Rising tuition fees are a myth? Maclean’s needs to check its facts.

Maclean’s has done it again.

Controversial title? Check. Factual errors? Check. Hyperbolic statements that expose bias? Check. Citing the Educational Policy Institute (EPI), a right-wing think tank, as the leading voice on post-secondary education in Canada? Check.

Karen Pinchin’s piece “Rising tuition? It’s a myth,” hits all the elements needed to be fit to print on the Maclean’s Online education blog.

Rather than a being a piece about a report written by the EPI and its views on tuition fees and funding, the article reads like it was commissioned by the EPI itself. It takes the report of the EPI pretty much as gospel. With the exception of a few obligatory paragraphs to a BC-based critic, the 1,800-plus word homage to the EPI is a slap in the face of the vast majority of people who support lower tuition fees.

To digest this wordy piece, one must first overlook the embarrassing error in the first paragraph (“Nationwide, thousands rallied, demanding protection from what everyone knows are skyrocketing tuition fees.”—unless Pinchin considers Ontario and Manitoba a nation, November 5 was only a province-wide day of action in those provinces).One must also overlook the fact that the subject of this piece, “a new report by Canada’s only higher education think tank” could only be considered new in the cosmic sense—the report was penned months ago. But these details are only fodder for journalist-types who care about minor facts. Let’s delve into the real issues.

Pinchin makes no mention of who funds the EPI. Here’s a list of the clients and funders that pay into EPI Canada:

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC)
Council on Post-Secondary Education (COPSE)
Government of Ontario
Government of New Brunswick
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

…hardly a list of agencies that can even pretend to be neutral on the subject. It’s no wonder the EPI keeps producing biased studies, which help its funders make their case that tuition fees can go higher.

The bio of the author, Alex Usher, also sheds light on another potential source of bias. His former employers include: the Association of Universities and Colleges, Canada, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, the Government of Canada and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Each of these organizations have very specific policy that is pro-higher tuition fees.

Usher was also the first national director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA), a group that is known to have been started with the help of the Federal Liberal Party[*] to oppose legitimate calls by students to stop downloading costs of college and universities onto students. Unsurprisingly, CASA still avoids tuition fees as an issue in its campaigns.

In Pinchin’s piece, our favourite line from Usher is: “ ‘By any reasonable measure, education is a lot more affordable now here than it was 10 years ago’. ” Here’s a reasonable measure, how about the upfront cost? Here’s another: rising cost of student debt? And maybe one more: public opinion? Whether or not these are the best measures are irrelevant to Usher’s statement: they are all reasonable and all would refute Usher’s essay.

Pinchin also repeats Usher’s claim that in Ontario, “net tuition” has only risen by two percent since 2000. She doesn’t explain how Usher calculated “net tuition,” nor does she mention that, according to Statistics Canada, the percentage change in undergraduate tuition fees for Ontarian full-time students was 4.7, this year alone. For any reputable media outlet, it would be normal to cite StatsCan in a story like this, but Pichin somehow forgets to double-check Usher’s story. Further probing could have revealed many other studies which paint an extremely different picture.

Maclean’s’ ability to dress up their editorial bias as news stories should not cease to amaze or fool anyone. Pinchin’s article should not be considered news any more than Usher’s piece should be considered unbiased research.

At the very least, this article, and the report on which it was based, should be considered opinion. The report’s use is limited to demonstrating the perspective of the EPI’s funders and clients. On second thought, it may also be useful as fuel for the fire the next time students decide to camp outside in a ‘Freeze for the Fees’ event.

[*] Greenspon, Edward and Wilson-Smith, Anthony 1996, Double Vision: The inside story of the Liberals in power, Doubleday, Toronto.

McGuinty, the CSA AND Maclean’s Miss the Mark on Textbook Grant

The Question That Needs to Be Asked: How Close to the McGuinty Government is Too Close for the College Student Alliance?

Maclean’s' education blog usually reserves its barbs for students’ unions, those fighting tuition fee increases, and other progressive student issues like public transit.

However, in a recent post, we were bemused by Maclean's uncharacteristically stern tone directed at the Ontario government regarding the 2008 Budget promise of a $150 textbook grant available to (only) full-time students this fall.

Maclean’s seems to be finally catching on that this announcement might not have been the best move, let alone adequately followed through on. While union-phobic corporate giant Wal-Mart has been heavily promoting its long line of exploited-worker-produced back-to-school products for nearly a month now, the McGuinty government has released absolutely nothing to inform students how to take advantage of their textbook grant. It’s been five months since the announcement of this new financial aid measure and, with just days before the fall 2008 term begins, students are still left wondering:

Do we need to keep our receipts?

Do purchases of used textbooks qualify for the grant?

Are international or graduate students included?

The list goes on.

To many, a textbook grant seems like a weak and round-about way to address the financial onslaught against post-secondary students. In their media release, the Canadian Federation of Students, was clear that students’ preference is for tuition fee and student debt reductions. “When thousands of Ontario students signed petitions calling for debt relief, a one hundred and fifty dollar text book voucher wasn't what they had in mind,” said a CFS spokesperson.

In direct contrast, the College Student Alliance (CSA), couldn’t squeeze enough complements into its media release titled “McGuinty delivers for students and Ontario”. Written like it came straight from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities media relations department, the CSA offers blind support for many initiatives announced in the Ontario budget, despite the perpetuation of tuition fee increases.

Moreover, there are other factors that raise questions around potential collusion between the CSA and the Ontario government. According to the Canada Newswire (CNW Group) website, the CSA’s release was actually distributed before the government’s own, leaving us to wonder how much prior knowledge the CSA had about the budget.

