EclectEcon

Bad Road Conditions ---- THE WAVE SPOKE, 7:30!

I gather the road conditions that I would have to face on my commute home this evening look pretty horrible, so I'm staying in London. To all my students: an extra session at The Wave Spoke, starting at 7:30!

Teaching the Economics of Trade Restrictions

Over the past couple of years, I have strongly resisted the trend toward teaching international trade early in an introductory micro economics course, where it appears in many introductory textbooks. Those who want to teach it early, point out that understanding division of labour and comparative advantage lie at the heart of understanding any exchange.

I don't deny this.

The problem is that so many of the incorrect oppositions to free trade involve the misuse of macro economics, as is so aptly pointed out by the author of the textbook I use in his comment about a posting by Scott Sumner.

Scott then goes on to propose an explanation of these events that can be viewed as consistent with the textbook Keynesian model. In particular, I interpret Scott as saying that the retreat from free trade reduced business confidence, shifted the investment function I(r) to the left, and thereby reduced aggregate demand.

One general lesson from his discussion is that it is often hard to distinguish shocks to aggregate supply and shocks to aggregate demand.  Policies and events that adversely affect aggregate supply (e.g., trade restrictions) will often reduce the marginal productivity of capital, decrease investment spending for given interest rates, and depress aggregate demand as well.  In the short run, the indirect demand-side effects of "supply shocks" could potentially be larger than the direct supply-side effects.

Maybe the pure theories of international trade are also pure micro, but dealing with the criticisms of the basic theories requires an understanding of macro as well. 

h/t Kip

How Much for a Gold Medal?

Last week I posted that I had just sold my 10K gold teaching award medal and wondered whether others could guess how much I received for it, given that I live in a small town in a rural area of Ontario.

I had posted that the medal was about 2 ounces. It turns out it was only 54 grams, not 62 grams, which is one reason all the estimates were a bit high. But the major point that people overlooked is that transaction costs for selling old gold are pretty high for those of us who live in the boonies and who do not wish to spend hours packaging, shipping, and possibly doing that several times to receive various estimates.

Quite frankly, I had gone into the buyer's temporary site in a jewelry store in a nearby even smaller town with the reservation price of only $250, expecting that the lack of major competition would lead the buyer to extract a truckload of monopsonistic returns. She offered about $400 initially and finally agreed to pay me $454 Cdn, much less than any of the people commenting on that earlier post had expected. 

At the same time, Eliot had some good insight about my motives in selling the medal. I figured that if I didn't sell it, it would become a part of my estate when I die, and my heirs would sell it as part of a box of crud for only a song to someone who buys up boxes of stuff at estate sales. And, as Eliot noted, I really don't have a tonne of warm feelings about the issuer of the award.

A Gold Medal in 1988: I Sold It This Week

In 1988, I received a gold medal for teaching excellence from the The University of Western Ontario. I also received a certificate, signed with a rubber-stamp signature from the then provost.

Here are photos of the medal, taken on Wednesday, the day I sold it:

According to my scales at home, the medal weighed about 2 ounces. Ignoring transaction costs, if it had been pure gold (it wasn't, it was only 10K gold),

it might have been worth about $2200 Cdn.

But I live in a small town. Transaction costs mount as people travel from place-to-place to buy up old gold and as others bear the costs of re-smelting the gold products.

How much do you think I received for the medal?

Next week, I will post the answer, along with an answer to the question "Why now?"

Meanwhile, my advice to the university is: in the future, give cash and save the money that would have to be spent to strike these puppies.

What Next? English Language Signs Put Up By Private Businesses?

Canada's Supreme Court has unanimously declared Quebec's Bill 104 unconstitutional. This, after Quebec's own court of appeals struck the bill down for the same reason two years ago. From the CBC (via Ms. Eclectic):

Canada's top court has declared a Quebec law barring certain students from going to public English-language schools unconstitutional, a decision that has "angered" the province's government.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous ruling on Bill 104 Thursday morning, effectively throwing out two appeals by the Quebec government to preserve the legislation.

The SCOC called Bill 104 "excessive" and lacking nuance, and is giving Quebec one year to replace it with an appropriate compromise.

Quebec's Culture Minister Christine St-Pierre reacted almost immediately to the decision, telling reporters she is "disappointed and angered" by the ruling.

Ironic sidenote: one comment on the CBC article asserts that St.-Pierre made the "disappointed and angered" comment in English. I don't know if that's correct.

Next: whether people have the right to display signs on private property in the language of their choice. In my dreams.

Tips for Being a Better Student

Now that my students (and many, many others) are beginning realize how much work university involves, here are some tips from Execupundit, whose experiences as a student and teacher must have been pretty similar to mine. If I had followed this advice as an undergrad, I might very well have done a whole lot better (and avoided those Ds and Fs). My additional comments are in brackets.

1. Less memorization and more translation. If you cannot explain a concept in plain language, you probably don't know it. [EE: throw away your highlighters and write in the margins of your books! Argue and discuss with the authors.]
   


2. Less procrastination. Work in increments and then review. Don't permit masses of work to accumulate. ... [EE: procrastination is worse than blowing off homework to have fun. But if you're in university, there's not really a good excuse for blowing off your homework.]
   


3. More engagement. It is a rare professor who does not appreciate a serious student. Don't make a habit of darting out at the end of class. Stay and ask questions if clarification is needed. [EE: I always learned more if I swallowed my pride and asked profs for help. I also found that seeing a prof  about a question after a course had ended was usually a valuable experience.]
   


4. Less resistance. Learning can be like swimming. You can panic at the sense of being overwhelmed or you can relax, comprehend the surroundings, and eventually move forward. [EE: sometimes a concept that seems incomprehensible becomes clear after you work with it for awhile; unfortunately, sometimes it doesn't]
   


5. Clear vision. Knowing the subject is not the same as getting a high grade. Understand what is needed for the grade and don't confuse that with a deeper knowledge of the subject. Try to achieve both. [EE: but if you want to get into bizskool or whatever, at least make sure you figure out how to get good grades. I failed miserably even at that as an undergrad.]
   


6. Act like a great student. What do the best students do? They don't spend a lot of time groaning about how tough the class is. They seek help and create a system for absorbing the information.


7. Know your barriers. What sort of learner are you? Does your impatience cause you to rush through analysis? Are you too analytical? Are you trying to fit the square subject in a round hole? Which parts of learning do you enjoy and which do you dislike? Is your ego causing you to try to bend the subject to your viewpoint rather than accepting the reality of the subject?

