Censorship and Punishment

Tessa Vanderhart, staff

Unsurprisingly, the University of Manitoba is ranked last yet again in the Maclean’s university rankings.

The U of M was one of 22 universities to very publicly pull out of the rankings last year, claiming they were biased. Of course they were — last year, like the year before it, the U of M was ranked 15th out of 15 medical-doctoral (“research intensive”) universities in Canada.

As a result, to compile this year’s rankings, Maclean’s had to get the data themselves, using the information that the U of M compiles and puts on their website, and for a few select details of information on other universities, filing Freedom of Information requests through their respective provincial governments.

The Maclean’s rankings are not worth the fuss that was made about them last year, especially from the U of M. Yes, again this year, U of M received low- to mid-range marks in most important categories, but no worse than should be expected, given the U of M’s mandate and that, realistically, it is not a “top” school. Where the problem lies is with the university’s desire to obfuscate this reality: because information was not provided to Maclean’s, U of M was not listed in two of the most important categories, the proportion of students who graduate and student retention. Though these are the U of M’s weak points, these two statistics are among the only ones in the entire rankings that are legitimately useful as tallied, and do explain what brings the U of M’s average down in most other areas.

So while of course it makes superficial sense for the university to hide this less-than-exemplary record, it’s just one of too many ways that the university shoots itself in the foot by trying to be secretive. The fact is, the reason that U of M has low graduation and retention rates is because many students who begin university here shouldn’t — and no amount of money spent advertising the university to students (or low entrance requirements to let them in) will make it the right decision for everyone. The university’s mea culpa in the face of this dollars-for-dropouts scheme is nothing short of hypocrisy, if at best hypocrisy spurred on by a lack of funding.

But, on Nov. 7, Industry Canada published a study demonstrating that file-sharing doesn’t lead to reduced CD sales — it may even encourage them. It’s the same basic principle: the more information, the better.

Not only do students like file-sharing, but they also deserve a chance to excel at university. Trying to make the U of M appear to graduate all of its differently studious students denies them this chance, and worse still, goes against what should be the mandate of a university — to better our society by building and distributing knowledge, and training us to think critically.

A letter to the editor (me) published in the Manitoban last week, among other controversies, made me wonder if the Manitoban has a role helping students to succeed, or even if I do as a student on campus. The answer, of course, is yes — U of M isn’t a recruitment tool, but rather inherently a place where people want to be, for the promises of success and wealth that follow. The sad reality is that most students leave here without once questioning the university. Meanwhile, I censored the first article I ever have today, and, though I stand by it as the best decision for the paper, I have to question whether our readers missed out on my lesson by not getting to read the article.

I’d like to believe that the U of M was inviting students to question them by failing to publish graduation rates in Maclean’s, but through my time here I’ve learned — you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt.