Categories
Debatables

Why the AMS/UN debacle infuriates me (from an EIESL related perspective)

By Trisha Taneja

This afternoon, AMS President Blake Frederick (along with UBC graduate and former AMS VP Administration Tristan Markle) filed a complaint to the United Nations (I kid you not) stating that Canada has engaged  in “a consistent pattern of gross human rights violation” by not ensuring that post-secondary education is accessible to everyone.

According to article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.” Frederick says that since tuition fees have been on the rise and government funding for post-secondary education (both to universities and students through grants and bursaries) in decline, the UN should hold Canada accountable. And this complaint was filed to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

There are so many (oh, so many) issues with this, I don’t even know where to start. Leaving aside the political ramifications and the fact that Frederick has made UBC a national (if not international) laughing stock, let us focus for a moment on this whole human rights business.

Earlier this semester as a part of EIESL we discussed how aid and human rights has become almost a trend. Celebrities from Bono to Oprah Winfrey have been spreading the word and drawing public attention to aid, orphans, human rights violations- you name it. Everything now days is apparently a human rights violation; human rights is the buzzword of the day to draw media attention to whatever cause. And now apparently, it is the media drawing word for the AMS. And make no mistake; this is nothing more than a media-stunt. What can the AMS actually expect from the UN? I mean, let’s have a little perspective- do they even have any idea of what constitutes a human rights violation? Logically, this move by the AMS makes no sense whatsoever.

Let’s consider where we stand in terms of education. Firstly, we are lucky to have public schooling up until post secondary. Secondly, we are lucky to have a fairly low tuition rate as compared to other schools that are internationally competitive. Thirdly, yes, we have been facing tuition hikes. Yes, it is unfair. However, we are still lucky not have suffered Berkeley’s recent 32% hike in tuition. And yes, there have been funding cuts to post secondary education, and to student aid programs. It is, however, a recession and there will be funding cuts. And we are still lucky to have access to a job market on campus as well as student loans. There are many many people who would kill to be in our position.

So the AMS lost perspective…what’s the big deal? The big deal is that our university student union- the people who officially represent the students of UBC are now subscribing to cheap theatrics by using international buzzwords to draw media attention. I would argue that this dilutes the very meaning of human rights. There are several issues that rightfully deserve the tag of human rights violation- you only need to look around campus to see a multitude of groups working on these, or just a bit further to the Downtown East Side. Not to perpetuate stereotypes, but there are people who don’t have money to buy food. As we speak war and extreme gender based violence is in progress. There are people who don’t have access to medicines, people who don’t have access to basic primary education.  There are places where there are no student aid or loan programs whatsoever. The treaty Canada is allegedly violating talks about equally accessible education based on capacity and appropriate means. What gives AMS the right (and the qualifications) to say these means (student loans and such) are not appropriate, and that despite the recession the government has a higher capacity to fund education?

Not only is the AMS misusing the term human rights violation, it is also showcasing itself as culturally insensitive and a ridiculously spoiled brat. By using such a heavy term in such a light handed, media-savvy way, the AMS is being insensitive to all those people at UBC that are from places way less privileged than BC, Canada. This is exactly what we talked about in our dialogue series- a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed.  We cannot be throwing such terms around without fully understanding their implications just to gather attention. Believe it or not, ‘human rights’ does mean something important. If our elected representatives don’t realise that, how can we expect it of our student body?

UBC prides itself on being international. “Protecting Human Rights- from here;” that is part of their new brand isn’t it? The AMS has effectively damaged that with a single thoughtless action. Is the AMS really trying to put increased tuition rates for post secondary education on the same level as lack of access to basic food, shelter, medicines, education, and in some cases even safety? Is it really so desperate for attention that it ignores the cultural sensitivities of this issue and this term on an international campus? Please, don’t get me wrong. I am in no way saying that tuition hikes are not an important issue, or that they do not affect students, or that they do not deserve media attention. Nor am I saying that our AMS exec has not tried their best to lobby both levels of governments. But if you are upset about your tuition you hold protests, lobby the government, write articles, organise a rally. Not working?  Try again, try something else. Maybe on a national scale. Do not, however, use terms such as ‘human rights’ as a buzzword for an issue that is in no way even close to being a human rights violation (that too on the international stage), just to garner attention. It is completely unacceptable and unethical. Like the UN doesn’t have other concerns to deal with.

