16 U of Regina Professors Oppose Scholarships for Surviving Dependants

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Regina Leader-Post:

Two groups are asking the University of Regina for an immediate public forum on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

The first group is the protesting professors from the U of R who asked that the university withdraw from the Project Hero scholarship program. The second group, the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (CASC), has requested that the university's president Vianne Timmons publicly rebuke the professors for their "shameful" stance.

Both groups want their respective forums to be held at the university this April.

Lauryn Oates, a Vancouver-based senior advisor to CASC and education specialist in Afghanistan, said regular Canadians need to be discussing our role in Afghanistan, not just parliamentarians.

"This could be a leadership opportunity for (the U of R)," said Oates. "(The university) could take a stand and say, 'We have to talk about this.' " ....

More on link

 

[pbi]

Public debate would be a good thing here: there's too much screaming and righteous pot-banging on both sides. But, if the debate is to be fair and open (as opposed to being merely a "show trial" or a forum for one side's opinion), then in my opinion it needs to adress the following questions:

1) What is the meaning of "free speech" in an academic institution? Does it mean absolute freedom to say whatever you want, or only to say things that don't offend certain groups?


2) Can professors be allowed to exercise absolute freedom of speech, given their potentially influential position? (I say "potentially" because in my experience some professors have no meaningful influence on anything...)


3) If professors can't exercise absolute freedom of speech, who else should be prevented from exercising it?

In my opinion the stupidest, least effective response to these people is to act like the fascist warmongers they deem us to be, by indulging in intellectual thuggery. Hate mail and demands for resignation just reinforce their argument that the military and its supporters are trying to stifle discussion and debate. Instead, drag them out into the broad light of day and challenge them to defend their positions in open debate.  I think we'll find that they are very good at dominating ill-informed undergraduate minds, and preaching to the converted down at the tea house, but not all that good against informed, reasonable skeptics.

Cheers

 

[Greymatters]

The problem is that even if you have a good argument, those who believe in something fanatically enough will never belive in a differing opinmion no matetr how much truth there is - not unlike those who believe the earth is flat, supporters of these professors will never believe that they are wrong and will just find some other excuse for a failed argument (i.e. 'they cheated!' 'they just wont listen to reason' 'the conservatives manipulated the debate', etc...)

 

[George Wallace]

The problem is that even if you have a good argument, those who believe in something fanatically enough will never belive in a differing opinmion no matetr how much truth there is - not unlike those who believe the earth is flat, supporters of these professors will never believe that they are wrong and will just find some other excuse for a failed argument (i.e. 'they cheated!' 'they just wont listen to reason' 'the conservatives manipulated the debate', etc...)

Sounds like we may have a few on this site. 

Alright, who here is from the University of Saskatchewan, Regina Campus?

>

 

[pbi]

I'm reminded of the lengthy (and sometimes enjoyable) debate we had on these pages a while back, with the members of the Quebec-based group who were against Canada's participation in Afgh. (Remember=they sent out the "cannon fodder" letter to families of 5ieme GBMC soldiers preparing to deploy) They (or at least, one of them...) came to this site and fought it out. Of course parts of it were like arguing with a parrot or wrestling with a pig, but the point is we do have a history of taking these sorts of people on: it can be done.

It  might be interesting. We've already built it...now, will they come?

Cheers

 

[Tank Troll]

Ahhh the old freedom of speech issue. I always like the fact that anyone can say what ever they want and when some one else goes against them the scream, cry, whine freedom of speech...................but us that presever the freedom aren't allowed to, and a lot of the time it is about us or affects us.

 

[1feral1]

Back in the 1970's I used to go to the U of R's Lazy Owl on accasion, as some of my friends attended thre, and this pub was at times a good source of meeting uni chicks.

I did find that many had a very bad taste for Defence members, and I later learned that the U of R was a very red school, one of the reddest around, so I am not suprised that this tradition of lefty mentality had carried on (IMHO).

Here is a paper on campus...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carillon

 

[SigO]

Well I personally do have a problem with the youth of Canada being subjected to this type of thinking that seems to be quite prevalent in the post secondary eduation system.  Is this really the type of thinking you want YOUR kids subjected to?  I would like to think some students would see this for the idiotcy that it is, but these people are figures that students are supposed to look up to for guidance and wisdom.

