Stephens: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests

Essential reading for some of our more “woke” institutions, academics and students. Money quote:

“It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes.:”

…Some of you may have heard the term “institutional neutrality.” It is the belief that universities like ours should avoid taking political positions of any kind, either through investment decisions or political declarations by administrators or by academic boycotts of foreign scholars, except when the interests of the university are directly affected — like when the Supreme Court weighs in on our admissions process.

You may also have heard about the Chicago principles, which make the case for universities to embrace an almost unfettered principle of free expression as “an essential part of the university’s educational mission,” even when the speech is seen by most members of the community as “offensive, unwise, immoral or wrongheaded.”

Our university embraces both institutional neutrality and the Chicago principles. We do so not because they are ends in themselves but because they are necessary ways to cultivate the spirit of inquiry. That spirit cannot be fettered by formal or informal speech codes that might stop us from asking uncomfortable but important questions, or by university policies that preclude fruitful exchanges with scholars from other countries. At our university you will find scholars from Israel, China, Turkey, Russia and other countries whose policies you may not like; we do not hold them responsible for their governments, nor do we ask them to make political declarations as the price of belonging to our community.

But necessary isn’t sufficient. If all we accomplish by adopting the Chicago principles is that everyone gets to speak and nobody bothers to listen, those principles will have fallen short. If we embrace institutional neutrality at the topmost level while remaining indifferent to the one-sided politicization of classrooms, departments and administrative offices, we will have done little to advance the pedagogical benefits of neutrality, which is intended to broaden your exposure to the widest variety of views and ideas.

And if we permit protests that inhibit the speech of others, or set up no-go zones for Jewish students, or make it difficult to study in the library or pay attention in class, we may have upheld the right to speak in the abstract while stripping it of its underlying purpose. The point of free speech is to open discussion, not to shut it down. It’s to engage with our opponents, not to shut them out. It’s to introduce fresh perspectives, not to declare every perspective but our own to be beyond the moral pale.

I’d like to add a personal note as a Jew. Many people objected to last year’s protests, with their chants of “from the river to the sea,” as antisemitic. I find that calling for the elimination of Israel — indeed, of any state — is inherently repugnant, since it would almost inevitably entail an almost unimaginable level of violence, dispossession and destruction.

But antisemitism is not what I found chiefly offensive about the protests. I accept that most of the protesters are not antisemitic, or at least don’t think of themselves that way.

What bothered me, rather, was watching members of our community turn off their critical faculties. It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes. It was the substitution of serious political thought with propaganda. It was the refusal to engage with difference and criticism in any way except denunciation and moral bullying.

In short, the way in which these protests unfolded was an insult to the spirit of inquiry that this university has an institutional responsibility to protect and champion. So does this mean we will brook no form of protest? Of course not. But we do expect that protests, so long as they happen on our campus, on our property, conform with the aims of education as we see them.

That means, at a minimum, that we will enforce clearly established “time, place and manner” restrictions, so that the rights of those who protest are never allowed to impinge on the rights of those who don’t. It also means we will invest in serious programming about the Mideast conflict, including by inviting Israeli and Palestinian scholars to campus and hosting moderated debates where you can cheer your own political side but must at least listen to the other. Our goal is never to make you think one way or the other. It’s to make you think, period.

The spirit of protest will always have a place here, as it must in every free society. Our job is to harness it to the task of inquiry so that knowledge may continue to grow, and human life may be enriched.

Source: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests


Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions 

Exceptions are reasonable. The degree to which these restrictions are enforceable, or are enforced, remains to be seen. But, as some Quebec commentators have noted, major step in giving Quebec a larger say with respect to Temporary Foreign Workers:

Ottawa has approved a Quebec request to impose a six-month pause on new applications to the low-wage stream of the temporary foreign worker program in Montreal, with exemptions for several sectors.

Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault announced the decision on Tuesday, saying the pause will not apply to the construction, agriculture, food-processing, education and social-services sectors.

Quebec Premier François Legault said the six-month pause would only apply to about 3,500 workers filling low-wage jobs on the Island of Montreal. During a Tuesday news conference, Mr. Legault presented this as a first step and acknowledged that it represents only a small fraction of Quebec’s temporary residents….

