"as one who serves"

So, I'm taking the time to write this instead of doing my assigned readings for Susan Johnston's English 349 class-- trust me, you do not want to get behind on readings in Johnston's class-- which is just one indication of how much this topic enrages/disappoints me.

I am basing this entire ranting blog post on information I have heard as a student around the University. By all means, correct me if I have been misinformed.

From what I understand, the University of Regina is undergoing an Academic Program Review due to an impending budget cut that will greatly reduce government funding to the establishment, inevitably meaning that the U of R will have to re-examine their budget and figure out how to make up for lost funds. Fair enough.

However, it is also to my understanding that the University's solution to this problem is to greatly reduce (if not eliminate) teaching assistants and sessional instructors, increase class size, combine some faculties, and essentially discontinue others. Their reasoning for this is based on the following considerations:
1.) They want to maintain/increase faculties that are "too unique" (what this really means is the faculties which make them the most money)
2) They want to maintain/increase faculties that have the highest student demand (translation again: the faculties which make them the most money)
3) The faculties that are facing "cuts" do not pump out thousands of students with specific job titles, and are thereforejust a waste of time / money / a problem for the government  (O.K. I got a little bitter with this one. I do NOT know that this is a direct claim that the University has made, but I think that it is implied a bit with the Business and Education faculties being called "too unique" -- I'll speak more to this point later)

First of all, I should clarify that the University is not directly threating to cut TAs and Sessionals. However, they have, apparently, threatened to cut the budgets of some departments-- ironically the ones that seem to be "costing" the University money, yet are the smallest-- and within those faculties, the cost of TAs/Sessionals are the only substantial place that their small sum of money is being spent. These departments, then, are being forced into a situation where their TAs and Sessionals are the last things that can go before the faculty as a whole is reduced to nothing.

And where would a faculty be without their TAs and Sessionals?

TAs are absolutely essential for instructors to be able mark assignments in a timeframe that will actually benefit students. Students NEED feedback on their assignments and they need it with enough time to review their work, see what they did wrong, seek help if they need it, and so that they have time to improve. Moreover, a checkmark on a page isn't always going to cut it. Any subject that doesn't come with "yes or no" answers (does any subject still have these? even math needs someone to review the process...) requires feedback by the instructor to inform a student what it is they did well on and what they need to improve on. For an instituion whose ONLY PURPOSE is to educate, you would think that this concept would be of some value.

So without TAs, how are professors to provide students with the quality of education they are paying (and paying a lot) for? What human is capable of marking 200 4-page case studies from a business class in a timely fashion? Or 35 10-page research papers? It is not physically possible without help. End of discussion.

A solution to this, of course, would be to reduce the length and number of assignments in any given class. Now, I dread writing a ten page paper just as much as the next student, but I will readily admit that reducing assignments to a manageable level for one person to mark means that I am not working as hard, I am not learning as much, and I am certainly not getting my money's worth out of this education. Please tell me, what the fuck is an English class if you never have to write a paper? (So eliminate English classes, they say...)

Sessional intructors are also highly valuable, without question. To put it in simplest terms, sessionals teach all the lower-level classes that are needed more broadly throughout multiple faculties so that the higher-level, more specific classes can be taught by the "professionals," or instructors with a higher/more specific education. Without sessionals, instructors who are teaching, for example, the 300 and 400-level English classes (required for the degree and honors programs) would have to teach the 80-something sections of English 100. This would mean that the degree program would be greatly limited if not impossible for students to achieve, and there would essentially no longer be an English program at the U of R (because let's face it, even if our English profs were super-human and taught and single-handedly marked papers for five or six classes a day, do we really believe that the University would pay them?)

The alternative to this is that these instructors would instead only teach the higher-level classes and, being that there would be nobody left to teach the lower-level classes, something like English 100 could either be taught through online correspondence or eliminated from the required courses of essentially every program the university offers.

In light of how stupid the person must be who thinks this solution is a good idea, I will put my response into a simple list:

A.) Students will fail. They. will. fail.