The beauty of post-secondary education is that it encourages critical thinking, i.e. questioning ideas, even if they come from highly educated people.  I would argue that any student who agrees with these 16 individuals is clearly mis-guided, but unfortunately there is no law against subjecting "YOUR kids" to opinions that are based in a reality that we don't agree with.  University students, like most Canadians at large, can think for themselves, and anyone who bases their opinion solely on those offered by people of authority isn't worth listening to anyway.

 

[aesop081]

  University students, like most Canadians at large, can think for themselves,

:rofl:

 

[mariomike]

Here is a paper on campus...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carillon

"The Carillon reflected the anti-war sentiment of many American intellectuals who left the U.S. to teach in Canada."

Thanks, Wes. It looks like the tradition continues.

 

[Journeyman]

The beauty of post-secondary education is that it encourages critical thinking

To repeat CDN Aviator's thoughts, "  :rofl:  "



To explain, undergraduate post-secondary education may encourage some -- perhaps a very select few -- of the brighter participants in critical thinking....despite what students think about their intellectual brilliance.

At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.

Sorry.


Whether such education actually diminishes intuitive "common sense" may also be open to debate...but I've probably taken this thread sufficiently off-track. 

 

[Antoine]

To explain, undergraduate post-secondary education may encourage some -- perhaps a very select few -- of the brighter participants in critical thinking....despite what students think about their intellectual brilliance.

At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.

Absolutely true, seen in many universities, research centres,....and sadly enough, applicable to several prof.

 

[SigO]

At the end of the day, however, regurgitation (with or without attendance) is all that is required to put "BA" or "BSc" at the end of one's signature block.

I suppose that depends on the educational institution.  Critical thinking is key to success in many quality Arts programs, where argument must be developed independently.  In the Sciences, I can agree that a degree is at least in part based on regurgitation, but there is also emphasis on understanding abstract concepts and applying them to unique problems (even at the BSc level), a feat that involves a significant reliance on critical thinking. 

Alas, I digress, as I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss the quality of post-secondary education.  But I feel better anyway.  :

 

[Yrys]

Alas, I digress, as I don't think the point of this thread is to discuss the quality of post-secondary education.  But I feel better anyway.  :

BUT you can start one !

Pretty, please ?

 

[George Wallace]

BUT you can start one !

Pretty, please ?

NO!  Please don't.  We have covered the poor quality of our Education System too often already.  It occurs almost daily when we get a member posting with: MSN Speak; lack of CAPITALIZATION; lack of punctuation; poor grammar; incorrect spelling; run on sentences; and/or a plethora of other poor writting skills.  We have even covered, in some topics, the ranking of our Colleges and Universities and seen their product posting on this site.  NO! Please don't start a new topic on the quality of our Post-Secondary Education Systems........It is redundant and really disheartening to see how low we have sunk.

 

[Future Pensioner]

While I am all for any program that assists the dependants of fallen soldiers or, for that matter, anything that benefits soldiers in general, I am wondering why the dependents of fallen soldiers would require scholarships, as VAC already provides for this.  I could be missing something though.

From VAC's website:

Education Assistance Program
The Education Assistance Program provides post-secondary education assistance to those children of deceased Veterans or Canadian Forces members who have died as a result of military service or who were pensioned at 48% or greater at the time of death. Assistance may be provided for four years or 36 academic months, whichever is less. Qualified clients must enter the program before they are 25 and assistance cannot be extended beyond the year in which they turn 30.

 

[George Wallace]

While I am all for any program that assists the dependants of fallen soldiers or, for that matter, anything that benefits soldiers in general, I am wondering why the dependents of fallen soldiers would require scholarships, as VAC already provides for this.  I could be missing something though.

From VAC's website:

Education Assistance Program
The Education Assistance Program provides post-secondary education assistance to those children of deceased Veterans or Canadian Forces members who have died as a result of military service or who were pensioned at 48% or greater at the time of death. Assistance may be provided for four years or 36 academic months, whichever is less. Qualified clients must enter the program before they are 25 and assistance cannot be extended beyond the year in which they turn 30.

