The report of the so-called Expert Panel on Post-Secondary Institution Funding and Alberta’s Competitiveness released last week calls for the government to stop telling universities, colleges and technical institutes how to do their jobs. Then it proceeds to explain how the province should require the same institutions to do their jobs.
What’s with this apparent contradiction in this murky report from a panel supposedly set up last fall to advise the government how Alberta’s post-secondary institutions should be funded, but then dives into how to respond to MAGA obsessions dear to the hearts of Premier Danielle Smith and her United Conservative Party base?
It helps if one understands the bugbears of the Wild Rose MAGA movement, which believes most of the same things as the MAGA movement south of the Medicine Line whence the UCP Government gets so much of its inspiration, only seen through an anti-Canadian filter.
One key to unravelling this puzzle, then, is simply to understand that when the report says “the government,” it is almost always talking about the federal government, historically a significant funder of Alberta university research despite the fact the institutions themselves come under provincial jurisdiction.
At the same time, the report tacitly assumes the Government of Alberta – at least as long as it is in the hands of Premier Smith and the UCP – has a God-given right to interfere in the operations of post-secondary institutions for ideological and political reasons. The authors seem to have had no problem recommending how to go about doing that.
Unsurprisingly, the report glosses over the impact of the massive cuts to post-secondary institutions after the UCP took power in 2019. “In 2018/19, Alberta government’s funding as a share of total spending was higher than most other provinces,” it recalls mildly. “That changed significantly over the next four years due to the province’s financial situation and to bring provincial funding for post-secondary institutions more in line with funding provided in other provinces.” (Emphasis added. It was a political choice, driven in no small part, it is said here, by former UCP premier Jason Kenney’s hostility to the University of Alberta in particular.)
Meanwhile, some of that federal funding supports research into topics the Smith Government would prefer not to be examined too closely – global climate change, COVID-19, and the corporate structure of the Canadian fossil fuel industry, to suggest a few. In addition, federal funding often comes with ethical as well as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements.
This undoubtedly explains why, in addition to recommendations pertaining to the panel’s original mandate when it was announced on Nov. 7 last year, the report sets out why panel members think the government should end most DEI initiatives (with a carve-out for Indigenous students) and stymie popular efforts to encourage ethical investment of institutional funds.
Remember, this panel was set up by a government that last year proposed legislation requiring universities to get provincial approval before entering into research funding agreements with Ottawa and accused federal research agencies of financing “biased research.” They later backed off some of the worst aspects of that legislation after fierce lobbying by universities.
It also helps to know something about some of the authors of the report, chaired by University of Calgary economist Jack Mintz, a frequent contributor to the far-right National Post and one of the Canadian right’s favourite economists.
Panel members handpicked by Dr. Mintz include lawyer Joan Hertz, chair of ATB Financial and a former secretary of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, and former University of Saskatchewan President Peter MacKinnon, controversial for his campaign against that university’s DEI policies. Dr. MacKinnon is also husband of Janice MacKinnon, the former Saskatchewan finance minister chosen by Mr. Kenney to lead his 2019 “Blue Ribbon Panel,” which was intended justify austerity and cuts to public sector salaries.
“The Panel’s concern is that our institutions are losing the public’s support in the area of DEI and when post-secondary institutions take political positions on controversial issues,” the report claims. One wonders, of course, when universities have ever not taken political positions on controversial issues. That’s always been OK in Alberta, with the caveat nowadays that those positions must not be at odds with the government.
So the panel reached back almost 60 years to the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report, written to justify ignoring demands that universities take a position on the significant moral issues of that time – which in 1967 included the Vietnam War, and today includes global climate change and the destruction of Gaza.
In service of this cause, the panel also obediently trotted out the Chicago Statement on Free Expression, an enduring enthusiasm of former advanced education minister Demetrios Nicolaides. (The current minister Myles McDougall, a charter member of the UCP’s MAGA caucus.)
