Terahertz

In my continual efforts to air my grievance about the upcoming SFU graduate student referendum over funding to the student newspaper, The Peak, I have a few more pieces of (mis?)information.

I left off having asked the president of the GSS why the question is phrased in the negative (“Do you agree that the Society discontinue collecting…”) to which he replied:

Hi Ian,
It was decided that we would use the same referendum question as the 2007 referendum that asked the same question.  This question is identical to that one.
I hope that clears it up.
Josh

However, such questions tend to be documented and the GSS, being a relatively open organization, has all of its minutes on its website for the perusal. A quick search finds two references to this 2007 referendum. The first, in September 2007 [pdf] states:

11. New business

a. Referendum endorsement

MOVED that council endorse “yes” votes for referendum questions on membership fees and levies for the Society’s general membership fee, capital levy, health & benefit plan levy, UPass levy, Peak fee, SFPIRG fee, CJSF fee, Student Refugee Program fee, and First Nations Student Association fee.

…

CARRIED (Schroeder opposed)

And the results are reported in the February 2009 AGM [pdf] (see page 15/16):

October 2007: Referendum to set all initial membership fees of the Gss, including… Peak fee… Council endorsed a “yes” vote for all of these fees. Polling occurred online on October 29th and 30th. Between 584 and 591 votes were cast for each referendum question and all referendum questions passed.

Both of these quotes imply to me that the referendum of 2007 was not worded the same as this current one at all. I’ve sent these notes and the questions they raise back to Joshua Newman, in dwindling hopes of discovering much more from him.

Meanwhile, my council rep reported to me that most of the council discussion revolved around whether to have a referendum, and 40% of council was against any Peak referendum. Also, one of my friends on Facebook has taken to this issue too and reports from her rep a similar vote but “quite a bit of discussion regarding the wording” occurred.

While I’m pessimistic that this question will be changed, I think some noise needs to be heard so we can demand better from our council and that people realize that they need to read the questions before instinctively voting yes (especially if they read “Do you agree… the Peak funding”).

On the positive, I will have another article in the Peak on Monday that deals explicitly with this referendum, however I didn’t indulge the phrasing issue so my conclusion was to endorse voting to continue funding the Peak.

PHD Comics latest comic repeats my recent observations and complaints with regards to the skyrocketing tuition at the University of Alberta. While this graph is for the US average, it aligns very closely with any of Brendan Taylor’s analysis of Canadian universities.

So people will continue to ignore the ONDP.

Specifically this time, ONDP leader Andrea Horwath is refusing to debate the merits of amalgamating the Ontario Catholic School Board into the public, secular system.

For some reason it seems that these supposedly ‘controversial’ ideas are really only controversial to the politicians, of all parties, who are unwilling to implement them.

A 2007 poll found 58% of Ontarians support amalgamating the two school boards while only 29% opposed. Another poll in 2009 found that 51% of Canadians oppose funding Christian schools, with the numbers jumping to 75% opposed for other religions (like Hinduism or Islam).

Canadians want religion to stay at home, and to not be forced to pay to indoctrinate other people’s kids.

And why should they? The United Nations declared in 1999 that the existence of Ontario Catholic schools was discriminatory. Funding just one faith or a secular option is discriminatory, as John Tory pointed out.

Unfortunately, the Conservative thought the better option was to give everyone publicly funded religious schools. People did some quick math and realized how quickly the province would go bankrupt and opted instead to stick with the status quo, since no party was willing to take on the Catholic Church.

And as a final note, despite the constitutional arguments that favour keeping Catholic school boards running, Newfoundland (1997) and Quebec (1997) opted out in the recent past by a quick deal with Ottawa. It’s time for the rest of Canada that still funds Catholic schools (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario) or other faiths (Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) to stop segregating our children.

Now if only there were some actually political will to do what the majority supports.

(h/t Skinny Dipper)

In about my second or third year at the University of Alberta, a referendum was held to charge students a fee to build a new Physical Activities Complex (PAC). The fee failed, in part because students of the day would be paying for a building to come and would also have no input on the design or operation of the facility.

Basically, most of us saw it as a grab by PhysEd students to make everyone pay for them to get a new building.

Well, PAC is back as PAW, but now the fee will only be put in place once the building is finished. Further, it looks like students will actually get a majority role in the makeup of the board of the building.

But there’s another key difference. PAW stands for “Physical Activity & Wellness” and in terms of “wellness” the supporters state the following:

Broad Scope of Wellness – The PAW Centre will combine new construction with renovations of existing facilities in order to address the broader idea of health and wellness. Physical, mental, and spiritual wellness concerns were identified and addressed in the design of the facility. This holistic approach will ensure the PAW Centre appeals to all students. [emphasis added]

So how will they address these spiritual concerns?

