LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
More fee reductions are needed
Understanding that funding is an issue for us at the U of M, I am still at a loss for words with the amount of criticism regarding the tuition fee freeze from students on campus. Don’t believe the hype! People say that money needs to come from somewhere, and if the government is not willing to put more in, we need to increase fees. But why are we so quick to accept that governments will not put more money into education? It’s not like they don’t have the money, it’s just a matter of making it a priority. Which is where we, as students, come in. I am disappointed by Carson Jerema’s comment arguing against the tuition fee freeze, and thus the Canadian Federation of Students (A case against the Canadian Federation of Students, 02/11/2005). To me, it just seems natural that high tuition fees constitute a barrier to post-secondary education, especially for those from low-income backgrounds. By continually arguing against the freeze, Jerema consistently gives government their “in” to lift the freeze by stating that not all students are in support of such access policies (thus resulting in huge increases in tuition fees). And it’s not just me who recognizes that low tuition fees are important for people of all socio-economic status to access university. As part of its campaign against youth poverty, the National Anti-Poverty Organization identifies rising tuition fees and student debt as major barriers to access. NAPO also supports tuition fee freezes and reductions precisely because they are a step in the right direction towards improving accessibility to education and opportunity. Jerema argues that it is “insulting” to suggest that lowering tuition fees will help improve access for students from low-income backgrounds. What is truly insulting is Jerema’s suggestion that people from low-income backgrounds will somehow benefit from the huge fee increases that would result from lifting the tuition fee freeze. The fact that recent attempts by the provincial government to reduce and freeze tuition fees have not yet solved the access problem only shows that further fee reductions and more grants are needed, not less.
Christen Roos
Community Representative for Students with Disabilities
UMSU Council 2005-2006
Tuition fee freeze not a subsidy for the rich
In “A case against the Canadian Federation of Students” (02/11/ 2005) Carson Jerema concludes that, “the rise in tuition fees seen over the course of the 1990s was not a factor in whether students chose to go to university.” Jerema bases that assertion on the findings of a Statistics Canada report. He asserts the report states that during a period of increasing tuition fees, “students from lower- and middle-income families were no more or no less likely to attend university.” Unfortunately, this assertion and the conclusion drawn from it represent only part of the conclusion of the report. While the report does conclude that there is little difference in participation rates between low-income and middle-income students, this is only based on a comparison of these two income groups. When participation rates of students from all income levels are analysed, the study concludes that, “there is a positive correlation between parental income and university attendance.” To claim that the report concludes that post-secondary participation rates of lower- and middle-income students were unaffected by increased tuition fees is a misrepresentation of the findings of the report. It is further argued by Jerema that since students from families with high incomes attend post-secondary schools in greater numbers than students from low-income families, keeping tuition fees low (and government funding correspondingly high) results in the subsidization of students from high-income families by students from low-income families. This argument fails to recognize the nature of the Canadian income tax system (i.e. amount of taxes owed is based on ability to pay). When the tax system is taken into consideration, the subsidization of the rich argument falls apart. Since high-income students attend university in higher numbers and also pay more taxes after graduation, low tuition fees (and high government funding) are not a subsidization of the rich by the poor when we take into account the way in which post-secondary education is actually funded. This was, in fact, one of the conclusions of a 2004 report by the Ontario Coalition for Post-Secondary Education. Jerema makes several arguments in favour of higher tuition fees. Unfortunately for Jerema, the subsidization of the rich by the poor argument doesn’t hold up against the facts. Simply put, Jerema’s article wouldn’t receive a passing grade in a term paper.
Michael Roy
UMSU Rep,
Science Students’ Association
Criticism of tuition fee freeze cause for concern
I am concerned with the continuous criticism and attacks on the tuition fee freeze as a bad policy (see Carson Jerema’s A case against the Canadian Federation of Students, 02/11/2005), especially from the point of view that it doesn’t help people of lower income. It is absurd to suggest that having higher tuition fees (which will be the result if the tuition fee freeze is lifted) will be of any benefit to people with limited financial resources (or the majority of students, who are thought to be at the middle-income level), let alone the current level of tuition fees. As Jerema has showed us, one argument used by opponents of the tuition fee freeze is that since it will likely be lifted, it is fruitless and possibly even damaging for students to continue to fight for the freeze. This so-called inevitability of increased tuition fees is premised, however, on the assumption that students should be the ones to pay not only the increasing costs of education, but also a greater proportion of the overall cost (i.e. that we should pay a bigger chunk of the fees it takes to educate us up front in the form of tuition fees). Obviously and undeniably, education costs money and the costs on our campus continue to increase. But, what is disputable in all this is the assumption that students should be the ones bearing an increasing proportion of these costs. The benefit of government investment in education is well documented. For example, a recent report done for the University of Manitoba found that public investment in the university has resulted in large financial and social returns to the province. Education is not only an individual investment, it contributes to societal well-being, stability, community, as well as economic growth, all from which society as a whole reaps the benefits. Arguably then, it is the government rather than students who should pay an increasing proportion of the cost of post-secondary education, as they do in many other countries around the world (including the European countries with no tuition fees). Using this as a starting point, it is inevitable that increased tuition fees for students will happen, and there is a reason to continue to fight for tuition fee freezes. If the government is not willing to accept the burden of the rising cost of education, we should work together to make sure they do in absence of a tuition freeze.
Tyler DeLaronde
A pointless exercise in elitism
Carson Jerema’s recent hand-wringing editorial in the Manitoban, “The politics of change need to change” (02/11/2005), was a disappointment. Citizens should be allowed to protest, he states, and they should be allowed to hold opposing political opinions — so long as they are politely tame about the whole affair. One can imagine what effect a student group would have, going cap in hand to a government official. The answer, obviously, is not much. Jerema states there are two reasons why it is easy to ignore social movements such as the Quebec students. The first is that some of the marchers damaged property; the second is they hold more than one opinion simultaneously. It is always humourous to note the disregard given to the injuring and killing of people and the environment in pursuit of more profit by those in power, but should a rock go through the window of a business, and private property be damaged, the result is a rousing condemnation of someone who may feel that their only opportunity to express anger is with a rock. However, it is Jerema’s second point that begs for a rebuttal. He argues that people would have “less reason to credibly dismiss these causes if they were not tied to a host of other issues,” assuming the reason that hundreds of thousands of people are not marching in the streets is that rally organizers cannot decide on a topic. The anti-globalization movement was apparently a “tangled campaign” that had the temerity to include things such as the rights of workers, women and environmental issues. He conveniently ignores the fact that topics such as tuition do relate to other problems, such as corporate influence, and that topics such as the rights of workers do have strong connections to the rights of women. It is here that Jerema makes his largest error: he mistakes this diversity for weakness. However, diversity is the strength of the burgeoning movements that were, unfortunately and momentarily, slowed in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center. While it is true that these movements may not return in the same manner and style as before, the move for greater civic participation is undeniable. The combined movements of workers, women, the environment, students and others are in ascendance. While he feels that they have no concrete, singular vision, no overarching and clear ideology (and therefore are a bunch of stereotypical protest-hopping, professional activists), he misses the fact that the alliances between those whose interests are not identical but complementary will be — and, I would argue, have been — the force that drives the progression of humanity. Tactical and strategic advice is useful and can lead to a stronger and more effective political movement for change. Dismissing the actions of a group because they see the connections between the rights of the student and the rights of others is a pointless exercise in elitism.
