Engineering tuition to rise by 38%
Majority of students vote ‘yes’ in referendum
MICHAEL OLSON STAFF
PHOTO: DAVID IAN LIPNOWSK
Tuition for engineering students will likely be increasing by 38 per cent, after the majority of students voted in favour of a tuition increase in the March 6 and 7 referendum.
With a 57.9 per cent voter turnout, 63.9 per cent of students voted “yes” to the question of whether or not they supported a tuition increase; 35.5 per cent voted “no.”
“The one thing that was gratifying was that there was a strong turnout. I mean we got almost as many bodies for this referendum as the UMSU election,” said Douglas Ruth, dean of engineering. “I was quite pleased with the turnout and relieved by the results.”
Increasing tuition was proposed as a means of alleviating the faculty of engineering’s financial shortfall. If not fixed quickly, there would be a possibility of the faculty losing its accreditation.
Essentially, by losing its accreditation, degrees issued by the faculty would not be recognized. However, Ruth does not believe the faculty is in danger of that, citing that such a process takes a minimum of several years to occur.
“It’s a process we don’t want to start. Having strong accreditation is an important part of any program,” said Ruth. “Once you start that process, it’s not somewhere you want to be.”
Following the tuition increase, Ruth says that in addition to more TAs, better lab equipment, and more electives, the faculty will look into hiring more sessional instructors. Furthermore, the faculty will be able to increase its bursary fund from $60,000 to $310,000. According to Ruth, this will allow the tuition increase to be cost-neutral to those who rely on bursaries.
With the student vote in favour of a tuition hike, the proposal will now be taken to the Board of Governors. If passed, the proposal will then be taken to the provincial government for approval.
The referendum was a victory for those voting “yes”; however, for groups like the University of Manitoba Students’ Union (UMSU), Canadian Engineering Students Vote No and Engineers Against Tuition Hikes (EAT Hikes), it was a defeat.
In the campaign, the “no” side felt it would be better to hold out on a referendum and instead apply more pressure for government funding.
“Most importantly, EAT Hikes also wants to help make the U of M faculty of engineering even better,” said Parneet Mavi of EAT Hikes. We need more funding, and EAT Hikes wants to continue campaigning so as to pressurize the provincial and federal governments to give us our fair share.”
“The tuition fee freeze has meant historic levels of funding for Manitoba colleges and universities, and heading into an election year all parties would be wise to address accessible, high quality post-secondary education their platforms,” said Rachel Gotthilf, vice-president (external) for UMSU. “We are approaching budget season, and the federal government has an opportunity to introduce new dedicated federal funding to support our colleges and universities. We need to be keeping pressure on government to fill the funding gap.”
Following the release of the results of the referendum, one appeal was brought forward by EAT Hikes — that more time needed to be allotted for the campaign.
“We tried to shed light on the issues, and I think given more time, we would’ve been successful in changing the tide,” said Mavi.
Mavi went further to say that, “Two out three engineering students ultimately did not vote in favour of this increase, so I don’t see how the university or the provincial government can say that students want this.”
The complaint filed by EAT Hikes also raised the concern that dean Ruth was in favour of the “yes” side.
“I think there was a broad sense that the decision had already been made by the university, and that they would get the money from students one way or another,” said Mavi.
If the motion to raise tuition is approved by the provincial government, engineering students can expect to see an increase in their tuition as early as next September.
There was also some increased animosity when it was revealed that UMSU would be getting involved in the campaign that only concerned students in the faculty of engineering. The official complaint that was sent to the referendum’s CRO was sent from the office computer of Gotthilf. However, since all UMSU campaigning was done outside the engineering complex, it was consequently outside the CRO’s jurisdiction.
There was also concern that the “yes” side had initiated campaigning with posters before the campaign period had officially commenced. However, it was ruled by the CRO that these were not visible to enough students to validate concern.
Moreover, there were complaints about the wording of the referendum question. According to EAT Hikes, the question was constructed in a way that made it biased in favour of the “yes” side. The CRO, however, felt that the question properly fitted the criteria as laid out by the federal Clarity Act, a base in which the standard of the referendum question was to measure up to.
All filed complaints were overruled by the CRO and the DRO. In addition to the fact that the complaints were filed after the appeals period had expired, the CRO and DRO wrote in an official response that they felt the complaints “were a last-ditch effort to invalidate results that the slate did not agree with.”