Frederick claimed to submit this report “on behalf of [the members of the] AMS.” Hopefully, the entire world isn’t thinking that the students of UBC have lost touch with reality, and consider rising tuition costs a “gross violation of human rights.” I assure you, at this point, the AMS does not represent me.

27 replies on “Why the AMS/UN debacle infuriates me (from an EIESL related perspective)”

Thank you Trisha for posting what I’ve been thinking since this debacle started. Diluting the severity of the term “human rights abuse” has been a particularly contentious element to Frederick’s action and I’m glad it’s being discussed.

Once again, EIESL rocks. Thanks for helping us keep things in focus!

Trisha, to sort of play Devil’s Advocate for a second, I have four points I want to make.

1) The Province of Quebec has three-tiered subsidization of tuition fees based on whether you are a Quebec resident (lowest cost), out of province resident (standard fees) or an international student (much like what we have at UBC). The second two are standard fare, but high levels of subsidization for residents of Quebec (which I think you can get after only 3 years) create an unequal situation across Canada. Ignoring the debate between Anglophone and Francophone culture in Canada, because education is under provincial jurisdiction, it is the right of the institutions of higher education to set whatever fees they wish. Kind of unfair, but that’s how our government works. My question to UBC students is: if we had subsidized education as they do in Quebec, do you think students would put up a stink about paying too little or would we say “hey, sweet!” and passively maintain the status quo?

2) First nations groups get highly subsidized post-secondary education in Canada. That should give the equity people less to complain about, right? Well, not really, because making education free at the top end doesn’t necessarily equal giving access to that education. Like you, I have limited capacity to speak on behalf of certain groups, but I feel like if you are too concerned with satisfying your more basic needs, you won’t be able to get your family to a place where they’ll be ready for university. Frederick no doubt sees this as a national responsibility.

3) Saying that at least we’re not Berkeley is to compare apples and oranges. Yes, we’re lucky. But Frederick’s argument was about equity WITHIN Canada.

4) The point that ties this all together: so Frederick and company pulled out an arcane international covenant to make their argument, which some people scoff at, but we still try to hold our current government accountable for Pearson’s 1968 promise to give 0.7% GNP to helping “developing” countries. This has also fallen by the wayside, and Canada is losing credibility because of it. Perhaps this too is comparing apples and oranges, but I think less so – one happens to be about disparity within our borders and one concerns global disparity. You can make a convincing argument for either issue being the more pressing one I think. Education is part of this same debate.

That said, Frederick HAS made a fool of us. The UN isn’t going to care about this complaint when there are literally billions of people who can’t even secure access to primary education. He did this in secret without consulting the student body he’s meant to represent.

WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT – this Saturday, November 28th (tomorrow) at 5pm in the AMS Chambers in the SUB, there will be a motion to impeach Blake Frederick for doing this without consulting us. Show up if you are angry that you were not consulted.

Just to clarify a point that was occasionally not clear in the article, Blake’s actions (and those of Tim Chu) were purely their decision, not that of AMS Council or even of any of its committees.

I strongly feel that councillors have had enough of being tarred with guilt by association, and thus we will be trying to remove Blake and Tim from office on this Saturday.

Please write to me to let me know your views on this.

Kyle Warwick,
aus.vpexternal@arts.ubc.ca

Sorry, I probably should have listed my personal email, kylewarwick07@gmail.com, instead of my AUS VP External email, because I was expressing my personal opinion and the AUS doesn’t technically have an opinion on this yet.