Source: Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions

Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day 

More commentary from the right (Maddeaux briefly tried to be a Conservative candidate for the upcoming election). But addressing the impact of previous Liberal government loosening of visa and work restrictions will involve politically difficult trade-offs, many which a future Conservative government would also find challenging:

…More details on the change are due in the fall, but the government’s announcement provides clues on how they intend to sell the program to Canadians. It says, “The initiative would support the modernization of the economic immigration system by expanding the selection of permanent residents to candidates with a more diverse range of skills and experience.”

The gist: they plan to fold their TFW scheme into the permanent resident stream, pat themselves on the back for increasing “diversity,” and hope voters don’t pick up on the rebrand.

This move kills several birds with one stone. First, converting a large number of TFWs into permanent residents will help them achieve one of their marquee goals: 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025. Despite the obvious stresses placed on housing, health care, and other infrastructure by this sky-high target unburdened by any signs of strategic planning, there’s been no indication Liberals intend to rethink it.

Second, low-wage employers will get continued access to these workers, preventing any serious pressure to raise wages.

Third, it will allow Liberals to earnestly claim they’ve cut back the TFW program, which is what’s getting all the bad press, without actually having to do any cutting.

Finally, it allows them to avoid the growing mess of expired work permits, which this government clearly doesn’t have the appetite to enforce. In their worldview, enforcing immigration rules isn’t progressive. Yet, moving a mess to a different room still means it’ll eventually have to be cleaned up—and, if it gets bad enough, someone’s eventually bound to argue the best course of action is to simply throw the entire thing out.

This is why it’s so difficult to take the Liberals’ pro-diversity claims seriously. Their actions, as already evidenced by rapidly shifting public opinion on immigration, continuously undermine long-term shared economic and cultural gains in favour of key stakeholders’ short-term financial interests.

Canada is lucky to still be a country where nuanced and level-headed conversation about immigration is not just possible but desired by voters. The public wants thoughtful solutions from policymakers, not marketers trying to sell them the same failed product in new packaging. That begins with recommitting to immigration in service of shared prosperity, not low-wage employers’ bottom lines.

Source: Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day

McQueen: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond

Once a partisan, always a partisan, in terms of how one looks at the issues, it would appear.

While certainly political considerations played a role, the increase in the number of permanent residents reflected the misguided belief that Canada needed a larger population to address an aging population and labour shortages. The increase in temporary workers responded, excessively, to business interests, and students to provincial governments and their education institutions.

And surprising, given that voting applies only to citizens, that McQueen doesn’t mention citizenship numbers. And assuming that all new Canadians favour the government of the day, reflects an earlier period and neglects the diversity among new Canadian voters.

…Consider that in 2021, Trudeau’s 5.6 million votes weren’t sufficient to secure another majority. His administration has brought in about 3.2 million new immigrants, and consciously allowed the number of temporary residents to swell to 2.8 million — a large chunk of whom have come post the 2021 election. More than any equivalent period in our history

One has to wonder if Trudeau has weaponized our Immigration system in an effort to build a new base of more than six million grateful future Liberal voters. What might look like “incompetence” may actually be the Liberal 2029 election strategy at work.

Source: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond

‘Structural solutions not inflammatory conclusions’ required to fix foreign worker program: Senator Omidvar

More balanced than the special rapporteurs language and reasonable recommendations for the current and likely future government to consider, although finding the right balance between employers and workers remains a challenge:

…While the government and groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commercemay reject the UN rapporteur’s characterization of the program, the recent Senate report found similar abuses within the program. 

On May 21, the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science, and Technology released its own report on Canada’s migrant labour infrastructure, which it said is failing both workers and employers. 

Beginning its study in November 2022, the committee heard evidence and testimony from temporary foreign workers and employers, academics, policy experts, and government officials. Members also visited workplaces in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island on a fact-finding mission. 

While Obokata did not visit any farms or fisheries—as the Senate committee did—Omidvar said the Senators who worked on the report were able to come to their findings with “clear eyes,” having accounted for all perspectives. 

Fittingly, those perspectives informed the first of the committee’s recommendations to provide what Omidvar said are “structural solutions” to a program that has grown in a rapid, disorganized, and often piecemeal manner for decades.