• Meditation/Yoga Rooms – special facilities will cater to rapidly-growing programs aiming to focus and relax the body and mind.
• Prayer Space – adequate space for prayer is critical to addressing the spiritual aspects of wellness for many students. The PAW Centre will address the space shortage for groups on campus that desire a large space to pray.

This reminds me of the news releases from the University of Toronto in 2005 when they were building a Multi-Faith Centre. The newly formed UT Secular Alliance, led then by now CFI Canada Executive Director Justin Trottier, opposed the creation of the building on the grounds that a secular university should not be dedicating money to the promotion of religion.

In the end the UofT still built the building, but the university did take secular worldviews into account and now includes a Humanist chaplain and a link to the UTSA.

Over a year ago the UofA agreed with the UofA Atheists and Agnostics that the school is a pluralistic secular institution and modified the convocation charge to include more humanistic elements and a sort-of opt-out of using your degree for God. The challenge for the UAAA this time will be to either outright oppose the creation of dedicated prayer space on campus – with student funds – or to demand space for Humanistic and secular world views.

While I am not longer at the school, I will be keenly interested in how this referendum goes, and what dialogue the UAAA can spark.

The Gateway, the student newspaper at the University of Alberta, reported late yesterday that Students’ Union President Kory Mathewson submitted his letter of resignation effective Monday.

VP Operations and Finance Zack Fentiman will take over many of the roles in the meantime, but beyond that the article doesn’t get into much.

So can someone who’s still at the UofA dig anything up for me? It seems odd that anyone would quit a mere 3 months before the next executive elections.

No, you can’t go in to elementary school at lunch hours to preach to little children how they’re evil sinners who are going to hell unless they do as you say, not as you do.

A man from the Vancouver suburb of Surrey wants the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to open his sons’ elementary school’s doors to a Bible study group.

Paul Jubenvill launched a complaint with the tribunal on Dec. 1 after the Colebrook Elementary School turned down his request for a lunchtime meeting on Christianity with whoever wanted to attend.

Jubenvill, a 35-year-old software designer, argues his freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"We live by God’s word and the Bible. This is no different than the freedom to have a jazz club or a badminton club. There can’t be discrimination on the basis of religion," he said.

"We’re not asking the school to endorse it, we’re asking them to accommodate our needs."

Sorry, your “needs” don’t extend to using publicly funded property for your own ends. If you want your kids to learn religion, teach them at home. Letting a badminton club but not a Jesus club exist isn’t “discrimination on the basis of religion,” it’s keeping the church (especially his evangelical brand) out of a public setting.

But he at least understands a bit of what he’s advocating for:

He has no objection to Muslim or Buddhist study groups taking up school space, or any other religion.

What about atheist groups? Should we be starting atheist elementary groups?

I think Richard Dawkins would get pissed at that.

He’s pushing this as a human rights case, however I don’t remember the right to preach to kids.

Nevertheless, the Surrey School District Spokesperson reaffirmed that public schools are secular, but had this odd disclaimer:

…the rules are different among older students in high schools, where Bible study groups are supervised by teachers but are led by students.

Really? This sounds like it could be pretty concerning. I guess I have a new avenue to research.

This story isn’t really that surprising to see from the bankrupt line of newspapers. Maybe they’re hoping that by putting more Tory-friendly news, they can get a bailout. Of course, that’s unlikely since Harper apparently doesn’t watch Canadian News.

Anyways, let’s dissect CanWest’s attempt to trace the money from the Knowledge Infrastructure Program to federal ridings.

From the Tory-Blue Industry Canada Website:

The Knowledge Infrastructure Program is a federal initiative to renew Canada’s college and university infrastructure. By making large-scale investments in infrastructure, the Government of Canada is providing significant short-term economic stimulus in local communities across the country.

So basically it’s $2 billion out of the $12 billion stimulus plan being targeted specifically at Universities in Canada.

CanWest then digs and digs, which they admit is ridiculously hard since Harper apparently hates the idea of being audited. They discover, remarkably, that most of the money going to Universities is going to opposition ridings, and is disproportionately higher than the percentage of ridings held by those parties federally.

This is a nice trick. If opposition parties control most of the universities (especially the NDP who “are getting more than twice what they would have got if the money was distributed based strictly on the number of seats each party holds.”) So who represents the universities?

From Universities Matter, we can discover what ridings we need to look up and then we get the following totals (spreadsheet here [xls]):

That’s 97 universities counted, and some ridings have more than one school. Nevertheless, we see that Liberals and NDP both hold 10% more universities than their seat percentages would reflect.

Therefore, unless the Conservatives were incredibly, overtly partisan, they couldn’t give money to universities without opposition ridings getting some.

