Should soldiers' children get special scholarships? -

Should soldiers’ children get special scholarships?

Answer: yes


My fellow blogger Todd Pettigrew, as well as several professors at the University of Regina say no.

“Project Hero,” the program implemented several weeks ago at U of R, provides free tuition for four years (as well as $1,000 for books) to the children of military personnel who have died in active duty.

But to Prof Pettigrew and the 16 professors who are protesting the scholarship program, Project Hero does more than just provide tuition—it glorifies war.

“It implies that military officers have a special status simply by virtue of being in the military,” writes Pettigrew. “It suggests that the whole class of people is to venerated, and that military service is a special calling to which only a select group of heroes can aspire.”

I’ll admit, the name “Project Hero” leaves little to the imagination. So how about we call it the “Military Dependent Scholarship?” Or the “Children of Deceased Veterans Bursary?” Problem solved, right?

With the word “hero” gone, you’d have to do a hell of a lot of extrapolation to get back to the glorification of soldiers, no? (I can already feel the vibration of goaded fingers.) How would the renamed scholarship glorify war any more than, say, wearing a poppy on Veterans Day?

One could argue I’m missing the “meta,” but I see the the scholarship simply as a way to provide tuition to children who have lost a parent, and by extension, a financial resource. Yes the families of fallen military personnel are compensated, but this program provides a fiscal opportunity specific to the pursuit of higher education. I’m sure the U of R professors would agree with me when I say that it’s a pursuit worth of encouraging.

I think it’s also worth noting that this scholarship isn’t for “Children of Military in Afghanistan.” Canadian troops just happen to be there at the moment. Military lives are lost in combat and in training, during battles of which Canadian citizens approve and many of which they do not. Funny–in World War II, when professors and academics were one of the first to be persecuted in Nazi-occupied Germany, Canadian soldiers fought against constricting pressures, allowing for academic freedom and freedom of speech, which, ironically, grants our professors the opportunity to object to Project Hero today. What would attitudes towards the program have been back in 1940? Should we only compensate the children of war casualties who fought for causes with which we agree?

Another overlooked point in this whole debate is that the children of many professors at Canadian universities pay reduced or no tuition if they enroll at an institution where a parent works. As long as we’re extrapolating, what message does that send? Let’s say a professor is a racist bigot who spews ignorant propaganda in lecture all day–do we deny his/her child the financial break because of what could be inferred from the subsidy?

Professor Pettigrew makes the very good point that it’s not just military personnel who risk their lives for others; police officers, firefighters and others put put themselves in danger each day for the public. And I completely agree. To go further, I think universities should provide scholarships for the children of those who have lost their lives in the line of public duty.

But, in the meantime, I think we should let these veterans’ kids have their break. Just as “glorifying war” churns the stomachs of these professors, politicizing the tragedies of Canadian military families leaves a bad feeling in mine.


Should soldiers’ children get special scholarships?

  1. Look-the military is a tough-low-paying job with few perks. Life and limb is risked and your family is always left behind-with the military coming first. It’s about time family perks were given. Also this is in line with the police, firefighters and any oil exec-their kids get scholarships, summer jobs and the ilk all the time. The military is at least as deserving.

  2. One hundred percent agree.
    Change the name and hopefully the profs go back to researching real problems.

  3. Agree completely. Regardless of if you agree with the war or not, our troops risk their lives for us everyday to protect the country that we love. This is an excellent way of not only preserving the memory of those who we’ve lost but to ensure that their family is taken care of.

  4. Why stop there? Why not provide scholarships for the children of police officers killed in active service and similarly fire fighters and ambulance attendants. The possible list goes on. What Prof Pettigrew forgets is that while the work is unpleasant and open to criticism it is a necessary role to maintain peace. Without soldiers Canada would have been over run by hooligans from the United States and Ireland long before we really became a country. Many of those soldiers later became the RCMP. Don’t forget that the war in Afghanistan is in response to the open support of the Taliban regime for the terrorists who perpetrated the 911 attack on the US. It is a response to aggression by a foreign nation. Soldiers are a necessary evil. Ask the Swiss. They have a standing army and every male is required to serve. Without that they would have been another victim of Nazi aggression.

