Attack of the Bubble Children

Why censorship is on the rise and free speech is under siege at North American universities

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest columnist

April 5, 2015

The other day I was at Trent University in Peterborough.

I was giving a talk on why student unions and political groups should be held accountable for their use of student and taxpayer money.

During the question-and-answer period, I inadvertently offended a bright young woman.

She’d suggested removing automatic student funds from political groups would remove political discourse from campus altogether.

Of course not, I responded.

I was a student activist who never received student money, yet was completely immersed in politics. Passionate people debate, regardless.

I said people like her, who are zesty and politically active ... Then I stopped.

She looked shocked and appalled.

I asked her: “Did you just get offended when I said ‘people like you’?”

“Yes,” she said. “I kind of did.”

Later, when a woman who’d interrupted others, including me, was interrupted by another young man, she asked him to please let her talk and “respect her safe space”.

These “bubble kids” aren’t toddlers. They’re university students.

University campuses have become sandboxes of political correctness and censorship, far removed from reality.

I was allowed to speak at Trent, but a group of students seeking to put up a “free speech wall” — a piece of paper on which students could write whatever they want — were banned, because “it can create an unsafe and inaccessible environment, particularly for students from minority groups,” according to the student union.

What’s more accessible than paper on which anyone can write anything?

While unfashionable speech is censored, it’s been replaced with a series of ever-changing trendy words.

It’s hard to keep up.

Since I visit campuses rather regularly, I’ll give you the scoop.

The concerning words to look out for now are: “trigger warning,” “trauma” and “safe space”.

At Ryerson University, two white student journalists were turned away from an event held by a “racialized” group funded by all students, because it was a “safe space." A journalism student wrote an op-ed defending the segregation, titled, “Ethnic minorities deserve safe spaces without white people."

At the University of Ottawa, a professor speaking about how “rape culture” affects men was heckled and insulted by protesting students until they finally pulled the fire alarm.

The students justified their actions saying the talk created an “unsafe atmosphere."

A similar debate was scheduled south of the border at Brown University around issues involving sexual assault.

A student proclaimed it might be “triggering” to some.

So, they set up a “safe space.”

The New York Times noted it was “equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.”

It’s no wonder recent graduates have created a market for “adult daycares,” one of which exists in New York, where adults pay up to $999-a-month to take naps and play with glitter glue.

“Safe spaces” imply that everywhere else is unsafe. They’re places where students can hide from ideas that might “trigger” them.

There are Canadians who have suffered actual trauma, and who continuously suffer trauma.

Brave soldiers, police officers — and yes, some students.

This new “trauma” trivializes that, and provides a loaded gun for censorship.

If an idea offends you, suck it up and challenge it, refute it out in the open.

If it’s a genuine trigger for trauma — a real mental health concern and violence risk — university administrators are obligated to uphold the law and ensure the campus is a safe space.

But university campuses shouldn’t be places where young people go to escape from the real world, coddled by blankets and puppies, shielding them from words.

They should be a free marketplaces of ideas, where new and differing points of view are encouraged and debated.

Otherwise, we’re compromising intellectualism; allowing adults to regress to childhood, plugging their ears and stomping their feet until the bad ideas go away.

And when they graduate — then what?

I have three scary words for, dare I say, people like this.

Get a grip.

Ontarians Need School Choice: Premier Wynne's Sex Education Curriculum Shows The Problem With One-Size-Fits-All Education

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Columnist 

March 14, 2015

Imposing a controversial sex-ed curriculum on Ontario students is particularly unfair for parents, compared to most other Canadian provinces.

Unlike in other Canadian jurisdictions, Ontario parents and students have no real choice on the issue.

But there’s a solution to this and so many other problems with Ontario’s flawed education system.

That solution is school choice.

Parents in Ontario have been dealt an unfair hand.

Unless you’re rich, your kids are almost always going to attend the public school in your area.

Wealthy families can afford to send their kids wherever they choose.

Ontarians of French or Catholic heritage can send their children to publicly-funded French or Catholic schools.

But the rest of us — that is to say, most of us — have nothing. No other alternatives. Bubkes.

