, and that can only help the economy. Let’s see if the government keeps this promise. (Echoes of the “we will cancel the GST” promise sounding in anyone else’s ears?)

Defence: Peacekeeping only. Money for missions in Afghanistan and Haiti. Oh, and a throwaway gesture that says that troops don’t have to pay tax on earnings while deployed abroad. Nothing that could be perceived as Bush-cozying or war-mongering. Heaven forbid Canadian troops get planes that don’t need to be held together with duct tape!

Education: Also a provincial area. Textbooks are now deductible for students. And “learning bonds” to give minuscule amounts of money to low-income students… in about 18 years or so. That’s about it.

Stupid Liberal Wastes of Money: Refreshingly few. Of course, these are usually the small-ticket throwaways that may not have hit the headlines yet. I’m keeping my eyes peeled for a “multiculturalism fund” or a “help the CBC produce more aboriginal-related programming” fund increase. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

Miscellany: Money for farmers hit by mad cow. Yeah, ok, that one sucked for them. And I certainly wouldn’t want to have to grow my own food, so I guess we can throw them some bones.

Overall: It’s balanced, so that’s good. It’s not excessive with a bunch of stupid spending to buy votes. So that’s also good. But not enough of the fat has been trimmed, and not enough of taxpayers’ money is being put back into taxpayers’ pockets. That about sums it up for me.

Update: Paul has a one-word summary of the budget: YAWN.

A U.S.-born teenager carrying a U.S. flag in a multiculturalism parade was booed off stage and reduced to tears by fellow students at Wagar High School on Thursday, in an apparent protest against the Iraq war.

[ . . . ]

A parade of flags representing every nationality at the school – 39, this year – is an annual event at Wagar, the most ethnically diverse high school in the English Montreal School Board.

“During the parade, when the American flag (was) walked by, quite a large number of students booed, which was very upsetting to the student carrying the flag,” said Juanita Meikle, a parent who is chairperson of Wagar’s governing board.

The girl, a Grade 9 student, “was very upset. She was crying,” Meikle said.

No other flag was jeered.

Knee-jerk anti-Americanism is something that’s about as much a part of being a Canadian as street hockey. Unfortunately, even the most well-meaning educators encourage it. And lately, most of them haven’t been all that “well-meaning”.

With teachers ranting in classrooms about the evil American government and policies, the infringement of American culture on our own “wonderful” CBC, the exploitation of the rest of the world by America… small wonder students are booing the Stars and Stripes.

People don’t just come to believe something on their own. They need to be taught. I really hope that the teachers and administrators at Wager don’t just criticize the students, but take a long hard look at themselves. If we’re going to stamp out intolerance, that includes all forms of intolerance… including anti-Americanism.

The dishonourable generation went to CEGEP and university, enjoyed relatively small classes, received scholarships – all the result of public funds channeled through the state. Now those same people have become private and public managers who wish to wrest those benefits from their own progeny. They are the “chicken hawks” of public policy.

I don’t agree that all of the baby boomer generation fits into this category. Most of them – my parents’ generation, in fact – only want what’s best for their kids and grandkids.

But on the CEGEP issue, I think that Barnard is right on target. Quebec may be a messed-up place, but IMHO the CEGEP system was one of the best ideas that any provincial government ever had. Maybe I’m biased – my two years of CEGEP were two of the best years of my life – but the system itself makes an inherent kind of sense. After all, how many people really know after high school what direction they want their lives to take? It wasn’t until I had the opportunity to take a number of different kinds of courses in CEGEP that I had an idea of what field to pursue in university. Not only that, but I learned how to work to a college standard. There’s no way that my high school experience would have even come close to preparing me for a university workload.