Some people love online classes-- but if you are a first year University student, this is detrimental to your success. I am sorry, but you cannot come out of a highschool classroom to taking university-level classes VIA a computer/television screen. If you are a genius, maybe. For the rest of the population, no. Especially if they are not in an arts or English program. They already think English doesn't matter, this will only confirm to them that society also finds it to be a joke.

B.) We can all look forward to a future lead by fucking idiots that don't know how to write/spell/speak/think because they were never required to take an English class ever. Oh, and all value in these assets will be lost simply because they aren't profitable. (PS. businesses are pumping thousands of dollars into educating their employees on how to write... my question is, if you can't write, how did you get hired?...)

So, as you can see, the whole idea of forcing faculties to cut their TAs and Sessionals in combination with increased class size is essentially just the University's way of make those faculties self-distruct/implode/fail/quit... whichever word you choose to use here.

And don't even get me started on Vianne Timmon's idea that you can have a degree program without a faculty. You're smart enough to imagine how that could be possible. No further explanation needed.

Now, to address some of the reasoning....


1.) They want to maintain/increase faculties that are "too unique"

These faculties, as identified by the University, are the Faculty of Education and the Faculty of Business. I would like to begin by saying that I have many friends/aquaintances/relatives/co-workers that are currently enrolled in or have graduated from both of these "unique" faculties. I have absolute respect for all of these people, and I never mean to discredit their education or their goals as being lesser than mine, or as lesser than any other student, for that matter.

However, I would like to also point out that there is nothing about their academic aspirations as a student and as a citizen that is better or more important or more valuable than mine. Nothing.

I know exactly what the retaliation would be here: "What kind of job are you going to get with and English degree?" "How do you contribute to society as an Arts student?" "Aren't you just going to be a teacher anyway?" "Don't complain when you can't get hired anywhere." "So... what will you 'be' when you're done?"

First of all, all of these responses would be based on the idea that the only purpose a University degree has is to get you a job. I mean, yes, of course I want to be employable. And yes, I do believe that getting a degree is definitely an essential step in the process of starting my career. But make no mistake, there is NOTHING about a University that in any way promises you a job upon graduation, and you should never, ever, make the mistake of feeling entitled to a job just because you went to university.

If you go to the UR Guarantee office on campus, they will "guarantee" you employment after you have finished, so long as you comply to their recommendations. But for those of you who have ever looked into the program, you will quickly realize that the "recommendations" are about everything else you should do besides getting an education. They encourage relevant work experience through the co-op program (or while you are still a student), volunteerism, resume-building workshops, interview workshops, skill development, and other specific goals you need to make and achieve, ALL before you get that lovely little piece of paper that is supposed to make you a real person.

In case you aren't getting my point here, what makes you employable is YOU.

Yes, it may seem to make more sense to go to school, get an Education degree, call yourself a teacher and then apply for jobs that say, "seeking a teacher." But just because I didn't do that, it does not make me any less valuable of a person.

The degree is only one small aspect of what makes you a valuable employee and citizen. And besides, the University exists to provide the education of your choice, not to decide your career path for you by reducing your choices based on what they think is valuable.

2) They want to maintain/increase faculties that have the highest student demand

I will start by admitting that I don't know for a fact which faculties have the highest enrolment, but judging by the fact that Business and Education are not going to be touched in this budget cut, I'll put them at the top. Next would be the faculties that are getting combined, such as Social Work, Science, Engineering, etc. At the bottom are pretty much all of the Fine Arts, English, and Philosophy (there are obviously many others).

Now, I say this gently, but, based on my previous point, isn't it a bit obvious why Education and Business have the highest enrolment?

I know that there are undoubtedly many students who have dreamed since they were children of being teachers, or accountants, or entrepreneurs, or whatever. To those people, who based their educational choice on the fact that they knew that was the faculty for them, good on ya.

But I have no doubt in my mind that a solid percent of students in each of those faculties are only there because they were undecided on what they wanted to do and their parents told them to do something that would get them a job. In a society where people now seem to think the only thing that makes you of any value to this world is what job you have, why would they think anything else? Students who are unsure of what they want for themselves are not thinking, "I'm going to get an arts degree because it is going to enrich the way I perceive the world and help me to develop my skills and knowledge and ultimately make me a better citizen." No. They think, "Business degree. Businesses. Job. Business degree must mean I could be a business person. Paycheque."