Police Brutality at The University of Western Ontario? How many officers does it take to subdue a student?

I work at home on Wednesdays, and so I missed the events of late yesterday afternoon in the building where I work.

Here is the initial YouTube video that many people have seen, showing one heck of a lot of officers beating on and trying to subdue a student:

I'm pretty impressed that it is presented without running commentary. And here is a link to a follow-up video of the officers and the student again, outside the building. This one has a bit of commentary/speculation (including a bizarre discussion of the racialization of gender [?]).



This morning, the UWO communications folks put out the following press release.

A student at The University of Western Ontario has been arrested following violent confrontations on a number of floors at Western's Social Sciences Building.

The incident began shortly after 5 p.m., Wednesday, Oct. 14 when campus police were contacted by a student in the Social Sciences building who reported being followed by another student acting in a strange manner. 

 

A short time later, campus police received calls regarding a disoriented and threatening individual who had appeared on two different floors attempting to enter offices. On the 8^th floor, the suspect entered an office and attempted to force the occupant to leave. Being unsuccessful, the suspect left and subsequently barricaded himself in a 7^th floor office. London Police were called.  

 

Two campus officers arrived on the scene and the suspect came out of the barricaded office and charged the officers in a violent manner. Other persons on the floor fled for their own safety and some locked themselves in their own offices.  

 

A third officer arrived and the three officers attempted to subdue the suspect, but he was able to break away from officers and fled.  

 

On the main floor the suspect was stopped by a campus police officer and a confrontation took place as the suspect attempted to flee. London Police officers arrived on the scene to assist campus police and tried to subdue the suspect, who continued to fight violently and would not allow himself to be handcuffed. 

 

After numerous loud requests to the suspect to stop resisting, officers used punches and strikes to the suspect’s arms to apply handcuffs.  

 

The suspect was eventually subdued and as he was being led outside, he began to fight once again. He was further restrained by officers. An ambulance arrived at this time. Paramedics had been called because officers felt the behaviour exhibited by the individual indicated he should be assessed at hospital.  

 

The resistance continued after the individual was transported to hospital. He was released into police custody at 3 a.m. October 15.   

The individual has been charged with mischief, resisting arrest, assault, and escaping custody.

No, I don't know who the student is, nor do I know if he is or was a student in any of my courses.

Update #1: Jack suggests that perhaps the student was on crack cocaine.

Update #2: Ms. Eclectic agrees drugs may have been involved. But I think I prefer Gabriel's suggestion in the comments here.

Update #3: Jack and others have also suggested that the student might have been on crystal meth.

How Smart Is This? Advance Warning that Security Cameras Will Not be Operating

We recently received a campus-wide e-mail, telling us, in part:

On [date deleted], wireless in the building will experience two brief outages as well as a number of the cameras on the Camera surveillance system.

Ignore the issue of how the announcement is worded [how does wireless experience a number of cameras? But one assumes the notice means that security cameras will be inoperable.].

Given that so much theft that occurs is carried out by people who have inside information,  is it really wise to announce this in advance?

Or is this announcement a ploy to entice thieves to attempt to steal something so they can be caught? If this is the case, one suspects there has been a rash of campus thefts leading up to such a strategy.

And if it is a ploy, does my writing about the possibility have any impact on its likely success?

Or do I just watch too many crime shows on television?

Education Costs and Opportunity Costs

There are reasons that spending per student on education has increased over the past four decades. There are reasons that the number of staff members per student in education has grown over time even though average performance scores haven't changed much (see this).

One reason, of course, is the growing strength of the teachers' unions. Another, more important reason, is opportunity costs. As technologies improve and as capital grows throughout the economy, labour becomes more productive. In a market economy, this increased productivity means that labour will be paid more and be offered better working conditions.

Even if there have been no technological changes and even if the capital/labour ratio has not changed in education, if workers in other occupations are increasingly receiving better offers over time, then school boards will have to improve their offers for potential teachers if they wish to attract and keep them.

In other words, to hire teachers, the employers must meet or exceed people's opportunity costs. And these costs are constantly rising as potential teachers have better and better options outside teaching.

York University Lottery: $3 million prize

Someone recently told me that York University is holding a lottery with a $3 million prize: it pays $3/yr for a million years.

To all economics students: what is the approximate net present value of the prize?

EclectEcon Named One of Top 100 Blogs for Economics Students and one of top 20 by economics educators

I do not quite understand the selection criteria or the ranking criteria for this listing but I'm pleased to see that EclectEcon is listed 9th among economics blogs by educators, ahead of Robert Reich, Gary Becker-Richard Posner, and Paul Krugman, among others.

Unfortunately there are several important omissions from their list. Among the omissions are:

• Newmark's Door (Craig Newmark, NCSU). The first blog I read each day. Not always explicitly economics content, but always worth checking
• Market Power (Phil Miller, Mankato). Co-author on some sports economics work. Fascinating and enjoyable market man
• SCSU Scholars (King Banaian, St. Cloud). Knowledgeable and informative blog by two people in Minnesota.
• The Emirates Economist (John Chilton, UAE) A former colleague presents an informed perspective on the Middle East in general and the UAE in particular.
• Supply and Demand (in that order), (Casey Mulligan, Chicago) primarily on current macro. Not always mainstream, which makes it an important blog to read.
• Tim Worstall , Daily sensible commentary on economic events, primarily in England
• Bill Polley (Western Illinois), Bright Macro guy who deserves to be better known
• John Lott, Assiduous free market economist who makes everyone think harder. I wish we had hired him at UWO.
• Mike Moffat, (About Economics) a former student who has boundless energy
• and a whole bunch of others, too, listed along the right side of this blog

I don't know which ones should be dropped from the list to make room for these blogs, but I haven't even heard of a bunch of the ones on their list. Suggestions are welcome.

Open Letter to My Students5th revised edition

As a new academic year begins for UWO today, here is an update of my open letter to my students.

To my students:

• University is different from high school: reading all the material and going to class does not guarantee you an A or even a B unless you are considerably above average in ability. You actually have to study too. I expect you to do about two hours of work out of class for every hour in class.
• If you miss class, please do not ask me if anything important happened. I wouldn't give the lecture if I didn't think it was important. What do you expect me to answer? 