In its report, the committee offered six recommendations, the first of which is the establishment and funding of a tripartite Migrant Work Commission, modelled after the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, that would include a commissioner representing migrant workers, employers, and the federal government. 

“Right now, there is no single place where either an employer or a migrant worker can go to address their issues,“ Omidvar explained. “In particular, there are not enough avenues of complaints for migrant workers that are nimble, effective, and worker-friendly.”

The second recommendation mirrors the UN report, but Omidvar said the committee recommends the full phase-out of closed work permits in the next three years, rather than immediately.

“You cannot go from extreme heat to extreme cold without creating severe cracks and fissures in the system,” Omidvar said, explaining that while the committee had identified closed work permits as an area of concern, the federal government would need time to negotiate with provinces to create regional, sector-wide permits to replace them.

Omidvar said the third most important recommendation is that workplace inspections be unannounced as a standard, adding that the current practice allows for unscrupulous employers to engineer a compliant workplace to give the illusion of compliance when inspectors arrive.

While Omidvar recognized that could also be true for the workplaces the committee visited—or at the very least, that only already compliant “good workplaces” would have even accepted their request for a visit—she said the workplaces she did see were undoubtedly having a positive impact on its workers and community.

At one seafood processing plant, Omidvar recalled speaking with employees who had arrived as temporary workers and successfully applied for permanent residency with the aid of sponsorship from their employer. She said that the new influx of residents had reinvigorated and revitalized the community with “new families, teachers, and parishioners” filling the local church every Sunday.

On the other side of the spectrum, Omidvar said the committee also met with migrant workers in closed-door meetings in other communities who detailed instances of abuse, including withholding access to health care. She explained that those abuses can be particularly problematic in rural and remote communities without nearby doctors or medical facilities.

Additionally, many of those workers said that there was a lack of clarity on the pathways to permanent residency, she noted. 

“They’re operating in a fog of information, and we need to make those pathways crystal clear,” Omidvar said, adding that Canada needs an annual migrant worker level plan, as it has for annual immigration. 

“The whole system post-COVID has been kind of bent out of shape with exceptions that we made to meet various needs,” Omidvar said. “Now, we need to get back to the drawing board and reconfigure this in a sensible, pragmatic, and doable manner that ensures the rights of migrant workers are paramount.”

Source: ‘Structural solutions not inflammatory conclusions’ required to fix foreign worker program: Senator Omidvar

Canada to pause approval of temporary foreign workers for low-wage jobs in Montreal

Of note. Will be interesting to see the details of which groups most affected (e.g., fast food restaurants or personal support workers):

Canada will freeze the approval of new temporary foreign workers in low-wage jobs in the Montreal area starting in September, CBC News has learned.

A senior government source said the processing of Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) applications will be suspended for six months, starting on Sept. 3, for job offers with wages below $27.47 per hour — currently Quebec’s median hourly wage.

The decision is expected to be made public on Tuesday.

Premier François Legault and Quebec Immigration Minister Christine Fréchette are scheduled to make an announcement about the temporary foreign worker program tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Low-wage temporary foreign workers in Quebec must both be approved by the province and have their employer’s LMIA application approved by the federal Immigration Ministry.

Ottawa says the move is an attempt to “ensure the integrity of the temporary foreign worker (TFW) program” which is designed to be used when workers already in Canada aren’t able to fill vacancies.

Quebec Premier François Legault has been asking Ottawa to curb temporary immigration in the province for months.

Canada will freeze for six months the approval of new temporary foreign workers in low-wage jobs in the Montreal area starting in September, CBC News has learned. The announcement is expected Tuesday morning.

Source: Canada to pause approval of temporary foreign workers for low-wage jobs in Montreal

After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik

Notable rant:

Far-right thuggery. Marauding mobs. The prime minister’s descriptions of those who brought one of the worst episodes of violence on to the country’s streets captured their actions, but not their motivations or origins. Where did the rioters come from? Why now? Why are they attacking those they are attacking? If many people in this country are now, in Keir Starmer’s words feeling “targeted because of the colour of your skin, or your faith”, how does such a colossal violation come about, and how will it be addressed? The only answers we have been given treat the problem as one of security, of a troublesome minority who “do not represent” the country, and which will be stamped out by a heavy security response and prison sentences. A freak event triggered by the Southport stabbings. And that’s that.

