Not Okay is Not Okay, Okay?

Hey, you!

Yes, you with your finger poised uncertainly over the “like” button.

I see what you’re doing.

You were about to share that article, weren’t you? The one that you’ve seen floating around for a couple of days now, because it is just so cute, or validating, or brilliant, or inspiring, or consciousness-raising, or romantic, or empowering, or cathartic, or just plain hilarious. Sure, you’re a bit late to the game, but one more share can’t hurt. I mean, everyone likes it. What’s not to like?

Except. You scroll down a few inches and then you see it, linked by that incredibly hip and cutting-edge friend of yours.

The Not Okay Post. That shining beacon of light in an ocean of sheeple drones, mindlessly sharing articles without a second thought to how it might affect this particular sexual/ethnic/differently-abled minority. The lone voice intelligent and brave enough to call everyone else out on their Privilege.

You follow the link, because your hip and cutting-edge friend is always worth reading. You scan down a few lines and are suddenly filled with shock and horror at your own ignorance. Were you really just about to share that terrible, terrible article? How could you possibly have thought it was cute, or validating, or brilliant, or inspiring, or consciousness-raising, or romantic, or empowering, or cathartic, or funny at all?! That article is none of those things. And it is definitely. Not. Okay.

For a moment, you despair of your own humanity. But then you realize. You can fix this! Because, thank the powers that be, you didn’t share that article yet! By fate and serendipitous timing, you were just slow enough not to have jumped on the initial wave of likes and shares, but just fast enough to have caught the Not Okay before it takes off. By tomorrow, this will be all anyone is talking about, and you can be among the first. This is your chance to be on the Right Side of History!

You press the “share” button on the Not Okay link. And just like that, you have gone from unconcerned amusement, to horrified self-deprecation, to smug self-righteousness. All in a few seconds.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Because I am here to tell you that this behaviour is Not Okay.

Has it never occurred to you that the people who share these articles, and especially the ones who write them, are, in their zeal to denigrate every trend that goes around, simply following another trend? Beneath the caring facade, those authors are nothing more than attention-seekers, their obsession with picking out politically-incorrect details just a cheap way to rocket themselves into the spotlight on the coat-tails of a pre-existing phenomenon.

I know this to be true, because I am a Critic. And Critics, as we all know, unquestionably know the motive and intention of every author they encounter.

So next time you go to hit the share button on that Not Okay article (or, even more so, to write one yourself) please, think again. By doing so, you’re only proving yourself to be another mindless follower of another attention-seeking fad.

Instead, you should be cool, like me. I would never do something like that.

Strikes and Hikes

First, the disclaimers. I am an anglo-bilingual Québécoise who grew up in a small community just outside of Montreal. I am (God willing) graduating this summer from a professional Master’s program at McGill University, from which I was fortunate enough to obtain a job in my field almost immediately. Like many in my province, I grew up without any expectation that my parents would pay for my higher education. Unlike many, I have still managed to stay entirely out of debt due to scholarships, summer work and low housing costs. I am in many ways a beneficiary of the Quebec education system, and I do not take it for granted.

You can decide for yourself what that makes me, what biases have been incurred on me from this particular set of circumstances, and what they do or do not qualify me to say about the current situation. But I suppose if we only ever allowed ourselves to speak without biases, we would never speak. So here goes.

From talking to some of the students involved, it seems to me that the main issue for many is not even the tuition hikes specifically, but the attitude of disrespect toward our generation that was implied in the government’s action. In this, I believe the students are justified. The casualty with which the hikes were announced sent a clear message: the government needs money, and we are willing to take it from a demographic that is largely below voting age and that seems relatively apathetic and politically expendable. The students’ response: not without a fight.

