Home Blog Page 1307

SFU hosts Vaccine Resistance Movement event, despite controversy

By
EIC
-
1

WEB-Vaccine-sanofi pasteur-flickr copy

Some worry that the venue gives undue legitimacy to the group’s claims

By Sheila Bissonnette
Photos by Sanofi Pasteur / Flickr

Given the extensive media coverage surrounding Vaccine Summit: Vancouver 2013, an event held last Tuesday night in the Fletcher Challenge Room at SFU Harbour Centre, the turnout may have left the Vaccine Resistance Movement organizers disappointed.

The scant attendance of approximately 55 participants at the large venue may be indicative of the lack of support in numbers for the anti-vaccine movement. An estimated 93 per cent of the population routinely chooses to get vaccinated in order to prevent infectious outbreaks.
Eliza, who preferred to keep her last name out of print, is the parent of two-year-old Bailie and seven-year-old Jessica, and falls within the majority category of parents who choose to vaccinate their children. “I don’t think the issues they are addressing are improvement of vaccine quality in a collaborative effort with the pharmaceutical companies, or even the fact that we may be over-vaccinating our children. It is such an extreme stance to say you are completely anti-vacination.”

The panel of experts at the event consisted of parents with autistic children and several naturopathic representatives who spoke about the negative impacts of vaccination and the alleged scientific link to autism spectrum disorder.

“The reality is that we cannot prove vaccines are not related to autism numbers spiking in the past 10 years or so,” stated one parent (who prefered to remain anonymous), who uses natural immunity methods such as breast-feeding for extended periods of time and probiotics to prevent infectious diseases.

“We have to be more careful about vaccinating our kids every chance we get without knowing fully the effects of what we are injecting into their bodies. I know people who have kids with autism and believe me, it is not easy.”

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a condition that impacts normal brain development and affects social relationships, verbal communication skills, and developmental milestones. ASD common characteristics include, difficulties with communication and social interaction, repetitive interests and activities, inability to tolerate sounds and unusual attachments to objects or routines.

“These parents want answers,” stated Joel Lord, the head of the Vaccine Resistance Movement.

Although advertised as an open debate, questions from the pro-vaccine attendants were met with laughter and heckling. The efficacy of the polio vaccine was questioned by several presenters, as was the use of vaccinations for preventing the spread of smallpox.

In his closing speech, Lord made a plea for parents to use natural immunity as a means of protecting against infectious outbreaks and to resist vaccines. When asked why he chose SFU as a venue for the event, Lord stated, “We respect SFU and obviously our work infuriates a lot of people, we chose SFU because this work deserves what a university offers.”

The event had originally been advertised at a suggested donation rate of $25, however those who were unable to pay were turned away, “because we need to make the money back paid for security,” mentioned one event organizer.

A Simon Fraser spokesperson confirmed that the group was charged an additional $760 in order for the university to beef up security for the event.

Recently the university has come under fire from the media regarding the decision to rent space to the anti-vaccine resistance group. Major media outlets have been keen to cover concerns over SFU’s decision to allow the Vaccine Resistance Movement to hold the anti-vaccine rally at the downtown campus.

The SFU rental agreement holds no clauses preventing groups from renting the meeting space on the university grounds. In an interview with The Peak, SFU president Andrew Petter defended the decision to rent space for the event, stating “The university is a public forum, where any groups can rent space to hold events.” He continued, “The university has a policy which supports freedom of expression. This does not mean that we agree in any way with the views expressed.”

SFU’s Faculty of Health Sciences spoke out on the issue, posting an open statement saying “The Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) was surprised to learn that SFU has rented space to the ‘Vaccine Resistance Movement’ for their Summit 2013 on our Harbour Centre Campus.

“Renting space to outside organizations for events such as these is done without any academic oversight. FHS disavows any support or affiliation with this event, which we believe to be anti-science and contrary to good public health practice.”

The official statement was followed by a link to the BC Centre for Disease Control page on vaccine safety, and a personal statement of FHS dean Dr. John O’Neil, who expressed concern that “the public may interpret this as an indication that SFU supports the perspective of the VRM. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

He went on in his statement to declaim the scientific evidence used by the VRM to assert that autism is caused by vaccines, pointing out that the scientific paper on which the claims are based was written by a researcher with a plain conflict of interest, and the evidence falsified. The paper itself was later labelled as an “elaborate fraud.”

