Allison Hanes: French commissioner sets up a new attack on English universities

Source: https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/allison-hanes-french-commissioners-proposal-sets-up-a-new-attack-on-english-universities

If you thought the dust had settled on detrimental new measures targeting Quebec’s English institutions, think again.

A year ago, the Coalition Avenir Québec government of Premier François Legault introduced a 33 per cent tuition hike for out-of-province students and set new French proficiency benchmarks for the graduates of English universities. McGill, Concordia and, to a lesser extent, Bishop’s are still grappling with the fallout on their recruitment and finances.

Bill 96 capped enrolment at English CEGEPs and imposed new French course requirements for anglophones studying at English colleges. Staff and students were left reeling from the transformative changes implemented on a tight timeline.

Before that, Bill 40 sought to abolish English school boards (like it did with their French counterparts). This attempt to usurp the constitutionally protected rights of the anglophone minority to manage and control education has so far been stymied by the courts.

That’s already a lot of upheaval. But now Quebec’s French language commissioner is planting a new idea in the minds of Legault and his ministers: doing to English universities what they did to colleges back in 2022.

The proposal was contained in Benoît Dubreuil’s report titled Comprendre le recul, inverser les tendances, which examines trends surrounding the fragility of French in Quebec and suggests measures to protect the language, above the adoption of Bill 96. Officially, the recommendation calls for the government to mandate that 85 per cent of instruction in Quebec universities be offered in French. To understand what Dubreuil means by the rather vague 85 per cent rule, you have to get deep into the 70-page document and read the fine print. He’s calling for upping the amount of French taught in English universities and/or shrinking their share of students.

Anglophones should worry that another attack on our institutions is coming.

Dubreuil may be an independent commissioner, rather than a cabinet minister with any real authority. And some of his other proposals are constructive. (Encouraging the government to fund and support the creation of Québécois culture, ensure it has a market in the digital realm and have schools serve as an entry point for music, film and literature should be applauded.)

But it’s hard not to imagine the Legault government — or a future Parti Québécois government — jumping at this 85 per cent French instruction recommendation.

This is not some ill-considered, last-minute scheme concocted on the back of a napkin. (Requiring more French courses for anglophones studying in English CEGEPs wasn’t in the original text of Bill 96. The Quebec Liberals tacked it on out of the blue as an amendment, then tried to walk it back amid a backlash. But the government gleefully refused, and would only agree to a compromise.)

Dubreuil makes the case for similar policies at English universities in a much more thoughtful way, and backs his arguments up with data. And he acknowledges that these changes could be destabilizing for English universities, which is why he advocates a go-slow approach. He comes across as sensitive to the concerns of the English-speaking community.

This could make the idea all the more compelling to the likes of Jean-François Roberge, Quebec’s minister of the French language, or Pascale Déry, the minister of higher education, who seem to relish throwing a spanner in the works of English universities. They’ve certainly taken more drastic action with less prior consideration.

The predominant use of French in Quebec hit a plateau in the early 2000s, Dubreuil’s report states, and according to multiple indicators has been backsliding since then. Changing demographics (i.e., record immigration, both permanent and temporary), greater exposure to culture in English (especially online), the rise of Quebec industries in a globalized economy, and increasing rates of bilingualism are all putting new pressures on French as the common language.

After half a century of making francophones and immigrants (and anyone except anglophones with grandfathered rights) attend primary and secondary school in French only, the report concludes this is no longer cutting it as a method to integrate newcomers into francophone society.

It goes on at length about French losing ground as the language of socialization, be it in the schoolyard, on campus, on the sports field, around the water cooler or at the dinner table. But since it’s virtually impossible to dictate what individual citizens do on their own time or in their own homes without turning into a dictatorship, the recommendations zero in on what the government can control with legislation and/or financing.

So once again, English institutions are in the crosshairs.

The analysis contends that the language of higher education has an influence on the language of work and the adoption of French in family and social settings. Around one in five students — just over 22 per cent — choose to attend college or university in English, which is “too high” in the commissioner’s estimation.

So Dubreuil proposes a global target of 85 per cent French instruction in Quebec universities.

This would be achieved through a series of steps, including maintaining the enrolment cap and French requirements at English CEGEPs; taking steps to increase the number of international students at French universities; ensuring a “better apportioning of subsidized places between francophone and anglophone universities in programs with quotas and in programs training professionals who will primarily serve a Quebec clientele (e.g., health and education)”; implementing more French teaching in anglophone universities; and directing new investments and infrastructure to French universities.

(We’ve already seen what that last one looks like, when the Legault government cancelled funding for a new health sciences pavilion at Dawson College in 2022 to give the money to francophone CEGEPs.)

The report goes through different scenarios for meeting the overall goal of 85 per cent French. If English universities conserve 22 per cent of the student population, their current share, they’d have to offer 31 per cent of courses in French. If the proportion of students were reduced to 20 per cent, 25 per cent of classes would have to be taught in French. If enrolment were limited to 18 per cent, 17 per cent of instruction would have to be in French.

While this approach “does not reject the relevance more restrictive measures could have” — e.g., forcing graduates of francophone high schools to continue their studies in French at college and university — there is a recognition that such moves “could have undesirable effects,” such as reinforcing socialization in English on certain campuses, mainly in Montreal; provoking negative attitudes against French by those who gravitate toward English; and “compromising the viability” of anglophone post-secondary institutions.

The report seems to favour both reducing the clout of English universities and upping the French quotient.

“We believe that the integration of a growing proportion of French instruction in anglophone establishments coupled with a progressive reduction in the global weight of these establishments” has advantages. Among them: maintaining linguistic skills after graduation from high school; preserving everyone’s right to choose the language of their post-secondary studies (well, sort of); and “guaranteeing anglophone universities sufficient space to realize their mission while leaving them the necessary time to adjust their business model.”

Quoting the document at length is important to understand the rationale being put to the ministers who will ultimately decide whether to move forward and to grasp how reasonable the arguments seem.

“Sufficient space …”

“Necessary time …”

“Adjust …”

These innocuous words put forth a radical proposal.

And it boils down to yet another effort to reduce, diminish, weaken and limit the place of English institutions in Quebec.

Our hospitals, schools, colleges and universities are sources of pride and vitality for the English-speaking community. And by the way, they also provide service in French in many cases. But they are being treated as threats that must be neutralized.

The report normalizes the idea that English institutions are less deserving of public funds and must be whittled down to size.

The underlying message is that no matter how much anglophones adopt French in our daily lives, no matter how hard we work to be allies, no matter how well we master French, no matter what we contribute, it will never be enough. Our mere existence — and that of our hospitals, schools, colleges and universities — is bad for French in Quebec.

Chipping away at our institutions feels like a means to an end. Eventually there will be nothing left. Our children will have fewer opportunities to study, work and thrive. Perhaps that’s the point.

There’s a paragraph in the report that looks at the historical progression of French since Bill 101 became law. It notes that the period when French made the most gains was in the 1980s and ’90s, when many anglophones made the one-way trip down Highway 401. It sounds almost wistful. Or maybe it’s a hint.