Honestly, Mr. Charest, were you surprised? Let me spell it out for you: my generation is pissed off. From an early age we are instilled with the belief that a university education is the only way to get ahead in life. Once we get there, we are labeled as lazy and entitled ingrates who know nothing about the real world. And when we finally graduate, many of us are faced with the realization that we are marginally, if at all, more employable than we were 3-4 years and several thousand dollars earlier. Add to that the current general atmosphere of discontent among youth around the world, and it’s not difficult to see why any addition to student debt at a time like this is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

"But Quebec Tuition is the lowest in Canada!"

Yes, gotcha. Y’all have made that abundantly clear. Only the relevant question is not how different provinces compare, but whether it makes sense to compare them. Quebec society, for better or worse, is distinct from the rest of the country in more than our schooling costs. I mentioned earlier that I have benefited, enormously, from the Quebec education system. I also realize that this benefit comes at a cost, and that cost has never been more apparent than now, as I begin my career. Working in public sector health care, I can expect to make roughly half the salary of a colleague in Alberta, while also paying higher taxes, professional order membership fees, etc. I am not (too) bitter about this, because I realize there is a natural tradeoff of living in a more socialist state: sometimes you benefit from the system, other times you give back.

This is not to say that socialism is the best system in the world, or even that it’s working particularly well in this province (after all, by this reasoning we should have the best health care, education and infrastructure on the continent. Hahahaha.). But here’s the thing: we’re not talking about changing the entire system. From the students’ perspective, we are now being asked to finance a larger proportion of our education ourselves, while still expecting lower salaries and higher taxes for the rest of our lives - essentially, removing some of the benefit without changing the cost. This, you may have noticed, is a good way to make people angry, and trite comparisons with provinces or countries that operate on an entirely different philosophy are unlikely to help. 

All that said - this is the part where I contradict myself - I am not necessarily opposed to tuition increases in principle. The reality is that our institutions need money, that money needs to come from somewhere, and the current financial situation of many universities does not seem sustainable. I would venture to suggest that a majority of students recognize this, and might even be willing to pay more if they thought it would have concrete advantages. 

Why, then, are so many students so vehemently opposed to the hike? Because while there may be compelling reasons to support an increase, the Quebec government has done a spectacularly bad job of explaining them, mainly because it hasn’t tried. I believe, maybe naively, that a lot of the current tension could have been avoided at the outset if the Charest administration had simply begun the process by treating students as partners in the decision, as valued citizens and as human beings. Politicians could have respectfully sat down with student leaders to explain the proposal and its rationale, to accept feedback, and, most importantly, to make concrete promises about how students would benefit directly. I can think of several uses of extra funds that would make tuition increases palatable, or even attractive, to many students. Just a few of them:

• Better infrastructure (removing the toxic mold in the lab I’ve been working in would be a good start)
• More scholarships and student aid (both merit-based and need-based)
• Higher TA salaries
• More student employment opportunities on campus
• Better counseling and career placement services
• More funding for student research and internship programs
• Improved laboratory facilities, computers and technical equipment
• Increased funding to student clubs and services
• Higher salaries and benefits for support staff (many students supported the MUNACA strike at McGill last fall)

But of course, this is not what happened. Instead, we are simply asked to trust that our money will be well handled by - who? The Quebec government, currently suspected of corruption at every level? The universities, so well-known for their financial integrity? Students are skeptical that they will ever see the effects of the increased costs - and really, who can blame them?

Here’s a thought: if you want a plan to be accepted by the affected population, make it attractive to them. For heaven’s sake, at least make an effort.



To the Students
While I have sympathy for many of the students' grievances, they too have made tactical decisions that I believe could be improved. I'm no expert in this area, but for what it's worth, this would be my advice to student activists.


1. Know where you stand

In the first place, I think it’s important to recognize that the whole concept of a “student strike” is built on somewhat shaky ground, politically and practically. The concept behind a workers’ strike is fairly simple: providing an essential service gives employees the power to withhold their labor until they feel they are being treated fairly. The idea of a boycott is similar, because consumers also have a kind of power whereby they can withhold their financial support from a service provider. In both cases, the institution in question needs the cooperation of the protesters to exist, and is thus pressured into meeting their demands. In contrast, a student strike falls into neither of these categories: in this case, consumers are refusing to take advantage of a service they have already payed for. It’s like buying groceries and then refusing to eat them.