CEGEP is a time to adapt to a college-like environment without the stress of a university workload. It’s a time to narrow one’s area of focus slightly while avoiding having to over-specialize just yet. It’s a chance for people to learn a technical career without needing to go to university at all, if they so choose, or to learn the basics of a pre-university field without being too restricted. It’s a chance to make the transition from being a high school “kid”, subject to strict rules and regulations, and an independant university “adult”. And best of all, if you attend a public CEGEP, it’s absolutely free!

My own CEGEP experience was great… an amazing social environment and school atmosphere, excellent teachers, interesting classes, and lasting friendships. I’m not suggesting that everyone loved it as much as I did… but most people seem to enjoy it – students and teachers alike. More importantly, it works.

The solution isn’t to eliminate CEGEPs but to expand their programs and funding. At the same time, the university tuition freeze should be lifted. This would give students access to quality free education at the CEGEP level, and provide them with the option of attending well-funded, world-class universities upon graduation. And by the time they get to that point, thanks to CEGEP they’ll have a fair idea of what they want to study, thus saving wasted money on a year of core courses or on program changes. Hopefully, the government will recognize this and save the CEGEP system before a successful experiment is dumped out the window.

France’s National Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to banish religious emblems from state schools, a measure meant to keep tensions between Muslim and Jewish minorities out of public classrooms.

Deputies voted 494 to 36 to ban Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses and to expel pupils who insisted on wearing them. It will not apply to private schools.

[ . . . ]

“What is at issue here is the clear affirmation that public school is a place for learning and not for militant activity or proselytism,” Assembly Speaker Jean-Louis Debre said.

Er, no, what is at issue here is whether the public school system will actually deal with racism and militant activity, or whether it will just sweep it under the carpet. All this law will do is force Muslim girls out of the public system and into private Madrassas, where they will lose the opportunity to have a secular education. All this will do is force the militant wing of Islam underground in France, and insult all the mainstream Muslims by telling them that their symbol of faith is really a symbol of “militant activity”.

France is attempting to solve a serious problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, and we all know how well that works.

An 18-year-old student has filed a suit in Palm Beach County, Fla., against a private school, alleging he was expelled for telling a teacher he is gay.

Jeffrey Woodard claims that Jupiter Christian School expelled him three days after he was pulled out of Bible class by a teacher and asked in confidence if he was gay.

When Woodard answered “yes,” a school official called his mother and told her Woodard couldn’t attend an upcoming school retreat unless he and his mother, Carol Gload, met with the school to talk about his sexual orientation, according to the lawsuit.

“We were given three choices at the meeting — to get counseling, for him to voluntarily withdraw or expulsion,” Gload recalled.

[ . . . ]

School President Richard Grimm said last week that he could not comment on the issue because it involves private information about a former student, but he said the school’s policies are based on Biblical values.

Florida laws don’t prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So the sickest thing is that this student might actually have no legal recourse.

All this is assuming, of course, that he was expelled for being gay. There could of course be some other reason – maybe he failed all his courses, or assaulted a teacher, or set fire to the locker room.

But if it’s true he was thrown out for being gay, then I can only hope, for his sake, that his case causes enough public debate in Florida to make some changes. It’s time for people to stop justifying this blatant kind of discrimination.

In upholding the law school’s policy, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said for the majority in the 5-4 ruling that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify use of race in admissions decisions.

Sad.

Staff from the United Talmud Torah elementary school and Herzliah High School in St. Laurent were busy removing anti-Semitic graffiti from their doors and windows yesterday.

The building that is shared by the two schools was struck by vandals overnight. They covered two entrances and several windows with messages including “Free Palestine” and “Die Sharon.”

This is extremely unsettling and disturbing to me, who spent 5 years dragging myself to that building on a daily basis. I may have felt imprisoned by the endless math, chemistry, and Talmud classes, watching the endless seconds tick off the clock until the final bell . . . but I never felt threatened.

Luckily it was just a bit of graffiti – most likely written by idiot kids – but nevertheless, the swastikas and disgusting slogans that were pictured in the print version of the Gazette are cause for concern in light of the rise in antisemitism around the world. It’s a reminder that, as secure as we may feel in our home and community, we’re never really entirely safe.

