Charitable Acts Benefit Givers and Receivers

It’s easy to be charitable during the holiday season. Or rather, it’s convenient to act charitably during the holidays because opportunities always present themselves. Everywhere you go there is a food bank box waiting to be filled with non-perishable items or a Salvation Army kettle in need of some spare change. In thirty seconds or less, you can help someone less fortunate just in time for some Christmas karma. After all, Santa does keep a list.

Many people are filled with the holiday spirit and goodwill towards men (and women) in December. Many companies, organizations and individuals make generous donations to charities like the local food bank or Santa’s Anonymous. Giving back to the community is truly one of the most amazing things a person can do with their time and/or money. During what has become a commercialized, chaotic time of year, donating to charity can often be the only thing that connects us to the true reason for the season.

However, the holiday season can also be an overwhelming time for many people. Charities want people to be able to give easily; hence, all the boxes, buckets and reminders of how great the need for donations is everywhere you go. Of course, no matter how generous a person is, or wants to be, the truth is most people can’t afford to donate money to every charity they pass by at Christmas time. This can often make us feel guilty, like we have failed the needy even if we have helped charities in the past. Last week a friend and I walked past a homeless woman on Whyte Avenue. We had just eaten a hearty dinner and were carrying drinks from Starbucks and designer cupcakes from Fuss Cupcakes. When the woman told us she was homeless and asked for some change, we shook our heads sadly and told her we didn’t have any. She wished us a Merry Christmas, without an ounce of sarcasm. I never felt more like a selfish bitch in my life. I told myself that I had already donated some extra cash to the Salvation Army that week and that I had too many student loans to pay off to be giving all my money away to strangers. Still, the guilt persisted. It’s funny how one uncharitable act can wipe out every good deed done in a person’s mind, much like how one insult often negates a dozen compliments.

But the truth is most of us can’t afford to help everyone who needs monetary assistance. The holiday charity numbers for 2009 are certainly proving that. It’s not that people don’t want to be generous; it’s just a fact that more people are having trouble making ends meet this year. More people are using the food bank, including some of the people who used to contribute to it, and less people are donating. In short, demand is up and supply is down. This will likely result in a potentially devastating shortage for the food bank, as well as other charities. The food bank collects the majority of its items for the entire year during the holiday season; a shortage now means a potential shortage for the next 12 months. It’s not just the food banks that are struggling to fill the need; many charities are falling short when it comes to raising funds in 2009. The Salvation Army set a fundraising goal of 16 million dollars for their 2009 campaign. As of one week before Christmas Eve, they had only reached half of their goal.

It’s easy to look at the numbers – the need versus the available funds - and feel hopeless. However, not every need must be met with money, nor can we meet every need with money. The donation of a person’s time can be just as valuable as money. Anyone who volunteers to sort or deliver food hampers or stand by a Salvation Army collection kettle for a few hours a week is contributing to the well-being of others. A charitable act can be as simple as donating an old winter coat to a homeless shelter or volunteering at a soup kitchen. Every person possesses something or some skill they can share with others, like the hair salon stylists in Calgary who recently began giving free hair cuts to homeless people at the Mustard Seed Street Ministry. People can also help charities by donating small amounts year-round or volunteering whenever possible, not just at Christmas. We all need to take strides towards helping those who are less fortunate then we are.

Should Taxpayers Pay for Private School?

Liberal MLA Hugh MacDonald recently exposed that several of the provincial government's Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations employees charge the bill for their kids’ private school tuition as expenses. In 2008-2009, taxpayers covered more than 326,912 dollars in private school tuition for no more than nine students, all children of government employees who work for the Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations. Alberta Minister-Counsellor Gary Mar’s child enjoyed a fine year of education in Washington at the Washington International School, at the not-at-all low cost of 58,726 dollars. Of course, International and Intergovernmental Relations employees must send their children to schools that can provide a decent education. But do they have to pick schools that charge the equivalent of what an undergraduate degree costs in tuition?

MacDonald believes the solution to this outrageous misuse of tax dollars is to eliminate the provincial government's Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations department. By removing this department, the government would save not only the money being spent on tuition but also salaries and other expenses, for an annual savings of about 24 million dollars a year, money which could go towards public school boards or hospitals, says MacDonald. Many argue the Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations is ineffective at best, evidenced by the downward spiral of Alberta’s international trade. Eliminating the department would provide a quick influx of funds for a province in need of more money and less cuts.