ISSA mounts campaign for more funding

By
EIC
-
0

The international studies student association is advocating for one more faculty member to alleviate problems in the school

By Alison Roach

The International Studies Student Association (ISSA) has launched a campaign this semester advocating for more funding to the international studies program, specifically in the form of one new faculty member.
A newer program at only seven years old, the school of international studies has run into funding issues that are inhibiting its ability to grow, according to ISSA president Erin Wyllie.

“The problem is that international studies as a program can’t grow enough to accommodate the students who want to go into it,” she explained. “So students come to SFU particularly for the international studies program, and then they find that they’re not actually able to get into the program.”

This program has become even more inaccessible recently. The school raised the minimum GPA level to declare into the program to a 3.0. Currently there are approximately 200 students declared in the program, and another 260-odd students on the waitlist.

Besides the limited number of seats within the program, there are also issues of resources for students who have been accepted. Wyllie pointed to the fact that there is only room for eight students to do an honours thesis per semester, due to the lack of faculty thesis advisors, and a bottleneck that forms in the upper division courses of the program, delaying graduation times for some students. Specifically because of two mandatory upper level courses that are in constant high demand.

The Peak spoke with faculty of arts and social sciences dean Dr. John Craig, who expressed concern over the predicament facing the international studies program. “I’m very, very concerned,” said Craig. “Students that are not able to complete programs because there aren’t sufficient resources… that’s a great concern for me.” The ISSA’s campaign has been putting pressure on both Dr. Craig and VP academic Dr. Jon Driver to approve the appointment of a new faculty member to the school, largely in the form of an email campaign.

“I know that one more professor is not a huge thing to ask for, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said Wyllie.
The process for appointing a new faculty member is a lengthy one: new appointments are recommended by the director of each school within the faculty to Craig, who then selects from amongst those which he will recommend to the VP academic.

“Jon Driver has largely delegated the responsibility to deans, but he has maintained control over the authorization of positions,” said Craig. From there, Driver brings all faculty positions he has approved to SFU’s Board of Governors for ultimate approval. Craig explained that he only goes to Driver with these recommendations once a year, in October, and then only makes a handful of endorsements: four or five for the entire faculty.

This is due in part to the fact that resources are tight across the university, according to Craig. “Unfortunately, we started something once upon a time when the university had more money, and now as a result of a variety of factors including the wider credit crunch and provincial funding — so provincial funding’s flat, there’s a cap on tuition fees set at two per cent, there’s no new money coming to the university whatsoever — these are lean days.”

This past October, Craig decided against recommending the school of international studies for a new position, in light of
a new faculty appointment in September.

Craig suggested that restructuring in the school may be an option to look into. “There are particular requirements in the fourth year, and that strikes me as a little odd,” he stated, referring to those two mandatory upper-division courses.

Wyllie proposed that the structural issue is not with the school, but with the entire university’s funding model. “In the actual breakdown of funding for the school, lower division business students and science students are allotted two times as much funding as arts students. I know that ours is a smaller problem, but I think it feeds into a larger problem of how funding is being distributed.”

Wyllie went on to say that when she voiced her concerns to Craig over this funding model, he admitted that it was a very outdated one, and that it’s something that newly appointed associate VP academic, Dr. Gordon Myers, should be looking into next year.
“It’s just such a rigid model, and of course those classes are going to need more funding, but at the same time it’s just not fair,” said Wyllie.

In the meantime, the ISSA is continuing to advocate for their cause, speaking to various campus groups about the issue including forum, the student senate, the SFSS, and SASS. They also held a town hall meeting last month, which was attended by Craig and school director Dr. Alec Dawson, who supports the student-led campaign, according to Wyllie. When contacted by The Peak, Dawson declined to be interviewed.

“We’ve gotten response from it, and I do feel like it’s moving forward,” said Wyllie. “Having this conversation all the time is important.”

SFU students to attend Model NATO summit

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-NATO-mark burnham

Six students discuss international policy in Brussels

By Leah Bjornson
Photos by Mark Burnham

Six SFU students will make their mark on the global stage this summer at the second edition of Model NATO Youth Summit, which will be hosted in Brussels.

The delegation will be made up of six students: Max Budra, Gurpal Sandhu, Chantal Esperanza, Anneke de Geus, and Basak Kalkavan, as well as their ambassador, Michael Thorburn, who represents the state in the North Atlantic Council.

