NEWS
Monday, March 23, 2015 21
Editorial
Politics pupils
» continued from page 2
» continued from page 5
Compounding this problem is that our decision
making is affected by the amount of information
available to us, or the prevalence of ambiguity. This
goes hand-in-hand with a desire to maintain the
status quo, especially where the alternative leads to
the unknown. This isn’t unique to environmentalism; for most of human history we have developed
an aversion to that which is unknown. For millions of years evolution tended to favour those who
were fearful of and avoided the uncertain dangers
that possibly lay in the bushes of the savannah. One
might argue that the inevitable consequences of the
environmental issues we face are not speculative
theories but rather certain outcomes informed by
the research of reputable experts in the field.
I would suggest, however, that the problem
lies not in a lack of information per se, but in the
method by which it is communicated to the public.
Information that is misunderstood is just as detrimental as its absence. Experts have a tendency to
talk in scientific jargon and use acronyms that are
incomprehensible to the average person. This seems
to have the effect of creating a barrier to understanding that leaves many unable to truly appreciate
the significance of most environmental issues. Many
of the communication strategies fail to adequately
tailor their messages to the intended audience. This
isn’t to suggest that these messages ought to be
patronizingly dumbed-down to meet the lowest
common denominator of society, but merely that
they make an honest effort to make overly complex
material comprehensible to the average person who
is more used to reading the Toronto Star than OECD
Environmental Statistics.
Finally, I believe that there is an argument to say
that public apathy toward environmental issues can
also be attributed to the social psychological phenomenon of the bystander effect. In a somewhat
ironic twist, as the number of people involved in a
situation increases, the likelihood of any individual taking action decreases. With respect to climate
change, it might be said that the level of responsibility becomes diffused amongst the public as a whole,
leaving another level of ambiguity not only as to
whether action should be taken but also by whom.
When warned of the ubiquitous dangers that pollution and climate change can bring about, without a
concrete connection to us individually or our immediate surroundings, the message is often dismissed
as inapplicable. It would appear that the significance
of the threat becomes lost as the miles and number
of others involved increase between ourselves and
the point of impact. This is a phenomenon we see all
too readily in other cases where increasing numbers
promote social distance that gives rise to political
apathy. Much like our system 2, the more rational
and effective solutions require more effort. It is far
easier to simply rely on autopilot, turn to the guy
next to you, and ask “So you’ve got this, right?” u
the same types of professional opportunities they
themselves have enjoyed at much less cost.
Only one member of Faculty Council took the
podium to point out the incompatibility of members’ personal convictions with their governance
duties. The fact that he had to do so is distressing,
particularly because all of these decision-makers
ought to know better already. Most are well-versed
in areas of law concerned with administering the
care and interests of others—experts on topics like
fiduciary duties, the obligations of trustees, public
interest decision-making, and the best interests of
the child. Common sense should have exposed other
plain rationales: the reputational blow to a leading
law school that failed to output graduates because
of its internal political biases would be devastating
in terms of future support or recruitment outreach
from the legal sector, or interest from competitive
applicants.
Failing to resume classes would prioritize
abstract, personal political loyalties and labour-side
convictions over the very real, apparent, and quantifiable threats to the institution and the wellbeing
of its pupils. It would be painfully ‘ivory tower’ for
academics who often criticize the ideological motivations of governments and sermonize access to justice and the law to contradict themselves in their
own policy-making capacities. Resuming classes
should never have been a decision concerned with
supporting or undermining the union’s right to
strike—it was about standing by the best interests
of students and the institution. Those best interests
favour a return to classes and a timely completion of
the academic year.
AWOL academics.
Further, unlike during 2008-09 strike, Osgoode
faculty are now members of their own union with
an active collective agreement. Accordingly, they
are subject to the Labour Relations Act. The Act
provides that where a collective agreement is in
operation, no employee bound by the agreement
shall strike. A strike includes a cessation of work,
a refusal to work or to continue to work, or a slowdown or other concerted activity on the part of
employees designed to restrict or limit output. Some
have questioned whether attempts by faculty members to suspend classes (or keep classes suspended)
are contrary to these rules, at least in spirit.
If not, some of the actions taken by faculty
since the resumption of classes might also arguably run afoul of the Act. For [