Now that windows have been smashed and the students' general strike in Québec has reached week 12, English mainstream media has gradually increased its attention toward Canada's largest (according to one historian), longest and most significant student action ever.
Unfortunately, the coverage has been fraught with assumptions dressed as fact and generalizations that hide the truth behind Québec's impressive social movement.
Québec students have fought to pay the lowest fees in Canada. For university, it's only $130 per year lower than Newfoundland and Labrador, the second least expensive province in Canada when it comes to post-secondary education. For college, their system of education replaces Grades 12 and 13 with free access to college (known as "CEGEP").
Liberal Premier Jean Charest has proposed a 75 per cent increase over seven years. If college fees are introduced, tuition fees will have increased infinitely. It will likely remain the case that Québec fees will still be among the lowest in Canada but increased fees will open the door to more significant increases in the future, like was the case after "nominal" fees were introduced in England.
Many right-wing pundits have rejected the students' demands by focusing on their motives, rather than their goals. A popular word emanating from this chorus of columnists is "entitled." Canada's largest strike in history is just about entitlement, apparently.
But, to say that Québec students are entitled attempts to skirt the issue and ignores some important facts.
In real dollars, Charest paid less for his university education than Québec students do today. Now, he wants his generation of baby boomers to pay less in taxes. The result is robbery of the young to pay for the old. It is hard to see how students are the entitled ones in this scenario.
Entitlement is the word that some will use to describe a social movement that fights for what should be available for all without cost. Right after Ontario was revealed to be the most expensive province in which to study for the third year in a row, Ontario students called for a just a fraction of what Québec students are fighting for. We too were labeled as being entitled, by some.
Young Ontarians are part of a cohort that collectively owes more money in student debt to the Canadian government than any generation in history. The entitlement label is laughable and entirely inaccurate.
Like students in Québec, when Ontario students fight for lower tuition fees, we're not acting out. We're defending access to a precious public service.
But Ontario students have failed to stop tuition fee hikes, while Québec students are winning.
Tuition fees drive social inequality and student activists know this. Ontario's higher education system has gradually moved away from enabling people to better their social standing through education, to further entrenching social inequality. Students who can pay their tuition fees and life expenses up front will pay less than half of what their poorer classmates will pay. Women, racialized students, disabled students and everyone else who makes less money on average, will pay more through compound interest on student loans.
Québecers know the value of education cannot be measured in user fees. They see Ontario with the highest tuition fees and the lowest per student funding and they know where they'll end up if they allow their government to open the door to fee increases, even just a crack.
Arguing that the fight waged by Québec students is because of entitlement is like debating philosophy while standing in quicksand. Québec students are fighting Charest's tuition fees to protect something else: a post-secondary education system that provides the opportunity for economic mobility and opportunity.
Québec students are not entitled, whiny, bratty, or whatever other adjective many journalists or commentators in the English press have called them. They are smart. They can see a fork in the river of Québec's future and are vigorously trying to force Charest to steer left.
Follow Nora Loreto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@nolore
And, I'll go a step further. If Quebec wishes to join or overtake the "knowledge-based economy" it needs an educated workforce. Corporations profit from educated workers and therefore SHOULD pay the price or a portion thereof.
All education, from birth to death, should be free of charge including books in Quebec, for Quebec citizens, and be a part of any government mandate. The money would come from government taxation on Corporations ( re-instate the 3% Capital tax, and call it the higher-education insurance) plus a tax on corporate water usage.
Look, even my 35 yr-old daughter feels one should pay for their education, and come out with a debt the size of a new car. How does one get a job with enough salary to pay for housing etc..+ debts ?
The corporations pay in the end with higher salaries, so tax up front and employees won't need the higher wages. But Corporations want a free ride, and cheap labour !
Who does the government work for : We, The People, or Them "The Corporate Giants" ????
Source?
Look under the Heading "Les étudiants doivent faire leur juste part" for the the numbers concerning different politicians (including Charest), and prices in 2012 dollars by decade.
http://simoncrepeault.blogspot.ca/2012/02/comprehensible-la-greve-etudiante.html
Here it is after Google translate, the heading here is "Students must make their fair share"
http://goo.gl/DAAGn
I feel that as a society, we should, in principle, be working to increase the access of our young people to educational opportunities of all kinds. Education is perhaps the most important investment that a society makes, and there is nothing that else that produces the same return on investment as education.