Nevertheless, as the Jurist reports, they have no difficulty sending their candidate hacks in place of the democratically elected representative of that university.

No wonder the rumour in Edmonton Strathcona is that Linda Duncan isn’t that visible – she’s not invited to Government of Canada events in her own riding. Meanwhile, she continues to hold town halls that actually let the people there speak to someone who’s willing to listen rather than pontificate.

A majority of Canadians oppose the public funding of private religious schools of any kind, even though it occurs in most provinces. Fifty-one per cent oppose tax dollars going to Catholic, evangelical or other Christian schools.

The antagonism against religious schools soars higher when minority faiths are brought into the question. Roughly seven out of 10 Canadians oppose public dollars going to Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh or Muslim independent schools. Resistance to such funding is even stronger in B.C. [Source]

Alberta currently funds Catholic schools on par with public schools (i.e. 100%), as well as “charter” religious schools of other denominations and funds private religious schools to the tune of 70% of what the public schools receive (on top of uncapped tuition).

Why fund multiple competing school boards?

Why can’t we strengthen one school board that doesn’t push any particular worldview?

The author of the above linked article seems to think providing further indoctrination via religious schools to our children will promote tolerance and diversity, failing to grasp the concept that these schools may in fact be antithetical to those concepts. Just ask how diverse an Evangelical or Muslim-only school truly is.

At least some provinces have moved toward a single secular board (leaving religious education to the parents and churches).

* Alberta: fully funds faith-based and charter public schools, partial funding for private schools meeting provincial standards.

* B.C.: partially funds religious schools meeting provincial standards.

* Manitoba: partially funds religious schools meeting provincial standards.

* New Brunswick: no religious school funding.

* Newfoundland and Labrador: no religious school funding.

* Nova Scotia: no religious school funding.

* P.E.I.: no religious school funding.

* Quebec: partial funding for private religious schools meeting provincial standards.

(h/t: ReligiousRightAlert.ca)

If for some reason you’re bored today between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm MDT, you can watch me and a ton of engineers cross the Jubilee Auditorium stage as we graduate from our undergraduate degrees from the University of Alberta.

This marks the first year that the UofA is making God a little more “optional” in the ceremony, with the admission charge being changed from asking us to use our degrees

…for the glory of God and honour of your country.

to:

…for the uplifting of the whole people; to inspire the human spirit; for all who believe, to serve your God; and to pursue more steadfastly whatsoever things are true.

With the exception of Bill 44, a great buzz and hope has been over the blogosphere that Minister Hancock’s “Inspiring Education” plan would generate some meaningful input from the Albertan public into the future of education in this province.

With a mission statement to:

What are your hopes, dreams and aspirations? For your children and grandchildren? If we are to be successful individually and collectively as a province, we need to consider how to help all Albertans realize their potential. Inspiring Education: A Dialogue with Albertans is an opportunity to shape the future of education in Alberta and we want to hear your perspective. Tell us your story. Share your opinions. Join the conversation!

The discussions will be based on five key values – opportunity, fairness, citizenship, choice and diversity – which are critical to the success of Alberta’s education system. Inspiring Education seeks ideas, suggestions and points of view from all parts of our province, from large cities to remote and rural communities; from inner-city neighbourhoods to expanding suburbs; from towns and cities experiencing the pressures of rapid growth to those dealing with the challenges of declining population.

Inspiring Education is different from a public consultation. It’s a dialogue – an exchange of ideas to change each other’s thinking about what education is and what education means. It’s about looking to the future and deciding what education in Alberta should be in twenty years. No matter who you are or where you live in Alberta, we invite you to listen and contribute to the conversation. One of the primary goals is to reach a clear understanding of what it will mean to be an educated Albertan 20 years from now. To reach that goal we need everyone’s voice.

Sounds exciting right? Who doesn’t want to have a say in the next 20 years of education in this province.

With a website of videos and media, a blog, and a twitter account, the only thing missing for a full “Web 2.0″ presence is Facebook. In the community they’re holding forums at each major city.

Clearly, this must be a meaningful dialogue that can only result in substantial policy documents.

So what does the dialogue look like? We can use their convenient “Community Conversation Kit” and a story (I received by email, but was given permission to republish) from Dr. Jim Linville, who frustratingly sat through an entire session in Lethbridge (his relevant quotes on each session will be in bold).

So let’s analyze the basic structure of the “3-hour model”:

1. Introductions by Facilitator (10 min)

This portion is supposed to outline the goals of InspiringEd, and emphasizes the following rules:

• Everyone has wisdom.
• We need everyone’s wisdom for the wisest result.
• There are no wrong answers.
• The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
• Everyone will hear others and be heard.