“Yes, actually, on the one day you missed I decided to give a pop quiz that counts for 20% of your course mark. Then we discussed the answers to the final exam, and then I gave everybody real, not invisible, chocolate chip cookies. Too bad you missed it.”

• When I was an undergraduate student, I had friends who got out of many different assignments and exams for all sorts of reasons; further, any excuse I didn't hear about as an undergrad I have heard enough times in my 73 years as a prof to be familiar with it. Deaths in the family, apartment fires, tears on command, cars breaking down, feigning symptoms of depression, you name it: I either knew someone who used it or have had to deal with it. I have a pretty good feeling for when you are trying to bull$hit me, so don’t try. And while I am very sympathetic if your excuse is legitimate, I am ruthless if you lie to me. (For example, see this).
• I read quite a bit, and I am an okay writer. People who read copious amounts and who write a lot notice writing style, so if you try to plagiarize, I will almost always be able to tell. If you plagiarize work for my course, I will report you, and I will fail you in the course, and I may try to get you expelled from the university (as I did several years ago with one student whose offence was repeated and flagrant).
• Cell phones are disruptive. Please turn them off before you come to class. If yours rings in class, you will have to leave. In fact, because of past disruptions from students playing games or text messaging, if your cell phone is on your desk or in your lap, you will have to leave class, regardless of whether you are actually using it.
• The same thing applies to laptop computers or iTouch web-surfers and the like. Don't bother bringing your laptop to class because I will just ask you to close it and put it away. If you really would rather spend your class time surfing the internet, just change majors to hydraulic socionomology or transfer to York.
• And while we're on "don'ts", please do not eat in class. Doing so is very distracting to the students around you.
• During the lectures and discussions, I may seem fun and amusing, but that does not mean my tests are easy. My exams can be hard.Just ask last year's students about the finals.
• Class clowns may have been funny in high school, but they aren't in university. My classes are not like Canadian Parliament --- heckling is not permitted.
• If you are out on the town drunk and want to yell at me about your grade, then please do not ever take any of my classes again. Even though I strive to maintain anonymity in my marking, I will not want to see you again.
• And please don't send me nasty e-mails about an exam or mark when you are fired-up and angry or in a drunken stupor at 4am. Believe me, you will regret it the next day.
• Please do not tell the other faculty members (including those in the department of hydraulic socionomology) what I say, unless it is good and about them or it is something you learned that you thought was really neat that also does not clash with their theoretical viewpoint; academics tend to be sensitive about criticism.
• I hope you are not offended by my jokes. They are funny, but sometimes not to social conservatives or most liberals.
• If I am late for a meeting and rushing out of my office, or if I am trying to eat lunch in between classes, or if I am out with my colleagues for dinner, I might not be all that keen to answer questions about the upcoming midterm.
• Incompletes are for students who, for legitimate, documented reasons, could not finish the class. If you don't like your grade, you may not take an incomplete.
• Further, I ordinarily plan to hold midterm exams before the drop deadline (though that may be a problem this year). If you take the midterms and do badly, and then don't drop the class, and then come back 3 months later and try to act as if you were never in my class and you want me to sign a form, I won't. I'm a pushover for many things, but that does not include unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own actions or inactions.
• If you are failing this course, do not make sly little suggestions about what you might do to earn a passing grade. You are failing the course — why should I think your performance would be better in any other areas? Besides, I'm too old to care.
• If I see you out on the town or at the sports bar, and you want to buy me a drink, you cannot currently be in my classes or ever take any of my classes again. Then probably you can buy me a drink.
• Similarly, I am delighted that you like my art work (The next major showing is scheduled for the Cherry Hill Library during the month of February, 2010). And, yes, most of the items will be for sale. But do not think that if you buy some, you will get a higher mark in my class. You won't. So it is probably best if you wait to buy anything until at least a year after you have had your last class from me. And do not tell me while you are taking a class that you would like to buy something a year later - that won't work either.
• If you see me out on the town or in a mall or whatever, and you're too shy to come over and say "Hello", we'll develop an official course gesture that will stand for, "Hi. I'm in your class."
• When you tell me, “I’m getting kicked out of school because of the grade I got in your class,” this might make me feel bad, but it certainly makes me question whether this is the first/only bad grade you have ever received.
• If you come to see me because you are worried about your grade, and you use all the study suggestions that I might provide, and I really honestly believe that you are trying hard but you are still getting a bad grade, I will wish I had the courage and integrity to tell you that not everyone is meant for university, and in my curmudgeonly dotage, I just might!
• If you ask a stupid question in class, I will try not to laugh at your question. I apologize if I do. After all, I shudder whenever I think of all the stupid questions I have asked (but which helped me learn).
• In fact, please ask all the questions you want in class. I learn from my mistakes, and I suspect that most other folks do, too, so ask away. If I see anyone so much as roll an eye, I will pull them aside after class and tell them their behaviour is inappropriate. If it is a very large class, though, and your questions seem to be dominating the class discussion, I may have to ask you to save some for after class.
• I like to tell stories. Once you figure this out, please do not use it to try to reduce the content and coverage of the actual, regularly scheduled lecture, and hence, the amount of material for which you will be responsible: You will still be responsible for the assigned material regardless of whether we cover it in class.
• If you work for me on a project, and you do a good job, I will write you a glowing letter of recommendation. If you work for me and do a lousy job, I will write a letter that, while not direct, will let the program or job you are applying for know what kind of a student you are. Remember that things like, “She was often on time,” or, “From my conversations with him, it is clear that he very much wants to go to graduate school,” are not really compliments.
• And, please, if you liked my class, if you feel that it changed the way you think, if you learned a lot, if you were challenged, please tell me. Because people in our economy face limited resources and time, seeing the lights go on for you is what keeps me going. I love teaching, and I am clearly not in it for the money. Actually, this last item goes for all your professors.

John Lott Opposes Big Brother Tactics as Obama Plans to Address Children in Schools

So much of this sounds like Big Brother and indoctrination. John Lott is on the right track with his criticism. And for those who have never read 1984 by George Orwell or his Animal Farm, please do so soon!

               .

Socialism Experiment in the Classroom

Last week Jack sent me an apocryphal story about an economics professor who tells his class they will all receive the class average grade on each exam. Predictably, as the term proceeds, the students lose the incentive to perform/learn but start bickering instead, and they all end up failing the course.

