AN APPEAL FOR YOUR CHILDREN An appeal for your children and grandchildren. The following open letter to Universities’ Minister Pat McGeer was written by E. 0. Boyanowsky, President of the Confederation of Faculty Associations of B.C. It is a letter by an academic to an ex: demic, so you may find the style a bit difficult. But Dr. Boyanowshky’s main point is this: even if a child's parents are sawmill workers, waitresses, etc., w run our universi should read it. An open letter to: Hon Dr. Patrick McGeer, Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4 Dear Mr. Minister: During the course of our meeting last week it became regrettably clear why the universi- ties of British Columbia have been placed in such a grave position of disadvantage in comparison to the other universities of Can- ada and major institutions in the United States. When my colleague from the University of Victoria, Gordon Shrimpton, and I asked you to use whatever influence you have in the government to make certain that the average 7.5% increase in funds and tax credits slated for B.C.’s universities through the Established Programmes Fund (EPF) of the federal government was actually passed on to the three universities by the provincial government, you retorted that we were dreaming. You claimed that the money was destined for general revenues and would be used by the government as it saw fit; that federal “propaganda” was promoting the idea that these federal funds were granted with a specific function in mind. It is interesting to note that you pre- viously levelled this accusation against an allegedly arrogant liberal government and that now the brand new, conservative government, according to you, is commit- ting the same deception. It is especially interesting because the rest of the country, yourself excepted, appears to share their delusion. Surely it is a matter of public record that the federal government deter- mines the size of EPF transfers on the basis of a formula with certain uses in mind, and that through the course of recent history the unwillingness of the B.C. government to contribute an appropriate portion to univer- sity funding has resulted in a situation where the breakdown has gone from theoret- ically 50% federal and 50% provincial fund- ing to one where the federal government will soon be funding virtually the whole cost of universities in the province. If this callous trend continues, the provincial government will soon be making a profit on its universities. Your argument in response was that there were too many students and too many faculty and too many universities in this province anyway, that the period of growth of the baby boom was over and that the universities in this province had to “ration- alize” their programmes in the manner that Princeton, Dartmouth and Yale did when their growth had peaked. You added that we should prepare for a decline in enrolment. When we pointed out that to the contrary our institutions were overcrowded, you retorted that we need only to raise our entrance standards to rid ourselves of those persons who didn’t belong in universities, were there for social reasons and were best dealt with by other institutions or enrolled in training programmes to prepare them for the job market. We responded that many of our courses have already had to raise their entrance standards arbitrarily, that those other programmes (e.g. Open Learning Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology) had also been drastically cut, and that, for instance, at SFU, the average age of undergraduates is in the late twenties and so they could hardly be accused of being there largely for “‘social reasons.’’ We pointed out that the baby boom generation’s passage notwithstanding, that B.C.’srateof | hauld try to open up opportunities for him or her. In particular, we should 0 that such kids also have a chance at the best jobs, the best ways of life. In short, Dr. Boyanowshy is arguing against the Socreds, for your kids and grandkids. So you participation in universities is the second lowest in the country. Furthermore, in order to compete in an economy where a young person can no longer depend on neverending economic booms in logging, fishing and mining, our university age generation must obtain university education at a rate at least equivalent to that of Ontario or the Mari- times. Your response was that we were deluded, that there were only two good universities in Ontario, Waterloo and Queen’s, that those “Mickey Mouse Mari- time universities” didn’t count and that we had “dried up the well” of potential stu- dents. According to your views it takes two components to go to university, “endow- ment” and “motivation” and that everyone in B.C. with those components in approp- riate measure was already attending univer- sity. Somewhat peculiarly, given your posi- tion, you argued that the current “Blip” in enrolment, was due to the fact that in difficult economic times people went back to university. To us it was obvious they did so in order to increase their chances of employ- ment and the statistics bear this out. My colleague and I went on to predict that the downslide in the economy would not last forever and that if we didn’t invest now in preparing our young people for manage- ment and research and development posi- tions that we would have to import such individuals from out of the province as we did in the sixties and seventies, relegating native British Columbians to less attrac- tive, less upwardly mobile, more economi- ? cally‘ vulnerable jobs. You suggested that it was cheaper and more efficient to do so. I believe that your views reveal more about your background, your