This included the usual greetings and BS and a video “Welcome” from the minister of education. And a video of some Japanese (actually mostly white folk) drum group from Edmonton playing some thing called “Harmony”. On drums. I wonder if the irony was noticed by anyone else. Anyway, the guy introduced the video with a 10 minute BS spiel about drums, heartbeats, healing, spirituality, and associated touchy feeling crap. After the video everyone (but me) applauded.
The Outcomes of the whole process was to be: 1) The awareness of the importance of education, especially for a prosperous society. 2) Development of a long term vision for education, 3) And the development of a policy framework governing the goals for the delivery of education.
Sounds pretty specific and good, eh? Well, then they showed another fucking video with more tear-jerking kids are our future crap.

2. Table Introductions (10 minutes)

Then we had to talk to our neighbor for 10 minutes and then introduce him/her to the rest of the people at the table.

3. Table Activity: Picture Activity on Past and Future Learning (20 minutes)

Then we had a section called “Past Learning–Its place in our lives” Now, this was NOT a discussion on the history of education or education policy in Alberta. No, not even close. It was “all about us”. So, the facilitator got a big chart and had us talk about “how” and “where” we learned what we know. Did you know that some people have learned things in classrooms? And from the news? And that some people have learned from their mistakes. Wow.
All of these things were put on the big chart by the facilitator and duly noted by the note taker.

Then there was the section called “The Beginning of the Story for Your Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations for the Next 20 Years”.
OK, at this point we get to say what we thing students need to know, right? WRONGO! WE GOT TO LOOK AT BIG 8×10 GLOSSY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH NUMBERS AND TITLES ON THE BACK OF EACH ONE, AND TELL THE GROUP HOW THESE MADE US FEEL ABOUT EDUCATION.

That is right, kiddies, we had to sort through a whole pile of photos: Everyone got to pick 2, that told the “story” of our own education… but some people picked 3 (bastards). Let’s see, there was a picture of a flower, a boy playing a guitar, 2 kids on a beach, kids finger painting on a wall. A group of people fixing dinner, a newly hatched baby chicken, pyramids, that kind of thing. No slinky babes (bastards).

The jargon, “accomplishment”, “hopes” “achieving”, “leadership” “victory” “dreams” etc etc were bandied about.


4. Table Activity (Optional): Creating and Sharing Collective Stories about Learning (10-20 minutes)

After coffee, we had to make a synthesis out of all the selected pictures, to make, as the agenda said, “Your Hopes, Dreams and Aspirations – A Collective Story”. ??? Of course, by this time, the whole affair was reduced to finding the right abstract buzzwords that could link the different pictures. I’ll bet you didn’t know that a picture of baby chicken with the remains of its egg nearby represents the same frickin’ thing as the frinkin’ pyramids, did you. Bet you didn’t want to know. And I bet you didn’t want to know your tax money was going to pay to find out.

Then we got to see the pictures 2 other tables had and then compare buzzwords (they were much the same).

Dr. Jim’s group then broke for lunch, and while I assume he followed a similar format to the rest of the 3-hour model, he describes it fairly bleakly:

We were promised that after lunch more detailed and practical discussion would take place, which is the only reason I went back, but the facilitator made sure this didn’t happen. There was another videos and this actually had some promise but nothing was made of it. In the video, a U of C education prof linked the old school system to the need to mass produce people for a newly industrialized society. Rather than just give information, education today must help students evaluate mass produced information. Very interesting. But nothing came of it. Another guy said we have to rethink the meritocracy of the old system (new forms of assessing learning etc). Again, lots of fodder for thought, but again, the fascilitator kept everyone well away from specifics (which may have ended up criticizing the government, I was beginning to suspect). The third person on the video was a big advocate of NGOs sharing the burden of education. Lots for me to get pissed off about this, as she would have had every half brained self-interest group being equally involved in public education. Again nothing happened.

Final words from Dr. Jim:

At some point the facilitator/obstacle-ator) wanted to know what we missed talking about, and I mentioned curriculum, but no one wanted to talk about that and we were shepherded away from that anyway.

Looking through the InspiringEd website, it’s easy to be impressed at first. But digging through, with some actual effort, I have to ask: Where is the substance? Where is the actual commitment to look at anything beyond the bare minimum in buzz words?

And so it starts to dawn on me: Social media, while supposedly powerful (other than supposedly electing Obama in the USA, what public policy has social media actually influenced), may in fact be more likely yet another tool that can be used by powers that be to convince the populace it has input in governance.

Think about it: if Alberta Education gave a shit about your opinion for anything that matters, wouldn’t you have heard about Bill 44′s controversial provisions before they were put before the Legislature (or any number of other controversial bills that this provincial government has put forward)?

Just because the internet is flashy doesn’t mean you shouldn’t question it.