But it will not be that. Because that minority reflects, and draws on, decades of racism, Islamophobia and anti-immigration rhetoric and policy broadcast by parts of the rightwing media, the Conservative party and the Labour party itself. Those years will not be swept aside by a policing crackdown. And their legacy will not, more importantly, be dismantled without its narratives being taken on and confronted.

“What Keir Starmer should do now” has been a preoccupation since the violence erupted. And yes, this is a moment – clearly presented, desperately needed, ripe for the taking – in which Starmer could, on the back of a large majority and fresh in government, mount a campaign against the notions that precipitated this month’s events. The things he should say are obvious, but he will not say them.

What he should say is that immigration is not “out of control”. That we do, in fact, have control of our borders, and that the vast majority who come to the country are allowed in after meeting an extremely high visa threshold. That we do in fact, invite many of them in, to fill gaps in our health and care sectors, and that those who come as students, or to work in the private sector, pay hefty residence permit fees and pay twice for the NHS, in taxes and in NHS surcharge.

He will not say this, because the illusion that immigration is something that a government can fully “control”, that is not subject to economic dynamics and the needs of public infrastructure, is important to maintain. Shattering this illusion makes it difficult for a government to present itself as having a “solution” to the problem of a country that, as Starmer previously said, needs to be “weaned” off immigration.

What he should say is that those who are not allowed or invited in constitute a tiny fraction of overall immigration. That asylum seekers are not merely an administrative processing concern, but a human rights one. That the UK has obligations, and moreover, values and convictions, that necessitate looking fairly and humanely upon the resettlement needs of those fleeing war, persecution and the devastation of their countries. He will not, because, well, it feels like heresy just to have typed the above. The Tory party’s Rwanda scheme, its “stop the boats” sloganeering, Nigel Farage’s jaunts to Kent to witness the “invasion”, and an almost total failure by the media and politicians to humanise asylum seekers, makes pointing out their needs and real numbers forbidden.

What he should say is that people have been fed lies. That he is going to finally tell us the truth. That immigration is not responsible for the housing crisis, or for the one in the NHS. That asylum seekers being housed in a hotel is not the reason your high street is empty, your industries mothballed, your public spaces scorched, your councils bankrupt, and your community spaces shuttered. That we have laid at the door of immigrants the consequences of an entire economic model that has defunded the state and privileged big businesses and private capital, and concentrated asset accumulation in the south of the country with no foresight or plan. That immigration is not the biggest problem we face; that would be the disgrace of inequality and rising child poverty in the sixth wealthiest economy in the world. He will not say any of this, because Labour cannot be seen to threaten higher taxes or higher spending. Better to blame a lack of growth, and then be muzzled by the implicit cosigning of austerity when immigration is blamed for its consequences.

And what he should say is that this is a country that for too long has allowed the most small-minded, parochial, cynical and mendacious parties to dictate who we are allowed to be. That there is another country, exemplified by those who turned up against far-right violence spontaneously, that has been forbidden from expressing its truth and texture in our politics, policies and discourse. That immigration is in fact a quotidian reality, a question already settled through the peaceful merging, blending and cross-pollination of millions of people over not just the past century, but throughout Britain’s history as a territory. That “concerns” about immigration are not to be pandered to, that promises to reduce it, and even actually reducing it, will never be enough. That even Brexit and the end of free movement did not mollify those in search of perpetual grievance. And yes, that racism is behind many of those concerns, an undeniable fact now that they have been manifested in attacks on Muslims and people of colour. That Islamophobia is a real, powerful threat to social cohesion, one that has passed without condemnation or consequence in the highest offices of the land, and which now must finally be confronted.

He will not say it, because Starmer’s weakest feature is his inability to paint a rousing vision of our modern country. One that isn’t just about safe streets and working hard and paying the bills and getting on, but that appeals to a fundamental need for belonging and belief in a higher quality that binds us in nationhood.

