logo
University sector concerned about Houston government's 'short-sighted' education bill

University sector concerned about Houston government's 'short-sighted' education bill

CBC28-02-2025

As the Nova Scotia government positions itself to take greater control over the province's 10 universities, some within the university community say the potential changes are "short-sighted" and part of "anti-democratic," "Trump-style politics" in the province.
Last week, the Progressive Conservatives introduced a bill that would link the university's funding decisions to the government's social and economic priorities. Bill 12 would allow the minister of advanced education to appoint up to half of the members of the university's board of governors, and force a university into a revitalization plan. The legislation also would allow the Nova Scotia Community College to grant degrees.
CBC News contacted all 10 universities in Nova Scotia requesting an interview, but none put someone forward. Spokespeople for some schools said they are still assessing the bill and it is too soon to comment, while others did not respond.
The president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Peter McInnis, said the tabling of the legislation blindsided administrators, including presidents, who were not warned of or consulted on the bill.
"It's a little bit of a, you know, unexpected surprise and not a pleasant one," he said in an interview with CBC News. "This seems to be picking up some of the more unsavoury trends across the country.… It seems to be part of a certain amount of anti-democratic legislation."
On Thursday, Advanced Education Minister Brendan Maguire said the province isn't asking universities to eliminate programs.
"One of the things that we said in the last bilateral agreement was we wanted more seats for health-care professions because we are in desperate need for health-care workers and we wanted them filled at 97 per cent and they were incentivized to do it," Maguire said.
"But in no circumstances will we be asking them to eliminate programs. Listen, they're their own entity. What we want to do is just work with them to make sure that they're filling what we need here in Nova Scotia."
Linking funding to government priorities
McInnis, who teaches in the history department at St. Francis Xavier University, said tying funding to government interests is "a short-sighted approach" because "political priorities may shift with the wind."
He gave the example of the University of Calgary, which at one time increased its focus on the oil and gas sector, but when that declined, enrolment dropped.
"So it was very difficult to forecast what's going to be valuable."
Cathy Conrad, the president of the Saint Mary's University Faculty Union, is a professor in the geography and environmental studies department.
She said she has worked for 25 years to oversee the development of climate change programs at SMU, and worries about the impact of the legislation on her field of study, and others that may not align with government priorities.
"If environmental stewardship is not a priority of this government … then what does that mean for programs that are based on evidence and need and social justice? Does that mean that these programs will no longer have funding and instead we should be focusing our priorities on extractive economic priorities related to mining and fracking?"
Conrad and McInnis worry that if the government wants universities to focus on applied research or studies that help fill labour market needs and have a more immediate return on investment, that could affect funding for the arts and humanities.
Conrad said humanities are not always appreciated, but she said a well-rounded, expansive understanding of our world is crucial to respond to, for instance, U.S. President Donald Trump's threats related to Canada becoming a 51st state.
"If we don't understand our history and the philosophy and the psychology and the sociology of how it is historically — and actually relatively recent history — we don't know how to move and navigate ourselves into this new world that we're finding ourselves in very quickly."
Conrad said the bill itself "feels and reads very much like Trump-style politics, which is really troubling."
Board of governors appointees
Both McInnis and Conrad said they are also concerned about the possibility of the government appointing up to half the members of university boards of governors.
Boards are responsible for making decisions about budgets, capital projects, new faculties or faculty reductions, and are also effectively the boss of the university president. If 50 per cent of members were appointed by the government, it would "tip the balance" to approving what politicians want, McInnis said.
Maguire said he won't be picking board members. He said the province will collaborate with universities to find the right people for the job.
McInnis said while administrators and board members at universities come and go, it's the faculty members who are in their profession for decades, and who bring their expertise to benefit the university boards.
"[Boards] need to be advised and how best to do that from the people that are on the ground actually teaching the courses and doing the research."
McInnis added that if it's accountability the government wants, that already exists through a peer-review system for funding decisions at universities.
Merger worries
As part of the bill, universities deemed to be in financial trouble could be mandated to undergo a "revitalization plan." The government could withhold funding from those institutions until they've created an acceptable plan charting a way forward.
McInnis said he worries it could mean the government is considering merging universities, which he said would detract from how schools serve their communities.
David Westwood, president-elect of the Dalhousie Faculty Association, expressed alarm over the bill, writing in a statement that universities are "already crumbling" as the result of inadequate public funding.
"Increasingly, public funds to PSE [post-secondary education] come with strings attached, as provincial governments attempt to steer institutions to meet their own mandate and priorities through threats to withhold or even reduce core funding," wrote Westwood, a professor of kinesiology.
"Public institutions are being gutted or eliminated in real time, and democratic values are under threat as power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few."
Provincial funding for Dalhousie, he noted, has fallen to below 50 per cent of the university's operating budget, with the rest coming mainly from tuition fees.
"One can scarcely consider Dalhousie to be a public institution any longer," he said.
Maguire said he has no desire to merge universities in Nova Scotia.
"What we want to do is make sure that they are viable and sustainable for the long term … And one of the things that we want to put in place is just, you know, like warnings. So we know in advance if they're going down a path of insolvency," Maguire said.
Maguire said there are some universities that are facing financial troubles and the province wants to ensure there are "stopgaps" before it gets worse.
"If they're going down a path of potential insolvency or they're going down a path of great debt, we can work with them
with the tools they need to make sure that they're sustainable. This is all it's about. We don't want any of our universities to go away. In fact, we want them to grow," he said.
Auditor general's report coming soon
The province's auditor general's office is finalizing its report on whether the Department of Advanced Education is effectively monitoring and holding universities to account for public funds.
That report is scheduled to be released on March 4.
Universities in the province receive $380 million a year in operational funding, plus $43 million for specific programming.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Winnipeg Free Press