personal experience as a function of that background and your social position than they do about the problems that assail this province and its universities, not to mention any potential solutions for the future. I too believe that “endowment” and “motivation” are the key components neces- sary to achive university standards. As I suggested to you, however, given B.C.’s status as, until recently, the: perpetual immigrant province (of people from other countries and other parts of Canada) the children of these first generation immi- grants have striven for and and achieved success in the most direct way, through a flourishing labour market and businesses serving the base industries: industries that you and your own government repeatedly admit can no longer be counted on to lead the way to renewed economic growth. It requires no inordinate endowment of corti- cal horsepower to determine why Nova Scotia has one of the highest university participation rates in the country. In the absence of massive natural resources, the entrepreneurs of Nova Scotia have, over the centuries, come to realize the value of university education. Your disdain for these universities notwithstanding, Nova Sco-. tians argues that their chief export is educated brains. One of their institutions, Dalhousie, is fond of pointing out that it has educated more chief executives of American corporations than any other Canadian university, another, St. Francis Xavier, educated our current prime minister. Thus to be unwilling, or unable to compre- hend that endowment is more than purely cerebral is a function of the Churchillian insensivity characteristic of having been born to privileged position, of never having had the social odds stacked against you. Motivation and goals are largely shaped by the values of that position. To use a contrast- ing example, in the northern mining town where I grew up, my immigrant parents 2/Lumber Worker/April, 1985 were regarded as eccentric b assuming that, given a modic endowment, I would attend Within such a family conte came easily. For many ot! ability and background, #l identified as the approp) members of intervening g home town, the mine is no lon as a source of economic oppo sons and daughters of my peers university. To tout Princeton asa role model universities is painfully revealing « same anachronistic attitudes. serves the welfare of no general The graduates of eastern “prep” sch traditionally overrepresented in that; A tion. Their wealthy parents have pent ten of thousands of dollars per high schoo to make certain that every ounce of abi squeezed out of their offspring. In fact, curious that you cite Princeton as ap 7 given your feelings about admission stand- ards. Princeton’s bias has made it a bit o laughing stock recently for a Brooke Shields without an applicatic when Harvard, her first choice, insisted she apply like everyone else. Harvard, whom you never mention. least strives for some general representa in its undergraduate population, regard! of financial privilege. That is the m: reason why my own nephew, a very cap fellow, from the same little mining to high school I attended was able to go although I’m certain on any standard entrance test, he would not have match the score of the top prep school graduates. Yet Harvard, unlike our universities, does — not have a mandate to educate the able population of students who reside in the — state in which it is located. I believe we are wealthy and generous enough to take some ~ risks. Given your proposed entrance stand- ards, one of your most esteemed colleagues in’ physiological psychology, a Killam research professor who got into the Univer- sity of Western Ontario practically through the back door, would not be contributing to science as he is now doing. And one of my own most highly regarded colleagues, a UBC prize winner, a Woodrow Wilson fellow and Harvard Ph.D. would still be working in the sawmill where he earned his tuition fees as an undergraduate. He’d been told in high school he did not have the intellectual ability to attend university. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but let me assure you that — the students with whom I come into contact daily are extremely capable and motivated, perhaps as never before. As I mentioned in my opening to letter, our meeting revealed tome whatm be at least a significant portion of th problem besetting university funding in province. You are the minister charged w -championing the cause of public universi ties, explaining and justifying their purpo to your colleagues in the cabinet who o have had little to do with them. Yet, iro cally, I would wager deep down you don’ believe in public universities, secretly yearn- ing for a time when a small number of private colleges existed on the easte seaboard for the privileged few. Given y attitudes, it is little wonder that yourcal colleagues are suspicious, even hostile universities. Consequently, although you appear to most suited for the universities portfolio, 1 would argue that your attributes can be be used exclusively in the sciences and tech ogy areas. I think the universities and % province would be better served by a minis- ter whose mind was not made up on every — issue, whose orientation was to the common good and who was still open and capable of taking in information on the subject. Per- haps a number of your colleagues would be more appropriate for the position, even i they weren’t as intimately involved with a university. After all, W. A. C. Bennett — probably did more for universitiesthanany | other premier of this province. 4 —E. O. Boyanowsky, Ph.D., President, Confederation of Faculty Associations $ BC.