It's a good story, but it doesn't ring true. I can't imagine many professors would try this in the first place, at least not on their own; I can't imagine students would put up with it in the second place; and I can't imagine the university would tolerate it. So I snoped the story and found the above link, indicating the story is a "legend".

A better experiment?

The original story involves socialism with closed borders, a la the iron curtain or Cuba. So I began to think about how one might redesign the experiment to make the same point and yet overcome the potential objections from students and admins by "opening the borders for migration", i.e. letting the students opt in or opt out. Here is what I have come up with so far:

• Offer at least two different sections of the same course.
• Announce to everyone that  the students in all but one sectin will each receive the grades they earn on the exams. These will be referred to as the "merit" sections and will operate pretty much the way most course sections operate now.
• Announce to all sections that in one special section of the course, students will receive the average grade of the students in that section. This section will be referred to as the "average" section. [alternative name: the Wobegon section]
• Allow students to transfer freely between a merit section and the average section as often as they wish for the first half of the term (or until after, say, the first two midterms have been taken). I typically give two midterms and an final exam in my intro courses, so I would block transfers after the second midterm.
• Transfers: I need to consider using only one of several possible options on the portability of wealth and assets of the migrants (transfers):

1. Students who transfer out of the average section take the section average with them if they transfer after the first midterm exam. Students who transfer out of a merit section into the average section will take their merit mark with them, and that mark will then be used to recalculate the class average in the average section.
2. Alternatively, students who transfer out of the average section will take their personal mark, not the section average, with them when they move to a merit section. Similarly, students who transfer from a merit section to the average section will give up their own performances and take on the section average. I prefer this option.

Allowing transfers will serve two purposes. First, those who don't like the averaging procedure can transfer to or stay in a merit section where grades will be determined as they always are: on the basis of exam performances. Second, the migration itself will be very revealing and will set up numerous ancillary effects (learning experiences).

• Good students will tend to migrate out of the average section into the merit sections.
• Bad (or otherwise under-performing) students will consider migrating to or staying in the average section...... until they realize that the good students are all in the merit section and the average grade will be very low. This will likely mirror migration movements from Cuba and from behind the iron curtain.

Potential problems with this experiment:

• What if students have a timetable conflict and are unable to change sections? One way to deal with this is to admit students to one section only if they have enough schedule flexibility that they can change to another section if they wish. Another, simpler way to deal with this situation might be to offer a merit section running concurrently with the average section.
• Would the human subject ethics committees have to be involved? I would argue not, since it is more of an educational methods exercise and since no student would be required to be a part of the "average" section. [side note: a friend at another university says he hopes I do this experiment at UWO and not at his place, where he is on the ethical treatment of human subjects adjudication committee].
• Would any department have the nerve to offer an "average" section of a multi-section course? If so, I want to teach it (since I would expect most or all students to transfer out of it).
• Would there be any students left in the "average" section if there were no barriers to migration? My guess is there might be a few who were too lazy or otherwise sufficiently uninterested to change out of the section.

Here's another possible wrinkle to the experiment that might make it even more interesting. Tell the students that those in the top ten percent would get their actual grade plus 5 marks (a la the oligarchs in socialism, cf Animal Farm). The rest would get their average (not including the grades of the oligarchs in the average) AND minus enough marks to make up for the extras that the oligarchs would get?

Wouldn’t THAT be more like operational socialism? And wouldn’t that create some really nasty classroom problems!

Changing Times

Two years ago during a final exam I was administering, I surreptitiously checked the e-mail on my laptop once while the grad TAs kept watch to try to minimize cheating.

Yesterday, we all had iPhones, Blackberries, and iTouches and we were all checking our e-mail and favourite sites throughout the exam we were administering.

"The times, they are a-changin'..."

Didn't stop us from catching some flagrant cheating, though.

So how do you construct a meaningful price index with all this new technology? It seems to me the best technique would be to use a rolling market basket instead of using market baskets that change only infrequently.

University of Guelph Axes Women's Studies,reduces "sociology creep"

Brian Ferguson sent me this from the local newspaper:

Following a marathon meeting, the University's Senate Tuesday night voted to ratify an earlier decision made by its Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS) to cancel the women's studies and five other majors and two degree programs.

Probably not a bad move for several reasons. As Sue said about the situation in an e-mail,

I have observed “sociology creep”  in secondary schools, to the point where Society Challenge and Change (junior sociology), history, geography, physical education (health), all had virtually the same curriculum. That curriculum usually ended up as a version of women’s studies issues and poverty issues, all of which could be explained by an oppressive and discriminatory male dominated society. I was one of the hold outs in the study of English who refused to replace Shakespeare with a “socially relevant” novel. Education has been reduced to brainwashing.

When I mentioned to Professor Ferguson that it must have taken a lot of "nerve" to scrap the women's studies programme, he responded

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Perhaps that is how others at UWO feel about what they are doing and have done to the economics department here.

The Demise of the UWO Economics Department

As I posted earlier, the University of Western Ontario Department of Economics has slipped in various rankings over the past 25 years, and the decline has been substantial. In the early 1980s, we were one of 30 departments claiming to be in the top 20. These days we seem to be one of 60 or 70 departments claiming to be in the top 50 (note to some commenters: I know the most recent ranking that I cited earlier is flawed due to its self-reporting nature; nevertheless, it captures the point I'm trying to make that UWO econ is nowhere near what it used to be).

What is truly sad and disappointing is that the department is likely to deteriorate considerably more in the future. Here is a summary of the situation, based on information provided by some colleagues:

Just to be really clear, it is the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, which houses the economics department, that is killing us; he is 99% responsible for our problems.  

Other departments grew considerably in size in recent years while we shrank (despite the fact that we were adding a lot of students and they weren't).   We were in the worst shape in Social Science before the budget crisis and now are taking the biggest hits. A few years ago, we had commitments in place that we could expand, and now that the crunch has hit, we are being  told we must cut back from our current position, not from our larger, promised position. 

The dean spent a lot of short-term money on other departments.  Then, when he woke up one day and realized he had no way to meet future obligations, he instituted a policy of no replacements, no growth, and essentially 100% tax on any other money raised in a department.  Surprise, surprise, it has been our department that is generating most of this money, and we have been told we cannot keep any of it.

The university isn't much better, but if the university got its act together and sent some money to this faculty, none of that money would help us in economics anyway.  It would be sent to other departments....

