Idealism abounds in student protests

            I’m not sure if I support Quebec students or not.  I like the idea of a good protest against government, if it’s for a good cause.  But on the other hand, I don’t support the use of violence and certainly don’t appreciate the mob mentality that’s resulted.

            Whether I support what the students are fighting for is questionable.  I went to school in Saskatchewan about 12 years ago, where I grew accustomed to annual 5-6% hikes in tuition.  That felt steep to me, although I was able to keep my student loans to a minimum by living at home in the summer (no such luxury while at school) and utilizing some savings my parents had arranged for me (equalling about one year’s tuition).  My jobs in summer and two semesters of school ranged from $6 to around $12 per hour and my rent while at school ranged from $300 to $400 per month. 

            So add that all together, and I made it out of university after five years (one year was spent in a work co-op program) with $6,000 in student debt.  It would have been closer to $12,000 without my parents’ help.   But that was also without having a part-time job while studying, and included the cost of buying a relatively expensive used car.  I’ve read the average debt load held by Canadian students is now $27,000.

            This is despite the fact that there have been considerable improvements to student loans, where no-strings-attached grants are now provided up-front to students from low- and middle-income families.  Students of low-income families can now receive up to $250 per month while in school; students of middle-income families can receive $100 per month.  That’s free money, helping those whose parents don’t have the means to invest in RESPs.  I suspect most Quebec student protesters come from fairly well-off families.

            I also presume that a good portion of student debt is related to increasing student living standards.  Kraft Dinner has likely been replaced by steak and imported beer.  It can be terribly tempting to treat a loan as a cash windfall when you’ve never had to manage money on your own before.  Why not, when many parents treat loans the same way?

            This isn’t to say that some of the debt students are facing can be crippling and necessary to obtain an education.  Or that the current labour market (and housing market) is not creating additional pressures for new graduates – I can certainly relate to that uncertainty when I was in my 20s.  And I recognize it’s much worse today.

            But to say that Quebec students are struggling is a bit of a stretch, when their tuition is half that being paid by Saskatchewan students.  According to Statistics Canada, average tuition in Quebec is $2,500 per student, while in Saskatchewan its $5,600 per student.

            In Quebec, many students feel that education is a right and should be free. While there are definite public benefits to having an educated workforce, there are also significant private benefits that accrue to the individual.   What they neglect to account for is the considerable personal benefit from obtaining a post-secondary education.  The monetary benefits, I’ve read, equate to $15,000 more per year in average salary.  Certainly, when one compares an unskilled job to one that requires an education, the wage gap is even higher – I would guess it to be around $30,000.

            A recent study in Saskatchewan indicated that the increase in life-time earnings for First Nations students who obtain a bachelor’s degree after completing high school is $1.1 million.  That’s a significant increase. 

But it’s more of a societal/cultural issue than a money issue when it comes to bridging the aboriginal education gap.  While a lower tuition can help, it still won’t create the desire to obtain an education, something that Quebec students have shown they have in abundance. 

Much to Premier Charest’s chagrin, there’s no stopping them, even if it means giving up a semester of school.  As an idealistic student, I probably would have, too.

Gay marriage for the good

            President Obama’s public support of gay marriage is both courageous and calculating.  He showed courage by standing up for an issue of equality that is highly decisive in the US, an issue that could come to bite him at election time.  At the same time, I doubt he would have said as much if his polling hadn’t shown he was on the right side of the issue.  Judging by Republicans’ silence on the topic, it would appear that they think the same.

            More and more North Americans are becoming comfortable with the gay marriage issue.  The younger generation is the most accepting of something unthinkable only 10 years ago.  Ironically, it’s within America’s black community that there is some of the most ardent opposition.  Many clearly don’t hold it in the same esteem as the Civil Rights movement, which also was a watershed event when it came to equality in the US.

            Much of the opposition is religious-based.  Unfortunately, churches and religious groups appear to come out the hardest against gay rights, almost to the point of hatred.

            I’m sure most Christians aren’t vehemently opposed to those of a different sexual orientation, and would probably change their views quite quickly if they knew someone.  That being said, most evangelical church groups would be hard-pressed to openly welcome a gay couple into their congregation.
            For those who don’t prescribe to the Christian worldview, it may be difficult to understand why Christians in general can appear to be so intolerant.  It certainly can be the case when we try too hard to live by the biblical law, exercising judgment before acceptance.

            It’s certainly a touchy subject, given the biblical references to homosexuality, but one that should never trump the spirit of Jesus’ message (Jesus, himself, never did comment on homosexuality).  His central message is that of acceptance and love for the least-loved.  He saved his harshest attacks for the intolerant religious leaders of the day.

              Scripture can be manipulated in any number of ways to justify preconceived beliefs.  "Slaves, obey your masters," comes to mind as a verse taken out of context to justify slavery.  It doesn’t make scripture wrong – it makes its interpreters wrong.

            I’m not sure if I can interpret correctly what some biblical authors were saying about homosexuality and how it applies today.   There are opposing views given the context and reference to homosexual promiscuity as opposed to marriage.  On other explicit moral teachings regarding the love of money, lust and pride – all sins that I’ve been guilty of, it’s pretty clear.  Churches are generally quite accepting of people who’ve failed in these and other areas.  You don’t simply ostracize for one's faults or sins, otherwise we’d all be ostracized.

            But many churches have largely ostracized a group of people who have committed no wrong.  This is a group that is growing quickly with greater societal acceptance, and one that could use a community.  For as much as society has become more accepting, the persecution continues, with religious and non-religious persecutors alike.