Trisha, I am a member of AMS council and I had never heard of this appalling UN complaint before this morning. I am embarrassed that the student body believes we at the AMS condone or support this complaint. I am available at writedia@gmail.com if you wish to write to me directly.

To everyone offended by Blake’s actions I say, I hear you.

Balderdash. This is like saying that any group in Canada shouldn’t lobby the UN if Canada is failing to live up to their expectations because things are good enough.

Post secondary education is very difficult to access for a substantial portion of Canadians. For those of us that made it here to tell other people that we aren’t going to put in an effort to increase accessibility because we have too many other problems that we aren’t going to fix is arrogant and selfish.

Yes Canada has various programs that help people access education, but those of us that choose to access them do not make that decision lightly. There are a variety of issues throughout the education system and society that cause systemic discrimination to who gets into post secondary.

I’m not saying that Frederick went about things the right way, but it is his responsibility to lobby for better access to education for students, not fight world hunger. Should we just sit quietly while access to education becomes more difficult?

Richard: nobody is saying that we should sit down and respect the status quo. The issue here is that:

(1) Blake and Tim (and Tristan Markle) have sullied the issue of REAL Human Rights violations by comparing the “plight” of Canadians not being able to receive post-secondary education, to war crimes, genocide and other major issues; and,

(2) Going to the UNCHR is NOT an appropriate channel for this:
a. because they are not going to do anything about it;
b. it’s only going to make us look silly and childish in front of the government; and,
c. it clearly is polarizing campus to an incredibly large degree

Richard,

I don’t think that is what people are saying. Groups have complained to the UN about Canada’s failures. The point is, those groups were talking about way more pressing issues, which have a far better claim to being “gross human rights violations”. In particular, the UN is currently monitoring Canada for its failure to support women living in poverty and Canada’s failure to prevent or investigate the violence against hundreds of missing and murdered Aboriginal women.

Simply put, the UN doesn’t have time for this issue.

And, even if we do think that the UN is appropriate, Blake still should have properly gone through council. What he did was undemocratic and arrogant.

While this may be a useful way to get attention (as you mention) it is also an opportunity. Why? An opportunity for UBC to show, that it is the very opposite of what it is being accused of, for it to change things it may mislead others to think otherwise. To sit and wallow in the fact it has made UBC a “Laughing stock” is beyond the point. Now, to get to the heart of the matter is this: Do something, do it now to showcase what UBC really is, pick up and change what needs to be changed because its going to happen anyways. There is no use in complaining its time to Change something. But the question is now..UBC, Canada, what is it that you need to change and show, as you are being thrown into the spotlight by students who felt so strongly about their views that they took such a step. What exactly motivated it in the first place, because this seems to be the sign of our times, if you ask me.

M, I agree with you. Student debt/high tuitions are important issues for almost all of us. This is certainly time to act, draw attention to this issue and ultimately bring about change. But actions need to be reasonable and educated.

Ashley and Allison, Thank you for responding to my post.

-The executive did receive legal council before sending this letter.

– The matter shouldn’t be ignored because we don’t fund the UN well enough meaning that they don’t have time to deal with it, that issue needs to be addressed as well.

– The people at the UN have the ability to discern urgent matters from those less vital, let them make that call.

– How does it make us look childish and silly? We are standing up for those in this country who cannot, for what ever reason, access education. An emergency council meeting to discuss impeachment as a knee jerk reaction, that seems pretty childish and silly also.

– polarizing the campus. Is that such a bad thing? Look how much dialogue this letter has created compared to the dialogue before. People are talking about this now. Some people are choosing to polarize themselves, while others are choosing to engage in debate, I think this is healthy and very democratic! We can’t recall the letter, but we can make decisions on where to go from here.