The dean has now appointed an "interim ... acting ...  chair" who will try to hold things together; i.e., the department has gone into receivership for now. Apparently the better-qualified members of the dept who would have (and have in the past) made good temporary chairs either would not take on the task this time or were not approached by the dean.

Earlier this week, everyone in the faculty of Social Sciences received letters from the Dean, asking us to donate a portion of our salary increases to the Faculty (hah! --- close friends find the request both appalling and laughable). The letter blames the unanticipated monetary shortfalls on the fact that with the abolition of mandatory retirement, too many old people are hanging on with high salaries. That sounds like even more bad financial planning to me. I hope the admins are not saying they were too short-sighted to anticipate that some of our older colleagues would hang around for an extra few years.

I have seen things like this happen in economics departments at other universities. Once a funding crunch like this hits the department, the best people leave [UWO cashed in on this phenomenon several times in the past, most notably hiring David Laidler and Michael Parkin in the mid-1970s and John Whalley after that]. Then other really good people leave. Eventually, the only ones left are those who have personal reasons for not leaving (e.g. couples who find relocation difficult and costly) or old fogeys like me who are locked in contractually for other reasons. Finding replacements who are as good as those who leave proves to be very difficult.

Unless the funding is restored and rebuilt for the department soon, we will sink even farther in the rankings, as those who are most mobile will surely leave. Even though many other universities and economics departments are hurting, some will find a way to pick off our best young talent.

It is all very sad and very painful.

And very deserved.

Update: for more, see the article and letters in today's Western News.

Fin-admin Mistakes: UWO Wasn't the Only One

I posted earlier about how the financial administrators at The University of Western Ontario mismanaged funds by treating the high returns of the past as something normal, to be expected every year, and did not adequately provide for the contingency that markets might turn downward.

They weren't the only ones.

The University of Toronto lost $1.3 billion.

The news comes at a time when campuses across the country are cutting budgets, in part because of investment losses. The University of Toronto, which boasts the country's largest endowment fund, also is shaping up to become a casualty on this front. At the University of British Columbia and McGill University, home to the second- and third-largest endowment funds in the country, leaders have said losses are running about 20 per cent. U of T's losses also are greater than the benchmark for large Canadian pension funds, which suffered an average decline of more than 18 per cent in 2008.

The justification from their fin-admins:

Your article U Of T Reports $1.3-Billion Loss On Investments (April 1) deals with a one-year period. Prudent investors take a long-run view. Our interest in long-term growth led U of T in 2000 to break with the usual Canadian model for managing endowment and pension funds because their overexposure to bonds could not ensure enough gains when markets were strong to outpace inevitable losses when markets deteriorate. As markets weakened, U of T anticipated the short-term drop and communicated four months ago we expected to withhold payments from our endowment this year. We also expect to resume payouts next year.

Translation: We gambled with the rent money and can't pay the rent this year, but we hope we can pay the rent next year. You'll have to do without in the meantime, but we're certainly not taking any personal responsibility for the losses.

Not Just in Canada

Of course a shining example of the problem comes from Harvard University [h/t to MA]. The details are amazing and even appalling.

For a long while, Harvard's daring investment style was the envy of the endowment world. It made light bets in plain old stocks and bonds and went hell-for-leather into exotic and illiquid holdings: commodities, timberland, hedge funds, emerging-market equities and private equity partnerships. The risky strategy paid off with market-beating results as long as the market was going up. But risk brings pain in a market crash. Although the full extent of the damage won't be known until Harvard releases the endowment numbers for June 30, 2009, the university is already working on the assumption that the portfolio will be down 30%, or $11 billion.

It turns out Harvard had considerable advance warning, too.

Followup: it turns out that the specific problems facing the UWO economics department are due to more than just financial mismanagement at the university. More on this soon.

Really Stupid Financial Management

Last week I posted about the financial woes here at The University of Western Ontario. A snippet for review:

The financial folks here gambled with our rent money: they invested huge chunks of the university's operating revenues AND endowment funds in equities. They looked like geniuses when stock prices were rising, but who is suffering now? Not them. In fact, they blame the market, not their own injudicious investment strategies.

Instead, the admin types here are reneging even on re-negotiated agreements. As a result, our department is losing a very dynamic and energetic chair and will likely lose other very creative economists.

In response to the resignation of the Economics Department Chair (and his straight-forward criticism of the financial mismanagement of the university), the university VP in charge of such things responded:

Gitta Kulczycki, Vice-President (Resources & Operations), disagrees with Sussman’s [i.e. Nathan Sussman, economics department chair] characterization of the investments.

 

For more than 20 years up until Dec. 31, 2008, the university’s investment strategy has generated an average return of 7.8 per cent, she says. The funds are invested in a broadly diversified portfolio which includes an asset mix of 35 per cent bonds, five per cent hedge funds and 60 per cent equities.

 

“The strategy of investing endowed funds, and that portion of non-endowed funds not required for short term purposes, has been in place since 1984,” she says...

So the fin-admins were merrily cruising along, earning 7.8% or more, investing zero in money markets or other low-risk assets, and were holding nothing back in reserve? Spending the entire proceeds like drunken sailors? Nothing to prepare in case there was a downturn? And counting on all the income and capital gains as continued growth in operating income? And they didn't adjust even a year ago when it was clear there were economic problems?

These folks should be fired without severance pay.

"When I'm [ranked only number] 64..."

Back in the early 1980s, Stan Liebowitz and I did a series of studies ranking economics journals according to citation rates (that study appeared in the Jl of Econ Lit and is still being cited). We then used those data to rank economics departments according to total weighted citations, per-capita weighted citations, total weighted publications, and per-capita weighted publications. Depending on the metric used, the University of Western Ontario's economics department ranked somewhere between 15th and 30th in the world. It was an excellent department (that study appeared in the Quarterly Jl of Econ and Bus).

Provincial budget cuts, coupled with some poorly managed destructive in-fighting, led to serious deterioration of the department's prestige and ranking in the early 1990s. We struggled, but recently people here have been working to rebuild the department. Nevertheless, a recent ranking has our department at 64th in the world. That is big drop from our glory days [h/t to co-blogger, Gabriel].

And very likely things will get worse.

The financial folks here gambled with our rent money: they invested huge chunks of the university's operating revenues AND endowment funds in equities. They looked like geniuses when stock prices were rising, but who is suffering now? Not them. In fact, they blame the market, not their own injudicious investment strategies.

