The Right to Education

I'm not sure how much news coverage this has gotten in other countries, but since February a large number of Quebec university and CEGEP students have been on strike against a $1,625 (75%) tuition hike to be instituted over the next 5 years. This has been the longest student strike in Quebec history and shows no signs of ending any time soon.

The Liberal government has justified the hike citing the need to reduce Quebec's deficit and the fact that Quebec currently pays the lowest tuition in Canada, while the students have cited increased student debt and decreased accessibility in opposition to the hike.

It might be no surprise to some, but I am in favor of the strike and have been marching in many of the daily demonstrations. The justification given by the government holds no water as during the same period the Liberals decreased taxes across the board. If the deficit was really such a pressing issue for the government (which I do believe it to be), they wouldn't be cutting taxes left and right.

In addition I believe all education is a right, not a privilege. As education is a necessity to obtaining a person's occupation of choice and a person's potential should not be restricted by financial barriers, tuition should be free. No one would raise an eyebrow at the suggestion of free elementary and secondary school because those are "necessities", so I guess it depends on a person's conception of necessity, is it what's needed to reach ones potential or what one needs to survive (in which case, given that its possible to survive without a high school education, by that logic shouldn't high school also be tuition based.)

While an extreme contingent of the strikers have co-opted the strike to engage in vandalism (most recently setting off smoke bombs in 3 metro stations to disrupt rush hour) I do not believe this changes the validity of the movement (although I do condemn such actions.)

What do you think of the Quebec tuition protest and tuition protests in general?

In addition what do you believe in regards to education's status as a right?

Originally Posted by Pietro

In addition I believe all education is a right, not a privilege. As education is a necessity to obtaining a person's occupation of choice and a person's potential should not be restricted by financial barriers, tuition should be free. No one would raise an eyebrow at the suggestion of free elementary and secondary school because those are "necessities", so I guess it depends on a person's conception of necessity, is it what's needed to reach ones potential or what one needs to survive

Ironically, the people behind the tuition also require money to survive in their "occupation of choice".

Originally Posted by Double A

Ironically, the people behind the tuition also require money to survive in their "occupation of choice".

If you're referring to politicians they clearly don't considering they lowered taxes during the same period that they decided to raise the tuition.

Education is a human right.

Economic rights are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for the exact same reason that Educational rights are included.

These rights form the foundation upon which other rights can be enjoyed. People won't worry about a right to participate in the democratic process if they do not have food or water to sustain their life. People require the right to food and shelter and a decent living for the sake of their own flourishing. For their ability to become who they want to become they need sustainance, and the same is true for education.

A person cannot grow as an individual to become who they want to become, or even enjoy other rights unless they are educated. Afterall, how could anyone be expected to make an informed decision at the ballot box, if they are illiterate?

It's kind of like Maslow's Heirachy of needs, but applied to human rights.


I am glad that education is a human right, and it should stay that way. Governments around the world should be seeking to make higher education free for those who apply as well.

Originally Posted by Pietro

If you're referring to politicians they clearly don't considering they lowered taxes during the same period that they decided to raise the tuition.

No, I'm referring to the education staff themselves.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

These rights form the foundation upon which other rights can be enjoyed. People won't worry about a right to participate in the democratic process if they do not have food or water to sustain their life. People require the right to food and shelter and a decent living for the sake of their own flourishing. For their ability to become who they want to become they need sustainance, and the same is true for education.

An education does not guarantee sustenance. Following this line of thought, only education aimed at teaching skills in high demand should be free (for the sake of guaranteeing sustenance).

A person cannot grow as an individual to become who they want to become, or even enjoy other rights unless they are educated. Afterall, how could anyone be expected to make an informed decision at the ballot box, if they are illiterate?

Personal development is not necessarily tied to formal education. One can be informed about things like politics without a related formal education. All that's needed is free time. This isn't an argument for education being a right, but learning, which is a given.

I agree with the idea of a "right" in that, it is the idea that those that have the ability to educate others have the responsibility to do so. Not in that they be required to by law.

I am very much for education being of paramount importance as a societal responsibility or, "right". Education is the key to stopping most of what is infected in our society right now -- for the most part, unfortunate people.

With the help of a voting test, education will push us towards voting more responsibly, and having better control of our public officials. With the help of legal birthing criteria, education will push us towards a world with more fortunate youth, less degenerate youth breeding in public schools, and less unfortunate adults.

I, as others in this thread, am completely in favour of free education and I believe it is not only beneficial, but crucial to be available for everyone who needs it.

I also heavily condemn the idea of "encouraging" certain courses and neglecting others, because "that's what our country currently needs": to bring a specific example, you have to go through financial difficulties if you want to study Law, as we have to many lawyers, but it's much cheaper if you want to study physics and be an engineer, because apparently, we lack engineers - so they want to encourage that. Perhaps it's not discrimination per se, but it really feels like it, considering you can't really change what you like to do or are good at.


