censorship in the '90's?

EDITORIAL

ALCOHOL POLICY SMACKS OF CENSORSHIP!

In today's society, we are inundated by rules, regulations, laws, and policies around which we live our lives. The majority of these 'guidelines' are well within reason, but as this is not a perfect world (far from it), there are some restrictions which go beyond tlie realm of logic and reason. Here at UCFV, policies abound like clover in the back field. It is these policies that guide the directions and actions taken here at the University College. Somewhere along the line of forming these policies, the idea of restricting who could advertise in the student newspaper, presently the CASCADE, was forwarded to the policy-making committee here at UCFV. Thinking that it was a good idea, this committee made a policy totally restricting certain organizations from advertising. The title of this policy is the Alcohol Policy. This policy, which severely restricts the Student Society's ability to promote - therefore to make a profit - its dances where alcohol is being served, also prevents the CASCADE from getting sponsorship from local pubs, bars, and night clubs. The policy blatantly states "No organization which is encouraging the consumption of alcohol will be allowed to advertise its products, events, etc., on University College campuses or within University College sponsored publications."

It has been said that the CASCADE is sponsored by the UCFV, therefore we cannot run ads by those organizations deemed to be encouraging drinking of alcoholic beverages. Some may argue who the CASCADE's sponsor is, but this point is irrelevant. The fact is that this institute, namely UCFV, is trying to dictate what is 'responsible use of ale:ohol' by censoring the ads which the CASCADE runs. It's a great idea, but instituted in an extremely bad way. The CASCADE firmly believes that alcohol should be treated seriously, and the promotion of safe drinking habits and 'Don't Drink and Drive' advertisements is a must. But banning alcoholic ads outright won't help the situation. The student body is a responsible groups of adults and young adults who, I believe, can make wise and intelligent decisions regarding their own wellbeing. They've made the choice to attend UCFV to further their education ... Just because there is an ad from an establishment which sells alcoholic beverages primarily certainly does not mean that the entire student body, or part thereof, will head over and get drunk. We have more intelligence than that! Those establishments were there long before the CASCADE came along making ad-space available to them. People were enjoying cool ones ever since day one. The CASCADE wants to educate more people about the hazards of drinking, but in order to do so, must generate money allowing us to expand. If that money is available from 'drinking establishments,' so be it. People will frequent these places regardless, otherwise they would not be in business. Let's just educate these people about the 'very real risks of alcohol consumption.' The more informed the student body is, they'll be able to make even wiser and more intelligent decisions, both about themselves and their friends! Censorship should not play a part in this ... and don't drive while under the influence of alcohol!

Post-secondary stall needs jump-start frotn governtnent

By Crawford Kilian

Students and schools alike are trapped in a catch-22 by the rising costs of higher education. Without advanced education, students have little hope of productive, high-income careers. Without productive workers, we won't be able to sustain a hightech industrial economy -including colleges and universities. We need to accept more people to into post secondary, but we can't afford to build new schools or hire new faculty. So existing campuses are jammed . Tuition fees alone run over $2,000 a year at most Canadian universities, but cover only about a fifth of the total cost. Taxpayers cover most of the balance. Fulltime students are also giving up the income they could have made by working instead. Countless students try to work part time and study part time. Government loans are vital for them. But they usually need to enroll in at lest three courses to qualify. That can be a problem when classes are 98 per cent full. Many students, therefore, borrow money so they can take courses unrelated to their career plans. They'regamblingthattheir grades will get them a better spot in next year's registration line. They have little choice. Either they go heavily into debt to complete their education, or they face dead-end jobs and unemployment. Meanwhile student-loan defaults are running at one in six these days, so the present system isn't serving anyone very well. The Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Montreal thinktank, has published a fresh look at this dilemma. Ending the squeeze on Universities, by Edwin G. West, argues for "income contingent" loan repayment. In other words, students would borrow money for their education and then repay it through their income tax. If they didn't make much money, they wouldrepayslowly. Iftheymade a lot, they'd pay it off quickly. West points to a number of countries trying this system, notably New Zealand. But Caryn Duncan, a student, argues against the idea in the same book. She warns that tuition fees would skyrocket. Some graduates would become disabled, leave the country, or otherwise fail to repay. That would raise costs for the rest. Even so, income contingent loan repayment makes sense. By comparison, U.S. president Bill Clinton's "national service" plan, where graduates work for the government before going to work for · themselves, looks expensive and unwieldy. But West assumes that graduates, whatever they've studied, will indeed make a lot of money and avoid unemployment. That looks less certain as the recession grinds on.

A hard-nosed government might offer loans for job-training only - and only for jobs in real demand. Students in general academic programs would pay their own way. So would students in overcrowded fields like law. Government loans would go only to students in apprenticeship programs, health- related disciplines, science and engineering - whatever fields promise a real return on investment. A hard-nosed government could also demand that students complete their undergraduate programs in just two or three years. That would automatically create m o r e spaces, and get people into productive w o r k sooner. Perhaps t h i s sounds harsh, but the only way out of a Catch-22 is to change the terms of the problem. Traditional postsecondary is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Mr. Kilian is an Author and Instructor at Capilano College.