Reporter: Reforms at Gunpoint

Professor Shaun Lovejoy

PHOTO: OWEN EGAN

Reforms at gunpoint

SHAUN LOVEJOY AND CLAUDE BRAUN | The Quebec government's long- awaited document on higher education, L'Université devant l'avenir, was unveiled at a press conference in February. While the stated purpose of the document is to stimulate a wide debate over the future of Quebec universities, the magnitude of past, present and impending university cutbacks makes it unlikely that the government is debating in good faith.
Perhaps the most striking feature of L'Université devant l'avenir is its deliberately upbeat and self-congratulatory tone which safely distances it from excessive contact with the reality on the ground. It therefore behooves us to start with an examination of the true state of higher education and research in Quebec. As we shall see, it is precisely the gap -- large even by prevailing norms of political mendacity -- between high discourse and low practice that demands strong action on the part of the academic community, and indeed from society at large.
A 1994 study by the Fédération des Professeurs et Professeures du Québec (FQPPU) showed that, even then, real expenditures on higher education were down by roughly one-third from the already inadequate levels of 1978. However, in the last three years, the decline has turned into a catastrophe with funding being slashed by a further 23%.
Similarly, over the same brief period, the number of professors has declined by 12-15%. It is hardly coincidental that these massive cuts have occurred precisely during a period of strong economic "boom" (record GNP) and of general business euphoria, including record speculative and business profits (+15% in 1997 alone). And -- lest we forget -- all this was simultaneous with repeated annual doubling of profits by all the major banks.
Keeping our noses on the ground, we find classrooms, lab equipment and infrastructure generally deteriorating while simultaneously supporting large numbers of students (down by only four percent in the last four years), more and more of whom finish without diplomas, or with diplomas but without work.
Students are fast being reduced to "clients," education reduced to a "service," teaching to "training," and more and more of the teachers themselves reduced to "adjuncts"/"chargés de cours" as university public relations bureaus mushroom aggressively, competing for larger "market shares."
At the same time -- paralleling the slashing of corporate taxation in the 1980s -- there have been increasing attempts to recoup government cutbacks by begging the private sector for charity, sponsorship, endorsement, named chairs and labs, equipment -- and in some cases -- even simple letters of support (to help stave off further public cutbacks).
This, combined with the recent arrival of advertising placards on campus, gives us all the trappings of the "MacUniversity" (Le Devoir, March 11).
Seventy percent of students already work part time (the fees have tripled since 1991) and the risks of investing in years of higher education are currently so high -- and the rewards so uncertain -- that fewer and fewer students are attracted by the ideals of scholarship or of contributing to the development of universal knowledge.
There is a growing tendency for the brightest and most ambitious to leave research for more lucrative endeavours such as banking or accounting. In droves, young people are spurning the productive sectors of society, preferring to administer the work of others rather than to perform it themselves.
The research picture is hardly rosier. Real spending on research has also significantly declined; official figures for 1994 put it at the same low fraction of GDP as in 1970 (it has long been one of the lowest of all the OECD countries), and since then -- at least research council funding -- has suffered a further 15-20% cut; even the recent dramatic 17% increase in the NSERC budget only brings us back to the low level we enjoyed five years ago.
To complete the picture, it is worth pointing out that these figures may badly understate the true situation since two-thirds of all federal "spending" on scientific research and development is in the form of generous tax breaks for multinationals who claim to be engaged in such activities.
For example -- as pointed out in Université -- in 1994 the banks were graciously subsidized in this way for a routine upgrade in their office equipment. Judging by the amount of the gift (over $300 million), the government clearly considers this to be almost as significant a contribution to advancing Canadian science and technology as NSERC.
While the report admits (p.41) that university research is already too reliant on "economic imperatives," and that fundamental research is being "neglected," nothing specific is proposed to improve the situation. Instead, the bulk of the discussion (an entire chapter) is on the need to "actively search out new partnerships" especially with industry.
Almost as an afterthought, the chapter ends with the comment "that while in partnership the universities should not forget their mission." One gets the impression that the fine-sounding phrases will once again be sacrificed to "financial imperatives." Similarly, when one reads the document's leitmotiv (p.15): "that society can no longer permit the same rhythm of increase (sic!) of public expenditures on education...," the gap between reality and ideology is so large that it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
Let us focus briefly on what appears to be the central substantive recommendation: that the unique mission of the university be redefined so as to be purely pedagogical (p.20). Other aspects of university life -- including scholarly activity and research -- while being "indispensable" in this mission, may in fact only be justified inasmuch as they further "the accomplishment" of this pedagogical "service" via the creation of a dynamic intellectual environment ("un foyer vivant de la pensée").
If this recommendation becomes policy, Quebec society will lose its only public body dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. Any knowledge which is generated in academia will be purely a byproduct of the teaching effort and -- thanks to clever use of the ambiguous French word "formation" -- with teaching itself often reduced to mere "training."