As I have argued here before, the Chicago Statement is an ingenious manifesto that uses “free speech” as code for the right of the privileged and powerful to shout down everyone else. It was adopted by the University of Chicago in 2014 under pressure from campus conservatives who wanted to push back against popular opposition to racist speakers on campus, university prohibitions of racist, sexist and homophobic attacks on students, and demands to change the names of buildings and remove statues celebrating historic figures known for their racism or cruelty.
The Mintz Panel apparently believes appointments and acceptance into programs should be based “strictly on merit,” a quality that presumably includes a substantial bank account to accommodate the regular tuition increases they recommend allowing post-secondary institutions to introduce without much oversight from the province.
Indeed, probably the most potentially harmful recommendation is the panel’s call to permit institutions to raise tuition as they please without annual caps, as long as there are limits on annual increases for students once they have enrolled in a multi-year program. It wouldn’t take long, of course, for this to make the student debt crisis even worse.
As we have come to expect from such reports in a variety of neoliberal jurisdictions, post-secondary education is all about training square pegs to smoothly fit into industry’s square holes, with barely a thought for critical thinking, the arts or culture.
“Alberta’s world-class post-secondary system will equip Albertans with the skills, knowledge and competencies they need to succeed in their lifelong pursuits,” says an introductory passage of the report. “The system will be highly responsive to labour market needs and, through innovative programming and excellence in research, contribute to the betterment of an innovative and prosperous Alberta.”
“A highly successful and competitive economy demands a post-secondary system that fuels the economy and our society with highly skilled, talented and entrepreneurial young Albertans.”
And poets? The liberal arts? Critical thinking? Forget about ’em! They have no advocates on the panel and garner barely a mention, despite their significant economic contribution.
This is a 93-page document about how the (provincial) government should be allowed to dictate what post-secondary education looks like, and what debate and discourse should be permitted on campus.
Nothing here is a surprise. The UCP has been signalling its distaste for what even the Kalven Report described as “full freedom of dissent” since Mr. Kenney’s unsuccessful campaign to deny David Suzuki the honorary degree the University of Alberta had already promised him.
Such panels are literally a waste of money. Their purpose is to create social license for policies the government has already decided to implement. Expect legislation ending tuition caps and most DEI programs soon.
It seems to me that if you’re a fan of critical thinking, you should also be a fan of the Chicago Statement, which is pretty much a Chicago Restatement of John Stuart Mill’s views on free expression in terms appropriate for an academic institution. One can’t do critical thinking properly without the freedom to question, criticise and debate, which is what the Chicago Statement is all about. It’s strange that you’d interpret the Statement as “an ingenious manifesto that uses ‘free speech’ as code for the right of the privileged and powerful to shout down everyone else”, when the Statement explicitly says that “members of the University community… may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe”. That’s a clear repudiation of shouting down as a mode of discourse.
Sir, the problem seems to be in the implementation. The obstruction proceeds swiftly on the demand of the government with the weaseling assistance of the university administration and, for example, the thugs from the Edmonton and Calgary police services. The protection is intended and delivered only for antiabortionists, convoy goons, and their ilk.
I agree that the implementation could be better, but in my view the principles involved are still well worth defending.
Sir: there’s a difference between facilitating a free exchange of ideas, essential to a healthy democracy, and openly endorsing hate speech in the public square. This past summer’s “stürm und drang” over a certain American street preacher being denied access to public lands to spew his hatred is a case in point.
“Freedom of expression” in the Charter, and indeed “freedom of speech” as expressed in the Benighted States’ First Amendment to their embattled Constitution, exist to protect someone from being arrested and prosecuted for their speech or other forms of expression. In both countries there are limits to those protections: in Canada, there is the “reasonable limits” clause of Section 1 of the Charter. Down in the US, there is the “no right to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre”doctrine.
But denying access to publicly-owned venues for hate speech is not a violation of the Charter, nor of the US First Amendment. The guy could still seek access to private property and be free to spew his odious views to all who freely choose to attend.
Governments and public agencies that own, control or manage public property have the right and responsibility to ensure that activities taking place on that property are consistent with the values of the public in whose name and on whose behalf they manage that property. Failure to do so can be taken as tacit endorsement of those views.
Fine statement Jerry, but it has nothing to do with the discussion around Mr. Sullivan’s comment. No mention there of hate speech, our Charter, the US Constitution or street preachers. If you want to see your thoughts in print then just post an opinion comment.
Because the culture and timing with which it was adopted was a massive dog whistle to the far right ? Maybe you forgot about this, there were riots in Berkeley to prevent Milo Yannanopolis from speaking on CAMPUS. Not speaking, using the very facilities students pay for with their tuition to spread the kind of bigotry that would get you denied entry from the Canadian border. For example saying it was good that priests rape boys because that’s how some of them find out they are gay. The Chicago “principles” were implemented for this very reason. Y’all can hide behind “free speech” but it’s actually the students that have their speech, and rights of assembly curtailed, time and again. Funny how that goes. Fast forward to 2025 and seems one of those free speech warriors caught a bullet, no one is sure why. Funny how that goes.
Feel free to hold whatever idiotic hateful views you wish, I for one do not think that university students should be forced to listen to your bullshit under some arbitrary definition of “free academic principles”. They mean free to be far right. Give your head a shake; it’s nonsense.
Of course the UCP is going after universities, David Parker said they would go after “woke” wherever they find it in their quest to take back alberta to a place that never existed. If the U Of A Has any balls they’ll drop a lawsuit like it’s hot. I’m guessing the Premier’s alma matter will be just fine. Bet the school of public policy gets a bunch of money.
In any aspect of public education, or post secondary education in Alberta, the UCP makes a big mess of it. This comes as no surprise. The MHCare (Corrupt Care) scandal is weighing down on Danielle Smith too, which could topple the UCP sooner than Albertans realize. So, this is why Danielle Smith is throwing numerous distractions out there.
The last thing the UCP and their types want is an educated, thinking, population. They much prefer the MAGA base, and the convoy types. Much easier to have this non-thinking mass buy into programs that hurt them and their families. ie CorruptCare, Tylenot, “blow up” AHS, fund private for profits schools at the expense of the public system, etc, etc…
Jack Mintz is a disgrace to his profession, and humanity.
“Their purpose is to create social license…”
…and a paycheque for Jack Mintz.
Greg: Off hand, I don’t know if Dr. Mintz was remunerated for his efforts. He has a good public sector job and, according to his various bios, serves or has served on the boards of Imperial Oil Ltd. and Morneau Shepell and is a policy advisor for Ernst & Young. He has consulted with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, plus sundry other activities, from all of which he likely received some degree of financial compensation. So perhaps he felt that in this case, satisfaction with a job well done was compensation enough. Perhaps one of our readers can do a shallow dive into the Alberta Government’s recent contracts. DJC
World bank AND the IMF !?! Nothing to see there I’m sure.
“The system will be highly responsive to labour market needs and, through innovative programming and excellence in research, contribute to the betterment of an innovative and prosperous Alberta.”
You will train to work in the oil fields and like it. Sit down, shut up and do as you’re told.
Nobody knows where the labour market is going. The world is rapidly changing. When I went to college there were tons of “labour ready” courses–most of which were already defunct by the time the graduates received their paperwork. It takes a few years to research what the trends are, meet them and train students for them. By then, like the proverbial slow train–it’s too late to get them where they need to go, on time.
However, if you teach them to think critically, research, actively listen, learn from experience and mistakes then apply those skills to their job lives–that knowledge will last a lifetime.
What it won’t do, is produce obedient slave labour.
STEM is never out of date because well…math, maths. Science, sciences. Everyone isn’t suited to that and society needs a wider variety of future thinkers than just those who can keep the afore-mentioned trains moving and more oil flowing money into Big Oil’s pockets.