  5. As a recent military retiree, I also find the comments of the professors reprehensible. I personally do not agree with the title of the program “Project Hero” because in my experience (32 yrs) members of the military would be the first to state that they do not consider themselves heroes, especially the fallen. The families of the fallen personnel deserve some sort of lasting acknowledgement of their sacrifice and what better way than a solid education which could lead to engineers or doctors or nurses or scientists or academic leaders etc. which will benefit all of Canadian society. This issue has nothing to do with the glorification of conflict nor should it. Academic leaders debate to your hearts content but don’t be-grudge the opportunity for an advanced education for the families of our fallen – they have sacrificed far more than you.

  6. “It implies that military officers have a special status simply by virtue of being in the military,” writes Pettigrew. “It suggests that the whole class of people is to venerated, and that military service is a special calling to which only a select group of heroes can aspire”

    And what is the problem with that implication? Support our troops, fire the elites in charge!

  7. the recipients of this scholarship qualify through no decision of theirs – it was a no-win situation, if they get it, it’s a poor replacement for their very dead young parent – it’s not like there will be a competition to win this scholarship – leave them alone, be thankful you live in such a great country. They should be told their mother/father was a hero, they have enough to deal with without this nearsighted attempt at political correctness.
    have a little respect.

  8. The complaint by those U of R professors should be put in context. I am told that in the late 60s and early 70s, Simon Fraser University fired its most left-leaning marxist-leninist-stalinist professors. At that time the U of R was being set up and they ended up hiring many of these people. Most of them are now retired, but some remain and they continue to be an endless source of amusement for those of us in touch with reality.

    I don’t disagree with Project Hero, but I do think it should be expanded to include police officers, firemen, emergency medical technicians and in fact anyone who gives up their life in order to save another’s life. A good samaritan who dives into freezing water to rescue someone drowning is equally deserving, and we should do something to compensate their families.

  9. The professors should know better, they should be layed off due to their collective incompetence and the money saved put in to Project Hero. Give all taxpayers a vote as to what to do with the money we pay those profs and 9 to 1 give it to the war heros and get rid of the incompetent………. Tim Zebedee

  10. My fiance serves in the military for the past 15years and has lost many friends including a best friend from elemantary school that served with him in the military. You know what he left behind? A wife and two children, and they were young children. All they have to remember their father by are pictures, clothing in which he served his country, and some medals. This scholorship will give these children and others the opportunity that their fallen parent could of given them if he/she were alive. Like everyone knows, a single parent is hard enough to be but to know you lost your parent because they decided to put the lives of others he/she might not even know for their own. They lost their lives for all of us Canadians. Giving this scholorships is a priveledge and an honor to say thank you for the life that was spared to save another.

    At least these fallen heroes which ARE HEROES can rest in peace knowing that their love ones can be taken care of even if they can’t be here. I’m thankful everyday I have my fiance near me and alive and pray for the safe return for all soldiers over seas fighting wars or peace keeping cause lets not forget, the Canadian Forces not only go to fight wars but also go on peace keeping missions which some lose their life. So they went for peace, is that not a cause worth fighting for? or we don’t agree with this either.
    Just be thankful were all at peace and alive because of these soldiers.

  11. Lets put these academics in a full combat load and rappel them from a Griffon into a firefight in Afghanistan. Maybe they would stop pontificating about the ethics of soldiers who are simply the ‘mules of foreign policy’ (to quote the venerable academic and Nobel-Prize recipient Henry Kissinger) and realize that at the end of the day our men and women are heroes in uniform, doing a job that is one of the toughest in the world. The definition of a hero is a person who gives themselves to a cause greater than themselves. I take that from Joseph Campbell’s ‘Hero with a Thousand Faces’. Heroes don’t do the job for the thanks or praise, but because it simply needs to be done.