Engler, with his involvement with the past CSU and his far left political views, has frequently criticized government policy on education. Today’s editorial avoids some of his more radical views that he has put forth in articles in the Link, and sticks to a more reasonable position:

As a result of cutbacks and fee increases, the average debt load of Quebec residents graduating from an undergraduate program is $13,100 and climbing. Students from less affluent backgrounds are finding it increasingly difficult to attend university.

[ . . . ]

Around the world, governments are concluding that education is fundamental to society’s economic, social and political development. That is the reason the U.S. government has gradually increased its share of GDP allocated to education to the point it is now greater than Canada’s. It’s also why Ireland and Wales recently eliminated tuition fees.

Here in Quebec, to improve post-secondary education the new Liberal government should:

- Significantly increase funding;

- Maintain the tuition freeze;

- Prohibit further increases in ancillary fees;

- Gradually transform student aid from loans into needs-based bursaries;

- Progressively eliminate differential fees.

These steps would be a wise investment in Quebec’s future.

All very well and good. But here’s why I think that Yves Engler is wrong:

Engler is talking about education as a right. Everyone, he says, should have the right to a degree. I would amend that by saying that everyone should have the opportunity to obtain a degree. But not everyone should just have a degree hand-delivered and gift-wrapped. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be worth anything.

The government already funds elementary, high school, and here in Quebec even college education. And everyone has the right to go to university. Everyone even has the opportunity – provided, of course, that they earn it. Scholarships and financial aid are widely available to deserving students. Tuition is more than reasonable; in fact, it’s the lowest in Canada. And if Engler is griping about the price of a Concordia degree, he should try having to pay for an American university; he might appreciate the measly $2,500 a year that Quebec students pay a whole lot more.

What exactly is the “right” to a degree? Not all degrees are created equal. The value of a degree from Harvard, for example, far exceeds the value of the same degree from Concordia, even if the student worked equally hard to achieve it and obtained an equally high grade point average. Everyone knows this, and expects it. But why is that?

Unfortunately, the answer is usually money. The top professors are attracted by research funds or high salaries. The big donors will fund a university with an excellent reputation much more than one with a mediocre one. The top universities have lower student-teacher ratios, top facilities, and prominent professors and graduates.

University education isn’t simply a right, it’s an investment. And either way, society pays, with the expectation of a return on that investment. Where my opinion differs from Engler’s is in who should make that investment. Taxpayers already fund most of a university education for students. And I do agree that partial funding is necessary; other problems are created when tuition is allowed to spiral out of control. But what happens now is that students have absolutely no concept of the true value of their education. They grudgingly pay their $2,500 a year and figure that’s the cost, when in reality their education is worth many times that. This makes it easier for them to float around school year after year, not getting a degree, just wreaking havoc and never graduating and moving into the real world, because it’s so cheap. Maybe if tuition was closer to the true cost of an education, it would be more appreciated and people would take it more seriously.

Scholarships and bursaries can be helpful. But student loans are already low-interest and have flexible repayment terms. The reason that society funds education so heavily is the same as the reason students go to university in the first place: investment. And as an investment, it should pay off for students down the road, so why shouldn’t they be expected to pay off their student loans in order to give back some of that investment into society to help fund education for the next batch of students coming through?

If tuition were raised, more students could receive financial aid who need it. At the same time, the universities in Quebec would receive badly-needed funding in order to recruit top professors, fund vital research, improve facilities, and build a name that puts them in the top rungs of world-class educational institutions. And then everyone – graduates as well as wider society – would reap the benefits in the form of more business investment, better employment, higher salaries, and a more productive economy.

Obviously, governments are afraid to propose lifting the tuition freeze because of negative reactions by student unions and groups like the CSU or the CFS. The Liberals were afraid of losing votes if they campaigned on that basis. So until a government has the courage to say what needs to be said, and raise tuition to a more reasonable level, education will continue to be woefully underfunded, hampering our ability to compete on a global scale. That is the real tragedy here.