We don’t live in Gotham City, waiting for a mayor to clean the streets of villains. We are not just atomised individuals running our own public limited companies, but part of something bigger, part of a nation that has miraculously expanded, absorbed and assimilated people from all over the world, one that has manifested the best and most natural of human impulses – to get along and make a common home.

This truth must be said not just by Starmer, but the entire senior ranks of our government, consistently and unflinchingly, without fear of what that will unleash. Because what is the cost of saying it? Will it, maybe, bring angry thugs on to our streets? Will it provoke people so much that they will, perhaps, attack the police, mosques, businesses and individuals? Will it trigger even more invective from the rightwing media and claims of treachery and “two-tier policing” on the part of the Labour government? No – that is the cost of silence. We are already there. And we will remain there, because of all the things our leaders are afraid to say.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Source: After the riots, Keir Starmer should tell us the truth about our country. This is why he won’t | Nesrine Malik

These international students are still waiting for study permits from Canada with just two weeks before classes begin

Not great:

…Following changes announced by the federal government in January to rein in the number of international students, there has been an overall increase in student visa backlogs and processing times due to the confusion over how study permit quotas would be allocated and the lack of infrastructure for provinces to issue the newly required attestation letter for applicants. 

The wait times to get a decision for international applicants shot up from nine weeks in January to a peak of 15 weeks in May; processing times for those applying from inside Canada went from four weeks to 14 weeks in June and now 11 weeks, according to data from ApplyBoard, an online marketplace for learning institutions and international students.

The Immigration Department has stopped publishing the overall outside Canada wait times in favour of providing the information based on the country where an application is processed. Currently, the estimated processing time for China is eight weeks….

Source: These international students are still waiting for study permits from Canada with just two weeks before classes begin

Canada to grant a select group of international students permanent residence upon graduation with pilot program

Another pilot that will create further expectations:

Ottawa is launching a new pilot program to attract and retain Francophone international students, providing them with a direct pathway for permanent residency in Canada after graduation.

The initiative is touted as a flagship measure of the new Francophone immigration strategy meant to boost the French-speaking population outside of Quebec, which has declined since 1971 from 6.1 per cent of the Canadian population outside the province to just 3.5 per cent today, threatening the country’s bilingual national identity.

Source: Canada to grant a select group of international students permanent residence upon graduation with pilot program


Sergent: Who benefits from surging immigration? Hint: it’s not Canadian workers 

More on immigration and productivity. Less clarity than other commentaries:

Key takeaways: do the negative impacts on productivity mean that immigration is negative for the Canadian economy?

It does seem likely then that the surge in immigration over the last few years, particularly amongst NPRs, has contributed to the recent decline in Canada’s productivity. Because the capital stock moves slowly, faster population growth reduces the available stock of machinery, buildings, and natural resources per worker, making them less productive. And because new immigrants and NPRs are less productive than immigrants who have been in the country for a long period of time, a surge in immigration lowers the average quality of the workforce. The other key driver of growth, innovation, is unlikely to respond significantly to immigration, given that ideas tend to flow easily over national borders.

None of this means that no one in the economy benefits from immigration. Owners of capital certainly benefit when labour is cheaper and more abundant. However, the principal beneficiaries of immigration are immigrants themselves. Given the huge wage disparities between Canada and the developing countries from which the vast majority of immigrants come from, the potential economic gain to immigrants is very large. The costs of relocating and adapting to a new country are small in comparison.

Furthermore, there are things governments can do to improve the economy’s adjustment to the higher immigration. Policies to improvethe investment climate would help increase the capital stock, and better credential recognition would reduce the wage gap for new immigrants.

However, policy action on these fronts can only go so far. Ultimately, it is always going to take some time for the capital stock to catch up with a bigger workforce, and new immigrants are likely to be less productive for a significant period (unless Canada is willing to become much more selective in its immigration policy, cutting back on family class immigrants, and making selection criteria much more stringent). This means that if immigration remains at its current level, it is likely to remain a drag on productivity and therefore our standard of living for some time to come. Whether that proves politically sustainable remains to be seen.

Tim Sargent is Director of the Domestic Policy Program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Source: DeepDive: Who benefits from surging immigration? Hint: it’s not Canadian workers