And yet, there is an abundance of students graduating from these programs to the point that there are not enough jobs for all of them. Almost every single teacher I know has struggled to get a job in the last few years, and yet the University keeps taking their money and sending them out to take completely unrelated jobs, most of which should probably be filled by all those business students. Moreover, particularly in the example of teachers, shouldn't there be something to be said for QUALITY over quantity?

Why not reduce the size of the Education and Business programs by making them more competitive? Ultimately, this would weed out the "undecideds" that are only in the program because they think it will give them entitlement to a job. And even more importantly, the quality of the students coming out of the program would be of more value. Your degree, coming out of a more competitive program, would be worth more to you.

It only takes 15 students in an English 100 class for the University to start making a profit. You cannot tell me that, by reducing the numbers in these massive faculties, the University will lose money (they will lose money in regards to numbers, but they will also not be paying as much by reducing the number of students, if you understand my point here).

I know that this is essentially going against my last point-- you can't judge what people want to do with their future. It's their choice. Nobody's academic choice is any more valuable than another's. I really do believe that.

But in light of the fact that something's gotta give in order for this budget to work, why would you ELIMINATE a choice entirely when you could instead make adjustments and keep all of the options open? Everyone can win here, I know it.


3) The faculties that are facing "cuts" do not pump out thousands of students with specific job titles, and are thereforejust a waste of time / money / a problem for the government

The University of Regina motto, as exemplified under their official coat of arms, the one that has been stamped onto millions of degrees and diplomas since 1974, is "As one who serves."

It is not, "As one who creates employees." It is not, "As one who is worried about the Government's job creation initiative." It is not, "As one who tells students what knowledge is or is not valuable."

It is, "As one who serves." Who exactly they claim to serve may be up for debate. But the University is here, as I have probably said multiple times in this rant, to educate their students, and so I want to believe that that motto is for us. I believe that the University of Regina has meant to serve an education, to the best of their ability, to every student who has passed through their doors.

In light of the Academic Program Review, however, every student who is planning to pass through their doors for a Fine Arts degree, or for a Philosophy degree, or for an English program-- they don't want to serve you anymore. Sorry.

The University, as I see it, is not making decisions based on their students anymore. This is all about money. This is about the money they don't have, the money they want to make, and the money they are teaching their students to believe should be valued above education.

I believe that "As one who serves," the University has made a promise to be helpful to their students. I believe that within that promise, every student should be treated equally, as should the educational path they choose for themselves. And above all else, I believe that the people who made that promise made it because they knew that education was of utmost value to the individual, and that was what they wanted to provide to us, their students, then, now, and in the future.

We should not let that promise be broken.

train station in antelope, sk

autographs, dried purple crocuses in
between years of people preserved
with hand-written gestures. the pencil-crayoned
face of a woman opposite a rhyme
offering advice and the intrusive scrawl of her
four-year-old son on the
blank page twenty years later (his older
brother will outlive him). mysterious,
a book before photo albums, leather bound
and carried with a diary of weather, relentless,
the woman i’ve only met in home
video, a passage lost to the dead and
Ella, under these circumstances,
my heart breaks for you.
Your P.N.S.  friend, Teddy.

kindergarten friend I

we both crouched with our knees
practically at our chins
twisting the rough green strands between
our fingers. the blades caught gently
on shallow callous, the thicker rind
around the inside bend of curious
knuckles. “it tastes like
honey” said james, five-year-old
confident, so I
ate some too.

minor irony

first of all, i don't know how to smoke. not that i haven't, or that i'm not. a smoker, that is. which i'm not.

i don't know how to physically hold the cigarette, or what the proper technique is to inhale it into my lungs. i don't know how to get the burning end off of it when its about to fall off, or how to stop it for later use. i barely know how to use a lighter.

i've seen how its supposed to be done, of course. i've seen the pros driving down wascana parkway with a nub of a cigarette balanced between their middle and pointer finger while the other three fingers rest on the steering wheel. the blue lines of second-hand smoke drift fashionably out of the crack in the driver's-side window.

i once saw a lady doing precisely this while her child watched a movie in a car seat behind her. she slowed down in the school zone, presumably because she didn't want to risk killing any children.

stranger things have happened.