Please pardon the ranting nature of this – the fact is that reading your post Trisha has me literally feeling ill with frustration and shaking.
Something I find incredibly infuriating and actually painful, is middle/upper class people pointing to my community – the downtown eastside, and poor people generally – as a way of dismissing claims such as those made by Blake and Tim in the complaint to the UN. When you do that, you treat us a symbol – a tool – that you then use to maintain the very systems that mess us over.I would really like this complaint to go ahead, because part of why people continue to struggle and die in the downtown eastside is that it is really hard for any of us to gain any social power with which to fight back. What looks like ‘luck’ to you, is an almost insurrmountable obstacle from the perspective of someone living in poverty. A few of us make it to university, but only a very few – your article reads as if everyone at UBC should experience the current tuition levels as ‘luck’ which strongly suggests that you operate with the assumption that all ‘students’ are like you. Sadly, most are like you – most are people who can experience today’s tuition levels as ‘luck’ – and it makes being at UBC hell for people who are part of impoverished communities. Cnosider what it is like to be among incredibly privileged folk who simply assume that we must all share your experience…it makes a person feel invisible and unspeakably alienated. But some of us who grew up in, and who live in, poverty ARE there among you. And I know that I dont feel lucky in quite the same way you do. Some of us who grew up in poverty, some of us with disaiblities living in poverty, some of us who lived or live in the downtown eastside, some of us who are Aboriginal – we might not think that lowering tuition is a trivial thing. Do those of you who clearly think of yourself as defenders of the marginalized, do you ever think to ask us? Because while it is true that at a thousand points along the way prior to university we are kept from equal access to education, it is also true that despite that, some of us reach the point where going woulo be viable – and then so many of us are blocked by that final issue – the COST. And those of us who come anyways, who take out the loans – for us the debt load we take on means something radically different in our lives and our children’s lives than it means for the majority of those who are arrive on campus with economic privilege. How arrogant of you to declare that we in canada are ‘lucky’. You clearly are. But I am not one of you. And I attend UBC. And I resent your presumption in USING my community the way you have in this piece. You want to do good – you want to work for human rights – you need to learn to listen. Yes, we need food and housing, and yes we need equal access to elementary and secondary education, and we dont have these things yet, BUT when against all odds some of us get to university anyways, we need it to be financially within our reach. And we certainly dont need you saying that things are fine the way they are – that we are so ‘lucky’ we should not complain. You have me in tears. My daughter is here trying to comfort me. My daughter who has grown up in the downtown eastside who has struggled with colonizatin and sexual violence and poverty, who might one day also decide that she would like to go to university. I will never be in a position to put her through school – as a woman with a disability I will never be able to work more than part time – my dream isnt middle class income, but something closer to the poverty line (dare I dream a little above it) rather than way below it. So if she does, she will probably have to do what I have done, attending part time while working. But depending on other aspects of her life she may not feel that the risk of assuming that sort of debt load makes sense. She may not be able to tolerate the arrogance of the peole she will have to attend classes with – she is very sensitive to the judgments of those with money. But if she does decide to go, will the cost of education still be so high for her? Will she face the same barriers? I guess if people like you, who claim to be on the side of social justice, but who DONT LISTEN, have your way, she will face the same ‘lucky’ levels of tuition – and the odds are against her getting there. It is all very well to think positively, but the barriers are real, and right now, Trisha, your attitudes are one of them. Thank you Blake and Tim for at least trying.

To Richard,

It has escaped your rationale that the AMS president initiated all this stunt without the approval of the council or the students he claims to represent. He might have admirable personal beliefs or motives but from his official position the students at large would expect more sensibility. You compared this move to the EIESL project but I would say it is what he lacks – dialogue with students from different sides.
Personally I feel many of us ubc students have been hi-jacked by Blake…To exaggerate my point, I would use PEPFAR as a very famous example of hi-jacked mandate. Even if he had filed in his own name, it would be analogous to calling 911 when the french fries serving you got from mcdonalds is too small…there are more appropriate channels and actions for those.