But what is model NATO? Most of us are familiar with Model UN, whether we experienced it in high school or simply heard about the UN in school or on the news.

NATO, on the other hand, is somewhat less well-known. Historically, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was a system of collective defense which was created in the aftermath of WWII and during the start of the Cold War.

NATO’s original goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” After the fall of the USSR, NATO extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations with a focus on regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbours. “NATO has image problems,” commented Max Budra, one of the SFU students set to go to Brussels. “So I think [the Summit] is important, because its not just limited to official NATO members. It provides the outside with a look in, and shows that NATO not just about US imperialism.”

The Model NATO Youth Summit is the largest international simulation of NATO’s decision-making process in the world. Similar to Model UN, students involved in the Model NATO will represent one of 28 member states and debate on current social and political international issues, such nuclear nonproliferation and the conflict in Syria. No matter what stance they take during the summit, the delegations’ decisions must be based on the interests of the country they represent.

Although their first choice was to speak on the behalf of Canada, the SFU team will be representing our neighbour to the south in Brussels this summer. Despite his concerns that NATO is seen by some as an extension of US power, Budra is excited to represent one of the largest powers in the organization. But with great power comes great responsibility, and the team’s preparations reflect this.

“There’s going to be a lot of brushing up on US foreign policy and the intricacies of NATO,” Budra laughed. “It was our second choice, but I’m happy to represent the US. It’s like being king for a day.”

When asked if playing this prominent role at the Summit worried him at all, Budra responded, “Sure, there’s maybe a bit of pressure, because you’re kind of leading [the Summit], and America is not always the most popular country, but its nice to have a bit of power and be able to put forth proposals on your own terms.”

This group of students is the first from SFU to ever attend the Summit, and only the second group of Canadians. However, acceptance is only the first step on the road to Brussels. The trip to the Youth Summit will cost delegates roughly $400 for their participation fee, excluding all travel expenses. Already, the sixth member of the team has dropped out for financial reasons.

Despite the huge effort required to get to the Summit, the experience is likely to be one these SFU students never forget, and may even be a springboard for the delegates to future careers in international relations.

“I like to think Barack Obama will be paying attention to what I do,” chuckled Budra. “But who knows.”

Beedie students organize talk on the future of transit

By
EIC
-
1

By Amara Janssens

Last Thursday, a group of students from the Beedie School of Business organized a public talk on the issues of public transit and sustainability in this province. The event was held from 4:30–6:30pm in the Mezzanine level at SFU Surrey.

As part of “Business 486 Leadership,” taught by Professor Dianne Cyr, groups of students picked a not-for-profit organization and implemented their leadership skills. Students Ben Jan, Joyce Mai, Jerry You, Robin Dong, and Jason Yang decided to work with Sustainable SFU to support the GetOnBoard campaign.

The event featured Gordon Price, director of the city Program at SFU (and former city councillor of Vancouver and Translink), as well as Surrey city councilor and transportation chair Tom Gill.
Price led most of the talk, and encouraged the audience’s participation. He discussed how the U-Pass system came
into being in Metro Vancouver, and the way it has transformed how young people think of transit and sustainability. “It was a shock to find out how many students were prepared to take transit,” Price said, citing other factors such as the high cost of parking at SFU and UBC.

Price pulled a transit stub from his pocket. He held it up, and said it cost him $5.10 for a three-zone trip to Surrey. He then asked a student from the audience how much a car trip costs him. After some calculations, the student figured that an average roundtrip to school with gas and a toll fee costs $15. Price followed by asking what a trip on transit costs the student, to which he replied, “it was free.” His next question was what the marginal cost of the U-Pass is, which to students appears free.

“What the U-Pass does for transit is what this society does for the car,” Price said. He said most people do not work out the cost of a car trip, instead trips “appear free.”

“We associate transportation with freedom,” Price explained.
Price asked the audience what we want as a society, the illusion of a free car, or the illusion of free public transit. The audience commented that they would want transit over roads if it could be delivered with more frequency. “When you are asking for frequency you are asking for government to take on an expensive proposition,” Price countered.

