Education 10 - A Ticking Time Bomb

I return to Canada as temperatures drop to those of a winter season, the sun shines brightly on a carpet of golden maple leaves, and university students are well-settled into their chosen curricula ... chosen, but I wonder how well chosen.  I notice that certain media is, again, drawing attention to the question of jobless graduates with an emphasis on the responsibilities of government.  But, I should like to balance the argument by shifting it towards the academic faculties and students themselves.

Firstly, an example;  I read of someone stopping an undergraduate and posing this basic question, “What will you do after you graduate?”  The answer, not too surprisingly, was, “I don’t know.”  It is probable that media political pundits, together with college faculty, would blame government because, of course, government seems to be responsible for everything.  Now, let us focus elsewhere.

There was a time when a university degree assured you of a good job, good pay and a comfortable life.  But, today, the unemployment rate for young people in this country is almost 15% – double that of the general population.  But the real crisis is the increasing number of university and college grads who are underemployed.  Some call them "the lost generation".  But, it is not only young people who may be lost.  If the next generation fails to become part of the economy, who will buy the real estate?  Who will pay for social programs?  Youth unemployment and underemployment is a ticking time bomb with serious outcomes for everyone.

So, why are so many young Canadians overeducated and underemployed.  Because the key players in Canada – universities, employers and governments – are not working together to find a solution.  There must be a national body responsible for education when it comes to helping young people make a smooth entry into the workforce.  All levels of government, educators and employers, must work together to ensure that education and training are linked to employment.

It is my belief, based on experience, that the problem is twofold;  Firstly, students are entering university quite unprepared and, secondly, universities, in some ways, have not brought the curricula into the twenty-first century.

Being unable to answer the question, “What will you do after graduation?”  must be looked at seriously by career councillors in high schools.  The student should be informed that there may be a position at a Space Agency for someone with a MSc., but an astronaut will require, probably, two PhD’s. (Even an airline pilot requires good postgraduate degrees).  It may, also, be difficult for someone to become a software programer if, soon, software will be written by robots using artificial intelligence.  Medical doctors are already able to conduct surgery in distant rural communities by remote control.  The possibilities are great, but who is explaining this to the prospective student.

Assuming that the student has been counselled wisely, what about the university curricula?  Has it been brought into the twenty-first century.  I do not imply that reference books have not changed since Albert Einstein, but one could argue that a young Master Einstein could experience the same job prospects, today, as many others.  It is quite true that many businesses, today, complain that graduates are not properly prepared for employment and, that, is the fault of unqualified and unprepared teachers and lecturers.

Please tell us what you think.

Politics 2 - Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, even in a political sense, may be interpreted in various ways.  Generally speaking, it has come to mean the argument for extending equal status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific community values.

Originally, in my opinion, it was thought to lead towards assimilation and monoculturalism.  But, now, this commendable idea seems to have failed.

We have a global society that is multinational and where everyone in the developing countries, today, because of the Internet and other forms of international media, desires a higher standard of living ... and we cannot be critical of that.  The problem is the perceived entitlement of citizens of poorer countries to emigrate to richer countries and, this, they will attempt to accomplish illegally, if necessary.

As I said in the introduction, it is “extending equal status to distinct ... groups without promoting any specific community values”.  Therefore, it accepts religious beliefs dependent upon observance of the country’s laws and constitution.  For example, if Sikhism requires a man to carry a knife, the knife should by symbolic and unable to cut.  If Islam requires a women to be modest, it is too extreme to completely cover the face, and security laws must predominate.  If genital mutilation is considered to be a violent and disfiguring injury, then, those who carry out such acts must face the full force of the law.  Finally, Sharia law is not part of Canadian law, and any attempt to include parts of it, must be strongly resisted.

Ask an immigrant from Somalia (for example) if they are, either, a Somalian, a Somali Canadian, or a Canadian (assuming citizenship), there should only be one answer.

Assimilation was never going to be successful and, now, it seems that multiculturalism is a failure too, at least, according to many powerful world leaders — Thus, another look at our whole immigration philosophy is necessary.

Therefore, it is a political requirement ... highlighted in Norway, recently.


Is that a controversial comment to make?  I hope so.

Religion 1 - The Burqa

Just the word alone attracts much attention. Discussion related to the Burqa, is not only a religious issue but also becomes a political issue (Just to name two).

It is my experience that many people do not understand the definition of a burqa. It is, simply, an outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places. Confusion exists in the use of words such as, hijab and niqab. These are individual parts of the burqa — the hijab being a head covering, and the niqab being a face covering (or veil).

I can see little reason to be offended by a woman wearing a burqa that does not have the niqab. In fact, some European women, in the summer, may wear a Indian sari as an evening dress, even though they have no knowledge of Islam. The sari being little more than a burqa with the hijab and niqab removed.

It is interesting to note that all women are asked to cover their heads with a scarf, as a matter of respect, when entering churches and cathedrals. Yet, ironically, some of those women, would still be critical of Muslims wearing a simple burqa.

The wearing of a niqab in public is the most controversial aspect of this discussion because a liberal interpretation of the Koran fails to convince most people that God (Allah) commanded that women must be completely covered. In addition, it is recorded that Mohammed said that both women and men should “dress and behave modestly in public.” This is a tradition that happened long before Islam, and should be interpreted according to today’s normal behaviour.

I read that a Muslim cleric had stated that women must wear a niqab because when a man looks at a woman’s body he looks, first, at her face. This is ridiculous because all things being equal, in other words, when a man has the opportunity to look at a woman’s naked body, the face is not the initial attraction.

Therefore, it is not surprising that countries are beginning to seriously consider banning the niqab (France has already done so) with arguments against being made by men and women indoctrinated by unfortunately biassed, and bigoted, interpretations of the Koran.

Discussion related to health matters or assimilation into other societies would be something to include at another time.