If the motivation is to recreate the all-white, hyper-male academia of the past, good luck with that. White men are uniformly all idiots and their numbers in the total population are in a steep decline, because they are — you guessed it — idiots.
Hence the compulsion for Idiocracy.
University tuition in Alberta for a Bachelor’s degree rose from around $2k pear year in 1980 in current dollars to $7k in 2022. This was coupled with the complete elimination of the Provincial Tuition and Education tax credits in the last decade, and the reduction of the Federal credits. The system has been configured to meet the whims of the rich. In a low-wage “service” economy like that in Alberta, there is no need for an educated population. The managerial class that was necessary in North America during the industrial period is redundant, so there is no need for a large class of people with the kind of education that was provided in undergraduate university programs. What is required is a claque to praise the ruling class. Free speech is a charming concept but the notion that it could exist in a world of mass communication generated from technological structures that are entirely dominated by a tiny minority whose power is derived from wealth is very silly. Money talks and everything else walks. But we’re all in this together, you and me and Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison and Mark Carney and W, walking hand in hand toward a brighter future for all mankind!
In 1981, I enrolled at the U of A , in engineering program. Bankrolled by scholarships & after school job savings. No debt when I left after 3 terms (should have taken a gap year).
2012, re-enrolled at U of A, Computer Science this time. After 6 years (I wanted to stay married & have a life), $42k student loan debt + $20k LLP repayment.
$550 a pop for tuition. Did I get value for that half grand per course? Not always. The U of A has dirty little secret – professors are expected to teach occasionally, in return for research support.
However, not all professors however are good teachers. Majority in fact. And where were the worst teachers? From my experience, in the STEM disciplines. The best? In Arts, specifically English Literature. Turns out you have to be able think critically to write a proper analytical essay. So you have to be taught the skill.
So what changed in those 31 years? STEM instructorship degraded. Class sizes ballooned, especially 1st year mandatory courses, like Calculus. Which is fine example of bad pedagogy. Calculus, you are expected to memorize a lot of formulas and how to apply them. Statistics, in same faculty, you are given crib notes of all the necessary formulas, and even high level summary of application.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
Greg H, I found your comment hilarious, even at 1:20 a m Nova Scotia time while my pumpkin pie is in the oven. It is made from New Brunswick pie pumpkins, and I get the first piece, maybe even with some whipped cream, since I am the only one who is still up.
On, perhaps, a more serious note, the conclusion is, I think, pretty much you would expect from Jack Mintz.
Perhaps, Jason Kenney disliked the U of Alberta (potential bias here, I graduated from the U of A) because it is home to the Parkland institute, which I would describe as pretty much the diametrical opposite of the U of C School of Public Policy. As an example, the website of the Parkland Institute says that its third research focus is “Investing in Public Services and Strong Communities”. I would guess that most serious readers of this blog are much more inclined to approve of the views of the Parkland Institute than those of the U of C School of Public Policy.
Well, the pie is baked and, after a few minutes of the first piece in the freezer and with the addition of whipped cream, it is, even if do say so, pretty delicious. Hoping that everyone had a nice Thanksgiving.
I have been a supporter of the Parkland Institute since its inception. I encourage readers of this blog to also support the high quality research that Parkland is known for.
This is a government that doesn’t believe in education. It only believes in training — that is, occupation-specific training for the job market. If there isn’t a one-to-one direct relationship between a degree, diploma or certificate and a job, occupation, trade or profession, they won’t fund it. So while they’re willing to fund trade tickets and engineering degrees, they’re not willing to fund the liberal arts or the humanities.
Too bad the right wing extremists were not such champions of free expression when David Suzuki was at the U of A. The political extremes have a degree of hypocrisy that is a real turn off for a lot of people, including me.
Our Premier used to once claim to be a libertarian, but she and the UCP have become about controlling as much as they can in their provincial fiefdom.