Today I read that even come September, most postsecondary institutions will be delivering their course offerings primarily or exclusively online. I think that really re-opens the whole question of the value of a university or college education. Should students be expected to pay ever-higher fees when all campus facilities and the other people who normally populate them are off limits?

Presumably there will be no on-campus picnics, wine-and-cheese receptions, marching on the quad, lounges, bookstores, clubs or athletic facilities, pubs or coffee houses or student residences. Nor will there be any access to the strictly educational stuff like libraries, archives, art galleries, sophisticated scientific lab equipment, computer facilities or other on-site tools of the trade. People with common interests will be unable to gather in person to work on shared projects or goals. There'll be no in-person tutoring or peer counselling. And no opportunities to just socialize, which is a HUGE component of the campus experience!

I haven't even mentioned travel. In my day, many a student would spend summers hitchhiking across Europe or travelling with a Eurail pass, seeing the sights, staying in youth hostels or dorms, perhaps studying at a European university for a term or working overseas for a couple of months and gaining invaluable personal enrichment and international experience in the process. Now they're confined to quarters.

What kind of student life is that? What sort of opportunities will young people have to "find themselves", spread their wings and develop into thriving, or even functional members of adult society?? And if none of the infrastructure is being maintained or opened to its intended activities and gatherings, why should the students be expected to pay for it? Assuming they could even afford to, without any opportunities for on-campus employment?

It's a rather bleak picture, isn't it?

Will high school graduates opt to just wait it out? Will they abandon the idea of postsecondary education en masse? Or will they somehow adapt, and just live out lives that are very different from those of their parents and grandparents?
Do you have to be indigenous to teach a course about residential schools? Is it disrespectful if you don't use an array of made-up pronouns to denote people who consider themselves to be outside of the "gender binary"? Can one legitimately "teach" creationism and spiritual beliefs? How about myth, legend and folklore? Would your answer be different depending on whether the course was taught in a faculty of sciences or social sciences or humanities?

Who do you think you are? Who do I think you are? Who do I think I am? Who do you think I am? If the answers to questions one and two are different, or to questions three and four are different, whose view should prevail? Or does either view have to prevail? If we enter into discussion or debate on the matter, is that automatically, ipso facto, disrespectful? Is one of us by definition harassing or oppressing or bullying the other?

In a thought-provoking article in yesterday's paper, Graeme Hamilton explores the question of "indigenization" on Canadian university campuses and whether it poses a threat to open inquiry. One of the critics he quotes is Mark Mercer, a philosophy professor at St. Mary's University in Halifax and president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship. Mercer is not against indigenization initiatives per se, but fears the tendency of some of them to push us towards a "culture of celebration". Mercer contrasts this culture of celebration with "a culture of disputation, a culture of critical inquiry and critical discussion" which he considers more appropriate to a campus environment. (As an aside, I think we tend to vastly overuse the term "culture", often to denote something far less complex or sophisticated than a real culture - think "rape culture" or "learning culture" or maybe even "corporate culture" - but that's a topic for another time)

In my view, this is an issue with tentacles extending far beyond indigenous studies. Think of the Black Lives Matter movement. Or whatever wave of feminism we're now into. Or the LGBTQetc. movement. And of course there's always Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepherd and the rough ride they've had over the pronouns thing. And how often is free expression at odds with public safety? Should Ben Makuch of Vice Media be compelled to hand over to the RCMP his communications with a self-described Canadian ISIL terrorist? Do loose lips sink ships, even in peacetime?

I must say that in most cases, I'm firmly in the freedom of expression camp. And I mostly consider my politics to be somewhat left-leaning. But no political stripe is immune from that irritating tendency to dismiss people with whom they disagree by saying things like "Ah, well - Jordan Peterson's one of those alt-right folks". We depersonalize others by categorizing and labelling them when the fact is that any thinking person is going to be a hybridization of views from across a vast spectrum.
Page generated Jun. 17th, 2025 02:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios