OPSEU Local 560

At the same time, Mary Youssef, a student at Humber College, went on a hunger strike to protest the poor quality of part-time teachers hired by the College.

Robert "Squee" Gordon, Humber’s President has admitted that Youssef is right.  "She has a point," he says, acknowledging that  College part-time wages cannot compete for quality persons.  But this did not deter Preisent Gordon from having Youssef forcibly removed from the campus by the police, dumped at York-Finch Hospital for ‘psychiatric evaluation’, and later arrested for trespassing when she returned to Humber to collect her belongings!

Youssef was concerned that inadequate preparation would not ready her for the competitive job market.   The average debt load of graduating students is now between $14,000 and $16,000, up 75% since 1990.  Snobelen increased the cap on loan forgiveness from $6,000 to $7,000, thereby deepening the debt burden.  No wonder Youssef is worried, and no wonder the university students are concerned about further increases. Students with limited financial resources, with dependents,  or from less affluent or less economically stable circumstances will be disadvant-aged.

And what are the students here at Seneca getting for their increased fees?  Fewer hours per week in nearly every course and fewer weeks of instruction every year,  more crowded classrooms, fewer hours with experienced full-time professors, more and more “peer” tutors and independent study time.  Oh yeah, and one gets a trip to the Orient with President Quinlan.

Our acknowledgment and recognition go to the dedicated faculty, support staff and, yes, even managers too who have done and continue to try to do their best in the face of increasingly difficult hurdles.  Our  support and sympathies go to Mary Youssef and those university and college students who speak and act out against the attack on educational quality at the post-secondary level in this province.

And for those who lead this attack and who execute it from their administrative perches, for their apologists and sycophants, for those so frighteningly out of touch with real student problems and concerns, for those driven by bottom-line instead of educational priorities, we have nothing but scorn, contempt, and condemnation. 

    But as Duke Steve spoke of enhancement and of commitment, of excellence and of growth, of cutting-edge technology and of the Asian market, the assembled multitude began to murmur.
“The washrooms stink!” cried one,  “They are a disgrace to the college and an affront to the senses!”

    “I hear you,” said Duke Steve “and while I personally have a private ensuite washroom that is a great pleasure to dwell in, I share your pain.  We have meditated on solutions, and feel certain all problems will be eliminated after we lay off more employees and rework the contract so that those remaining will labour longer on diminished  salaries.”

    “The computer networks are garbage!” shouted another, “The machines break down and are not repaired, the software is inadequate, the initial design was flawed, and professional support is non-existent.”

    “All is under control,” intoned Duke Steve, “Faculty who protested about these things have been punished.  We have laid off half the technical staff, and removed faculty from labs.  This has had a positive effect on the bottom line and brought peer tutoring into the mainstream of the curriculum.”

    “But our peers know little and cannot answer our questions,” said the scholar, “and prefer to talk on the phone than to assist us.”

    Duke Steve pondered, and with great patience he proclaimed, “You clearly do not understand the thrust of our forward planning. Grades are not important these days. If you learn little, if the course content is simplified, if pass levels are lowered, if the semester is shortened, if stress levels rise, it matters little.  Our enrollment will increase, as will our graduation rate. Count Tony will explain.”

    The worthy Count lifted his head, writhed in discomfort for some moments, and then delivered a stirring indictment of the discredited custom of retaining teachers in classrooms, “The White Paper and Amundson offer irrefutable proof,” he concluded.

    And so the communications session, suggested by Duke Steve’s communications consultant, proceeded, and the multitude grew more incensed.  Count Tony and Count Brian grew greatly uncomfortable, for they sensed that things were not going as planned.  Duke Steve was confused, for the masses did not seem to understand that he was being relevant and progressive.  Count Wayne said nothing, for he saw before him the beginning of the end.

    But Baron Farid secretly smiled and pondered these events in his heart,  for he thought that in three years he would be duke and would possess the key to the ensuite washroom.

    York University faculty, through their union, the York University Faculty Association, YUFA, have been attempting to negotiate a new contract.  Having met with nothing but intransigence from York Administration, faculty went out on strike on March 20.

    The key issues in the strike won’t surprise college teachers, for they are comparable to our issues in the current round of college bargaining:

• Fairness in education: As college teachers, we have often looked to the universities for appropriate workload models,  for there seemed to be some respect there for education as a process, not a commodity.  Well, the times they are a changin’: York administration  continues to suck in the customers, charging them more and offering them less.  Class sizes have increased, libraries are understaffed,  and faculty workloads have increased.  In addition, the administration has also resorted to the use of untested, unsupported and unilaterally imposed technological "innovations"  in teaching.  So much for academic freedom and quality education.  York faculty are asking for strengthened workload controls and co-determination in the introduction of new teaching technology, with adequate training and financial support when new technology is introduced.

• Fairness in governance: More control over academic matters is one of the key demands of community college faculty in this current round of contract negotiations. From our perspective, universities have always seemed to possess the advantage of a collegial governance model, where faculty are actively involved in university decision making, particularly academic decision making.  However, York faculty have been subjected to increasingly centralized decision making by management, and York has moved further away from the collegial model. Grievances have increased, and administrators have taken unilateral steps towards privatizing the university and the curriculum.  Increasingly, administrators are making unilateral financial and budgetary decisions and are capriciously withholding financial information to frustrate faculty involvement.

• Fairness in compensation: York has slipped from 4th place to 12th place among Ontario universities in faculty compensation, even though the Toronto region is Ontario’s most expensive area to live in.  York salaries are also inequitable internally, with anomalies based on gender, age, and discipline/faculty.  YUFA proposes a modest catch up and funding to redress internal inequities.

    1. Do you like the new academic year (three 14-week semesters, with the option of  7-week compressed modules)?
 

• “Of course not!  How could I be expected to carry the same load in such a short time?  Downsizing may well be a very popular phenomenon these days, but downsizing education is not the right thing to do.”
• “Shorter school periods result in less learning.  Many activities may be skipped.”
• “I can’t handle the seven-week compressed semester.”
• In a seven-week semester, “students may not be able to absorb all the materials.”
•  “I had to be here over the summer, which means I have been coming in non-stop since January, 1996.  I feel like I’m burning out.  A break is needed in order for the brain to continue absorbing new information.”
• “I don’t like the new structure.  Having school all year round is a little too much.  Many students are struggling to pay for their tuition, books, and transportation.  Working during the summer is when we have time to make money so that we can pay for everything. If we can’t work, how can we pay?"
• Most students disliked the shorter semesters. Those who liked the idea of “fast tracking” their studies, nonetheless stressed that this should be an option, not a requirement.

    2. Do you like the new “teacherless classroom” where the college has removed the professor from the classroom and substituted “electronic” instruction via computerized learning modules, e-mail, or the Internet?

• “TEACHERS ARE ESSENTIAL!”
• “I don’t think any machine could make the student understand the way a teacher can.”
• “Machines cannot replace teachers.”
• “No.  I prefer a teacher to teach as he/she can explain in detail, and I can also ask questions in case
• I don’t understand.”
• “Feedback from teachers is very important.”
•  “A teacher’s presence in the classroom is more effective.”
• “An electronic instructor cannot give the students all the confidence they need.”
• “A teacherless classroom lacks discussion and human contact.”
• “A teacher can interact with the class on a personal basis, and can tell if the students need more time
• or instruction in certain areas.”
• “We paid money … to get teachers’ assistance, not some computer.”
• “Definitely not!  If so, students could just stay home and do their work.  If there are no professors, we might as well just shut down all the post-secondary schools!  The professor is there to guide the student.”
• Definitely not!  When I make phone calls, I find it frustrating to reach a voice-mail. I prefer to talk to a person than to a machine.  How much more important it is when it comes to my education!  The only comfort is that I will be graduating soon, and hope that I will never again be part of this lifeless education system.”
• “I truly hate classrooms with no teachers.  Computers intimidate me, and fill-in instructors are so useless that their presence becomes unnecessary.  I need to be taught by a qualified teacher to ensure that I am learning.”
• “It’s much harder to learn without a teacher.”
• "In the teacherless classroom, “students will not have a chance to develop the interpersonal skills which are a necessity to function effectively with others.”
• “I thrive on ‘person-to-person’ interaction.”
• “We may have many difficulties in the process of self-learning.”
• One student liked “the opportunity to learn at my own pace, “ but stressed “if this is going to continue, then the tutors should be more helpful with the questions students have.”

• “Absolutely useless.”
• “Classroom tutors are not qualified enough to replace the professor.”
• “I have never needed tutors because professors have explained everything thoroughly before I began the work.”
• “Since they are not specialized in the areas I’m studying, the tutors can’t specifically answer my questions.”
• “When I actually had a question, I was better off asking a friend.”
• “The tutor did not provide any help we needed.  She just sat there in the classroom, and whenever she was asked a question, she was never able to answer.”
•  “Tutors are very useless and do nothing and say nothing all class long. I think they are there to make sure none of the equipment gets stolen.”
• “Sometimes the tutors are rude and refuse to help.”
• “Not all the technicians provide class ‘A’ service. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out their attitude.
• More improvement is needed!!”
• “Some of them don’t know how to teach.  Just say what they like.”
• “Some are there just to get paid for their job.”
• “Some tutors just stood around and didn’t help.”
•  “I paid to have a good teacher, not a tutor (using very bad language), for my computer program.”
• “We paid for our courses.  Therefore, we need someone who is willing to help us, not  someone calling us bad words like ‘Kiss my ass’ (Sorry) when we ask questions.”
• “He was okay, except he always brought his friends to the room and made noise.”
• “A teacher would be much better.”
• “The technicians might have good knowledge about computers, but they cannot teach!!”
• “Just isn’t good enough.  We need someone who can properly explain the work, answer some questions, and be able to explain all aspects of the work.”

•  “The College has to stop compromising the quality of its education, and it is time it stood up for its students.  You can’t expect to cut everything, from weeks of study to essential student services, and expect students to be successful.  I expect the college not only to say ‘Enough is enough,’ but also to restore what has been lost to cuts on education.”
• Students singled out many professors for praise, suggesting they are Seneca’s major asset.
• “The best thing the College can do is keep the professors. I feel more comfortable having a teacher than electronic instruction.”
•  “Lower the tuition fee and the prices of books.”
• “No more raise in the tuition fee.”
• “More time, adequate funds.”
• “The College shouldn’t compress the semester.”
• “I prefer a 16-week semester.”
• “Cancel ICA 001 from the program.  Raise the number of hours spent on each course.”
•  “The College should help you before you start your program to help you make sure that it is the right program for you.”
• “Talk more on how to learn because some students have been out of school for a long time.”
• “Provide more assistance and information to the students.”
•  “More teacher and student communication.”
•  “Make our courses more similar to university programs.  That way we can get credit for it when we decide to attend university.  After all, we are not in high school any more.”
• “General education classes should be a part of the program.”
• “The College should provide more history and English classes to prepare students well for the future.”
•  “Listen to our needs.  If it weren’t for us (the paying students) then there wouldn’t be a school.”
• “Ask students for comments … to improve the teaching and learning environments.”
•  “The College could get a survey done from students and work on the ideas, whether negative or positive.”
• “Give far more notice to students about changes.  Give students votes and opinions.  Correct classroom space for students.”

    Students at Mesa College in Phoenix, Arizona have massively rejected that college’s experiment in 100% computer-based course delivery, according to Professors and managers at Mesa.   A Seneca professor checked out firsthand the much ballyhooed success of the Arizona College.  Mesa College is a member of the Maricopa Colleges of  Arizona with whom Seneca College management regularly consults on educational matters.

    Here is what we learned.

    The Business Administration Department of Mesa College offered “open-entry, open-exit” courses, delivered totally via computer programs, with no professor available for instruction or feedback. Computer Information Services, for instance, was their equivalent to Seneca’s ICA 001.
However, in the face of complaints,  the department decided to offer students the alternative of taking such computer-training courses in the traditional mode, delivered by a professor.
Seventy percent of students chose the “professor” versus the “machine”. They wanted personalized guidance, motivation, and feedback.  Continuing-education students, perhaps constrained by job schedules or family responsibilities, were those most likely to choose the independent 100% computer-based learning  option.

    Nowadays, Mesa College not only employs professors to deliver these computer courses, but also schedules professors (as opposed to untrained technicians) in its open-area computer labs to assist students working on assignments outside class time.
In its decision to proceed with courses such as ICA 001 which exclude the involvement of professors,  Seneca College has deliberately chosen to disregard the Mesa College experience.  It seems the model fits only when it meets Seneca’s fiscal agenda.  Monetary considerations apparently take precedence over students’ pedagogical needs and preferences.

    Take the assertion that the move to cut the fifth year of high school is based on our work. It’s true we recommended that year be eliminated, but only within an overall context that you have deliberately repudiated. We called for a revamped education system beginning with voluntary early childhood education (ECE) for all 3-year olds and upgraded junior kindergarten taught by specially trained teachers. As a mountain of research makes overwhelmingly clear, children who've had the benefit of ECE gain superior academic, social and psychological skills that improve their chances for success both in school and in life. In fact one of the most exciting successes of ECE is to make young kids enthusiastic about the very idea of schooling.

