Engineers prepare to vote

Quality of education highest priority for both sides

MICHAEL OLSON STAFF

Come March 6, all preamble leading up to the referendum on a 38 per cent tuition surcharge increase will come to close as engineering undergrads will choose to vote either “yes” or “no.”

At a candidates’ meeting on Feb. 23, two campaigns were registered for each side.

Campaigning for the “yes” side were Heck Yes and Save Engineering, the campaign supported by the University of Manitoba Engineering Society (UMES).

Campaigning for the “no” side were Engineers Against Tuition hikes (EAT Hikes), and Canadian Engineering Students Vote No, supported by UMSU.

And, since campaigning began on Feb. 26, the engineering complex has been filled with posters advocating these positions.

“We are simply trying to raise awareness about the issues, and the fact is that we need to put pressure on the government to increase funding,” said Parneet Mavi of EAT Hikes.

According to Mavi, heckyes.ca refers to the faculty of engineering as “broke,” which she claims is misleading.

“‘Under-funded’ would be more reflective of the situation,” stated Mavi. “Also the ‘yes’ side is using intimidation and fear tactics to sway voters, like that engineering will lose accreditation if tuition doesn’t go up. Even the dean has said that we are not going to lose accreditation.”

Steve Woodrow, UMES senior stick, tried to put the situation in a more neutral perspective.

“I believe that both sides are starting with similar basic information about the proposed surcharge and then put a different spin on it or choose to speculate about a different outcome based on our current situation, both of which are fair,” said Woodrow.

All campaign materials are to be approved by the referendum’s chief returning officer, Jane Polak-Scowcroft, to ensure they are factually accurate and free of libel.
But even with CRO accuracy-approval, the two sides have very different takes on the same facts.

According to those behind saveengineering.ca, another pro-tuition increase website, a $40 per credit hour tuition increase will help bring in more TAs, better lab equipment, and more electives.

EAT Hikes’ Mavi disagrees. “In the 1990s in Manitoba the only thing that increased tuition brought was a smaller budget for the faculty of engineering,” said Mavi. “This was because of [the] government pulling back funding as students paid more and more each year. We are skeptical that increased tuition fees will mean a better faculty.”
In addition to some heated debate, both campaigns have been subject to vandalism.

According to Rachel Gotthilf, UMSU’s vice-president (external), hundreds of “no” posters have been either defaced or torn down completely, including one four-by-seven-foot banner.

In addition, according to Daryl Godkin from the Save Engineering campaign, more than 30 “yes” campaign posters have either been torn down or subject to some other form of vandalism. No vandalism to large banners for the “yes” campaign has been reported.

“I will 100 per cent guarantee you that no one on my campaign team has ripped down anything at my request,” said Katie Szilagyi of the Save Engineering campaign. “I think that there may be some students who have been frustrated that there’s a referendum going on at all and have been taking it out on the posters on the walls.”

Regardless of their diametrical stands on the referendum, both sides support lobbying the provincial government for increased funding for the faculty after the referendum.

“Those of us that stay involved, no matter what the outcome of the referendum, will continue to fight for accessible engineering degrees, more government funding for universities, and more accountable management by the university administration,” said Mavi.

Those on the “no” side are also in favour of lobbying the government. In Woodrow’s opinion, however, increased funding may not be an immediate remedy, citing that the 40 per cent increase would not be sufficient for the U of M’s needs. “Otherwise UMSU wouldn’t have gone down to the steps of the legislature on February 7 to request proper funding for the university — a ‘fully funded freeze’ — and we wouldn’t be holding this referendum.”

Commented Szilagyi, “I don’t think we’re a divided faculty by any search of the imagination. The messiness between the “no” side and the “yes” side, that’s not the issue here. The issues are about the quality of education.”

At 8 p.m. on Mar. 8, the period for appeals will come to a close and the results of the referendum will be ratified by the CRO.