Earlier this month, Parti Québécois (PQ) Education Minister Pierre Duchesne announced a plan to grant student associations the legal right to strike. While it was quickly rebuffed by some in the Quebec political scene, particularly those who saw the move as yet another attempt at political posturing on the part of the PQ, Duchesne’s proposal raises an important question. Though boycotts of classes at cégeps and universities this past academic year were commonly referred to as “student strikes,” they were not legally protected in the same way that labour strikes are. Rather, in the eyes of the government, the movement was composed of individual students’ choice to boycott class. As evidenced by the many injunctions brought against student associations over the spring, students were not permitted to prevent their peers from attending class.
In stark contrast, Duchesne’s new proposal would grant striking student associations permission to set up picket lines and the right to legally—and peacefully—block access to class.
We find Duchesne’s proposal troubling, in large part because we believe strongly in the individual right of students to attend class, even in the face of a majority strike vote. Education is a public service, and a majority of students voting to strike does not legitimize preventing access to this service. We value boycotting class as a powerful discoursive tool, but it is effective as civil disobedience, not as a legally enrishined right.
[pullquote]“We have a fundamental problem with allowing a majority of students to prevent access to education, even if this is with the view of ultimately improving accessible education.”[/pullquote]
We take particular issue with allowing student strikes to operate under a legal framework, because that would further legitimize student associations as final decision-making bodies for all of their constituents. Unlike labour unions, which people enter for protection and collectivization, student associations are more informal and represent a greater diversity of viewpoints. There is also the issue of consent—membership in most student associations is automatic and a necessary condition of attending university.
Legal student strikes hold more clout than boycotts. Of course, this is chief advantage cited by proponents, but the economics of a sanctioned student strike are hugely problematic. The all-or-nothing nature of a legal strike would likely lead to the closing of a university if half of the students voted in favour of such action. This means professors, administrators, and employees would all still be paid—at the public’s expense—for work no one would benefit from. Much of this financial burden rests with taxpayers. Students certainly have the right to come together as a faculty or student association and collectively choose to boycott class; but they do not the right to put the burden of that decision on a third party, even if the tactic ultimately puts pressure on the government.
More importantly, legal strike action puts a larger part of that burden on dissenting students. During the boycott last year, all students continued to pay tuition. If it were legally sanctioned, students who chose not to strike would be paying for a service from which they would not benefit.
We have a fundamental problem with allowing a majority of students to prevent access to education, even if this is with the view of ultimately improving accessible education. There are other ways to achieve such a goal that do not involve harming our peers, including protests and political action. Enshrining this right in law would give it legitimacy; we don’t believe it deserves that legal recognition.
The Tribune editorial board also ran a dissenting editorial piece on this issue this week.