In addition, tuition fees nourish the lack of equality. If one person has all the relevant skills (is enrolled to uni), the eagerness, dedication - but no money, he or she won't be able to become what he/she wants to do; another person will take his/her place at univeristy: a person who is there only because they're wealthier and not because they are better.

It might even lead to the depreciation of education.

Of course, just as everything, this can be abused too: tuition fees became higher in this very year here, in order to stop those students who attend to courses without actually needing them only to make their youth longer, so to speak; so that they don't have to start working at the age of 18.

Originally Posted by Double A

An education does not guarantee sustenance. Following this line of thought, only education aimed at teaching skills in high demand should be free (for the sake of guaranteeing sustenance).

...I didn't say that. Try again.

Personal development is not necessarily tied to formal education. One can be informed about things like politics without a related formal education. All that's needed is free time. This isn't an argument for education being a right, but learning, which is a given.

Development is tied to education. The process is sped up when an individual is given the tools and guidance necessary. Sure someone can teach them selves how to read if they have the spare time, but surely you agree it is better that they are given the opportunity/tools/guidance to learn to read for free from an institution.


I never said that one needs higher education to participate in a democracy. Merely that one needed education. Because education is one of the fundamentals to a persons skill set. It teaches them literacy, arithmetic, and towards the end of high school critical thinking and other things that an individual may be interested in. All of the basics that people need to function in a society and achieve goals they are after.

Education facilitates learning. The right is written into the covenant as a right to education, not a right to learning.



Why are you arguing with me Double A, do you not believe that education should be a right?

Depends on what you mean by "right". If you mean "right" in the sense that people should be allowed to learn what they want for free, then I am somewhat undecided. I believe that primary and secondary education should be free, but not all tertiary education.

Why should tertiary education not be free?

In Australia it is for all intents and purposes. One accrues a debt for one's own education and one pays this debt back to the government in the form of tax once one is earning over $40 000 a year.

In Sweden education is free for all Swedish and Swiss citizen as well.


So clearly it is an achievable goal.
So why shouldn't it be a right? It's possible.

The inverse where tertiary education is not free, one ends up in a place where only those privileged enough to afford an education can study. People who may well be extremely bright and very useful to a nation cannot study because of economic factors. That would be a sad place to live in. I think from all accounts, it is better to set the system up as something which can be given for free, to potential students.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

Why should tertiary education not be free?

I said that not all tertiary education should be free (in the sense that it is funded by the government). I'm pretty fine with more "in-demand" (or "low-supply") skillsets being taught for free, because it is these skillsets that give society the greatest benefit. These are also the skillsets that are more likely to secure the necessities for students.

In Australia it is for all intents and purposes. One accrues a debt for one's own education and one pays this debt back to the government in the form of tax once one is earning over $40 000 a year.

Well I can't really say I oppose free education if you have to pay for it...

What about if someone wants to learn music at a university level?



What is the difference at the end of the day between the Australian model and the Swedish model?
Both are paid for by the taxation system. They are both free for all intents and purposes.

No, I'm referring to the education staff themselves.

The tuition hike is not about the teachers' salaries as they are not receiving a raise, the Liberal government has said it was simply about deficit reduction. The Quebec universities will not receive more funding, just funding from the private rather than public sector.

Originally Posted by AzraelBlack

What is the difference at the end of the day between the Australian model and the Swedish model?

Both are paid for by the taxation system. They are both free for all intents and purposes.

I suppose I doubt other countries' ability to fund so much high-level education with taxes. Though that's just a guess on my part.

They could just create a minor tax hike across the board to fund education. If you specifically state "this is going right here" and if you can point out where it's going people aren't going to be all GRR - they'll be understanding and they'll care because everyone can use and benefit from these services.

But taxes are evil

Originally Posted by Double A

I suppose I doubt other countries' ability to fund so much high-level education with taxes. Though that's just a guess on my part.

Just because they don't currently have the ability to respect and enforce such a right doesn't mean that the right should not exist.


For example:
Right to Health

Article 12 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to "the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. "Health" is understood not just as a right to be healthy, but as a right to control ones own health and body (including reproduction), and be free from interference such as torture or medical experimentation. States must protect this right by ensuring that everyone within their jurisdiction has access to the underlying determinants of health, such as clean water, sanitation, food, nutrition and housing, and through a comprehensive system of healthcare, which is available to everyone without discrimination, and economically accessible to all.

That is the right to health as taken from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 12.



As it currently stands the world cannot afford for every nation in the world to afford the right to clean water sanitation, food, nutrition and housing (cough becausecapitalismis♥♥♥♥ingstupid). But that doesn't mean that such a thing should be discarded.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a bill to which all governments should aspire to uphold and represent. It is a goal that all governments should aspire to fulfil.