We need a policy of cutting the costs to students and their families. We need to attract more young people to educational opportunities and encourage them to use them to their maximum advantage.
Such a policy benefits the individuals who receive the educational opportunities, and benefits society even more. Just because other provinces have even higher tuition fees than does Quebec, it does not mean that we should emulate them. Higher tuition rates only serves to reduce the human potential available to our society.
I believe that the Charet government's present policies on education are penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Im with these kids!
But there might be a number of faults in this analysis. Excluding Newfoundland & Labradour, how do post secondary costs compare in other provinces? And considering the proportion of people electing for post-secondary education now compared to the baby-boomer generation, it's not clear the costs en masse can be compared when thinking about taxes. Though I know it's current to blame the boomers for every evil.
In any case, the cost of tuition is quite low compared to the loss of income, books, materials and other costs of education that ultimately dwarf tuition.
The economic argument is made that educating people leads to higher income and more taxes, yet the payback for professional degrees is diminishing, and high salaries are heavily weighted toward business and finances students, who aren't participating in the strike. I'm pretty sure a plumber makes a lot more than the average anthropology graduate, unless they're a prof, we have some of the highest paid profs in the world.
Students say we're making them into debt slaves, well the whole institutional system has to be supported by 'slaves' too. So it can seem a little self-centered to me.
... continued
I had written something about wishing the students were supporting something much more radical, like really Free education, since there's so much material available out there now from the best schools and places like Wikipedia, peer learning, micro credentials. Instead it's all or nothing — student or non-student, educated or not — silos.
Education can be a lifelong thing, institutions can be much more available to everyone, their spaces and resources, the simple act of accreditation. It just seems like these student strikers have only one thing in mind, which seems a bit dated and classist.
We're heading into an age with huge changes, where intelligence is available one way or another. One way to refine this potential could be through the educational system, but to be a really democratic thing it's something everyone does, not a few people of a certain age or mode, not an elite system but rather something that's a part of everything. As far as I can tell, that's not what these students are striking for.
And every time I try to engage with students on this topic, I'm immediately categorized as some kind of mad capitalist. Which is the furthest thing from the truth, but there's not a lot of nuance going on in these discussions
3/4 of Quebec students have been going to school the whole time, yet that receives no attention. It would seem that less than 50% of 25% are trying to speak for 100%. That math doesn't add up. Students in university programs with real futures are willing to invest both money and especially time into their education.
The majority of the groups protesting represent university faculties with little chance of monetary rewards in the future, aside from teaching others what they have learned....and let's face it not everyone can be a professor. I have nothing against arts school, philosophy, and other such programs...but perhaps the argument should be to more heavily supplement these groups, or maybe reduce the amount of ridiculous pre-reqs and 'extra credit' courses that are needed to graduate these programs. Then you could finish them in 2-3 years instead of 4, saving the money incurred by the raise.
The overwhelming majority of Quebecers want the students to get back in class and suck it up. We don't want to pay more for them, Quebec is already a have-not province....guess where the money comes from if not the students....equalization!!
We are living longer than ever, and as we age, we will be depending on people now in university to be our representatives in government and at the polls.
We should be doing everyhting in our power to make sure they are educated, good critical thinkers, and compassionate, responsible adults.
Instead, we're focussing on how much crazy electronic bits of junk we can acquire to seem hip and how many cheap face-lifts we can afford to stave off the realization that, yeah, we're getting old, after all.
I want young people to have access to inexpensive, quality education, to libraries, to health care and to satisfying career options, and I am willing to pay for these outcomes. But it's purely selfish on my part: I want them because I want good people making good decisions and creating good societies who will remember to care for me when I can no longer do so myself.
My generation is not only selfish, but shortsighted.
Please, this "doing it for our children" thing gets tired really fast. Everyone should be enabled and equally responsible to our systems, there's no reason for ageism to exist.