Instead, the admin types here are reneging even on re-negotiated agreements. As a result, our department is losing a very dynamic and energetic chair and will likely lose other very creative economists.

There is a report that some of the senior admins here think that even having a ranking of 64 is too high for a university whose overall ranking in the world is somewhere between 100 and 150. They think this department is too good and commands too many of the university's resources. They see that top new PhDs in economics draw big salaries at top schools, and so they want us to hire lesser people and fall in the rankings.

For this and other personal reasons, I will be happy to be out of here in a few years.

"We Wouldn't Let [Our Child] Attend Western"

A few days ago I was speaking with someone who said their child is probably going to attend Wilfrid Laurier University (in Waterloo, Ontario) in the fall. When I replied that I thought Wilfrid Laurier was probably a pretty good choice among Ontario universities for an undergraduate education, they responded that both parents had been adamant: if the student wanted to attend The University of Western Ontario, they would provide absolutely no financial assistance for the student whatsover.

I understand their position.

Back in September of 1991, I wrote a piece for the student newspaper. My title for the article was,  Welcome to Western. Now Go Home. Here is an excerpt:

What is surprising is that 4000 of you still wanted to come to Western.

Increasingly students are being shoved into larger classes where professors cannot interact with them or get to know them. Increasingly students must deal with bureaucracies because professors have such heavy demands on their time that they no longer have time for students. Increasingly students are being treated as anonymous numbers and not as thinking, feeling individuals who would like human contact in their educational environment.

So why are you here? Do you really like big classes with professors who never get to know you? Do you really like being treated like non-feeling robots?

Your response may be that you feel as if you don't have much choice in the matter. But you do have a choice.

One possibility would be to attend some other institution, where the quality of undergraduate education has not deteriorated so badly. The difficulty with this option is that given provincial funding decisions and tuition caps, only a few such options are available in Ontario. [EE: Wilfrid Laurier and McMaster might be better options at the undergraduate level].

A second possibility would be to attend university in some other jurisdiction. There are other places that value high-quality education and are willing to offer it to students who are willing to work [and pay] for it.

There is more at the original link. And for a followup, see this, written nearly a year later, in which I wrote, inter alia,

Things have not improved: the province has clawed back some funding; the last provincial budget did not contain the pre-election-promised support for the university; and while Ontario universities will be allowed to increase their tuitions, the allowable increase is small compared with the budget shortfalls the universities are anticipating.

There is simply no way, given the foreseeable revenues, that universities can even come close to balancing their budgets without some serious cost-cutting. And no matter how hard people try to eliminate waste and inefficiencies, cost-cutting means that on average program quality will decline.

Faculties and departments are reducing support services; classes are becoming even larger; and even more mega-sections are being scheduled for the future. At the same time, increasing workloads coupled with morale problems among both faculty members and graduate students will contribute to a growing number of complaints from undergrads about inaccessibility to help with their courses.

Things are bad and getting worse. So it is especially worth the effort this year to ask yourself whether you want to return to Western in the fall.

UCU Boycott of Israel? Much less likely now

This is some really good news: Sue Blackwell resoundingly lost her seat on the UCU directorate. From Engage,

The results of the annual round of elections to the NEC of the UCU have been announced. The elections are a contest between the SWP-dominated ‘UCULeft’ – which actually represents a small and diminishing number of the many left activists in the union - and an independent network, generally opposed to the idea of a boycott of Israel

While the results are not entirely clear cut, the elections this year show a progressive shift. One of the two anti-boycott candidates for president, Terry Hoad, won, as expected. Some rock solid opponents of a boycott were elected or re-elected: Alan Carr as Treasurer, Stephen Desmond is back on, Jimmy Donnaghy from QUB is a new face on the NEC, Roger Waters from the OU is re-elected. Congratulations to these and to other candidates elected on from the Unity Network.

But the big news for many is that Sue Blackwell, who has been the leading proponent of an academic boycott of Israel, has lost her seat on the NEC of the union. Sue got 246 first preference votes coming 14th out of 17 on first preferences, and being eliminated early on in the count. That’s 246 out of 6,569 votes cast, which itself represents around 1 in 8 of those eligible to vote.

Sue Blackwell has, for years, loudly promoted an academic boycott of Israel. On a weekly, and sometimes daily basis, she has pushed for such a boycott on the activists list of the union. She has failed to get her position adopted by a single branch of the union. She has opposed giving the members a vote, ignored the views of her own branch, threatened legal action against other NEC members, and called on members who disagree with her to leave the union.

When the membership have been given a chance, they have decisively rejected such a boycott. Even more mild, boycott-promoting resolutions have been repudiated - as by the Oxford branch. Sue Blackwell is known for little else in the union, but everyone knows her position on Israel. Now the small minority of the members who vote in union elections have made it clear that they have had enough of this. And if we have helped to get Sue Blackwell off the NEC, we are glad to have done so.

CAFI, DAY2: Afternoon Workshops

There are two concurrent workshops this afternoon.

1. Dealing with anti-Israel actions and propaganda on campus. My friends are attending this one.
2. Dealing with proposed academic boycotts. Since I've been on the fringes of this topic in the blog for 3-4 years, I decided to attend this workshop. It'll be mostly speakers, not a workshop, but that's fine with me. Oh, oh. the chairs are in a circle; not a thrill for me.

Ronnie Fraser. Founder of Academic Friends of Israel (UK). The boycott does not exist overtly; it is silent, manifesting itself as denial of travel funds, refusals to referee papers, etc. "The people who run the "boycotts" are not proper academics..... they are interested only in the publicity." The various unions support Palestinian groups which, in turn, support boycotts. But it is really activists on the far left who are behind the boycotts, and the trade unions go along with them.

Interesting fact: Israeli and Palestinian trade unions have numerous collaborative arrangements.

Arieh Kovler. Fair Play Campaign Group (UK). Boycotters argue that there is no such thing as a university in Israel. I guess they say it is all part of the Israeli war machine. Amazing, since universities are hotbeds of pacifism and anti-war movements. good point: What does it mean to boycott an institution, not the individuals who teach in them? Aside: Irrelevant EE observation: it looks as if Michael Rooney is addressing us.

Len Rudner, Cdn Jewish Congress. In CUPE the problem is that most members don't care about the Middle East; rather Sid Ryan et al have been pushing the anti-Israel agenda. A good point: how upset would I be if CUPE were pro-Israel?

Sid Ryan has been a failure a leader of Ontario CUPE.