It's not just a right, it's necessary for a strong society to be educated, especially in our current globalized economy.

I'm having to pay around £3,000 more than I would have 2 years ago, for over half my life I'm going to have 27,000 slowly disappear from my account. Seems like these days unless you start killing people revolution's senseless, the government are representing themselves more and more.

I agree that education should be a right not a privilege but these days every governments trying to con all us folk of everything we have. I still find it ridiculous that you have to pay tax to be allowed to work!

I'm paying tax for a higher education so I can go out there and pay tax.

You have to pay workingtax? Really? Didn't know that.

Damn I'm hungry.

What do you think of the Quebec tuition protest and tuition protests in general?

Either pay more tuition or pay more tax.

Balance your goddamn budget.

Though that applies across the country and across the economy as well.

No one would raise an eyebrow at the suggestion of free elementary and secondary school because those are "necessities", so I guess it depends on a person's conception of necessity, is it what's needed to reach ones potential or what one needs to survive (in which case, given that its possible to survive without a high school education, by that logic shouldn't high school also be tuition based.)

The logic behind funding secondary school publicly is:

1) Many places that are more than McJobs actually require people to have their high school diplomas.

2) The end of secondary school is, at least in North America, where everything splits into their various specialties. Education to the end of secondary school is universal, because whether one becomes a doctor or a plumber, everyone goes through that curriculum.

In addition what do you believe in regards to education's status as a right?

People have the right to a universal standard of education, i.e to the end of secondary school. After that, education is a privilege.

Afterall, how could anyone be expected to make an informed decision at the ballot box, if they are illiterate?

People are generally literate after their first grade of elementary school.

But I digress.

I'd only use this as an argument in favour of a universal standard (everyone needs to be educated to this point so they can make informed decisions), as opposed to unlimited free education for all to the end of tertiary education (Needing to be politically aware doesn't justify having your way to becoming an electrician paid for, they're entirely unrelated).

I also heavily condemn the idea of "encouraging" certain courses and neglecting others, because "that's what our country currently needs": to bring a specific example, you have to go through financial difficulties if you want to study Law, as we have to many lawyers, but it's much cheaper if you want to study physics and be an engineer, because apparently, we lack engineers - so they want to encourage that.

I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, we should encourage private sector companies to become more involved in paying for the tuition of individuals training in high demand disciplines.

In addition, tuition fees nourish the lack of equality. If one person has all the relevant skills (is enrolled to uni), the eagerness, dedication - but no money, he or she won't be able to become what he/she wants to do; another person will take his/her place at univeristy: a person who is there only because they're wealthier and not because they are better.

The inverse where tertiary education is not free, one ends up in a place where only those privileged enough to afford an education can study. People who may well be extremely bright and very useful to a nation cannot study because of economic factors. That would be a sad place to live in. I think from all accounts, it is better to set the system up as something which can be given for free, to potential students.

I'mma let you finish in a minute.

I really have to object to these kinds of statements. Admittedly, I can't speak for the system in other countries, and not even in other parts of my own. However, at least in this locality it has never been easier for low-income people to gain higher education.

A combination of preference in terms of scholarships, admittance, and loans for individuals from families of lower income and/or ethnic minority status has made gaining tertiary education (at least to the level of a Bachelor's Degree) rather easy.

"From a low-income/minority family? Great! Did you get a scholarship? No? Well that's no problem, Mr.Taxpayer has got you covered for as long as you need with unlimited, affordable, low-interest loans! All you have to do is pass your courses with a minimum of a 70% in all your courses."

I mean, what's the interest rate right now? A little less than double inflation? So your real interest rate would be like 2-4%.

The only real struggle for low-income individuals to actually go to university in my province right now is for them to pay their external living expenses.

Student loans used to be available for people across the board, regardless of income or ethnicity, and based on merit. However, they're no longer an option for people from upper or middle class families.

Which is a real kick in the teeth for some kids from the middle class, since mummy and daddy make just a little too much for them to get financial assistance but not enough for their parents to actually be able to cover the cost.

It might even lead to the depreciation of education.

If anything, the opposite is true. By making tertiary education essentially cost-free, the government has removed much of the drive to excel from people who would have competed for scholarships, as well as opening the lecture room to the unmotivated masses.

Congrats on getting passed to grade 13 guise.

They could just create a minor tax hike across the board to fund education. If you specifically state "this is going right here" and if you can point out where it's going people aren't going to be all GRR - they'll be understanding and they'll care because everyone can use and benefit from these services.

I'd rather see a minor tax hike to cover the deficit before we even get into the idea of new spending.

I still find it ridiculous that you have to pay tax to be allowed to work!

And what tax is that?