To make matters worse, as evidenced by Premier Kathleen Wynne’s controversial sex-ed curriculum and the earlier version it replaced, Ontario parents were barely even consulted on what is to be taught to their kids.

It’s their tax dollars. It’s their kids. But it isn’t their choice.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Many provinces offer all parents and students the choice to find the school that works best for them.

They offer students a better chance to succeed.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec all offer some public funding for children to attend independently-run schools.

In Nova Scotia, learning disabled children have this same opportunity.

Parents in Alberta who choose to homeschool their children receive financial help from the government, making staying at home to teach an affordable option.

Homeschooling parents in B.C. and Saskatchewan have flexibility too.

In Edmonton and Calgary, parents have the option to send their children to unique, privately-run schools that are fully funded by the government!

There are numerous benefits to school choice.

Parents and students get to choose their schools based on what fits their learning style or keeps them interested in class.

What’s being taught also does not change with political whims.

Or, perhaps it does if you choose publicly-run schools.

The point is, you have a choice.

Ironically, introducing sex education to young children highlights the fundamental problem with one-size-fits-all education.

The rule of thumb when teaching a child emotionally sensitive information is to explain it in a way the child understands, then answer individual questions honestly, but without excessive, age-inappropriate or overwhelming information.

Ontario’s new sex-ed curriculum takes “the birds and the bees” from individualized learning to a one-size-fits-all approach.

But we all know from public schools: One size does not fit all.

Just as children learn in different ways, they mature at different speeds.

One-size-fits-all sex education isn’t in every child’s best interest, though it might be fine for some.

It’s bad enough that our curriculum is structured in this way generally speaking, let alone for sex-ed.

For example, Johnny may be struggling to learn his times tables because he’d benefit from repetition-based learning, while Jenny is excelling because story-based lessons make her 1-2-3’s a cinch.

This problem is worse when it intersects with potential impacts on a child’s psychological development, including introducing concepts before a child is ready.

And some kids will be ready. But some won’t.

Just as you should have the choice to raise your child the way you see fit, you should also have the choice to send her, or him, to the school that best fits them.

Ontario parents deserve the same choices they’d get in other provinces.

Ontario students deserve the same learning opportunities.

The Liberals say your kid is ready to talk about the birds and the bees their way or the highway?

Well, I say the the public is ready for an adult conversation about school choice.

Quit Picking on Millennials, Premier!

Ontario's long distance relationship tax

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Columnist

February 11, 2015

Ontario’s Liberal government is taxing long-distance relationships.

Not only that — it taxes career mobility and recreational travel, too.

What this really means is the Ontario government has put a tax on young adults.

That is, those of us who haven’t already left the province.

For young adults, job prospects in Ontario aren’t great.

An October Fraser Institute report found young Ontarians are fleeing the province: 27,451 young adults packed up between 2003 and 2012.

At the same time, Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan welcomed tens of thousands of them.

For those of us who stay in Ontario, the Tax Man Cometh — and he’s specifically targeting the lifestyles we choose.

(And you thought the Liberals trying to ban your smoking was pushy.)

Here’s the reality: Millennials — those born between the early 1980s and early 2000s — are in more long-distance relationships, prefer more career mobility, and spend more time jetting around for fun than older generations.

On top of dim job prospects and a second forced pension contribution about to become a reality in Ontario, the Liberal government is hiking taxes on all of the above.

First, this government raised taxes on our travel.

When it announced a massive, 148% jet fuel tax hike, airlines said customers can expect higher ticket prices.

We get about as much relief from the airlines as we do from government: WestJet recently said despite the drop in oil prices, it won’t pass savings on to customers.

Gee, thanks.

This means the government is taxing our relationships.

Of the almost two million Canadians in relationships living at different addresses than their partners, almost half are young adults.

Ask a Millennial: long distance relationships reliant on cell phones for communication are increasingly common.

As young adults leave Ontario for jobs, their partners back home are relying on travel to make it work — travel we can now expect to cost more.

And of course, the government is taxing our careers.