Even with their simple rationale, real-world strikes and boycotts quickly become complicated as the involved parties are embroiled in differing perceptions of benefit and need. And if this is a problem in such straightforward cases, how much more will it affect a situation where the link between action and outcome is much less direct? The best rationale I can think of for a student “strike” goes something like this: by failing to attend classes for long enough, students disrupt the functioning of the institutions, who will in turn pressure the government to negotiate. A similar line of reasoning holds that by delaying a semester, the students withhold a cohort of graduates that the workforce needs. Both these justifications are based on rather questionable assumptions: that the universities will retaliate upward (toward the government) rather than downward (toward the students) for any inconvenience, and that the job market is eagerly awaiting the next influx of undergraduate arts majors.    


Either way, however, it's pretty clear who will be most affected by the situation. Sure, the government may be a little hurt by all of this. The universities and CEGEPs might feel it slightly more, logistically if not financially. But the ones who will be hit the hardest are certainly the students themselves - incomplete semesters, wasted tuition fees, disrupted internships and summer jobs, delayed graduation. Yes, this makes the strike an admirable act of self-sacrifice. But it also puts the students at a major disadvantage in their bargaining position: the longer the strike continues, the more disproportionately they will suffer relative to the other party. The longer I refuse to eat my groceries, the hungrier I become and the higher the likelihood they will spoil. What incentive does the store (or the government) have to give in rather than simply waiting me out?


This is not to say that striking is invalid or completely ineffective; indeed, you may argue that it is the only course of action available to students. Fair enough. However, it's important to make demands proportional to your level of advantage - otherwise, you risk your opponents simply calling your bluff and refusing all negotiations.


2. Pick your battles
On a related note, it's essential to make clear demands that focus on the issue at hand. You may genuinely believe that education should be universally free, that tuition should be equal for local and international students, or even that the entire economic system needs to be overthrown. But you've had years to protest these things - why only bring them up now, when there is a much more immediate concern to address?


Holding extreme positions of this sort can only detract from the students' cause. When many student associations across the province (including the McGill Arts Undergraduates) voted against the strike, what they objected to was a motion that made this type of radical demands. Who knows how much more support the movement could have gathered if they had aimed to simply unite students in protest of this one specific instance of tuition hikes, rather than tying themselves to a much larger and more controversial ideology? In addition, this approach only plays into the popular perception of students as unreasonable extremists, making them less likely to be taken seriously as partners in negotiation.


3. Don't be an orange cone
Peaceful assembly and protest is, of course, a civil right and a legitimate means of expression. But like anything else, it loses efficacy with overuse.


Montreal is certainly in a protesting mood this year. It's gotten to the point where, hearing a crowd approaching on Sherbrooke street, I have to mentally run through the list of possibilities: Is this MUNACA? The 6th Floor Party? Occupy Montreal? Anti-Police Brutality? Tuition Hikes? Montréal En Français? Unemployment? Yoga for Peace? The Plan Nord? Earth Day? Or just a hockey game? (Alright, that last was less of an issue this year. Maybe that's just as well).


The point is, I and others are becoming desensitized to all this activity - it has practically become just another traffic disturbance we resign ourselves to, like the endless pilons that dot our highways. This is not necessarily the fault of any specific group, but it is a problem. As protesters, your worst enemy in this conflict is not public outrage but public apathy, which has the power to deprive you of all influence. Possibly something to consider when planning daily or nightly marches.


4. Take the moral high ground
This should really, really go without saying. Hurling smoke bombs and vandalizing property are all very exciting, but they're not (or at least, shouldn't be!) how conflicts are resolved in the 21st century. That's all that needs to be said about that.


