Posted yesterday at 2:00 p.m.
Here we are. Following the intense media and political crusade against the Dawson College expansion real estate project, the government turned around and gave in under pressure: the once-prioritized project was shelved. While the need is largely documented and established according to the ministerial standards in terms of space allocation for CEGEPs in Quebec, it appears that there will henceforth be two categories of public colleges: those for which the standards apply, and those for whom these standards are futile. In other words, CEGEPs having the misfortune to provide instruction in English will be treated differently from the others, and de facto will become second-rate establishments. A misguided decision in so many ways.
Something fishy
The argument used by the Prime Minister to explain this decision is flawed: we must give priority to French-speaking students and, therefore, first fund the infrastructure projects of French-speaking CEGEPs. However, it is the government itself that determines the number of students who can attend a particular institution. This is what is called in the jargon the “pedagogical estimate”. In the case of Dawson College, this quota currently stands at some 7,900 students. And it happens that this number generates space needs of some 11,000 additional square meters compared to the spaces currently allocated to the college.
Do we want to deprive Dawson students of what they are entitled to, even by virtue of the parameters put in place by the government? To ask the question, is to answer it.
But there is eel under rock! By taking this decision, the government is betting, consciously or not, that in the long term, the ceiling imposed by the future law 96 will do its work of attrition, and that soon there will only be so-called English-speaking students – the beneficiaries, according to the term of the technocrats – who will access English-speaking CEGEPs. Because, of course, these establishments are there first and foremost to serve the English-speaking community! Fatal error.
Bilingualization and non-anglicization
The virulence with which the Dawson project, and that of McGill, incidentally, has been vilified by so-called experts – certain commentators and political actors – in recent years is breathtaking. But this virulence is no illusion. The resentment of the critics smacks of resentment and is based on a cleverly constructed narrative that makes Dawson (and similar establishments) the villain of the story. It’s well known: a francophone or an allophone who has spent two years in a college like Dawson has become irremediably anglicized! Therefore, Dawson and the others are guilty of favoring linguistic substitution and leading to the Louisianization of Quebec! Rather strong in coffee as a narrative. As if these establishments were responsible for the attractiveness of English in the world today.
The truth is quite different. In fact, establishments like Dawson have enabled many young people, francophones and allophones, to obtain over the years what they have not been able to obtain elsewhere: mastery of English, an essential asset in a world that nothing unilingual.
These young and less young have made a choice for their future and have not, for the most part, abandoned their Francophone identity, despite what is said. Mastering English, becoming bilingual, does not mean becoming Anglicized, far from it!
Anglophone establishments, such as Dawson and McGill, have up to now carried out their mission with the firm conviction that they were working towards the constitution of a modern Quebec, confident in itself and open to the world. They have contributed to forming generations of citizens committed to the life of this Quebec. They have always considered that by doing so, they participate in the development of society as a whole. To restrict them in their ability to act and to confine them to a second-class role is a narrow vision that will be to the detriment of Quebec itself and of those thousands of young people who expect more from their government than a reactive policy of turning inward.
We must deplore the decision of the current government to break its own rules and, for purposes and considerations that we can easily guess, with October approaching, to blame Dawson for a situation that does not strictly sense of his responsibility. It is decidedly unfortunate, misguided and, at the limit, a little mean-spirited.