The UWSA and "Doing Right" by Kids

Compensatory Education:
Compensatory education a system employed by some districts when there is a group of students falling below the baseline standard set for all students. This can happen in many different forms including, but not exclusive to after school and summer programming developed to help lift students up to the prescribed standard. There is a greater need for compensatory education for families who are of lower socio-economic status. Compensatory programs can include trips to the zoo or museum, activities that students may not otherwise get to experience.

What's the Problem?
The University of Winnipeg used to run one such program called Eco-Kids on campus, a school year program. Eco-Kids was a science based program that was funded in part by Enbridge Inc, an oil and gas company. Then the student decided that it wasn't good enough to be providing students with an opportunity to expand their learning and benefit from compensatory education and that the funding had to be from an ethical business. I will concede that ethical funding is ideal, it should not be the end game. There is less funding available in general and when you have some for a program, it should not be let go of because of questionable ethics.

Furthermore, there are U of W students (some who are associated with the UWSA, other independent of them), who felt as though they should a) be responsible for upholding the university to high standards for funding of a program that they simply house. And b) felt like they were right to rob students of help in their education because they were attending a program that was funded by Enbridge.

End Game
Let's face it, Enbridge is a company with a terrible track record, but their small donation to Eco-Kids on Campus may have opened up doors to kids that those students never knew existed. Those doors may know be closed forever. It is easy to go to your university and demand that they choose to accept funding from ethical companies only, but that isn't fair to the students who benefit from those programs.  These are student who may be living in poverty or not have much help at home because of the hand that they have been dealt in life. I am lucky as I have always had ample opportunity provided by my parents and continue to be supported by them to this day. There are many people without these benefits and that can lead to a life that is based in the cycle of poverty. The U of W found a way to help give students the opportunity of leave that life and because some of their own students decided that the goal of helping others succeed in school wasn't a great enough goal, these students may be lost forever.

Life is hard on these kids. Some have parents who are illiterate, some live in run down housing and don't have enough to eat. There is hope in programs like Eco-Kids on Campus and a few other ones across Winnipeg, but there aren't enough spots to accommodate all the kids who would benefit from the programming, leaving some out of luck. The loss of this programming is tough for many reasons. It is terrible for the schools and students who rely on the programming to help them achieve success; it is terrible for the workers who rely on the jobs to make ends meet, and it is terrible for the teachers who have to fill in the gaps that students have every year.

I am privileged and to be honest, there are many people who are privileged to attend university. There are some who choose to use this privilege to advocate for free post-secondary education, which is fair. But there is something disingenuous about advocating free post-secondary education and not realizing that even if the education is free it will not be accessible to those who are entering school with learning gaps and then having the programs that help bridge those gaps yanked out from under them because the funding isn't ethical.

Conclusion
The University of Winnipeg has tried to make school more accessible to people who otherwise would not be able to afford to attended university. They have attempted to help fill the gaps that exist in education in the inner city and the suburbs. They have tried and they have turned to other sources of funding to make some of this happen. The end should justify the means as I am not one who should speak on behalf of an oppressed group who is accepting these means in the name of hope.

Some students disagree and wrote about it because they felt like unethical funding was an unacceptable way to help fill a gap in the education system. I was good with one of the writers of the letter. She, like me, grew up in a nice neighbourhood where there is plenty of wealth. Like me, she never experienced hunger or a lack of support from school or home. She was provided with access to education and educational opportunities at a much higher rate than some of these students. What right do we have as citizens of this world to take away opportunities because the funding isn't ethical. Finding a different company to fund the program is a noble idea, but to ask that the program end because of where the money is coming from makes you seem like an over-priviliged person who doesn't understand that the end sometimes does justify the means.

The Silence is Deafening

Last night the Montreal Canadiens played the Boston Bruins. PK Subban scored the overtime winner. Following his goal Twitter exploded with racist tweets about him. Today Cam Neely stated that those people do not represent the feelings of the Boston Bruins organization. He is right, they don't. The Boston Bruins were the first team to break the colour barrier in hockey with Willie O'Ree, and has had many black players in their organization throughout the years, including Subban's younger brother Malcolm who plays for their AHL team. And yet there is one massive voice missing, one voice that means more than one organization and addresses more than one incident; the NHL.

The NHL has a program called "Hockey is for Everyone". They say that the game is diverse and growing in diversity and maybe it is, but their inaction as racial comments fly about on the internet speaks louder than any program they run. "It isn't our problem" the NHL seems to say. "Nothing to see here". But it is their problem and there is something to see here.

Black athletes are a minority in the NHL. Unlike the NBA they have a very small voice even if they band together with their voices because there are not many black NHL players. They need the majority to stand up for them because they do not have enough power to stand up to everything themselves. They need their teammates and opponents to speak up (and they have when asked about it), but they also need their league to stand up for them. Racism is not a Boston problem, a Montreal problem, a London Ont. problem, or a Pittsburgh problem; it is a human problem and it needs to be addressed on a larger scale. The NHL should be responsible for eradicating racism from the NHL, not any one team.

The burden of responsibility here should fall on the NHL. The NHL has done nothing. They have sat by idly as player after player has been criticized racially for doing their job. The responsibility falls onto them now to show that they care about a player who is being berated for being born a certain way. Thanks to their partnership with You Can Play the NHL has a way to deal with homophobia and they deal with it swiftly. Yet they have no way to respond to racism. The NHL responded to Sean Avery making unsavoury remarks about an ex-girlfriend and yet they do nothing as a player is attacked over social media for the colour of his skin. When Krys Barch was suspended for asking Subban if he "slipped on a banana peel", there was no sensitivity training and no counselling, there was a two game suspension and that was it. Sean Avery had to go to counselling and enter the NHL's behaviour program for his comments. He also got suspended for 8 games. Barch got one game.

They say actions speak louder than words. The NHL's lack of action in regards to the repeated racist behaviour of their fans and their players should speak loudest of all.