In case the idea that research should be no more than a spin-off from teaching is misunderstood, the report clearly spells it out: "in all areas, research can be justified only inasmuch as it furthers training and teaching."
As an extension of this emphasis, it is further suggested that evaluations of professors be increasingly centred on pedagogy, with the latter evaluation itself increasingly determined by student opinion; indeed no other specific criteria are even mentioned.
The customer, it seems, is always right.
To put this change of mission into perspective, it is pertinent to recall the historic role of the universities which has been primarily as sites for the production of knowledge with education and training being an integral -- but not dominant -- part of the process. With the creation of new knowledge demoted to an ancillary role, it is hard not to conclude that the proposal -- if implemented (especially if abetted by foreseeable cuts) -- would spell the death knell for research; at least for fundamental research.
Although the report modestly terms this overriding focus on teaching a "recommendation," during the press conference when the report was released, education minister Pauline Marois spoke very strongly in its favour. Her justification was mostly based on a newfound concern over the high (37%) -- but long-standing -- university drop-out rate. To connect this real problem to a lack of emphasis on teaching (i.e., to continue to ignore under-financing, unemployment or other objective factors) she was forced to appeal to the popular but unsubstantiated opinion (echoed in the report, p.40) that research might actually be "detrimental" to teaching.
The report justifies this concern over teaching first through a litany of anonymous third person hearsay and later by gratuituously affirming that it is "manifestly obvious" that "society demands a better equilibrium between teaching and research" (p.32). Then -- in a delectable admission -- the only specific documentary reference (p.32) purporting to justify this major academic change is to a report by the government's own "groupe du travail sur le financement" who proclaim that "universities must make a major change so that undergraduate teaching is given a more prominent place in professorial work." It is sobering to realize that the financiers may well have already made the basic policy decisions and are only awaiting the rubber stamp!
In any case, since the government apparently believes that education and research are no more than costly services -- rather than long term social and economic investments -- even if the finance committee had minded its own business and stuck to purely financial advice, we would still likely be led to ruin as Quebec misses out on the ongoing scientific and technological revolution.
While the report explicitly upholds the historic policy of public funding of universities while leaving the latter autonomous in academic matters, it nevertheless makes a major academic policy recommendation: that undergraduate programs be more generalist, less specialist.
This new policy is justified not by the desire for educational standards to attain or surpass international levels, but rather by "North American trends" in higher education and by the need for greater "polyvalence," a term uncomfortably reminiscent of the fashionable management nostrum of "flexibility."
While lack of "workforce flexibility" may conveniently place the onus of unemployment on its victims, it's not obvious that universities should be preparing students for such a future by teaching them a little of everything.
Let's put the government's generalist philosophy into an international perspective. The British and French systems feature a more specialized pre-university education which permits their university programs to be less specialized than Quebec (with the first of the three years being a program common to all natural sciences), while nevertheless leading to a comparable level BSc.
Tinkering with university programs in Quebec in the name of a more generalist education would be dangerous. Take the example of physics: any serious erosion in the existing quantity of physics education will mean that students will obtain degrees without knowledge of basic physics. However, their failure to be physics generalists will hardly transform them into rounded scientific generalists as the report seems to imply. While such a dilution of academic standards might conceivably decrease drop-out rates, it is unlikely to lead to any meaningful form of flexibility -- whether academic or otherwise.
Indeed, it is ironic how government ideologues -- who can pontificate about "excellence" at the drop of a hat -- carefully avoid using this slogan precisely where it would be meaningful.
Elsewhere, the report waxes lyrical about the need for myriad "rationalizations" of higher education. Indeed, the universities can hardly continue without change -- if only to stave off bankruptcy. In any case, who could possibly oppose such fine sentiments?
The problem is that the refusal to acknowledge the existing financial crisis combined with Premier Bouchard's frank promise (one of the few he has consistently kept) of further massive cutbacks, make it unlikely that the proposals are being made with even a modicum of good faith.
By responding to the call, academics will do no more than lend their prestige and their de facto consent to the process. By trumpeting the respectable cover of "rationalization" to the socially irrational destruction of Quebec's research and higher education, they will do no more than legitimize a sham.
The reforms are being made at gunpoint; the only honourable response is a polite "no thank you." Perhaps we will be shot no matter what; at least, let this not be an academic Jonestown. If the politicians want to destroy the universities then let them take full responsibility for their actions. The cuts are too profitable to be stopped by anything short of organized resistance. Let's do our share!

Shaun Lovejoy is a physics professor at McGill. Claude Braun is a psychology professor at l'Université du Québec à Montréal. A longer version of this essay appears in the spring issue of Université. Anyone interested in finding out more about L'Université devant l'avenir can visit McGill's web forum on the document at ww2.mcgill.ca/consult/consultation.html.