However, at the moment, it isn’t a matter or whether or not the department is doing the job it is set up to do. After all, if we eliminated a government department every time someone failed to get the job done correctly, we’d have no health minister, or prime minister, for that matter. The big problem is the huge difference in what the department claims it spends on tuition for the nine children of International and Intergovernmental Relations employees and what the documents from Public Accounts of Alberta say was actually spent. The ministry claims an average of 24,000 dollars a year is spent on tuition for the nine children of the employees who work at the ministry’s nine international offices. The documents say otherwise. Why the discrepancy? Why allow government employees to spend 15 times the amount on tuition then the ministry has actually accounted for? The Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations department does not need to be eliminated at this time. Instead, the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that in the future government employees are not funding their children’s tuition with taxpayers’ money.

The recent discovery that taxpayers’ money is funding the private education of the children of some government employees has raised questions about who exactly should be responsible for paying for private schools. Almost anyone who has ever dragged their ass through 12 years (13, if you count that crucial year of kindergarten) of public school can tell you it’s not without flaws. Sure, going to public school means never having to wear one of those ridiculous uniforms but the perks sort of end there. Private schools offer students many benefits, the kind of benefits a former public school kid like me can only imagine. The closest most kids get to private school is watching the Upper East Side elite on Gossip Girl every Monday night. Mind you, I’m not saying private schools should not exist. Private schools offer an alternative education to those who can afford it, or sacrifice many other things to afford it. However, those who do not get to benefit from the hallowed halls and superior cafeteria food of private schools should not pay the price for those who do get to don ties and Burberry knee socks every day. Private schools are small and distinguished for a reason: students pay for the privilege of attending these fine institutions. Children whose families cannot afford, or chose not to pay for, a private education make due with the bad lighting and ugly painted walls of public schools. Asking the parent’s of public school kids to financially contribute to private schools is like asking someone to buy the kid next door a brand-new convertible while their own kid only has a scooter. It’s not only mean but also counterintuitive. Taxpayers should not have to fund private schools, especially while public schools are facing potential devastating cuts. Private schools are a choice; public schools are a necessity. Public schools may be less charming then private institutions but they get the job done just fine.

Anti-Smoking Legislation Only Effective if Easily Enforced

In the past two years, the right to breathe smoke-free air in public is something that most Albertans have come to expect. Our neighbours to the right of us, however, have no such luxury and won’t anytime soon if proposed legislation passes as is. The government of Saskatchewan is currently proposing legislation that would make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle that contains anyone under the age of sixteen. However, the proposed legislation does not include any clauses that would make it illegal to smoke in public areas such as bar and restaurant patios.

Only banning smoking in cars is an ineffectual move. Not allowing people to smoke in vehicles while in the presence of children and tweens is a good idea in theory; in reality, it’s almost impossible to enforce. Children under the age of six who weigh less than forty pounds must be seated in a car seat in the back of a vehicle; safety codes also recommend that children under the age of 12 sit in the back seat of any vehicle. Many vehicles have tinted back windows, making it impossible to see inside. Unless Saskatchewan RCMP begin a smoking check-stop program similar to the drinking-and-driving check-stop program, how will police ever be able to catch people who smoke in their vehicles while their children are present? Sure, cops might occasionally pull a driver over for some other infraction like speeding, then notice an adult is smoking around kids in the car but how often is that likely to happen? Peace officers and RMCP can’t be expected to pull over every single vehicle on the road on the off-chance that someone might be violating the new smoking rules. The proposed legislation simply cannot be effectively enforced. The Saskatchewan government is proposing legislation that seems tough but would actually not change much at all. The only major thing that would change is the sale of cigarette sales in pharmacies. Yes, this would be a good move but it is not exactly ground-breaking legislation. In Alberta, the Tobacco Reduction Act banned the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, effective January 1, 2008. The act also stopped the sale of tobacco products in all health-care facilities, public post-secondary campuses, pharmacies and stores that contain a pharmacy as of January 1, 2009.

Saskatchewan’s legislation is missing a key factor in the fight against the spread of second-hand smoke: banning smoking on public patios. Earlier this year, Saskatchewan Health Minister Don McMorris had said the Saskatchewan Party government was considering banning smoking on restaurant and bar patios. If the government carried through with its earlier intentions of banning smoking on public patios, it would have greater results than merely banning smoking in vehicles. Prohibiting smoking on public patios is easily enforced; bars and restaurants have incentive to enforce the law because owners and managers face being fined if they allow illegal smoking on the patios of their establishments.