According to Price the province can either invest in the new Massey Tunnel, or transit expansion in Surrey. The audience commented that the tunnel would most likely come first. The reason according to Price, is that cabinet members are in a “transportation bubble,” citing that they live in Victoria, have drivers, and have free trips around the province. According to Price, if you are asking a cabinet member “to build a multi-million dollar investment in Translink, it’s hard to relate to and is not their life experience.” However for a generation of university students, the UPass has opened a new world of transportation in the form of public transit, where many students say they could see themselves never buying a car. “U-Pass has been your key to a lifestyle that up until recently, not many people could understand,” Price said. “You know the metro region in a way a driver could not know possible.” Price commented that senior government is building transportation of the 20th century, making driving the only option, which he said the Massey Tunnel project reflects. “If congestion builds up . . . they build a new one.”

Price concludes that Metro Vancouver should design the region for “mix use,” with high transit and all amenities within walking distance of transit. “The U-Pass is the key. It changed your lives.”

City councillor Tom Gill, spoke about transit development within the City of Surrey. “We need to change the car culture,” said Gill. “When I reflect on . . . the last 18 years, not much has happened when it comes to transit infrastructure,” despite a population now over 500,000 with 1,000 new residents moving in each month.
“We need to look at a strategy to reduce cost of transit so we can increase demand,” Gill said.

The talk ended with an open floor for audience questions and answers. A student asked how people can be convinced to join the transit culture. Gill replied, “Your generation has a different philosophy than ours. This generation is doing something great and phenomenal,” while Price said, “My generation doesn’t believe that your generation would rather use transit than the car.”

Nick Smith from Sustainable SFU commented on this question, urging students to convince other people to use transit for environmental and health reasons, and to “concrete that compelling story.”

Another question from the audience was in regards to affordability of the three-pass system and whether it could be made more equitable. Price replied, “Do not make transit a social service,” stating that transit will get reduced funding if it becomes a social service.

SFU business students host IWD Conference

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-international women

The Third Annual conference attracted influential Vancouver women

By Kelli Gustafson
Photos by Mark Burnham

SFU’s Young Women in Business Society ( YWiB) hosted their third annual International Women’s Day Conference on March 10, 2013. The Conference took place at SFU Woodward’s in celebration of International Women’s Day (IWD).

According to the official IWD website, IWD has been distinguished since the early 1900s, and recognizes universal suffrage and the struggle for gender equality. It also focuses on achievements women have made over the years in the face of adversity.

This year, YWiB’s IWD Conference was hosted by Dawn Chubai of CityTv, and featured a number of keynote speakers as well as a professional panel. Over 150 men and women from the Vancouver area attended the conference to engage with others, discuss ambitions, and become inspired by the motivational stories shared by the keynote speakers. Tickets ranged from $10–$35, and were available to YWiB members, high school and post-secondary students, as well as professionals.

Michaela Klassen, VP of public relations for YWiB SFU, explained this year’s “Gaining Momentum” theme to The Peak. “[ The theme] tried to focus on growth, in both our attendees and our speakers.”
According to Klassen, the conference “attempt[s] to create a forum for both student and professional women to connect over a common cause.” The common cause, Klassen said, is to celebrate the advances that women have made in all different fields, despite setbacks and obstacles they may have encountered due to gender inequalities.

A much-anticipated keynote speaker at this year’s conference was Tori Holmes, a young woman who, at the age of 21, rowed across the Atlantic Ocean in 86 days. Holmes spoke of both the physical and mental hardships she encountered along her journey. “I’m proud that I rowed across the Atlantic,” Holmes said, “but the thing that I am most proud of is that I got to the start line.”

Holmes and Ish Jhaj, her cofounder for Shooting for Hope, were among this year’s keynote speakers. Shahrzad Rafati; CEO & Founder of BroadbandTV Corp, also acted as as a keynote speaker.

Inspirational speakers and panelists stimulated conversation throughout the day, along with an expo fair for professional development. The expo invited attendees to explore opportunities within the community, and some companies, such as HootSuite, offered the chance for individuals to job shadow.

Vuitton Chan, Executive member of YWiB and attendee at the conference, shared with The Peak her experience of the day, “To speak with so many brilliant and ambitious young women keeps me motivated and inspired.” Chan believes that IWD SFU is important because, “there are not many conferences in Vancouver dedicated to recognizing the accomplishment of women.”

IWD SFU is an annual event, and many of this year’sattendees look forward to attending again next year, including Chan, who concluded by saying, “[holding this event] for students and professionals to come together and celebrate each other’s accomplishments is a good reminder that each one of us has something unique to bring to our community.”

