I was speaking with Nick Taylor-Vaisey of the Fulcrum and he raised an interesting point.
The debate around bilingualism has evolved so much this year. In the past, people used to debate whether or not that rule [candidates have to be bilingual] should exist. Today, we are debating whether someone is bilingual enough.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Stupid rule. Just stupid.
Don't you mean:
Stupid rule. Regle stupide?
I think you meant:
Règle stupide. Stupid rule.
I want some fucking french toast! dude where are you?
As an Anglo student who would love to run for the fed but cant because of my language skills i am torn.
I know for a fact we are missing the chance to have some great people who do not have a second language.
However, it should be the right of every student to be able to address those in power directly.
Every student should be able to speak to the president if they wish, in any one the two official languages.
However i think the test needs to be relaxed.
There is a translation department that has to approve everything that gets sent out, minus personal emails.
So.
a reading and comprehension and oral test should be more than enough.
There could also be the option of not having all positions bilingual.
I think there needs to be an open conversation of this at the fed. The reason the debate is moving from bilingual, to how bilingual is because bilingual is a subjective word. In the government if you can speak and read a bit they call you bilingual. Some people insist on perfection for the bilingual title to be applied.
The BOA/SFUO/and students should have this discussion.
However i can not see any way in removing this restriction. With French as a minority, it would not take much time before all the boards are dominated by anglophones, and one of the founding purposes of this school gets lost.
All you have to do is look at the BOA this year. I think its good there are no bilingual rules here because this way all students can get in, while the exec remains bilingual. However look what happens when you open it up with no requirements. Almost fully the board is made of of (primarily) English speaking students.
Its easy to say bilingualism is dumb, we have a majority anglos so lets role with that.
However the sfuo protects minority rights, it stands by that view in its constitution and its services. French is a minority on this campus, and we much work to protect it.
Even if it leaves some students out of contention for the executive.
Faris you my Idol
Faris tu est mon Idol
It is already a challenge to sit on the BOA if you are not fluent in English, much more than if you're not fluent in French, so there is a "de facto" restriction even without a test. I think that's what Faris meant.
The big difference is that the "de facto" restriction overly penalizes one linguistic group (unilingual French) while the formal restriction - the bilingualism test - penalizes all unilingual students equally.
What people will say against that is that "everyone knows English anyway". Well, why not make the SFUO unilingual English and stop arguing about that? Then maybe the francophones will split and create their own student association (like it happened at Laurentienne). Would that be much better?
The problem with the "everyone knows English" stance is that (1) it's false (especially in the case of French-speaking international students from Africa, Haiti, etc.) and (2) many francophones understand English, but their speaking abilities are inferior, and their voice is weakened in a debate held mostly in English.
Lastly, for those who say francophones have more opportunities to learn English, well, it's not because we like it, it's because we were stuck in a minority setting for enough time. We also felt stupid, ashamed, etc., when we started learning English and were disadvantaged compared to the native anglophones. So get over it.
I think bilinguism is an essential requirement for any person vying for a Fed position.
The University of Ottawa was originally a French university, and while francophones now comprise the minority, their rights still need to be respected.
One person was angry tonight at the Residents' Ball that the executive was not speaking in French. He explained that he came to this university to receive a French education, but that supposedly bilingual associations, were only speaking in English. I understand his point.
The counterpoint, that Francophones are a distinct minority, and thus must be a bit more realistic, is frankly nonsense. This is Canada's university - l'universite canadienne. We must be able to offer services in both language capably and efficiently, or else our mandate is not fulfilled. We might be the last bastion in the country to do so, but, by golly, we HAVE to do it. If we believe in linguistic duality, harmony, and unity.
Bottom line: I do not support a division of the Fed for anglophone and francophone students, as that would breed de jure segregation.
I support one UNITED, fully bilingual student association - that is able to offer its services to both anglophones and francophones.
That said, I do agree that the bilingualism test needs to be reviewed, as many doubts have arisen as to its accuracy. Perhaps a live-person interview would be more appropriate. I have spoken to both Mr. Haldenby and Mr. Steeves and I believe that they would meet my suggested criteria. We need not have such strict requirements, that effectively excludes qualified people from running for the Fed.
Those are my views anyway...
As it stands, the current ways in which we test for bilingualism is very exclusive for people with learning disabilities and language/speech disabilities.