Having just read the post before me made me regret the last statement I wrote. Nevertheless I fear the cause is already lost because of the course of actions Blake took.

@ Not One of You

I can’t claim to have dealt with many of the struggles that you have and I acknowledge that it is more difficult for some students to attend university than others. Like many students, my education has been a struggle: working 2 jobs, balancing clubs, dealing with debt and struggling with a chronic illness has been hard as hell. But I get it – my challenges are not in the same league is yours.

Because of this, your post is especially difficult to respond to. Yet I feel that on several points, I must respectfully disagree with your post and defend the sentiment of Trisha’s post.

At the end of the day we must acknowledge that we pay some of the lowest global tuition rates to attend a world class university. There are literally thousands of scholarships and work opportunities available, see http://www.students.ubc.ca/index.cfm?page=links&view=financial.

But what makes UBC especially unique is Board of Governors Policy # 72, which states “No Eligible Student (as defined by Policy #72) will be prevented from commencing or continuing his or her studies at the University for financial reasons alone. Eligible Students and their families have the primary responsibility for bearing the individual cost of higher education. If an Eligible Student and his or her family exhaust the financial resources available to them, the University will ensure that financial support will be made available to them.” http://www.universitycounsel.ubc.ca/policies/policy72.pdf

Think about that. The university has implemented this policy, which is in itself a tool to access education. If you are being prevented from your education because of financial reasons, you have a tool to hold UBC accountable with.

This cuts to the core of Trisha’s argument: given that we, as UBC students, enjoy globally unprecedented access to post-secondary university, it is simply not acceptable to use the offices of UN (whose members are made of countries struggling to implement primary education for its citizens, let alone secondary or post-secondary) for complaints like the ones that were recently made.

Perhaps more importantly, we should question if this tactic is purposeful and if it will serve student needs, in particular students who are facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles to their education.

The federal and provincial governments are our only for hope for bringing in resources to increase the accessibility of education. When we burn those bridges, which this action has done, we need to make well and sure that we can expect a return.

At the risk of sounding cynical, what can we expect of a special rapporteur or independent expert? As someone keenly interested in gender violence, I read reports issued by these experts around the world frequently. Such as the ones that are issued every 6 months to address the systematic gender violence in the DR Congo. They are a depressing and recurrent read in never ending human rights abuses.

Yet they have a point. By bringing these atrocities into the light, institutions and organizations (donor countries, UN, international financial institutions, international criminal court) that have sway over the groups that can affect change in this region (DRC government, neighboring countries governments with relationships to this government or rebel groups etc.) are given information that they can use to sanction perpetrators and those who are permissive of these crimes.

But can we expect the same in Canada? For the UN to force the federal and provincial governments to change their policies they need member countries to stand willing to apply sanction. Do we really expect the US, France, Britain or the G77 (many of whom are struggling with primary education) to do anything about this? Whats more, given that our compliance with the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has been in question for years, and action taken by the UN to address this, with no effect (see: http://www.straight.com/article-272054/vancouver/un-wants-action-women ), can we really expect this action to bring about change?

The bottom line is, the ability of this action to affect the change needed to make your quest for education easier is extremely dubious. Additionally, given the overwhelming variety of tools that we have to access education, calling these “gross violations of human rights” is an embarrassing sham – especially to the massive group of students that consider themselves to be global citizens. Trisha’s points hold true across the board.

Dear Not One of You,

You wrote, “Something I find incredibly infuriating and actually painful, is middle/upper class people pointing to my community ? the downtown eastside, and poor people generally ? as a way of dismissing claims such as those made by Blake and Tim in the complaint to the UN. When you do that, you treat us a symbol ? a tool”

That is an extremely good point. I’m guilty of having done that these past couple days. I’m sorry.

– Alison

Roger, The argument I’m hearing is ~ the RCMP shouldn’t arrest me for stealing a TV because I didn’t kill anyone.