Take these examples:

Exhibit A:
Time of March 25 media releases about the 2008 Ontario budget distributed over the Canada Newswire (CNW Group)
College Student Alliance: 4:44 pm
Ontario Government: 4:49 pm
Canadian Federation of Students: 5:20 pm

In other words, while it took the Canadian Federation 36 minutes to get their release out over the wire after the government announcement was made public, miraculously, the CSA managed to put their release out 5 minutes BEFORE the government’s announcement went public.

Exhibit B:
Later the same month, an opposition MPP was pushing John Milloy, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, for an explanation about why he hasn’t been doing his job when it comes to enforcing the province’s prohibition of tuition-related ancillary fees at colleges. Milloy stood up in the legislature and quoted directly from the CSA’s praise-laden press release about the 2008 budget.

While the students who the CSA purport to represent may be asking if their money is being used to prop up the government, it’s just another day of navel gazing at Maclean’s.

As if none of this ever happened, Maclean’s allows for “student politician” perspectives on the government’s cone of silence around the textbook grant. The CSA offered up vague hopes that information about the textbook grant will be forthcoming, but are not questioned on their previous cheerleading for the initiative.

In their post, Maclean’s seems to indicate that the government’s frustrating textbook grant will backfire now that it’s been blogged about. Quite the opposite. One blog post by a magazine that prefers headlines with shock-value over reputable journalism will hardly translate into bad press for the government. In fact, the status quo will never be challenged while the Maclean’s post-secondary pundits are treating organizations like the College Student Alliance as anything more than cheerleaders for the government of the day.

Are Canadians actually "split on" Omar Khadr's interrogation video?

The mainstream news is buzzing today about a video of Omar Khadr’s interrogation by a Canadian CSIS official at Guantanamo Bay. The video most prominently being played by news agencies is of Khadr weeping and saying “kill me”.

Khadr is being detained for allegedly throwing a grenade that fatally wounded an American soldier. He was also shot three times. There’s no word of the punishment faced by the person who shot Khadr, who, at that time, was 15 years old.

The government has said it will not comment on the video.

It is fair to assume that only public pressure will snap the feds into action on this case. Khadr, who fits the definition of a child soldier, was engaged in an illegal war. However, the Canadian Press has reported that Khadr’s case has somehow “Split Canadians”.

The article uses comments posted on some media websites to argue that Canadians are divided in how they view Khadr. Many of the comments made against Khadr quote things that have been said by his family in the past to argue their case. It’s important to mention that much of what has been written on the Khadr family has been blown up by right-wing editorial journals like Maclean’s Magazine, a rag that has recently been condemned by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for publishing content that can be seen as Islamophobic.

But, if there were truth in the Canadian Press article, what exactly are Canadians “Split On”?

Isn’t the majority of Canadians supportive of the definition of child soldier? Or is this definition thrown out when the child-in-question is complicit in ‘terrorism?’ Or is Muslim? Or is Canadian and Muslim? Is this a definition to be imposed upon other countries with other conflicts, and not a definition that the Canadian government or Stephen Harper needs to uphold?

When framed this way, it’s likely that this video does not split Canadians. It is only when the facts are skewed, when ambiguous and loaded terms like terrorism are used, and when rhetoric and racism are thrown in the mix could the Canadian population look “split” on how Omar Khadr has been treated.

If Canadians hope to hold high heads on the world stage when they declare their country a peace-loving and peace-keeping nation, their government needs to stop being complicit in American foreign occupations and conflict. Canada needs to demand that Khadr is returned to the country of his citizenship.

Maclean's and its take on democracy

Carsen Jerema is a writer for the conservative virtual rag “Maclean’s On Campus” whose blog is focused “On education and the irrationality of university politics.” In “University Students: Ignorant, Apathetic Dolts?”, he argues that student democracy has never existed and that students’ unions are bastions of élitism. Or something…it’s hard to fully comprehend or absorb this 1100 word rant. But the notion that students’ unions are somehow anti-democratic is factually inaccurate and not fair.

Most students’ unions, by their very nature are anything but anti-democratic—elections every year, annual general meetings open to all members, faculty-based council representation, committees that are open to all members, mechanisms for rank-and-file students to call general meetings and referenda, and a membership base that includes some of the most active and concerned people in the country. Painting all students’ unions with the same anti-democratic brush is as ridiculous as labeling the Canadian University Press (CUP) or any of its member-newspapers, a threat to free speech, because they survive on students’ money and sometimes write self-gratifying articles that few people might read.

Thousands of students regularly look to their students’ union to pick up their health and dental cheques, transit passes, or handbooks (and when mishaps occur, students express their opinions). At the very least, accessing these services suggests that students do participate in their students’ unions. Voter turn-out can always be improved and the responsibility for that rests as much on elected representatives and activists, as it does on student journalists. Student journalists have a responsibility to help inform and engage their readers.

Rather than fueling the neo-conservative onslaught against the unions students have built for themselves, student journalists, bloggers and professional journalists should think about writing less cynical, more constructive editorials. The press should be critical of students’ unions.

Perhaps hope for Jarema’s reform is unrealistic. He’s the same blogger who finished an article on April 18 that says “Call me an elitist but a higher education is not a right, and nor should it be.” As most students know, anyone who writes about post-secondary education with this level of bias and disregard for the complexities of the topic should be disregarded.

Indeed, Maclean's On Campus helps to reinforce its new raison-d’être: sensationalizing complex issues, calling for the death to the public sector and the long life of a Eurocentric, neo-conservative, neo-liberal Canada.