Used ebooks are taking another slice of a writer’s pie

By
EIC
-
0

Used copies contradict the inherent value in e-books

By Tara Nykyforiak

On March 11, the Forbes website posted an article on the potential for a used e-book marketplace on online sites such as Amazon and Apple. If this becomes reality, new obstacles and authorship challenges will plague writers everywhere.

With e-readers already a popular choice among consumers, the question is whether e-book purchasers should be allowed to resell in the same fashion as a physical book.

In terms of buyer’s rights, a potential parallel does exist between the two.

Publishers control the number of copies of physical books released for sale. This allows them to also control the prices of each book, but in doing so, they are abiding by the doctrine of first sale; when a consumer
purchases a book from a store such as Chapters, the publisher no longer controls further sales. These rights are now in the hands of the book’s owner.

But e-book files should not be treated the same way. No changes would occur to a digital file over time — there is no spine to crease, no pages to yellow and tear, and no chance of coffee forever staining its cover. A “used” ebook’s lower price tag would not reflect the fact that it is identical to a “new” one.

Furthermore, if a buyer has the offer of a cheaper “used” file identical to the more expensive new one, it’s easy to see that he or she would go for option A. Thus, not only would the author’s work be further devalued, but in the most perverse way possible. And where does this leave the author and publisher? If used e-books adhere to the traditional doctrine of first sale, the publisher and author would be awarded zero dollars from the resale of these files.

However, if an agreement is made that includes the author and publisher, the author would be paid 25 per cent of the used digital list price. Whatever Amazon, the used e-book seller, and the author do not make is awarded to the publisher.

Let’s say you have slaved away all day and have not been able to eat anything. Starving at 11 p.m., you make yourself a delicious homemade pizza and smell its warm fragrances wafting around you while it bakes. Once it’s done and you place it down to cool, I break into your kitchen and eat all but a single bite of your pizza pie. You go to bed wondering how I could be so cruel.

Writers work hard to create the books they do, going through countless hours of brainstorming, drafting, editing, re-editing, and finally putting everything together into a complete and presentable form. To take slivers
away from their already meagre slice of the pie is not only unjust, but showcases the ideals most valued by society today: How can I make a quick buck, and who can I use to get it?

Cashing in on parents’ gendered anxieties is a cheap trick

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-kinder boo-Mark Burnham

Kinder Surprise releases a line of chocolate eggs just for girls, but who are they really appealing to?

By David Ly
Photos by Mark Burnham

How could any of us ever forget eating Kinder Surprise eggs, and getting the sweet little toy inside them? Whether it was a helicopter complete with rotating propellers, a challenging seven-piece puzzle, or even a figurine the size of your thumb, it didn’t matter if the surprise you got adhered to your birth-assigned gender, just as long as there was one. But not anymore.

Having appealed to children for decades now with surprises including over 8,000 toys, the creation of a new line of eggs titled “Kinder Surprise for Girls” seems pointless. I remember hearing one of their commercials advertising that now, “Everyone can enjoy Kinder Surprise!” But since when did everyone not include girls? I don’t know about you, but growing up surrounded by few guy friends, I remember my female friends being extremely excited to get a Kinder Surprise toy, regardless of whether it was a cute necklace or a cool fire truck.

Now, Kinder Surprise eggs come in two types of packaging: the regular one we are all used to seeing (despite our gender), and a newly designed wrapper that is prettily decorated with a pink flower on the top, supposedly only targeting little girls.

Do we really need to distinguish what toys boys and girls can and cannot play with? For such an iconic product, Kinder Surprise eggs should realize the impact they could have on young children: making them think that a pink figurine is not for a boy, and perpetuating dumb gender stereotypes.

We’re living in an age now where society is becoming more accepting of the blurring of gender boundaries, so why brainwash kids through chocolate eggs to think otherwise?

The creation of this new “girls only” line is contradictory to the company’s already-diverse market appeal. In Europe, the Kinder phenomenon is quite large. The surprises in the eggs have become so accommodating over there that they include hand-painted figurines, religious figurines of baby Jesus and the three kings, and even collectible metallic ones.

I don’t understand how Kinder Surprise could create such a variety of products without naming them “for Christians!” but feel the need to distinguish chocolate with jewelry and cute animals inside as “for girls.” I thought they have been doing a pretty swell job of already appealing to every kid’s need for a sweet little toy in an even sweeter wrapping.