Most of the protesters have - rightly - been quick to distance themselves from fringe groups using violent or destructive means. Nevertheless, I would love to see a more concerted effort among mainstream activists toward true nonviolent resistance. Some student leaders have been excellent at this - last week's silent march was a good example. Others, not so much.


Think about it: the best defence in any conflict is to defy the expectations of one's opponent. Right now, the media, the government and much of society expect student protesters to be aggressive, emotional, naïve, violent and unreasonable - and any act that can be seen as confirming this perception will only strengthen it further. It's not fair, but it is the reality. The only effective response to this bias is to prove it wrong, beyond any doubt - in other words, to be unfailingly calm, rational, informed, mature, articulate and courteous, all while holding firm in your position. This may at times mean not dealing as you have been dealt, but actually setting the example for a new level of interaction. If the government makes what you think is an unreasonable proposal, counter it with a thoroughly reasonable one. If a motorist swears at you for blocking traffic, calmly explain what you are doing and when the road will be clear (then walk away). If the police overreact with riot gear and crowd control measures, make sure they have no excuse to use them - and that they are unequivocally in the wrong if they do. Show respect even toward those who don't respect you (i.e., not this). In short, if you believe you have the moral high ground, act like it; if you are utterly above reproach, society will have no choice but to listen. 


I realize this is a lot to ask, and it is is probably - ok, definitely - not going to happen. But oh, just imagine how things might be different if it did?


Common ground?
So, is there any hope for a mutually agreeable end to this conflict?


I'd like to think so. But it will depend entirely on both parties setting aside their pride and need to "win."


There are two basic ways to approach a conflict. The first is for both sides to dig in their heels and make increasingly more extreme demands, in the hopes that an eventual "concession" will be closer to what they wanted in the first place. This can work, tactically. But it generally results in a compromise that leaves both parties dissatisfied and ultimately sets the stage for future conflicts on the same issue.


The second approach is to temporarily put aside the actual terms and demands of the conflict and focus on the core values that underly them. What this requires from both sides - which is not easy at all - is a willingness to listen respectfully to the other and to work together toward the heart of the issue. But once the true non-negotiables of each are revealed, they just might turn out to be compatible after all.


In the current situation, what would a conversation like this look like? I imagine the students would talk about educational accessibility - maintaining high enrolment and graduation rates, and equal representation among socioeconomic classes. They might stress the importance of minimizing debt in a generation already facing a difficult economy - after all, individual debt is a poor prognostic indicator for society and the economy as a whole. And they would hopefully focus on the need for efficiency and financial accountability from institutions, so that the money allotted them reaches the true areas of need.


The government, on the other hand, is likely to focus more on larger societal issues. They want Quebec universities to be not only accessible but also high-quality, so that they can continue to enjoy a world class reputation and help graduates compete in the current economy. They want education (and other social services) to be available not just now but for future generations, and they realize this requires financial sustainability. Just as the students recognize the danger of personal debt, the government sees the perils of institutional and provincial debt, which serves no one in the long run.


Well golly gee, we want that, too.


So, how do we work together to accomplish all of these things? A good place to start would be to look at the facts. Does increasing the cost of education really affect enrolment rates? If so, why does Quebec still have lower enrolment than most other provinces - and what can be done about it? What would students consider an acceptable reason to raise tuition, at least for those who can afford it? Which socioeconomic classes can afford it? Which will be hit hardest by the hike, and how can this be offset by bursary programs? How much could universities (or the government!) potentially save by making their bureaucracy more efficient? And how can we help new graduates find jobs and manage their debt effectively?


Working through these deeper issues is an admittedly long and painful process - but is it any more so than what has until now amounted to a 12-week stalemate? And, wouldn't it be great if we could actually gain something from all this - if we could work toward a society where the government and people view each other not as enemies but as partners in achieving common goals?


After all, who says learning only happens in the classroom?