    The value-added of early childhood education, we concluded, would allow a revamping of the entire school curriculum from grade 1 on that would be far more advanced and challenging that anything possible now. By the time students completed grade 12, they'd actually be further ahead than they are now after 13 years. That's why we argued that Ontario should do away with that final year, with the money saved going towards the funding of early childhood education.

    But what does Ontario get from your government? First, Mike Harris, when our report came out, states that our ECE proposal was "the stupidest single recommendation" he'd ever heard - a statement as ignorant as ever a politician has uttered. Then you make junior kindergarten an option for each school board to decide on individually. And finally you slash grants to those boards guaranteeing that all but the richest abolish their JK programs. (By the way, I assume you've now briefed the premier on the report issued two months ago by the Carnegie Foundation, the prestigious American research organization, adding its voice to those who call for high quality pre-school programs for all 3- and 4-year olds.)

    Let's set the record straight, Mr. Minister. Every part of this is diametrically opposed to what we recommended, and you have no right to associate any of it with our report.
Let me go further. We spent a great deal of time studying the best ways to achieve change in a system as vast and complex as the Ontario education system. Our conclusions were clear. Major changes cannot be expected to happen swiftly. Thorough preparation and planning is crucial. The involvement of all concerned stakeholders is imperative. The enthusiastic cooperation of the classroom teacher is absolutely critical. No policy, we concluded, however sensible it might seem in isolation, can be implemented effectively under any other circumstances.

    Yet you have, once again, gone in exactly the opposite direction. You've chosen
 exactly the antithetical technique. As you promised, you've invented a crisis that comes close to de-stabilizing the entire system and all the stakeholders in it. Instead of building consensus, you've fomented division. Teachers are enraged, parents anxious, trustees fearful, the public bewildered. You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the furious words of the chair of the Toronto Board of Education, who complains that "rumours and insinuations about education have been seeping out of Queen's Park like toxic waste.... This [government's] commando style of governing with its press releases, media leaks, short timelines and no consultation has been detrimental to schools and their students.... Deliberately undermining the public's faith in its school system is unconscionable and unworthy."

    As you know, the writer, David Moll, describes himself as "a life-long Conservative." Other prominent Conservatives, like the chairs of the Peel Board of Education and the Metro Board of Education, have been equally scathing in their attacks. These criticisms from members of your own party reflect the non-partisan commitment to the public education system that has traditionally been shared by all political parties in Ontario. Our report too was a product of that non-partisan tradition. And that, no doubt, is why you are under attack today from all directions.

    As for mobilizing teachers behind the reforms they must implement, your record couldn't be plainer. Teachers are in a virtual state of war against you; I've been around the province and have never seen them more united and bitter. And no wonder. What have they gotten from you? Incessant threats of rolled-back salaries, slashed benefits, reduced preparation time - all have predictably succeeded in alienating, infuriating and increasing the burden on every teacher in this province. On top of this, you have pitted teachers against their boards just about everywhere. Instead of championing teachers as the indispensable key to better education for our kids, as our Commission stressed repeatedly, you and your government have deliberately chosen to target them as the enemy. No wonder an estimated 30-40% of all Toronto teachers gave up a day's pay to join the Toronto protest against your government's policies.

    We recommended that children with special needs continue to receive special attention; yet special education is being slashed. we recommended that adult education remain a priority - it's one of the great success stories of the decades; yet adult education is being slashed. We recommended a series of initiatives to offer kids in school more individual attention; yet class size is soaring everywhere. Everything that was most important to our vision of education you have violated.

    On top of that, you continue to exaggerate grossly how wretched our schools are, you belittle the important improvements of recent decades, and you insist in the face of accumulating evidence from everywhere in the province that your government's cuts to education haven't already done significant harm to our kid's learning.

    So please, stop pretending that your destructive work has any relationship to our report. stop using us to legitimate your actions. Stop misrepresenting our work. After consulting with thousands of Ontarians, and with no hidden agendas, our Commission offered some ideas for improving teaching and learning in Ontario so that schools could cope with their enormous burdens and with the neverending changes around them. You have violated the spirit and undermined much of the substance of our Report. You are in the process of inflicting severe damage on our schools, our kids, and the future of this province, and, as I intend to tell anyone who will listen, you have no right to pretend that we share any responsibility for this regrettable legacy.

Yours sincerely,
Gerald Caplan

• Action Planning: When the College asks for your professional expertise in formulating your area’s action plan, be sure all meetings and research/development time are recorded on your SWF, on an hour-for-hour basis, starting from the date the work commences. If the time allocated elapses before the work is completed, ask your manager either to provide you with additional time or to transfer the work to another individual.