A 2013 Expedia survey found Millennials travel more for work than their predecessors. Professionals between 18 and 30 take five business trips per year on average, while professionals 35 and up take two.

While they’re stuck in the unemployment line, many young adults are jetting around to boost their resumes. Twenty-two percent of Millennials are traveling to gain language skills, experience or study, according to a World Youth Student and Educational Travel Confederation survey.

If Millennials are seeking out jobs involving travel, businesses in Ontario are no doubt trying to accommodate them. Sounds tough, while also scrambling to cough up cash for two pension plans per employee, once the Liberal government introduces its Ontario pension plan in addition to Canada’s.

Finally, the government is taxing our fun.

Survey after survey has found the Millennial generation spends more money traveling recreationally than any other.

A 2012 Abacus Data survey noted that if given $1000, Canadian Millennials would choose to travel — second only to paying off their debt or future saving (suggesting also that Canadian Millennials have their financial priorities in much better order than the provincial government).

Flying? There’s a jet fuel tax. Driving? There’s a looming carbon tax.

Young adults in Ontario can’t catch a break.

Any way you slice it, it stings.

Come on, Premier Wynne. Our long-distance relationships and job prospects already suck. Can’t we get a little relief?

— MacPherson is a contributor to Sun News Network

Carbon Tax Is The New Sin Tax

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Columnist

January 14, 2015

Ontarians are smiling right now because of low gasoline prices.

For Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government, it’s the perfect political opportunity to slip in a carbon tax, without immediately slapping off those smiles.

But there’s bad news coming.

It’s on the freezing cold days of winter that we love our carbon ­— or more accurately our industrial carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels — the most.

We choose driving over transit. We crank up the heat.

At home we turn on the gas fireplace. We buy sweaters and layer them.

We make big, warm, hearty meals.

If we’re lucky, we take a trip down south.

There’s nothing wrong with any of that.

Yet all these activities would be made more expensive with a carbon tax.

The price of oil is low now, but once it bounces back — and the Ontario government better hope it does if it plans to stay on Alberta’s equalization train — we’ll feel the pinch at the pumps.

A carbon tax on top of other taxes and regulations is part of what made the lower mainland of B.C. home to the 10 highest gas price jurisdictions in North America in 2013.

In Ontario, a carbon tax would add to the pile: We already have a gas tax and we pay HST on top of that!

The B.C. government lauds its seven-cents-per-litre carbon tax, saying it reduced emissions.

Lucky for folks in the lower mainland, they’re close to the U.S., allowing for what is referred to as the “Blaine Drain”: British Columbians traveling across the border to Blaine, Washington for cheaper gas.

Taxpayers in Ontario might be surprised by a carbon tax.

It wasn’t in Wynne’s election platform.

But the idea has been in the works since 2008, when former premier Dalton McGuinty called the shots.

But in June, after the election campaign, Wynne told reporters she had no plans to implement a carbon tax.

Yet it wouldn’t be a surprising “revenue tool” (read tax) from a government convinced it has a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

The Liberals think they’re not taxing us enough and it’s this lack of revenue that’s to blame for their massive deficit.

A carbon tax is the new sin tax.

Only those of us naughty enough to drive cars and own businesses will be punished, right?

We need to change our behaviour, fall in line with what the government deems appropriate.

Less drinking, smoking and driving.

But consuming carbon isn’t a “sinful” luxury like alcohol or cigarettes, in which we can choose to indulge.

Carbon dioxide is a necessary byproduct of daily activity.

A carbon tax is a tax on gas, but also on food, clothing, travel and enjoying the comfort of our homes (which in Toronto cost so much).

There’s nothing sinful about consuming energy.

Not only is it a necessity; our technological advancement in energy use is a big part of how we’ve improved the quality of life for people of all incomes.

In Ontario, if you’re entering the workforce or starting a business, be prepared to be taxed to the max.

Between the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan payroll tax, the tax on airplane fuel, and a looming carbon tax, “saving” money is a concept of yesteryear.

Don’t worry though; the government can do that for you.

They’re pretty good at managing your money … right?