time29 minutes ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations
Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations

Toronto Star

timean hour ago

  • Toronto Star

Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranians again face a U.S. travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump, with the decision drawing anger, frustration and some shrugs given the decades of tensions between the countries. Trump imposed a similar ban during his first term before withdrawing America unilaterally from Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, under which Iran drastically limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations
Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations

Winnipeg Free Press

timean hour ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Iranians react to new Trump travel ban as tensions are high between nations

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranians again face a U.S. travel ban imposed by President Donald Trump, with the decision drawing anger, frustration and some shrugs given the decades of tensions between the countries. Trump imposed a similar ban during his first term before withdrawing America unilaterally from Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, under which Iran drastically limited its program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But when he returned to the White House and began seeking a new deal with Iran, it saw the country's rial currency improve and stocks rise, but worries have grown as its government appears poised to reject an initial American proposal. The travel ban has further darkened that mood and led Iranians to fear Trump will lump the nations' 80 million people alongside of its theocratic government even after he's repeatedly praised them while seeking a deal. People walk past a state-sponsored anti-U.S. mural painted on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, May 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) 'Now I understand that Trump is against all Iranians, and his attitude is not limited to the government,' said Asghar Nejati, a 31-year-old man working in a Tehran pharmacy. Even in the years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, Iranian students traveled to the U.S. to attend universities. Between 2018 to 2024, an average of around 10,000 Iranian students went to the U.S. annually. Estimates suggest some 1 million Iranian-origin people live in the U.S. today. Mehrnoush Alipour, a 37-year-old graphic designer, said the nations could have better relations if they could spoke to each other in softer tones. 'This is another foolish decision. Trump cannot reach his goals by imposing pressures on ordinary Iranians,' she said. 'The two nations can have better relation through openings, not restrictions.' Bank teller Mahdieh Naderi said Trump was lashing out over his frustrationed efforts to reach ceasefires in the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war. 'Trump just expressed his anger about his failed plans,' Naderi said. 'He is complaining about the Chinese and others who are living in the U.S., too Some said interest in the U.S. was already waning before the latest ban. 'Over the past years, two of my grandchildren went to Canada to continue their education there,' said Mohammad Ali Niaraki, 75. 'Iranians are not limited in immigration and they are not as interested to go to the U.S. as they were decades ago. Iranians prefer Canada, as well as neighboring countries with flourishing economies like the (United Arab) Emirates.'.' But others pointed out that high-ranking government officials have children living or working in the U.S., despite the tensions. 'It's fine, but if he also kicks out the children of officials who live there it would be very nice,' said a man who just gave his name as Mehdi. 'We can't afford traveling to the U.S, almost 80% of us can't. But if he kicks out those who are already there it would be much better.' Tehran resident Mehri Soltani offered rare support for Trump's decision. 'Those who have family members in the U.S, it's their right to go, but a bunch of bad people and terrorists and murderers want to go there as well,' he said. 'So his policy is correct. He's doing the right thing.' ___ Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store