Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘yves engler’

Yves Engler has an editorial in today’s Gazette about what the Liberal government should do, in his opinion, to help make university education more accessible to students.

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.

The CSU is now planning a protest in support – yes, support – of the 12 students arrested and charged in connection with the September 9th riots against Benjamin Netanyahu.

Apparently, it’s not enough for the CSU to use student money to pay the legal fees of those arrested. Now Yves Engler, VP Communications of the CSU, wants students to come out and demonstrate their support for these same students.

This is a call to all those who protested in support of human rights and dignity, on September 9th, 2002.

Currently, there are 12 students who are being scapegoated in the university’s ongoing facade, in their attempt to avoid its own culpability in the events of September 9th. None of the students currently charged were in fact violent. The university is simply trying to show to its many lobbies that they are punishing ‘those responsible’, by identifying a select few of those who were present on the escalators, and by alleging that their protest inside their own school somehow constitutes ‘illegal assembly’.

[ . . . ]

According to Rector Lowy, all those who were present on the escalators are deemed worthy of punishment. Therefore, all of us who were present will identify ourselves to show that we are not ashamed in having participated in a demonstration, inside our own university, against one of the world’s most racist and violent men, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu.

What, Mr. Engler, one riot a year wasn’t enough for you?

Note the twisted logic that is being used here. The CSU and the SPHR have been on a campaign these past couple of months to try and downplay the riot, claiming that it wasn’t a riot after all, just a case of a few individuals making mischief. This disgusting revision of not-so-distant history has been going on for a while over at the Link’s website. They’re also trying to make the claim that this wasn’t the case of anti-Israel demonstrators rioting in a racist, hateful manner, but the case of “two groups facing off” – thus implying that the victims of the riot were just as guilty as the instigators.

Then, the CSU tries to blame the administration for “unfairly persecuting” those arrested. Never mind that arrests were only made after careful and exhaustive revision of video footage and accounts from the day. But in CSU lingo, anyone arrested is being “unfairly” persecuted by the “brutal” police.

Then, Engler tries to justify the riots by vilifying Netanyahu.

We’ve heard this before. It’s the same old song and dance. And I can’t say I’m surprised at the CSU. Disgusted, yes, but not particularly surprised. I just want to add one thing, though: if these people are so clearly and obviously lying about what happened here, in our own city, just a few months ago, why should anyone take their word on anything they say about events taking place elsewhere?

Anyone involved in the disgusting riot of September 9th ought to be ashamed, and punished. The fact that Mr. Engler and his CSU cohorts are proud of what happens should tell you all you need to know about what kind of people they are.

The Concordia administration once again sticks its head in the sand, by distancing itself from the whole Hillel-CSU affair. In a statement, the university expressed “concern” about the CSU ruling against Hillel, but stopped short of condemning the CSU for taking politically-charged action to shut down its opponents’ right to free speech. Instead, the statement focuses on technicalities and legalities, and criticizes CSU councillor Yves Engler for trying to turn the final decision about Hillel’s status over to the administration. I’ve posted the statement in full below:

Dec. 6, 2002 – The university has learned that the CSU Executive has apparently reversed the recent decision of the CSU Council with respect to the sanctions taken against Hillel. They have, however, imposed new conditions for the reinstatement of Hillel. The university remains concerned about the original Council decision, which effectively shut down the operations of Hillel, one of the CSU constituent organizations. The original CSU Council actions were based on the charge that Hillel was allegedly distributing materials on campus recruiting for the Israeli military.

The CSU Council meeting was held Monday, December 2, the last day of classes for the fall term and on the eve of the university’s examination period. The resolution was considered at approximately midnight. Only 9 of the 27 CSU counsellors were present and the resolution passed by a margin of 8 to 1. Subsequently, CSU Vice President – Communications Yves Engler has stated that the CSU would reinstate Hillel’s privileges if the university administration requested them to do so.

It is important to note that the CSU is an autonomous corporation accredited under the laws of Québec. Through this accreditation, the CSU essentially has the status, power and responsibilities akin to that of an accredited labour union. As such, they are accountable to their own board and beyond that to the Québec government, whose laws afford them this status.

The CSU has the authority and the responsibility to monitor the actions of its constituent organizations and sanction them for appropriate reasons. It is our understanding that they sanctioned Hillel for distributing information regarding recruitment for a foreign military force which, the CSU alleges, is illegal in Canada. It is unclear whether due process was followed before the CSU Council decision was taken. In fact, the university has been informed that Hillel has engaged an attorney who has sent a formal legal demand to the CSU outlining a number of procedural irregularities and demanding that the decision be reversed by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 9.

More to the point, it is the duty of the CSU to exercise its authority in a manner which is fair, equitable, and above all, proportionate and non-partisan. In the university’s opinion, the current sanctions against Hillel are wholly disproportionate and should be modified.

In light of these facts, it is obvious that Mr. Engler’s statements are inappropriate and self-serving. The CSU has asserted on many occasions that, as a result of its accreditation, it is illegal for the university to intervene in CSU business. Therefore, it is particularly offensive to request the university overturn CSU Council decisions on an invitation-only basis when it is to the advantage of the CSU. The CSU Executive has the authority to take the same action that they have requested of the university administration. We cannot absolve them of their responsibility and legal duty to conduct their affairs in a fair, equitable and non-partisan manner. And the university certainly cannot, and will not, intervene on a periodic basis or by invitation only, especially when it does not have the legal authority to do so.

If the CSU feels that it cannot carry out its legal responsibilities in a manner that is fair and equitable, and if they believe that they require help to do so, then they may turn to the government for help in the form of a government-appointed trustee who would be legally empowered to oversee the CSU.

If the CSU believes that it is exercising its legal authority fairly and in a non-partisan manner, then it is the responsibility of the students at the ballot box each spring to decide whether they agree..

*Sigh* As usual, they’ve taken a position that’s about as firm as quicksand. Come on, guys, would it kill you to once – just once – take a stand?

You gotta give the Link some props for being aware enough of its extreme editorial bias to laugh about it. The website’s opinions page contains the following call to action:

Are you a capitalist pig? Do you think NAFTA rocks the house? Are you sick and tired of Yves Engler going on and on and on?

Well, so are we! So if you would like to present the OTHER side of the story, come by The Link (H-649) on Fridays at 4 p.m., or drop an email to opinions@thelink.concordia.ca.

The Link, your student newspaper looking for diversification!

Duly noted. I raise my hand as exactly the kind of “other” they’re talking about. Although I can’t help but wonder how Yves Engler would have reacted had someone called him a “communist pig”.