You may note the words "provides post-secondary education ASSISTANCE" in that statement.  Post-secondary educations are not cheap, and many of our brightest students are covering their expenses with more than one 'scholarship' or 'grant'.  Yes, Veterans Affairs does offer assistance, but it does not cover ALL costs.  Therefore other scholarships help the students.  If you really want to know, several Regimental organizations also offer scholarships to the children of Serving and former serving Regimental members.  It is just another scholarship that an aspiring student can apply for.  It is not a guarantee that all will receive it though, as there is only so much money to go around.

Does that help?

 

[Future Pensioner]

Thanks for the clarification George.

Points well taken!!! 

 

[The Bread Guy]

... according to this - I've highlighted the interesting "not happy abut the war but it's still a good idea to help those hurt by it" bit from the "staff writer" of what appears to be a CanWest publication:

Military families enjoy few perks. They often live in sub-standard housing on sub-standard wages, their lives marked by reassignments and deployments around the country or around the world.

Since 2002, when Canada joined the American-led response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, 142 Canadian Forces members have died in Afghanistan. The dead leave behind mother and fathers, husbands and wives. And in many cases, sons and daughters.

Enter Project Hero, a scholarship program for children of fallen military personnel. Created in part by retired General Rick Hillier, the friendly face of the Afghan mission, the program began at Memorial University in Newfoundland and spread west to several other post-secondary institutions including Langara College in Vancouver. Schools will independently fund the scholarships, with no government assistance. The program runs from May 1, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2014, and like the mission, may be reassessed before the final plug is pulled.

.... Enter Peter Prontzos, a 61-year-old political science instructor at Langara. In the April 8 edition of the Voice newspaper, a publication produced by Langara journalism students, Prontzos attacked Project Hero claiming it glorifies war and suffering. In his cramped third floor office overlooking the Langara golf course, last Thursday afternoon Prontzos amplified his opposition to the scholarship program. "It's purely a propaganda exercise on the part of the government to put a nice heroic gloss on their war in Afghanistan." According to Prontzos, Project Hero--with its "manipulative and deceitful" title--is another public relations ploy by the War Machine.

And he's probably right.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been waged by rockets and words, on the battlefield and in the media. South of the border, government marketing campaigns relay instant messages to an attention-deficit society, tapping base instincts of jingoism and fear.

Shock and Awe. The Patriot Act. Freedom Fries.

Of course, Prontzos also deals in slogans. He's a walking talking stereotype--the quintessential leftist college instructor with a personal history that would turn most aging hippie activists green with envy.

Born in San Francisco, Prontzos came of age in the 1960s. Like many young American men of the Vietnam era, he joined the military to avoid the draft. After two years in the Marine reserves, he received his orders--next stop, Vietnam. He fled to Vancouver, enrolled at UBC and eventually found work at Langara where he's taught politics and ideology for more than 20 years. During the 2001 provincial election, he was the NDP candidate in Vancouver-Langara, finishing a distant second to B.C. Liberal Val Anderson. Revolutionary paraphernalia, including a black and red Sandinista flag and a requisite picture of Che Guevara, cover his office walls. He's an unapologetic, tie-dyed, Reagan-hating Bush basher.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But his opposition to Project Hero seems petty when superimposed on the big picture. The American-led occupation represents a nanosecond in Afghanistan's bloody windswept history. Despite Canadian-made bridges and big bags of rice, we'll have little impact on the country's culture or future course. Considering these realities, Canadian casualties are hard to justify. Project Hero may be part of a larger government campaign to blunt this harsh truth.

But so what?

We've spent billions bombing and rebuilding a country most Canadians will never know much about. Why not give free tuition to a relatively small number of Canadian kids who paid a precious price for this raw deal?

The article in question is on the front page of the student-generated newspaper (linked in quote).  Interestingly handled story for a college journalism program - actually more balanced than some MSM I've read.

 

[Greymatters]

I suppose that depends on the educational institution.  Critical thinking is key to success in many quality Arts programs, where argument must be developed independently.  In the Sciences, I can agree that a degree is at least in part based on regurgitation, but there is also emphasis on understanding abstract concepts and applying them to unique problems (even at the BSc level), a feat that involves a significant reliance on critical thinking. 

I think it has more to do with what year of learning they are in - Ive lost count of the number of times Ive had 'facts' quoted at me or read of them being said because it was something a first or second year student was told to them by their professor, student union leader, local politial activist, or another classmate.  It seems like they really dont start thinking for themselves until they hit the third or fourth year.