•  Special Seminars: If your manager offers you a so-called “perk”, such as an opportunity to teach a seminar for a special group of business people, be sure the teaching and associated work is recorded on your SWF for the period in which you deliver the course. Even if the seminar  consists of only several  teaching hours, you know how much work is involved in the  preparation and follow-up. Therefore, your  labour should be recognized, and the course recorded as a new preparation and an additional section on your SWF, with class size, evaluation factors, and so on taken into consideration.

Don’t accept any offer of work that will not be recorded on your SWF; otherwise, you will be cheating yourself out of full and proper reimbursement for your services. Your managers will always try to find the least expensive means of delivering packaged seminars, even if it means violating the Collective Agreement. Unless you  are vigilant, you will sell yourself short.

Providing our services free or at discount rates diminishes the value of our work.  It also invites further layoffs.
 

• Team Teachers, Technicians, Tutors: If you’re team teaching, be sure sufficient time is allocated on your SWF for meeting with your colleague(s) to plan and revise the course, discuss students and curriculum, perform shared administrative tasks, etc. Likewise, if your job requires providing direction to and/or receiving feedback from technicians or tutors, be sure the time is recorded on your  SWF.

• Class Size: The College usually does a day-ten enrolment check and adjusts SWFs in each 14-week semester. It may not always do so for subjects offered in seven-week  or shorter modules. In any case, regularly check your actual class numbers against those listed on your SWF.

• Back-to-Back Modules: Professors who teach a series of seven-week modules without the customary one-week break compare this exhausting experience to running a cassette tape on fast forward. Because their lead time to prepare for these modules is drastically reduced, such professors should consider, as a matter of equity, asking for additional preparation time on their SWFs.

• “Off-Cycle” Summer Teaching: No one should feel condemned eternally to teach in the July-August session. You are entitled to a two-month, uninterrupted  vacation in each contract year: September 1 to August 31. If you have not yet had your vacation, you may request your two-month vacation for any feasible time slot, including July-August. Summer teaching can only be assigned on consent or on a rotational basis.  If you think it’s time for you to rotate out of summer teaching, request this of your supervisor.  The College has an obligation to treat you equitably.

  ---

    However, all the oleaginous charm could not cover up the fact that for students, the Action Plan has been a disaster.

    De Sousa, at the January Seneca Academic Council meeting, asked  the Council to cooperate with the students in planning and conducting a student survey on the students’ experience with the shortened semester.  Management members of the Council tried to clamp a lid on this request, knowing that the last thing administration needs is the students siding with faculty on this issue.  But if reason and honesty prevail, side with faculty they will.

    De Sousa, who previously supported the College administration in its attempts to stifle the voice of the Academic Council, may now be  rethinking his view on the need for a strong and independent Council  as another voice for quality education.

    At the Council meeting, De Sousa reported a number of student complaints.  They maintain that  shorter semesters have resulted in an accelerated delivery of the curriculum, with subjects content cuts. As a result, students are having trouble keeping up with their course material.

     De Sousa reported that student morale has suffered.  The students in his program used to try  and achieve high grades, as a B grade was known to be a minimum requirement for entry into his program’s job market.  Now, in the face of  “subject speedup,” many have given up the attempt at a B, and are settling for a  passing grade.  Small wonder that students, having tasted the fruit of the Action Plan, find it bitter, and demand something better.

    A professor, faced with a cursing, belligerent student trying to enrol in her course at the end of the fourth week of classes, asked the student to leave the room. The student had already missed over 30% of the course, so she suggested that he enrol the following term.  The student claimed the college had been giving him the run-around.  He then reached out and fingered the professor, threatening her with comments such as, “I’ll be looking for you! You better go in the other direction if you see me coming!”

    Once informed, Seneca’s security officers acted promptly to safeguard the professor’s security.  As well, in accordance with college policy, they submitted their report of the “incident”, along with a copy of the professor’s report, to the Centre for Equity and Human Rights.

    An officer of the Centre requested a closed-door meeting with the professor.  Before the professor could utter more than a friendly greeting, the officer (having already met with the angry student) declared that the professor was clearly in breach of the College’s harassment/discrimination policy.   That he had not carefully read the reports submitted by the professor and the security officer was immediately evident. Eventually, with no apologies offered, he suggested that the case might take a different course, including advice to the student on acceptable classroom behaviour.