Ramzi Sfeir, a 17-year-old from the Palestinian village of Bet Jalla, never believed that Palestinians and Israelis could agree on anything.

But after he was offered a chance to sit at a mock negotiating table with Jewish Israelis his own age, he says that many of his preconceived notions just faded away.

“I learned that you can talk without fighting,” he said, after participating in a model United Nations in Israel, aimed at teaching diplomacy skills to youth. “I also learned that Jews have convictions we can’t change and that Judaism is like a nationality for them. [The Jewish participants] also came to understand us better.”

Though there are hundreds of model UN programs in countries around the world, Israel is one of the only Middle East nations to host one; and is the only one with a special committee that brings Israelis and Palestinians together to negotiate regional issues.

This won’t create peace in the middle east. But it seems to be an extremely valuable step, because unlike other left-wing efforts to “bring together” Jewish and Arabic kids and teens in Israel, this one doesn’t shy away from the thorny political issues. Instead, it gives the participants a forum to attack them head-on, but in a non-violent, diplomatic way.

There are no miracle solutions. Only baby steps. This seems like a good one.

Theresa Leblanc was appalled to learn that her daughter spent her time in art class on Monday at École secondaire Des Sources making anti-war posters while students were ridiculing U.S. President George W. Bush.

Then when she heard the posters were for an anti-war march that would take place during school hours, she hit the roof.

“I’m just up in arms,” said Leblanc, who has a nephew in the U.S. marines, fighting in Iraq.

“This is such a lack of respect. You can have a debate but it’s another thing to have a demonstration like this during school time. It’s appalling.”

Another parent, who didn’t want to be named, said she was also furious when one of her two daughters said she had been forced to make posters.

She, too, was unhappy about a demonstration during school time. “My girls missed physics and French – that’s more important than a march.”

It’s not as though it’s a big sacrifice for most high school students to miss class time. We used to invent any reason we could think of, from play practices to charity walkathons, all in effort to spend as few hours as possible behind a desk.

But this crosses the line, since it is essentially pressuring the students into all thinking the same way. While the Gazette reports that “students who didn’t want to participate in the march had the option of attending a debate on the Iraqi situation”, I bet I know exactly what form that so-called “debate” took.

I’m sure there were students who wanted to demonstrate because they read up on the issues and formed educated political opinions. But I’m also sure that there were equally as many who did not. Consider the following quote by one of the organizers:

“I’m against killing innocent people,” said Grade 11 student Ruba Al Karan. “Saddam (Hussein) did a lot of stupid things but Bush is no better.”

Other students spoke of U.S.-bashing going on while the students used their time in art class to draw up posters.

High school can be a difficult time for students with dissenting opinions. There’s an incredible amount of pressure to follow the crowd. Not to mention, about half the students at the school had probably never taken a history course in their lives. Students are entitled to their opinions, but this was incredibly inappropriate.

“We’re sending a message out to students who want to do the same thing,” said Michael Cohen, spokesperson for the English Montreal School Board.

“We have nothing against the idea of them protesting the war. If they would have done this after school hours, it would have been fine.”

[ . . . ]

Frat, who has two kids at Lester B. Pearson, said the “demonstrators” were probably more intent on enjoying the balmy weather than denouncing George W. Bush.

They could have added a couple of points: firstly, most of these kids probably have no idea why they oppose the war, since it appears they don’t spend too much time in classrooms reading their history textbooks. They probably are protesting because their friends are, and they think it’s cool. Secondly, anything high school students do as an excuse to skip class isn’t exactly a protest, it’s just an excuse to get out of class. Maybe it’s a little more creative than the ones we used to use, but come on, we’re talking about high school here!

Note that if this had happened at Concordia, the CSU would be suing the administration as we speak.