The test excludes both french and english- language people with these types of disabilities. And the exclusion is not limited to the executive, it goes on into associations; a place in which many student leaders first get their feet wet.
There's plenty of research linking the ways in which second languages are taught and tested for, and people with learning disabilities and their shortcomings on tests. It is not that these folks are unable to learn a second language; in studies of alternative teaching strategies and alternative testing methods, they scored much higher and demonstrated a better grasp of their second language.
Of the 6% of students in Ontario who are deaf and attend university, one would have to be the most exceptional linguist to pass a bilingualism exam for both french and english (lip-reading and sound-speaking). But the time restrictions certainly would interfere here, as they would for anyone who has been diagnosed with a learning disability.
While the bilingualism threshold is intended to protect the minority french community on our campus, and ensure that those in the union can communicate in both french and english, it keeps out a lot of people with disabilities.
I am saddened to say that one of our volunteers at our disability awareness centre is no longer running for her student association because her executive combined the portfolio into a bilingual one. She is deaf and she can lip-read like a pro. She orally communicates, which is already an exceptional skill within the deaf community.
When a minority group is excluded by a policy meant to protect linguistic minorities, we all lose.
PS.
word verification at the bottom of the comments section frustrates the dyslexic community like what.
fabimjk and vjyihk, I have to do these things more than once, sometimes twice to get it right.
Great position on this one JWR2! I totally agree. People feel discriminated against for not being bilingual, but how disenfranchised would you feel if you couldn't address your leaders in your mother tongue?
Apply the same rule across the boards... Sure, there are some people that will be left out... and there are other who are trying to ensure that they can properly represent students, such as Ryan Kennery, who are also learning a useful language at the same time.
Good for the candidates who spend their time learning French and not complaining about the 'discriminatory' test.
Eliz:
Wouldn't it make sense for people with disability to request a special accomodation in that case? Just like they would do in any other case where university life is unaccessible?
At least, I'm sure the SFUO Center for Student with Disabilities could make recommendations to adapt the bilingualism test in special circumstances, without having to throw out the whole idea of bilingualism requirements.
philippe is completely right.
however, the protection of linguistic minorities is, arguably, the most important protection you can provide. Since the make-up of our 'community' is based upon the institutions that it fosters, we have to ensure that it is not becoming anglo-centric or franco-centric. As such, we protect the linguistic rights of the members of the community with the most stringent requirements. Other minorities may be discriminated against by linguistic minority regulations, however I would argue that as long as everyone has equal opportunity to learn languages and take tests fairly then it is a fair requirement. If you argue that the test is not fair for a minority that is not linguistic, you should then fight to protect that minority's rights under the current bilingual protection policies.
it is too bad that person can't run for office, but perhaps that person is not suited for office due to the linguistic requirements the exact same way that someone who doesn't speak french is not fit.
Phillipe,
we did do so this year. The problem is that the constitution mandates the test by an outside company (some kind of equivalence of government standard testing.)
We requested that an alternative test be drafted, but this was outside of the constitution. It will be worked on.
But I'm not saying that the test should be thrown out, I'm just saying it keeps certain people out.
Should someone who is deaf be required to be french/english? Cause that's pretty rare.
Eliz:
Last time I checked, this aspect:
"we did do so this year. The problem is that the constitution mandates the test by an outside company (some kind of equivalence of government standard testing.)"
was in the election rules, not in the constitution. The constitution says that bilingualism is required, and the rules define how it is tested.
Also, the election rules are re-written each year by the chief electoral officer, they should be more flexible than the constitution.
Maybe one thing you could work on, or suggest to your successors, is to work on a policy on access to SFUO elected and hired positions for disabled students. I'm sure that besides the bilingualism test they are other issues these students are facing.
I agree with the previous anonymous comment that there should be a way to protect different minority rights at the same time.
Phillipe,
you are right, it is the election rules and not the constitution. Either way, we had made a series of recommendations for a more accessible election, and they were not all followed up on.
Anon, I don't think excluding people with disabilities is equal to excluding people who are not bilingual. People with disabilities can and do learn second languages, but it is often not taught adequately according to their abilities. It is also not tested for adequately.
I don't think we should sacrifice the social capital of people with disabilities on the alter of a rigid bilingual policy, that's all.
And to be sure, we are already organizing a variety of constitutional and by-election changes so as to include disability.
You are right with the hiring practices, too.
Post a Comment