Yes, a well-deserved round of applause for the new wrapping, as the design is quite well done, but as for the rest of the idea, I’m not going to throw any eggs into the basket! Kids are kids; a toy inside a chocolate egg is already good enough. It’s already ridiculous that McDonalds asks whether the toy in a happy meal you’re getting is for a boy or girl. Do we really need to take the surprise out of Kinder Surprises?

Flanagan persecution an affront to academic freedom

By
EIC
-
0

Universities should be spaces where individuals are free to question popular opinion

By Travis Gordon

CHARLOTTETOWN (CUP) — University of Calgary professor and former political operative Tom Flanagan recently faced heavy scrutiny for questioning the illegality of viewing child porn. Flanagan previously served as a media pundit, political chief of staff to now-prime minister Stephen Harper, and political operative within the Alberta Wildrose party.

While lecturing on Aboriginal issues at the University of Lethbridge, Flanagan was called out by an irate student for having said, in 2009, “That’s actually another interesting debate or seminar. What’s wrong with child pornography, in the sense that it’s just pictures?”

Further taunted by a student in the crowd, Flanagan clarified on Wednesday evening. “I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail for their taste in pictures.”

That remark received jeers and boos from the crowd of students. Flanagan went on to clarify further.

“It is a real issue of personal liberty and to what extent we put people in jail for doing something in which they do not harm another person.”

External reaction was swift. The Prime Minister’s Office condemned Flanagan’s comments as “repugnant and appalling.” The Wildrose party halted his work with them immediately. The Premier of Alberta reported that the comments “turned [her] stomach,” and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation dumped him as an oft-appearing commentator on political science and public policy.

The University of Calgary also issued a statement distancing themselves from his remarks and announcing his retirement.

My question is this: Why was a professor retired for voicing an unpopular opinion in an academic setting? Further, why did students not challenge Flanagan’s thinking intelligently? Why instead did they boo him and call him disgusting? Has academic discourse in Canada descended into simple, guttural responses?

It’s disgraceful. Should we not challenge conventional thinking? If students cannot clearly and articulate an oppositional response to someone who advocates for the legalized viewing of child pornography, it is certain that our society faces bigger problems.
Without academic freedom, how can professors challenge ideas or propose new ones? More importantly, how can we justify the implementation and existence of current ideas or laws without exploring alternatives, however unpopular?

Academic freedom should provide protection for those wishing to provoke discussion on issues as controversial and taboo as child pornography. The Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada says that faculty must be free to take intellectual risks and tackle controversial subjects in their teaching, research and scholarship.
Dr. Flanagan took an intellectual risk, and tackled a controversial subject. His reward? Political disownment, early retirement, and media vilification.

Tread lightly, professors.

Co-op, just do it

By
EIC
-
0

peak week 10 coop

It’s worth the wait to graduate

By Amara Janssens
Illustration By Eleanor Qu

Gone are the days when getting a bachelors degree guaranteed you a job following graduation. Instead, the value of a degree is to simply provide the checkmark to the “has degree” box on an employer’s checklist. Due to the saturation of people who fulfill that requirement, employers’ checklists have become longer than ever before.

So how do you stand out when you are one of the million Canadians who have the same education level as you do? What can you do to prevent or limit the time you will spend interning for free once you leave university? The answer begins before you graduate, by partaking in the underused co-op program available to you as a student at SFU.

I hear a lot of excuses from fellow students as to why they don’t partake in co-op, such as “I don’t want to extend my degree,” “There’s too many hoops to jump to get in,” and “I don’t know what career I want.”
Undeniably, if you fully partake in the co-op program you will be at SFU for a little bit longer than four years. I have completed three co-op terms now, and plan on doing one more, making my total degree length five years.

However, you have to think of the time that will otherwise be spent looking for that first unpaid internship when you graduate with no relevant experience. After completing co-op you will already have over a year of experience in your field, making it easier to quickly secure a job that pays better than those of your peers.

Fifty-four per cent of co-op students who have completed four or more work terms secure a job before graduation.
Additionally, co-op alumni statistics look promising, as 96 per cent of co-op alumni who did not secure a job before graduation found relevant employment within one year of graduation.

The process to get into co-op does require a few steps. First, you have to submit an application well in advance of when you want to work. If you want to do a summer co-op, you’ll have to get your application rolling in the fall semester.

During that time, you need to attend info sessions, two online workshops, a resume and cover letter writing workshop, and oneon-one meetings with your co-op advisor. Although these seem like a lot of hoops to jump, the process is not that time consuming, and you only need to do most of these things once.

