CANDACE BLOOMQUIST
Opinions Writer

After reading the consultation draft of the Learning Charter for the University of Saskatchewan, I have some observations as a student.

First, according to the U of S website the university community is made up of 16,000 undergraduate students, 2,000 graduate students, and 7,000 faculty and staff. However, of the 16 drafters of the Learning Charter there were 14 faculty and staff, one graduate student, and one undergraduate student.

If this charter is meant to reflect the entire university, the make-up of the committee seems to be disproportionately heavy on faculty and staff and light on students.

Now, the reason provided for having a Learning Charter for the U of S was to define aspirations about the learning experience that the university aims to provide and the roles to be played by all parties in the university. As a student, this seems to be saying, “we are going to tell you how to act during your time at the university and this is what we say you are going to get out of your university education.”

What this suggests’ is a lack of trust in students abilities to define for themselves their own goals and roles.

As it stands, the Learning Charter may, in reality, serve to deteriorate what is left of the inherent trust among students and faculty within the campus community. What the faculty and staff drafters of the Learning Charter must have forgotten was that trust cannot be demanded but must be freely given.

When the Learning Charter defined the aspirations that students must have for the university, I wondered, how do the drafters know what the goals are of so many students when there are only two students on the committee? When people are able to define their own goals and aspirations, which are activities they will engage in for no external reward, they experience a sense of happiness.

On the other hand, distress accompanies a concentration on goals and aspirations that are set by others and which are contingent on approval of others. Whether it is another individual or an entire university dictating what others should strive for, the results are the same; distress and lack of motivation.

The Learning Charter, by defining goals for students without their relative input, takes away, among other things, student’s autonomy, right to be different and right to make their education their own. It attempts to define students’ goals rather than allowing students’ experiences to unfold naturally.

This has the potential to turn passivity into a habit. This passive habit, already evident in the indifferent “Meh” or “Whatever” mentality is beginning to define the way our generation is approaching the utterly mind-boggling amount of information with which we are faced. If the current Learning Charter is adopted without proportional student input then this passivity, I fear, has the potential to be perpetuated.

Currently the Learning Charter dampens the potential for students to be creative and explore aspirations outside those dictated by the Learning Charter. Though hoping for more, it seems like the Learning Charter expects students to accept and fulfil their duties without question or interference. In the end, the Learning Charter seems to expect students to be compliant and deferential and not notice that they don’t have a voice in their own university.

I am wondering how the university is going to act on what the Learning Charter professes? If we were to adopt the Learning Charter for the U of S, how would we monitor whether these proposed principles are put into practice?

For example, in the Learning Charter one of the student commitments is to “learn willingly.” Does this assume students are not currently learning willingly? What does it look like when students are learning willingly? What happens when a student decides not to learn willingly?

At present the Learning Charter appears to be a top-down form of legislation that has the potential to deprive students of their fundamental liberties of expression. In addition, regulating the behaviours the Learning Charter proposes to regulate would lead to an ethical and administrative quagmire. Similar to what a wise professor once said; if the language used was intentional, we should be deeply concerned. If the language used was not deliberate, we should be deeply concerned. If such language is approved, we should be deeply concerned.

The drafters of the Learning Charter, the majority of which were faculty and staff, I am sure aspire to noble pursuits for the university. However, it is not clear that they recognize the lack of trust that the current draft of the Learning Charter perpetuates within the university.

The start of a solution, though, must rest with our collective ability as a university community to build trust among the learning partners within the university. One way to build this trust between students, instructors and the university, is to put our collective efforts together. Instead of falling into a habit of “Meh” passivity, voice your own opinion about the Learning Charter. By voicing your opinion, it changes “whatever, I don’t care” into “I care. Lets do whatever it takes to claim our education.”

– –