Yes, Saskatchewan municipalities can choose to introduce bylaws that would prohibit smoking on bar and restaurant patios. However, many municipalities will not choose to do so because of pressure from restaurant and bar owners. The provincial government of Saskatchewan had a chance to stem second-hand smoking in public and they balked. In Alberta, smoking has been prohibited in all public places and workplaces since January 2008, meaning people can’t smoke on the public patios they once sought refuge on. Yes, business owners and smokers complained about the changes but it didn’t cause a total breakdown in the food and beverage industry, as many predicted it would. Smokers didn’t flee Alberta in droves to find a more smoker-friendly home. Instead, smokers sucked it up and got in the habit of going outside for their nicotine fix, far far away from any minors or non-smokers.

Banning smoking in vehicles isn’t going to stop most people who already smoke in their vehicles with their kids present if that is something they chose to do before it became illegal. RCMP and peace officers don’t have the resources to enforce this potential legislation, making it all but pointless. Seriously, Saskatchewan, the current proposed legislation isn’t worth the time or effort. Instead of wasting tax-payers time (and your own), push through legislation that will actually help save lives. Take a cue from your loving neighbour Alberta and introduce a ban against smoking on restaurant and bar patios in order to truly protect minors and non-smokers from second-hand smoke. Anything less simply won’t cut it.

Should Universities Mandate Students Health Choices?

In 2006 Lincoln University in Pennsylvania introduced a mandate that states students must have their Body Mass Index measured. Students with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30 cannot graduate without first taking a class called “Fitness for Life” three hours a week for a semester. In spring of 2010, the first batch of freshman subjected to this mandate will graduate, that is, if they have met the university’s requirements. The university says the mandate is an attempt to help curb rising obesity rates and diabetes in North America. Lincoln University has good intentions and certainly creative and bold steps need to be taken to promote healthy living to current and future generations. However, overweight students should not be singled out from other university students. The BMI index is not always an accurate indicator of a healthy weight; since muscle weighs more than fat, a BMI reading can be misleading about a person’s health and fitness levels.

The university’s mandate is confusing in itself. Can students take the “Fitness for Life” class at any point in their four-plus years at the school? What if a student has a healthy BMI as a freshman but gains weight throughout their university career? What if a student takes the fitness course, only to gain weight afterwards? Will exceptions be made for students who are physically unable to take a fitness course? What if a student has a BMI that borders on 30 but does not reach that point until their last day of classes? Will university representatives be standing by with measuring tapes and scales on the last day of exams to measure each and every students’ BMI to ensure they are fit enough to graduate?

The mandate also makes the mistake of only targeting students in their final year of university. Prior to this, researchers studying the effects of university life on students have generally looked at students in their first year of university. For years, university students and researchers alike have been obsessed with the idea of the “Freshman 15,” an urban myth that first-year university students gain an average of 15 pounds during their first year of post-secondary education. First-year students, many of which are away from home and their parents’ dining room tables for the first time, tend to pack on the pounds due to many factors, including an increase in greasy food, midnight snack runs, keg stands and unprecedented levels of stress. University students also don’t enough sleep due to too much studying or too much partying, or an ambitious combination of the two factors. Many students, especially those living in dorm rooms, become accustomed to a wardrobe of sweatpants and Lu Lu Lemon yoga pants because studying is painful enough without attempting to do it in skinny jeans. Sweatpants, while comfortable and convenient, often make it difficult to tell when one has gained a few pounds; jeans are much less forgiving. However, despite many students’ attempts to drink their body weight in tequila, the Freshman 15 remains a myth. In 2006, researchers at the University of Guelph did a study that debunked the Freshman 15 myth; their research showed, on average, female university students only gain five pounds during freshman year. Male university students gain slightly more than female students, researchers found.

What studies have not shown is how much weight students gain throughout their entire four-plus years at university. Lincoln University should focus on the health and well-being of all of its students, not just its seniors. The gluttonous sins committed by many freshmen can become lifelong habits if not corrected early on. Universities have a real opportunity to encourage students to lead healthier lifestyles. It’s great Lincoln University offers a course that can help students achieve their fitness goals, or learn tips for healthy eating. However, people that are forced to take part in a fitness class against their will are not likely to stick with the healthy habits they learn during the course. The goal of the course should be to teach students healthy, active habits that they will continue for the rest of their lives, not to tell them they must lose weight in order to graduate. If Lincoln University is serious about helping students lead healthier lifestyles, they should make their “Fitness for Life” course a requirement for every student, not just for overweight students. If the university isn’t willing to make the course mandatory for all students then the “Fitness for Life” should be an option for all students, regardless of size.