Discussion results:

Two recommended websites: Zionism on the web. Moving Images? (couldn't find this one)

CAFI, DAY2: Morning Session 2

Jim Torczyner. I don't want to blog this. I'm not enjoying this. The thesis is that the values of academic ideals and social justice need to work together. Regular readers will know I'm not at all persuaded. He's a Saul Alinsky-type community organizer from Berkely. groan. Energetic and committed; also good self-promoter.

During the previous discussion, a questioner from the floor said she was confident that the most serious problem of late was the environmental harm caused by the attack on Hamas in Gaza. One person rightly said afterward she should have been told to...______ . She's from OISE [Ontario Insttitue for something something], which is probably the greatest insult to academics in the universe.

Mohammad Al Hadid, chairman (sic) Standing Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society.
An earnest man. Convinced people to train Palestinian paramedics in Israel instead of sending them to the US or Australia. I see at least some connection with academics and Israel, but that seemed to be a minor part of his talk.

Jim Weinblatt, Rector, Ben Gurion Univ of the Negev. The essence of his talk: Israeli universities have done a lot and the UK [and CUPE?] boycotts are immoral. By no stretch of the imagination is there apartheid in Israel. Further, boycotts will not end Israeli occupation of the west bank. At Ben-Gurion Univ, there are some arab and bedouin professors. That isn't apartheid, and these people will also be affected by academic boycotts.

CAFI, DAY2: Intro

Mayo Moran, Dean, Law, Univ of Toronto, "Understanding Hate-Speech on Campus"

The Cdn Chief Justice dissented in the Keegstra case on the grounds of "freedom of expression".

The essence of "freedom of expression" is that competition in the marketplace of ideas is best (I first heard/read  this approach in Posner's text on Economic Analysis of Law. [EE: this is a long-run view]

Universities tend to thrive on this approach.

She also noted the argument that freedom of expression can be damaging to students "who are members of vulnerable groups" [EE: I get concerned with this argument.]. So where should the line be drawn? Later... she emphasizes that answering this question can be "challenging".

Several US cases in which freedom of expression was defended by courts. Many dealt with speech codes.  General conclusion: universities must err on the side of freedom of expression.

Disappointing talk. She should have talked about human rights tribunals.

Also, during the discussion, my friend, Clive (prez of SAFS) challenged her, pointing out that there is far less freedom of speech on Cdn campuses. And he also mentioned the human rights councils. She waffled in her reply, essentially saying nothing. And more waffling on other questions.

There's an interesting tension in the discussion. Some favour very free speech. Others, noting the existing hate laws, are upset by the apparent discriminatory application of them (most recently favouring Palestinians and not Jews).

More people need to read Posner's Chapter on free speech. Is there really monopoly on campuses in the marketplace of ideas? Not in the long-run.

In the end, she said NOTHING about current issues. Too careful, too dean-like.

cafi: Morning Session 3, Kenneth Marcus and Gerald Steinberg

Kenneth Marcus: on Holocaust inversion --- accusing Israelis or Jews of behaving as if they are engaging actions that were inflicted on Jews.

Cites Cutler v. Dorn about anti-Semitism in the police force in New Jersey, about a hostile environment in the workplace. Man, defining what is illegally hostile is going to be contentious, especially given actions of Canadian Human Rights Inquisitions.

Causes of inversion? Some ideological points:

• projection as a defense. 
• secondary anti-Semitism -- blame the victim, e.g. "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz."

Functions of inversion:

• shock
• silence
• threaten
• legitimize
• insulate

Levy's 3 pillars --- I need to get the source and read more on this. Unfortunately he was pressed for time, and so he had to rush through this material. Rather than try to take notes on it, I just sat back and listened.

Unfortunately, Gerald Steinberg thought it would be better if readers went to his website than read a summary of his talk here. That really is too bad, because his talk was very good. The title was:

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and the NGO Network: From Postcolonial Ideology to Antisemitism.

Briefly, he pointed out that the NGOs have tonnes of money to promote their political, anti-Israel agendas.The NGOs are hypocritical and self-righteous -- grossly disproportionately represent Israel. And the MSM take NGO inventions as fact.

He is the Executive Director of NGO Monitor, which will surely belong on my list of bookmarks.

CAFI: Morning Session 2b:

Roni Stauber:

From late 1990s to 2006, there was a 300% increase in anti-Semitic acts, such as vandalism and personal attacks. It declined in 2007-8, and he didn’t say why; he expects it to increase after the war with Hamas. He provided numerous examples of extremist Muslim attacks on Jews, Jewish buildings, and other Jewish sites and noted that the western press remained quiet (or worse, apologetic!).

He cited an Oxford scholar; also cited Canadian author of book, The Case against Israel, both of whom blame Jews and Israeli policies for anti-Semitic attacks --- blame the victims!

 

The present anti-Zionist campaign(s), as propounded by the radical left and Islamic extremists, is anti-Semitic --- advocating destruction of the state of Israel will lead to the destruction of Jews.

 

Senator Jeremiah Grafstein:

There have been anti-Semitic eruptions at all three university campuses in Toronto: University of Toronto, York (which he suspects has the highest percentage of Jewish students of any university in the Commonwealth), and Ryerson University.

 

Anti-Semitism is not new; rather it is becoming more pervasive and is more pernicious.

 

Repeated, “Silence is not an option.”

 

Discussed what qualifies as free speech. Argh. Without respect, there can be no freedom according to him. Ugh. Would his view justify the Canadian Human Rights Commissions? What's the difference? I’d set the bar quite differently. Says that Lloyd Axworthy, former cabinet minister and current prez of University of Winnipeg, called people in and told them he would expel them if they do anything that smacks of intimidation. [Later someone said Axworthy should resign from Human Rights Watch.]

 

“I love some of the saints.” [groan. save me!]

 

Presented a 15-minute 3000-year history of anti-Semitism to show it isn’t new.

 

Injudicious statement: “The Muslims are quite bright actually. Really. They take every bright idea and pervert it.”

No wonder I don’t much like politicians.

 

Proposition: all anti-Semitism is local. Interesting concept for directing actions of members of the conference.

 

Wants to establish a Jewish college at University of Toronto. I wonder how he’d feel about having a Muslim college established at U of T.     

 Discussion:

An interesting suggested counter to “Israel Apartheid Week”: Israel Democracy Week. Or, “Radical Islamist Week”.  Other speakers point out that groups at many universities  are planning counter-events.

