Make no mistake, I am opposed to deregulation. The AMS is also opposed to deregulation—in fact, they are constitutionally mandated to oppose deregulation. Despite the existence of the regulation/deregulation debate for the last ten years, despite the time bought for all to assess the current academic landscape through the tuition freeze (due to expire this September), and despite the presence of deregulated faculties prior to the freeze on our own campus, there continues to be a profound and fundamental oversimplification of the tuition quandary.
“I am opposed to deregulation” has become a phrase drilled into the minds of students to the point where it is a Pavlovian reflex. It is the mantra of almost all students at this campus, and for good reason: no one wants to see an increase in tuition. The fundamental problem is that other stakeholders, such as the University administration and the Ontario government, have tuned out the knee-jerk tendency of students to revert to the standard party line. Just opposing deregulation has become a cliché. It is neither radical nor revolutionary, it’s par for the course.
The majority of students, who are well-intentioned and intelligent, should not be blamed for buying into the simplistic binary of deregulation/regulation. Rather, blame should be placed on the unscrupulous few who have condensed a highly nuanced concept into a sound bite. Student politicians and students at large share an equal membership in this clique, and it is up to the rest of the well-intentioned and intelligent students to crack it.
There are several myths that easily fit into the purist anti-deregulation stance. The first myth is regulated tuition is infallible. When asked to choose between a deregulated faculty and a regulated faculty, students predictably select the latter. This choice, however, ignores the notion that a “regulated” tuition framework would lead to significant increases in their tuition over the four years of an undergraduate career. Let’s conservatively choose a six per cent increase of tuition. If your tuition was $4,000 in your first year, by fourth year you would have paid a total of $1,498.46 more over four years than if your tuition had been frozen. In other words, an unreasonably “regulated” tuition framework could hardly be claimed as a student victory.
Another myth is that Principal Hitchcock holds the keys to deregulation. Until the official post-freeze framework is announced, the only person who can open the tuition floodgates is Dalton McGuinty by way of Queen’s Park. Principal Hitchcock is lobbying for “locally-set tuition” (which is in some ways just another term for deregulation), just as the AMS and OUSA are lobbying against deregulation, as well as for a tuition cap, a robust government investment in financial aid and much more government funding.
The final myth is that all students oppose deregulation. Believe it or not, some students, particularly those in previously regulated faculties such as Applied Science and Commerce, are in favour of deregulation. Commerce and engineering students face challenges that are markedly different from Arts and Science students. In an increasingly globalized context, the quality of one’s training matters far more than the cost of the delivery of that training—provided that it is accessible.
We have been quick to label the concept of “locally-set tuition” as a euphemism for deregulation, but I believe that there is more. This semantic shift is a subtle adjustment in the attack strategy of the administration. Rather than reverting to the tired question of deregulation, Queen’s is making a case to the Ontario government that the administration should be able to set tuition locally because they best know the conditions that are affecting this university. This is an appealing notion to the government. Rather than costing the taxpayers billions of dollars and issuing centrally planned decrees from the politburo in Toronto, universities would be allowed to adjust their tuition levels according to their strategic plans and market forces.
For students, this would be disastrous. A Statistics Canada report released Sept. 27, 2005 found that sudden and significant increases in tuition harms both lower-class and middle-class accessibility. But our response is only a predictable and ineffective statement that proclaims—yes, you guessed it—“we oppose deregulation, period.”
Deregulation is a buzzword. In the midst of this current campaign season it is all too easy to proclaim “We oppose deregulation.” Well done—give yourselves a pat on the back. You’re brilliant.
In reality, general statements about opposing deregulation are insufficient, and to drag the student discourse back to the simplistic dichotomy of regulation/deregulation is a disservice. We must move forward and begin discussing the real issues, such as preserving access while maintaining—or in my opinion, markedly improving—quality. Stop huffing and start talking, because September 2006 is only seven short months away.
————–
Pat Welsh is the AMS academic affairs commissioner.
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.