This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer–vertical and horizontal. I don’t have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, ”Please, dear God, let them make it!”–that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and ”voluntarily” recites the Lord’s Prayer–that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded.

[ . . . ]

This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn’t, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.

I agree with all of that so far. Individual prayer is fine. After all, I went to a religious school most of my life, where daily prayer was just part of the routine. But of course it wasn’t compulsory for me to have gone there – I could have gone to a public school where religion wasn’t forced down anyone’s throats. Prayer aimed at excluding those different from oneself is another story.

And here’s the kicker:

Because our enemies are for the most part more enthusiastic about horizontal prayer than we are, and see absolutely no difference between church and state–indeed, want to make them the same–it is alarming to reflect that they may be having more success bringing us around to their point of view than we are at sticking to our own traditional American beliefs about freedom of religion. When Ashcroft and his enemies both begin their days with displays of their godliness, do we feel safer after they rise from their devotions?

Good question.

On college campuses across America, teachers influence students by running down America, demeaning capitalism, exaggerating “oppression” against minorities and women, and denouncing Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular.

Actually, there is a dangerous trend in the United States whereby secular universities are moving further to the Left, and Christian religious colleges further to the right. This is creating a divided society among the “leaders of tomorrow” because what happens to the secular right? The religious left? Most of all, what happens to the centre?

Education, ideally, isn’t learning facts but is learning how to think critically. However, anyone who pretends that education isn’t a form of brainwashing is kidding themselves. After three to four years studying in a university, faculty, or department with a certain ideological bent, most people are absorbed into it no matter what happens. If the education system is only giving half of the picture, that’s a giant failing.

For example, in this week’s online version of the Link, an article discusses the possibility that Sheila Copps may run for the leadership of the Liberal party. An online user poll then asks students if they would vote for her as prime minister. The options – while predictably lame – don’t give any choice for students who wouldn’t because they find her too far to the left – only not left enough.

Concordia’s campus politics reflect a similar picture. There’s no left, right, and center in most CSU elections. There’s only left, lefter, and leftest. Of course, this is a union election, so that’s to be expected to some extent. But it does create a particular problem where the most left-wing slates automatically have an entire platform essentially custom-written for them. All they have to do is steal the latest ideas from socialism and – voila – a platform built on “human” (read: Palestinian) rights, aid for the poor, disabled and homeless, fighting for gender advocacy, support services, anti-corporate control on campus and in the media, and lower tuition. They don’t even have to think about it, and in an election campaign their issues come across as credible, well-researched, and powerful.

Anyone running in opposition has two choices. They can present a clear alternative to them by putting forth a more right-wing platform, which is immediate political suicide. Even a hint of it is enough to kill a campaign. Take last year’s CSU elections for example. The main group opposing the current extremist CSU was tarnished with allegations of being “right-wing” even though its politics probably fell slightly left of the NDP. The other alternative is to put forth a sort of non-platform, with issues that seem to be much less important. Either way is recipe for disaster.

Students who believe that tuition should be raised in order to improve education quality, those who don’t mind and even welcome advertising in the bathrooms, and those who believe that a person should be hired on merit, not skin colour, to administrate the university find that they are quickly drowned out. For professors, it’s even worse; academia being what it is, hold the wrong views and profs find themselves ostracized, unpublishable, and virtually unemployable.

I’ve said many times that too far Left is just as bad as too far Right. What is happening on university campuses deserves some attention.

The Ontario government, in its wisdom, is eliminating the Grade 13 “OAC” program this year. That means that there’s a whole year of students graduating from grade 13, and another whole year of them graduating from grade 12 . . . and they’re all applying to university at the same time.

With so many extra applicants, admissions cutoffs to Ontario universities are bound to be sky-high this year. So students who in a regular year would be borderline, this year are shit outta luck.

Then again, I suppose anyone rejected from university in Ontario could always go to Concordia . . .