— MacPherson is a contributor to Sun News Networ 

'No Zero' Education Policies Hurt Kids

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Columnist

August 27, 2014

Life is full of failures. But it isn’t the failures that are important – it’s the success that comes with moving on from them.

This isn’t a lofty concept – it’s a basic fact of life that kids are taught by parents and teachers. At least it used to be.

Today’s schools are laden with ‘romantic progressive’ education theory, which has some unfortunate results. Uninformed teachers are learning the material along with the kids. Anti-obesity campaigns run alongside soccer ball bans.

And then there are the ‘no-zero’ policies.

Many school boards and bureaucrats have decided that it’s best to never give a ‘zero’ grade – regardless of whether kids even hands in assignments.

The most well known case is the brave Edmonton high school teacher Lynden Dorval, who dared to give zeros for skipped assignments – and was suspended for it.

But we’ve seen the trend here in Toronto too.

In 2009, Ontario’s deputy education minister Dr. Ben Levin, released a memo promoting “no-fail” policies for students. He said, plainly, “People aren’t motivated by failure. They’re demotivated by failure.” Well sure, for a day or two. But that’s how they know they need to improve.

Teachers across the country respond to these policies with anger, knowing first-hand that low grades are motivating when necessary.

Surely there are good intentions behind these policies. Kids have a lot to deal with. There’s peer pressure, puberty, and sadly, even bullying.

But it’s absurd to think you can protect a kid from failure forever. Coddling kids will have a negative impact in the long run.

This is confirmed in a report released today by the Manitoba-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy, authored by Education Policy Fellow and high school teacher Michael Zwaagstra.

Though “no-zero policies” have already been tried in Ontario schools and are in place in other parts of the country, there’s virtually no evidence to support that not failing kids when they deserve it helps them improve.

Put in place by bureaucrats outside of the classroom, these policies also interfere with teachers’ discretion in determining grades. In other words, it prevents teachers from doing their jobs.

The most important finding in the report is that “no-zero” policies fail to mentally prepare kids for the world that awaits them after graduation.

There are countless Gen-Ys leaving school who have never experienced hard work in their lives. Suddenly faced with the ‘real world’, wherein you have to do something crazy like contribute to society, many just can’t cope.

So we see hoards of young adults spending a decade on publicly-subsidized liberal arts degrees or moving back with their parents at the age of 25.

No-zero policies highlight the diminishing importance of work ethic.

This isn’t the future we should be setting our kids up for. Failure is an inevitable fact of life, and dealing with it early not only teaches kids how to cope, it teaches them how to put in the work necessary to overcome it and succeed.

Hard work is the foundation of our society – it’s in every immigrant success story, every entrepreneur, every accomplished artist and every winning sports team.

All the stars of those stories started as kids, in school, plugging away like everyone else. To deny our kids the chance to fail is to deny them the chance to succeed.

— MacPherson is a web producer with Sun News Network and former Communications Officer at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies 

Junk Food Taxes Hurt The Poor

It's not hard to stay in shape if you can afford a gym membership and eat quinoa salad from Pusateri's

Toronto Sun
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Contributor

October 28, 2014

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) has proposed a tax on the province’s poor.

I’m sure they didn’t mean to do that when they proposed increased taxes on junk foods recently.

It’s part of a strategy to combat our youth obesity “epidemic”.

Our kids have become fatter over the past few decades, which apparently means we must fatten our tax burden as well.

The OMA wants scary graphic labels on treats — like those on cigarettes. They want the government to limit where junk food can be sold, and restrict its marketing to children.

It’s also calling to increase taxes on junk foods and decrease taxes on healthy foods.

Reducing youth obesity is something we should work toward. It’s important to improve our health and bring down health care costs.

But the way the OMA wants to do it will result in an unfair tax burden on low-income families.

This isn’t the first time an elite group of (well-intentioned) high-income earners has decided they know what’s best for us. It won’t be the last time they tell you the government knows how to raise your kids better than you do.

Those naturally opposed to big government will hate this. But to others, it might sound reasonable. It helps our kids. It makes us healthier. Great.

But who will it really affect?

“Junk” food is the cheapest kind of food.