CAFI: Canadian Academic Friends of Israel

For the next few days, I will be attending a conference in Toronto sponsored by CAFI. As most readers know, I am not Jewish (maybe I am, if you go back to McAlpine of Scotland, thence to Mary Magdalene, but I really think I'm pretty much a WASP). Furthermore, I hold no brief for Israel as "the promised land". Nevertheless, I am a strong supporter of Israel's existence and of its attempts to defend itself and its residents.

After most of the world acknowledged its existence as a sovereignty, and after the recognition (creation?) of this sovereignty by the United Nations, Israel has had to defend itself. The wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 stand out as examples. So does Israel's 2008-9 attack on the rocket-firing Hamas terrorists in Gaza. For more, see this, which includes photos of the recent terrorist attack in Jerusalem.

Also, I am very concerned about the potential for a much larger war, given Iran's sabre-rattling and Israel's need to defend itself as it did with a pre-emptive attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities.

I guess that makes me a non-religious, non-cultural, gentile academic friend of Israel. With any luck, I'll be live-blogging the event.

York University Wimps Out and Distorts the Situation

Yesterday, after months of labour unrest and after attacks on Jewish students, the president of York University made a speech to the university senate. In part, the speech said,

[A]t a time when our community should be pulling together, we turn on each other instead — academic disruption, intimidation, sit-ins, name-calling, shouting people down, banging on the doors and windows of Senate or the Board of Governors or student clubs.  Then we run to the media and tell anyone who will listen how bad York is.

Is it any wonder our own students are disconnected?  Or that turnout at our student elections is so low?  Or that our students and their families are voting with their feet?  Our public face is not demonstrating the core values a university should stand for:

• Freedom of speech – especially for those with whom we disagree
• Mutual Respect
• Reason
• Discourse
• Objectivity
• Being able to teach — and learn — without disruption
• Being open to other ideas and other people.
• And yes, social justice.

So far so good? It reads mostly like typical university motherhood- and-apple-pie type statements. Except I quite vehemently disagree about social justice. I wish every course that mentions this term could be struck from university catalogs. And then the tone continues to change as more biases creep in:

But we cannot demand social justice only for ourselves and for those who think like us. Social justice is for everyone, or it is for no one. York has a history of social activism, but the events of the past weeks — intimidation and shouting each other down — have nothing to do with social activism.

Now I begin to disagree even more. No matter what people say, whenever they use the term "social justice", they typically mean a redistribution of wealth and political power. The use of this term so much by a university president bothers me. But read on.

That is why I am asking you today, as Senators and key representatives of the academy, to make your voices heard and say, “enough is enough.”

I want to give a couple of examples of how the academy can contribute to open dialogue on tough issues.  At other universities in this province, faculty members participate as guest speakers at lecture series organized by student clubs. These events tackle the very same issues we are struggling with:

• Islamophobia
• Anti-Semitism
• Racial profiling
• Overcoming stereotypes

Oops. Islamophobia exists because the major terrorists of concern are Muslims, not because of any racism. And racial stereotyping makes some sense if only the people from a particular racial group are those who are most likely to carry out some heinous crime. These things are not at all the same thing as anti-Semitism or discrimination in general. If the odds are high that only people from a specific group are likely to kill, bomb, or otherwise terrorize people, then it makes sense for security forces to pay special attention to people from that group.

And why, oh why, is Islamophobia mentioned first on that list, when the problem at York University has been attacks on Jewish students (and others) who oppose the bombing of Israel by Hamas?

Let me repeat: Islamaphobia is not at all in the same category as Anti-Semitism. That the York prez lumps them together is quite revealing about his biases.

The goal is not agreement or endorsement of each others’ ideas, it is to create safe spaces where people can come together to articulate their views — without fear and without being shouted down.

I’ll give you another example happening right here at York.  Next week, the York Centre for International and Security Studies is hosting an event that will examine the idea of academic boycotts.  Speakers will explore the topic in a reasoned way in an academic forum.  These two examples share one common element: faculty involvement.

After having read the rest of the speech, I am very skeptical about the nature of this conference. It seems like such an open-and-shut case that boycotts (like those proposed by the British UCU or by the Ontario branch of CUPE) should not take place.

Toronto CUPE Members Challenge Their Leader

Background: Sid Ryan, leader of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), has long supported having his union pass resolutions urging the boycott of Israel, Israeli academics, and Israeli educational institutions (see here). Now, members of the University of Toronto chapter of the union have struck back with a call for removing Ryan from the leadership of their union. My own thoughts are that the board members who supported Ryan should also be removed. Here is their letter, which is brilliant (thanks again to Robert for the pointer). And here are some excerpts:

These actions, which approve a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, both violate the authority with which they have been entrusted and, worse, undermine academic freedoms.

CUPE national, as well as the University of Toronto Education Workers, CUPE local 3902, have disapproved of this motion and decision, and for good reason. The most urgent matter of concern to the union is the ratification of reasonable contracts across Ontario. The primary mission of the union is to ensure the fair employment and treatment of its members. The current leadership has overreached its mandate, recklessly and irresponsibly dabbling in complex international politics. This leadership has demonstrated its resolve to continue in this fashion even though it is not competent to do so, it has not been elected to do so, and it is not in its jurisdiction to do so. These actions have harmed our union.

Many have pointed out that singling out predominantly Jewish institutions for this boycott suggests a discriminatory policy. The experience at York University campus only last week demonstrates how quickly anti-Israel positions can translate into anti-Semitic slogans. ...

It is ironic that this censorial activity is led by a man who is quick to claim for himself the mantle of human-rights activist. Freedom of thought is a most fundamental human right, yet it seems to be a right that Sid Ryan has no trouble trampling on. Sid Ryan seems to think that he and his closest colleagues have the right to determine which academics we ought to listen to and which ought to be censored. That tells us all we need to know about Mr. Ryan's estimation of his own moral and intellectual capacities, and how little he values those of others....

The boycott of academic institutions is an attack upon this freedom, which an enlightened union should be supporting, rather than limiting. For Mr. Ryan's boycott limits the freedom not only of the academics he wishes to prevent from speaking (in this case, Israeli academics), but also of those who might wish to listen (Canadians)....

We do not consent to have our wages used to support resolutions on which we have not been allowed to vote, which violate the spirit of the union's constitution and which compromise our integrity at a most fundamental level....