From the AMS Food Bank to the Peer Support Centre to the Sexual Health and Resource Centre (SHRC), Bill 33 jeopardizes essential student services, and equity measures in the admissions process.
Bill 33—the Supporting Children and Students Act—was introduced to the legislative assembly of Ontario on May 29 and is currently at its second reading. Section three, the Colleges and Universities Act, proposes sweeping changes for Ontario universities, including assessing admissions based on merit and allowing government regulation over student fees. These provisions are threatening for student-run organizations such as the AMS and the Society of Graduate and Professional Students (SGPS), which rely on student fees to support a variety of essential services—something that comes as a concerning symptom of government overreach in post-secondary institutions.
The AMS and SGPS are essential to the running of undergraduate and graduate student services such as Walkhome, the Peer Support Center, the Food Bank, Without these services, groups such as women and food-insecure students will face additional barriers to post- secondary. In Canada, 48 per cent of women are scared to walk alone at night, and 38 per cent of post-secondary students in Ontario are food insecure. Without mandatory fees, it is unlikely many students will support these services, which to some, are essential.
Just as student services address pressing safety and equity concerns, independent student journalism plays a critical role in campus accountability—both rely on student fees to function.
The Journal generates revenue from both AMS and SGPS student activity fees, without which publication operations would seriously be comprised. Reducing the University’s jurisdiction over student fees allocation jeopardizes vital elements of campus governance, including independent student journalism holding institutions and student government accountable to their actions.
In addition to monitoring student fees, Bill 33 emphasizes a merit-based admissions process, which would only make post-secondary education increasingly inaccessible to students from marginalized backgrounds.
Requiring post-secondary institutions to assess admissions based on merit and publish their admissions criteria risks important equity, diversity, and inclusion measures in the admissions process. It’s no secret that those from marginalized backgrounds face barriers to accessing postsecondary education. Requiring that admissions are based solely on merit neglects students who grew up with less access to education, ultimately enforcing the stereotype of post-secondary insitutions as aristocratic and elitist.
Bill 33 comes as a clear indication the lack of support for education from the Ford administration. The provincial government has already faced criticism for underfunding education, despite an increase in overall spending. Kingston and Islands Member of Provincial Parliament, Ted Hsu, warned The Kingston Whig Standard that Bill 33 is aligned with the Ford government’s overall neglect of university funding.
Concerningly, this decrease in support for academia follows the growing trend of anti-intellectualism in response to the populist movement taking root in North America. From Donald Trump’s reelection, to the Freedom Convoy and Pierre Poilievre’s popularity in Canada, it’s clear that populism in North America is on the rise—and with it comes a concerning movement away from academia and towards a society that’s positioned against intellectuals.
The climate of distrust towards academic institutions makes the overreaching elements of Bill 33 and ow they will be applied all the more troubling.
The government-regulated admissions and fee structures outlined in Bill 33 are worryingly vague, raising red flags about how this legislation would be implemented. Assessing applicants based on “merit” does little to define what merit is, while posing a threat to equity-deserving students.
Similarly, Section 21.1 of the Bill authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to determine what student fees are mandatory. Without clear guidelines on what this mandate is, many student services will be left unsure if they will be able to fund their operations, while groups on campus will be left without essential services.
Under the guise of accountability, Bill 33 threatens the autonomy of post-secondary institutions. The Bill’s vague language around merit-based admissions and fee-regulation opens the door to policies that jeopardize the needs of equity-deserving students.
As public trust in academia is increasingly undermined by populist rhetoric, Bill 33 sets a dangerous precedent for government interference in post-secondary education.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.