It’s not hard to stay in shape if you can afford a gym membership and eat quinoa salad from Pusateri’s.

A tax hike on junk food is a tax hike on the most accessible food. It would make food in general harder to buy.

Gregory Thomas at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation put it simply: It’s absurd to think slapping higher taxes on any food will make life better for Ontarians.

But the OMA didn’t just propose a tax hike — they also want lower taxes on healthy foods.

This would be great — if groceries were taxed in the first place.

Picture your grocery bill. Affordable grocery “inputs” (like broccoli and rice) aren’t taxed. Only convenient “outputs” (like prepared sandwiches) are.

So which affordable “healthy” foods does the OMA think the government can reduce taxes on? They didn’t respond to my request for clarification.

We can assume the only healthy foods that would become slightly cheaper are prepared foods like salads and sushi, which still won’t be in reach for struggling single moms.

The overall result would be a tax grab on the poor.

There’s also the fact one-fifth of young workers are employed in food services — jobs that could see a decline if the government over-taxed fast food.

Plus, our “healthy foods” Bible, the Canada Food Guide, is a hotbed for lobbyists vying to get their foods on the good list, making it questionable at best.

But what really rubs salt in the wound — can I still say salt? — is that the healthy “tax decrease” will only help people who can afford expensive foods.

The surely well-intentioned OMA is set to urge the provincial government to pass these reforms.

If it does, life will become even harder for Ontario taxpayers.

It’s nice to want to make our kids healthier. But an unfair tax on poor Ontarians isn’t the way to do it.

— MacPherson is a Web Producer at Sun News Network 

A Community Solution to Nova Scotia's Dying Lighthouses

National Post 
Paige T. MacPherson | Guest Columnist

May 16, 2012 

HALIFAX — Local and displaced Nova Scotians were shocked when they heard the news of the possible demolition of the Peggy’s Cove lighthouse. The iconic Canadian site — said to be the most photographed spot in the country — is one of nearly 500 lighthouses in Canada that the federal government is thinking of demolishing.

Times have changed and the government wants to replace the old lighthouses with metal or fibreglass light posts, which apparently are more efficient. This means that if citizens or other levels of government don’t step up and apply to have these old lighthouses designated as heritage sites, they run the risk of losing them forever.

According to the federal government, the Peggy’s Cove lighthouse is one of many that is no longer needed, and the government shows no interest in maintaining these old properties. This has many folks across Atlantic Canada demanding to know why our government doesn’t care about our heritage. But even Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society President Barry MacDonald laments the complacency of Nova Scotians when it comes to protecting their heritage, citing the common attitude of, “as long as the government will look after it, we don’t have to.”

Hearing about the possible demolition of one of my favourite spots in the country was more than a little disconcerting. But it actually isn’t the dire situation many of my wonderfully well-intentioned neighbours have made it out to be. We need not call on our government to save us from the the future. Rather, this is a wonderful opportunity for our communities to step up and get involved.

Rural communities across the region have been desperate for both community engagement and jobs. What better time than this to start up independently organized citizens groups that could take on the responsibility of maintaining these precious lighthouses? Groups could offer for-profit operations of the lighthouse, or apply for charitable status.

The government doesn’t want to maintain our heritage sites anymore? Good riddance. Peggy’s Cove, a site that has long been in desperate need of proper maintenance and a major face lift, is an all-too-perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. When we are quick to designate sites as public property and leave it up to the government to maintain them, no one directly benefits from their beautification.

Lighthouses do, however, provide an enormous benefit to Nova Scotia — attracting tourists and adding character to our communities. These sites would be far better looked after if people in those communities took responsibility for their maintenance by owning and operating these facilities. These lighthouses could generate more revenue for Nova Scotians if we simply take advantage of the opportunities available to us.

If the federal government wants to get out of the business of lighthouses, we should put on our warmest Maritime smiles and show them the door. This is a wonderful opportunity for Nova Scotian communities to take the initiative, maintain the beautiful heritage we are all so proud of, create jobs where they’re needed most and show our lighthouses some love.

National Post

Paige T. MacPherson is Communications Officer for the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a social and economic policy think tank based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.