Just because you are a communication co-op student or a science co-op student, you don’t need to apply for jobs only in your major. You can apply for any job, posted for any faculty.

Even though you may not know what you want to do, you are not limited from trying new things. After all, what better way to find out if you like a career than by testing it out?

If you take a co-op term, you have to get paid (a contrast to the huge illegal industry of unpaid interns), and you gain relevant experience ranging from three months to over a year, depending on how many terms you complete. According to SFU Co-op, the more work terms completed, the less time looking for jobs after graduation.

So get out there, and get some experience for your Linkedin account.

SFU needs to engage its low-wage workers

By
EIC
-
0

WEB-caution-wet-floor copy

Living wage report highlights persistent labour issues at SFU

By Michael McDonell
Photos by Mark Burnham

On Monday, March 4, the full report (and summary) of the SFU Living Wage Campaign’s was made available online. The report, “Simon Fraser University: Becoming the First Living Wage University in Canada”, persuasively links the campaign’s proposals with empirical evidence assembled from a number of sources. The report was authored by Michael McCarthy Flynn, the Living Wage Campaign Organizer, with a forward from professor Marjorie Griffen Cohen.

The report itself indicates several significant labour issues at SFU. It compares different insights into low-wage work revealed by the experiences of 33 workers interviewed. Given the findings of the report, it would not only be unethical, but illogical for us to not support the campaign.

Approximately 100 auxiliary janitorial staff earn just $13.43 per hour, lacking benefits (other than a medical plan) and job security.
It also shows that Chartwells employees at Tim Hortons, the Mackenzie Cafe, and other Burnaby locations earn slightly more ($15 per hour), but similarly lack a health and dental plan. While they are also unionized, one worker was dismayed at living “from paycheque to paycheque.”

While a minimum wage applies to individual workers, the Living Wage Campaign targets broader family and household needs. Over two fifths of all SFU workers (and over half all belowliving wage workers) interviewed earned less than $14 per hour. Roughly the same number of workers also had to budget for out-of-pocket expenses such as parking costs.

Moreover, over two thirds of campus employees interviewed were female, and over two thirds belong to underrepresented “minorities.” Slightly over half our workers have to look after dependent family members. If we cannot even address the needs of our workers, how will we
continue “engaging the world?” For this reason, the vast majority of workers felt that their job was deteriorating other aspects of their life, worsening chronic stress. Feelings of isolation from family, for example, are increasingly common. These are hardly the findings you’d expect from one of Canada’s top 100 employers of 2013.
SFU workers themselves expressed that a living wage would directly benefit their present well-being, and that of their families.

Based on this research, the report asks SFU to engage in a process to pass a living wage policy that would ensure that all staff of the University and all contracted workers (through a legally binding living wage clause) are paid a living wage to cover their basic family expenses. This proposal is backed up by four key points.

One is for SFU to provide the same working conditions many of its businesses have already agreed to under Fair Trade certification (i.e. ethical procurement). It states that SFU should strive toward an ethical work environment to maintain and facilitate high-quality education and research.

Taking the entire household into consideration, it then proposes “leadership and community engagement in providing practical solutions to child poverty.” About half of BC children living in poverty have at least one parent working full-time, all year. The poor themselves are often unemployed, underemployed, or low-wage workers, and their trajectory often begins early in life with intense psychosocial and socio-economic pressures.

Finally, the campaign encourages a consideration of the potential future benefit of the living wage to the next wave of students, who might not otherwise be able to attend university. For the university to not do its part to ensure the children of its employees have all the resources necessary to access post-secondary university would be a farce.

Luckily, the report claims that these proposals are practically feasible. They would affect less than 0.1 per cent of SFU’s budget, and the living wage calculation accounts for non-guaranteed benefits.

Furthermore, the demands are already consistent with SFU’s stated mission and Strategic Vision, and would merely extend the existing Ethical Procurement Policy to service work.

I encourage all members of the SFU community to participate in the Living Wage Campaign. Recently, my department student union (Labour Studies, aka LSSU) has joined the Living Wage Committee. DSUs and clubs can encourage members to sign the LW petition, promoting the larger Campaign. SFU Living Wage is viable and ethical: it is both practically and analytically worth supporting.

1...1,3061,3071,308...1,437Page 1,307 of 1,437

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

For advertising inquiries: [email protected]
For promotional inquiries: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

For advertising inquiries: [email protected]
For promotional inquiries: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society