LANGUAGE AND LITERACY RESEARCHERS OF CANADA 2013 PRE-CONFERENCE
The call for the 10th Annual Language and Literacy Researchers of Canada (LLRC) Pre-conference has been extended until January 7th, 2013. The Pre-conference is to be held at the University of Victoria on Saturday, June 1st, 2013. We hope you will be able to join us for this day focused on language and literacy research and practice in Canada. Submissions and any related questions should be directed to Jennifer Rowsell and Burcu Yaman Ntelioglou at firstname.lastname@example.org
Additional information and upcoming registration can be found at: http://www.csse-scee.ca/cacs/LLRC/index.htm
Hello everyone - in light of the Quebec panel that was part of the CASAE conference that just finished, please see the letter below regarding the student-led movement in Quebec. It provides a much clearer view of what is actually happening and the reasons behind the activities, something that the mainstream media has ignored and, it seems, purposefully erased from the story. Shauna Butterwick
An open letter to my English-Canadian friends. Please circulate in your networks as you see fit.
You may have heard that there has been some turmoil in Quebec in recent weeks. There have been demonstrations in the streets of Montreal every night for almost a month now, and a massive demonstration will be happening tomorrow, which I will be attending, along with my wife, Elizabeth Elbourne, and my eldest daughter Emma.
Reading the Anglo-Canadian press, it strikes me that you have been getting a very fragmented and biased picture of what is going on. Given the gulf that has already emerged between Quebec and the rest of Canada in the wake of the 2011 election, it is important that the issues under discussion here at least be represented clearly. You may decide at the end of the day that we are crazy, but at least you should reach that decision on the basis of the facts, rather than of the distortions that have been served up by the G&M and other outlets.
First, the matter of the tuition hikes, which touched off this mess. The rest of the country seems to have reached the conclusion that the students are spoiled, selfish brats, who would still be paying the lowest tuition fees even if the whole of the proposed increase went through.
The first thing to say is that this is an odd conception of selfishness. Students have been sticking with the strikes even knowing that they may suffer deleterious consequences, both financial and academic. They have been marching every night despite the threat of beatings, tear-gas, rubber bullets, and arrests. It is, of course, easier for the right-wing media to dismiss them if they can be portrayed as selfish kids to whom no -one has ever said "no". But there is clearly an issue of principle here.
OK, then. But maybe the principle is the wrong one. Free tuition may just be a pie-in-the sky idea that mature people give up on when they put away childish things. And besides, why should other people pay for the students' "free" tuition? There is no such thing as "free" education. Someone, somewhere, has to pay. And the students, the criticism continues, are simply refusing to pay their "fair share".
Why is that criticism simplistic? Because the students' claim has never been that they should not pay for education. The question is whether they should do so up front, before they have income, or later, as taxpayers in a progressive taxation scheme. Another question has to do with the degree to which Universities should be funded by everyone, or primarily by those who attend them. So the issue of how to fund Universities justly is complicated. We have to figure out at what point in people's lives they should be paying for their education, and we also have to figure out how much of the bill should be footed by those who do not attend, but who benefit from a University-educated work force of doctors, lawyers, etc. The students' answer to this question may not be the best, but then it does not strike me that the government's is all that thought out either.
And at least the students have been trying to make ARGUMENTS and to engage the government and the rest of society in debate, whereas the government's attitude, other than to invoke the in-this-context-meaningless "everyone pays their faire share" argument like a mantra, has been to say "Shut up, and obey".
What strikes the balance in the students' favour in the Quebec context is that the ideal of no up-front financial hurdles to University access is enshrined in some of the most foundational documents of Quebec's Quiet Revolution, in particular the Parent Commission Report, which wrested control of schools from the Church and created the modern Quebec education system, a cornerstone of the kind of society that many Quebeckers see themselves as aspiring to. Now, it could be that that ideal is no longer viable, or that we may no longer want to subscribe to it. But moving away from it, as Charest's measures have done, at least requires a debate, analogous to the debate that would have to be had if the Feds proposed to scrap the Canada Health Act. It is clearly not just an administrative measure. It is political through and through. Indeed it strikes at fundamental questions about the kind of society we want to live in. If this isn't the sort of thing that requires democratic debate, I don't know what is.
The government has met the very reasonable request that this issue, and broader issues of University governance, be at least addressed in some suitably open and democratic manner with silence, then derision, then injunctions, and now, with the most odious "law" that I have seen voted by the Quebec National Assembly in my adult memory. It places the right of all Quebec citizens to assemble, but also to talk and discuss about these issues, under severe limitations. It includes that most odious of categories: crimes of omission, as in, you can get fined for omitting to attempt to prevent someone from taking part in an act judged illegal by the law. In principle, the simple wearing of the by-now iconic red square can be subject to a fine. The government has also made the student leaders absurdly and ruinously responsible for any action that is ostensibly carried out under the banners of their organizations. The students groups can be fined $125000 whenever someone claiming to be "part" of the movement throws a rock through a window. And so on. It is truly a thing to behold.
The government is clearly aware that this "law" would not withstand a millisecond of Charter scrutiny. It actually expires in July 2013, well before challenges could actually wind their way through the Courts. The intention is thus clearly just to bring down the hammer on this particular movement by using methods that the government knows to be contrary to basic liberal-democratic rule-of-law principles. The cynicism is jaw-dropping. It is beneath contempt for the government to play fast and loose with our civil rights and liberties in order to deal with the results of its own abject failure to govern.
So that is why tomorrow I will be taking a walk in downtown Montreal with (hopefully!) hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens. Again, you are all free to disagree, but at least don't let it be because of the completely distorted picture of what is going on here that you have been getting from media outlets, including some from which we might have expected more.
Daniel Weinstock, Université de Montréal
VISIT OF DR. VANDANA SHIVA TO SFX
ADULT EDUCATORS HONOURED AT ST. FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY
The Department of Adult Education at St. Francis Xavier University was delighted this past weekend as two adult educators were honorary doctorate recipients from StFX, Dr. Budd Hall and Emily Joy Sikazwe from Zambia, a graduate of our Master of Adult Education program.
The Department of Adult Education, CASAE (Atlantic), and the Coady International Institute organized a conference to honour the recipients. Dr. Darlene Clover made an excellent presentation, An International Comparative Study of Women's Nonformal and Informal Political Education, a comparison of the situation in India and Canada. This was followed by a dynamic presentation by Dr. Budd Hall, Knowledge, Equality and Prosperity: University Partnerships & the World We Want.
St FX faculty members, students and members of the Coady International Institute, and members of the Antigonish community attended the conference. We want to offer special thanks to Drs. Patti Gouthro and Susan Brigham and a group of their students from Mount St. Vincent University who drove from Halifax to join us for the conference. It was a wonderful opportunity for adult educators to gather together.
We now want to share with the wider community of adult educators the excellent speeches Budd and Emily made during Convocation. It was a wonderful moment for adult education at our university and we congratulate Budd & Emily!
Allocution de Budd Hall
Photo de Budd Hall
Allocution d'Emily Joy Sikazwe
Photo d'Emily Joy Sikazwe