27/05/12

there is so much i've been meaning to tell you.

i've wanted to say it so long, but it has to stay a secret, because it isn't my place to talk about it.

i've dreamt about it. i used to obsess over news articles. and then not long ago, someone who knew the real facts gave me a small window of truth and i pushed too far in curiosity. i asked too much.

i once met a family, in passing, because they lived with my friend in his parent's house. they had all lived together for just over a year. a young, handsome father, (he would soon be an engineering graduate), a beautiful, kind wife, and their baby, who i really barely remember at all, but know from many photos that he was very sweet. he was just learning to crawl, then, so they had baby gates up everywhere. my friend introduced us as the dad cut up vegetables for supper at the counter and the mom chased after the crawling, laughing baby. it was so brief.

roughly two years after this, not long after the family had left from a visit back home, the dad shot his wife and child on the side of the road, and then proceeded to kill himself.

they said he was depressed.

my question, the one i asked when i shouldn't have, was to my friend, their friend, when we were in a bar one night. we were on the topic, and my friend had brought it up. i asked, "is her family mad at him?"

my friend started crying, and i'd never seen him cry. he just said, "how could they be?"

i know a lot of people that could give a lot of reasons as to why her family could be mad. people who say they should be mad, even if clarity were present in times of tragedy. people who say he didn't love them, that he was fucked, that he deserved to die.

and i think they are so wrong. he was sick. the man who shot his wife and child on the side of the road that afternoon was not the man that i met that day, so briefly. but why can't people believe that?

people always compare this to the man who cut that kid's head off on the greyhound bus. a popular incident of disgust with the justice system, all because the man who did it is now free. he didn't take his medication properly that day. but the truth is, that man wasn't himself either. he was sick. he may still be sick. i'm not saying he should be free. but i am saying that he was not himself.

mental illness is something that everyone thinks would never happen to them. we're all too damn normal for that to happen. we could never, ever, turn a gun on the people we love. but this makes me furious. we all could. we are all suceptible to illness. there was nothing wrong with that man who killed his wife and child. he was a good man. and he became a different man when he became ill. i can't pretend like i have even the slightest understanding of what happened that afternoon. but i know, and i know this so desperately, that he was not the man he had been every day leading up to his illness. there is this thing that can take hold of people, and we shouldn't let it erase every good moment we had before. even though i didn't know them, i wish that someone could have helped him sooner. and i hope to god that my friend was being honest when he answered that invasive, horrible question that i asked.

but ask yourself this: if tomorrow your father, or mother, or husband, or brother, or someone else you have loved and cared for unconditionally did something so terrible as this-- would that mean that person was evil? that they had never loved you?

i genuinely hope you know that wouldn't be true.




may the memory of that family be of every moment of goodness they had.

[muh-lig-nuhnt]

"think of it like this: i'm on a plane, and there is some turbulence. as long as the pilot isn't running down the isle screaming, 'we're all going to die!' i'm going to be fine. as long as everyone else is fine, i am fine. this is all just turbulence. this is all going to be just fine."

old 19 road

groceries:

milk (because its always the first item that prompts the list)
butter
bread
eggs (i'm sounding wholesome)
plain yogurt
nectarines
apples
tomatoes
onion
something you can turn into lunch tomorrow, hopefully you'll know when you see it
a garage
time
chicken
ricotta
spinach
a kitchen island, with stools
a camera
a new car
sunscreen

i looked for tornadoes in the sky today, thinking about joplin and the phrase "eye of the storm." like all this heat and stillness was just the sky faking, or waiting. the storm chasers in medicine hat are coming for the weather and forgetting all about people's windshields and houses and downtown traffic that never goes away.

she said, "i just have to believe there is something else out there, because if there weren't, this would all just be too random."

i said, "i am not taking the elevator to the tenth floor during a tornado."