dagblog - Comments for "WTF, Quebec?"

That is exactly what I meant,

wabby — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:34:07 +0000

In reply to Today's

That is exactly what I meant, acanuck, and thank you for the links.

Today's

acanuck — Tue, 22 May 2012 21:33:45 +0000

In reply to Thanks. I agree with you that

Today's demo:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/massive-montreal-rally-mark...

Thanks. I agree with you that

Verified Atheist — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:00:06 +0000

In reply to In principle, higher

Thanks. I agree with you that higher education should be totally free and available to all, but that we have to not only pick our battles but also pick how we're willing to fight.

In principle, higher

acanuck — Tue, 22 May 2012 19:49:58 +0000

In reply to I see the data, but I'm

In principle, higher education should be totally free and available to all. Same for heath care. Canada has come close to achieving the latter, but it's a balancing act as to where the tax dollars go. Health care is a universal need, whereas the tuition freeze benefits those currently in the university system.

I understand the interest (plus principal) on student loans can grow into a serious financial burden. I have a close family member who owes tens of thousands of dollars. Good-paying starter jobs are scarce. Solutions are elusive, but tying reimbursement rates to actual post-graduation salaries (with deductions at source) could be made the norm.

But the short answer is no, I don't back the student protests. A position that puts me at odds with most of my leftist friends. Quebec universities are world-class, and tuition of about $2,000 per year is something students in most countries would take to the streets to obtain. (We charge out-of-province students more, BTW.)

The current government made clear before the last election that it intended to end the tuition freeze. Student leaders made the calculation that protests and class boycotts could make it back down, as previous governments had. When that tactic failed, the demos became increasingly violent.

Students who tried to attend classes won injunctions, but boycotters disrupted them anyway. We're now at the stage of nightly marches, barricades and bonfires, the occasional molotov cocktail, smoke bombs in the subway, and hundreds arrested. It's ugly, but I don't see caving in as an option for the government. Most of the population agrees.

I see the data, but I'm

Verified Atheist — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:03:18 +0000

In reply to By WTF, flowerchild, I

I see the data, but I'm curious about your opinion: do you find the tuition increases reasonable? Do you think there's a better option? (These are genuine, non-leading questions from someone completely unfamiliar with what's been going on in Canadian schools.)

By WTF, flowerchild, I

acanuck — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:58:30 +0000

In reply to WTF, Quebec?

By WTF, flowerchild, I presume you mean, "Why the draconian anti-protest law?" I agree that simply banning or strictly limiting demonstrations won't end the unrest. The law does in a way end the boycott of classes -- by suspending them until August, when there is supposed to be a cram makeup session, followed by exams. If that session fails to occur (and some student leaders are vowing it won't), every college student in Quebec will lose their year.

Here's background on how the tuition-fee crisis developed:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Anatomy+conflict+after+days+student+...

Note that tuitions have been frozen for years, even as costs have soared. What the student associations want cancelled are increases of $325 each year over the next five years. They would still be paying the lowest tuitions in Canada, and a ridiculously low amount by American standards.

This crisis, now in its fourth month, has split Quebec public opinion. About one-third support the student demands, the rest back the premier. He's a politician whose mandate ends in a year. The temptation to call an election focused solely on the tuition-fee issue has to be enormous.