Which laws should we enforce? According to the complaint letter the other avenues have been explored and have failed.

While pressure mounts for the executive to resign, what action is being proposed instead? I find it really disturbing that students are so apathetic to the needs of their peers, that they would rather stop a potential action over procedural errors. What has council proposed we do about access to Education?

Tanja, Access to funds is not the only way the government is preventing access to Education. There needs to be enough seats in classes to accommodate those who are capable. People also need to believe that post secondary education is possible, several systemic issues prevent people from realizing that possibility. Thirdly, student loans are sometimes not sufficient for people who come from rural areas. The cost of housing in many urban centres, where the universities are located, is higher than the ‘modest allowance’ provides. Should students live in cramped & unsafe quarters so that they do not go over their loan income limits? Lastly, an education that carries the price tag of a luxury sedan is a large burden for students when they exit. While students who have support from families can begin investing, saving and building their lives, those of us who don’t have enough support have to pay the equivalent in student loan payment to the lease on a new car, plus a car if we return to a rural area, plus housing, leaving those who do have financial resources through university at an advantage for accessing further financial resources, and greater mobility.

I think people are just missing the point of Frederick’s and Chu’s actions.

@ Richard

Anyone with at an intermediate economics training, meaning anyone that has gone through public policy school or a good I.R program should recognize when something is tied to inflation its price is being held constant. Meaning that tuition cost at UBC isn’t in actuality even rising except on paper. No credible organization that would do a economic analysis on UBC’s tuition policy would recognize a rise in the real price of domestic tuition. I certainly would certainly expect the UN to recognize that if they even gave the time of day, which they really won’t. The people who think it will truly have a poor understanding of political institutions and policy if they think this has a hope of garnering any attention. Instead this publicity stunt has damaged the UBC’s student union’s relationship with the administration of UBC, the provincial and Federal governments of Canada.

If your going to argue that Canada hasn’t lived up to its obligations on an international front it is necessary to compare on an international level. UBC is a top 40 school of international caliber. This reputation comes purely from the merit of its faculty and the research the true research impact, and not the social resources that the school offers. . When you compare other public schools Oxford, University College London, University of Toronto, Mcgill University, University of California (the whole system), University of North Carolina Chappelle hill, Maryland. UBC is either in line with the tuitions charged at other schools or substantially cheaper. Furthermore Canada at the national level has a functioning student loan system offered both by government and private institutions. This makes it very hard to argue from the perspective of under privileged groups that they cannot acquire funds to recieve an education. In the vast majority of 3rd world countries the concept of a student loan doesn’t exist all together (as financial markets rarely are developed and have the sophistication western markets do). as not enough people would have any collateral in country whose Nominal G.D.P per capita ranges between 200$ (afghanistan)-5000$ U.S (China). Grant money rarely exists as well as the governments of those countries do not have a large enough tax base to afford those kind of welfare programs. When you take this situation into account, this complaint looks more than frivolous.

Secondly people are making a mistake of assuming education accessibility is determine solely on the availability of funding. UBC is one of the most competitive schools in Canada to enter, far more students are denied an opportunity of higher education based on their performance during high school, than because of the inability to acquire funds. However, canada like the the U.S has done a better job of tackling this issue. In many European countries were education is often free it is far less accessible because the ability to go to college depends on programs you have completed during either middle school or high school. Schools are often divided into different tracks one for college bound students, and one not. Also the flexibility to change your major, because your major is dependent on what track you completed during high school.

I think lastly you have to look at quality variable.There is not a school among the top 50 universities that doesn’t charge domestic tuition comparable to UBC’s if they are not even more expensive in general. Very few international schools are making the contributions to research that north American schools do. Nearly all the european schools that do are located in Britain (which has some of the highest tuition burdens in the entire EU). The few exceptions are U Tokyo in Japan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Spam prevention powered by Akismet