    As the target of the student’s fury, was the professor simply taking the rap for a series of administrative foul-ups which had left the student without  this important class four weeks into the session?  Whatever the case, the subsequent hasty charge of harassment was adding stunning insult to injury.

    This professor had grounds under the Canadian Criminal Code to charge an enraged student with assault, yet found herself the unwitting target of an investigation into alleged discrimination against the student.  Her experience serves as a reminder, once again, of the frequently inequitable and slipshod College treatment of faculty.

    This experience could happen to any one of us. We therefore issue this warning to all faculty:
Do not  communicate with personnel at the Centre for Equity and Human Rights unless advised/accompanied by a union representative

    Take precautions to reduce  threats to your safety and reputation.

• When an unpleasant incident occurs in  the workplace  (anywhere on College property or on an off-campus assignment), record an objective, accurate, and complete report of the events and individuals involved, as soon as you are able.
• If there are witnesses, ask them to write reports of the incident.
• If requested to attend a meeting to discuss the matter with your supervisor or an officer of the Centre for Equity and Human  Rights,  do not go alone.  Faculty members report much more equitable and respectful treatment when in the company of union reps.  Request that the meeting be scheduled to allow you to consult with and/or be accompanied by a union rep.
• Be aware that your supervisor must report all alleged incidents.  Ask for copies of all correspondence generated by the incident.  Ask to see what has been filed in your employee records. (Your official personnel file is in the Employee Relations office.  As well, your chair maintains  a file.)
• If you feel your personal safety is jeopardized by the presence on campus of an individual, communicate your concern clearly and immediately to the Security office.  In cases of perceived threat, they will escort the person off the campus or contact the individual at home to inform him/her not to  come on campus.  Otherwise, they will wait till the individual arrives on the campus to apprehend him/her.  If you see the individual on campus, alert Security immediately.  The College must take action to protect you, in accordance with both the Ontario Health and Safety Act and  College policy.
• If you feel you may have been the victim of an assault, speak with a member of the police force.  You may subsequently wish to file a report  or press charges.  In this case, your accurate written report of the incident, and any available witness reports will prove very helpful. 

  ---

    If you think you have a grievance, act promptly: you have 20 days from the time you discover or ought to know of a problem.

    Consult your area steward: both you and your steward can and should call the Chief Steward, Josef Stavroff at 491-5050, Ext.  2208, or the Union Office at 495-1599.  Remember that assistance in finding a solution to the problem, by  preparing and presenting a grievance or otherwise solving your problem, is only a phone call away.

Union Office —495-1599
Fax — 495-7573
Email — opseu560@idirect.com

    Reuters News Agency, reports this amazing conclusion from a study published by the  U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research, based on data collected in the U.S. from 1972 to 1991: “Employment itself may have an adverse impact on health, with job-related stress and hazardous working conditions taking their toll …  Joblessness … may give individuals more time to exercise, to prepare healthier meals or to schedule medical appointments for themselves or their dependants.” 

    It is rumoured that faculty at some of the soon-to-be-closed campuses are practicing hanging on to the sides of buildings by their fingernails in preparation for the move to Newnham and King.

    … that Arthur Burke, Director of Counseling and Special Needs apparently has founded a school for students with learning disabilities?  A worthwhile effort.  We look forward to his making it his full-time occupation.  Soon. 

    There is no doubt that students are going to need more financial assistance at Seneca.  The reduction of funding for the colleges, by the Harris government, the elimination of direct grants to students, and  the increases in tuition and other user fees by the government and the colleges mean that students will pay more for their education.

    Steve Quinlan now comes to faculty with cap in hand, asking us to fund the scholarship system.  Naturally, we want to help our students; some may wish to contribute. Whatever the case, there are some questions you may wish to put to Steve and the managers of Seneca Foundation:
Steve, haven't faculty already contributed:

• by  receiving no salary increase since 1991?
• by taking a reduction in real income since 1991 due to inflation?
• by absorbing reductions in lifetime earnings and pensions due to the Colleges’ refusal to restore the grid after the expiry of the Social Contract?
• by teaching more students in less time and for more of the academic year, as a result of the new academic year?
• by implementing all the top-down management decisions affecting the classroom, no matter how idiotic or ill-conceived they might be.

• trashed participative management ?
• restored authoritarian and despotic top-down management?
• tried to stifle the voice of faculty on academic issues by a cynical attempt to smash the Academic Council?
• instituted a labour-relations policy that encourages conflict rather than resolution of conflict?