    By classic definitions these soldiers -are- heroes and just because we have a problem with the policymakers who have determined the military intervention in Afghanistan to be a necessity does not remove any of the due praise for the persons who risk their lives daily in service to their country. I suspect these professors probably also have a poor grasp of history and hold membership in various marxist-leninist or even worse, anarchist organizations which sees the military as complicit. Notice after the second world war, we did not try en-masse the average German Soldier for the atrocities committed by a select-few ‘Nazi’ idealogues.

    The military, as ironic as this sounds, is not a political organization. It exists to do a job, and holds the legal monopoly within a nation-state on the external (or sometimes internal) application of deadly force. It exists also to protect the right of these professors not to have to be subjected to the realities of ‘deadly force’. A little more thanks and a little-less rhetoric please. The academic community is ruled far too much by the left-leaning flower children, foreign interests and concerned ‘social activists’.

    I’d like to see a group of professors (probably from the History discipline, but maybe a few from international relations, the hard sciences and even the arts) stand up and put these nay-sayers in their well deserved places. “A man will not risk his soul for a half-pence a day, nor for a petty distinction. You must speak to his soul in order to electrify him”. – Napoleon Bonaparte. For our men and women in uniform, their families are their souls, and the knowledge that the system they serve will look after those they might leave behind in event of tragedy helps them to focus on the expert and professional performance of their duties, aggressive or supportive.

  12. I agree with the scolarship (though the name is a bit much)! It makes sense since on top of loosing a parent and a husband or wife, the family is now left with a single parent to take care of the children. Life of a single parent is not easy and I think it is a good way of saying “thank you” for those people who put up with the hard life of a military family.

  13. Professors are hired to teach specialized subjects. While the group of professors who protested the scholarship are welcome to express their opinions, I doubt very much they have the necessary qualifications to ensure a scholarship like this would result in the glorification of war or the suppoort of imperialism (or whatever other crap they think it will cause). When they’ve served for their country or are otherwise qualified to speak on this subject it might be worth listening to. Otherwise, Canadians appreciate and support their military, a necessity in a world that is filled with security concerns. If the professors don’t like it, they should move to Afghanistan. The scholarship is the very least we could do as a country to support our veterans.

  14. It is very easy to sit in your safe little office and criticize the military. Yet your very right to do so is based on a long history of people who gave their lives or were permanently damaged by their efforts. I believe in freedom of speech. I also think our soldiers put their lives at risk to maintain that right. A military job does not pay well and many have to take a second job or their spouse in order to survive. The idea of providing an education to their children in the event a soldier has lost their life should be mandatory and not open to a silly debate by a bunch of professors. They can save that for their whine and cheese parties.

  15. Thank you Robyn.

  16. Not only is the name in poor taste, the website really needs to pick a more appropriate set of pictures: . Please someone tell me that this website was hijacked and it’s not the actual image that Project Hero is trying to portray.

  17. Granted the name of the scholarship program should be changed. It’s pretty jingoistic.
    Nonetheless, I am outraged at the views which those ‘professors’, these so called enlightened individuals have expressed. To knit pick on a scholarship program which would do nothing but try to help the children of fallen servicemen is disgusting. Shame on them! They have done nothing but show their ignorance and detachment from society as they glare down from their ivory towers.
    Insofar as the people who think the program should be expanded to include the children of policemen, firemen and ambulatory members-I believe that notion is very obtuse and simplistic.
    The perils of Military service should not be confused with the public service whatsoever and a distinction should always be drawn. Military personnel serve for far less pay and benefits. Military personnel agree to suspend some of their rights during their terms of service-a great sacrifice. Those in the police, fire and ambulatory services do not have those burdens.
    Let us honor our fallen and help alleviate the burdens of those they have left behind. Let us be vigilant of those ‘academics’ who purport to know better. In the public’s eye, it is the lofty academic that has fallen, and the felled soldier that has been extolled.

  18. This scholarship is the very least that we as Canadians can do for our very brave men and woman who serve our country. They are heroes, whether alive or fallen. The children of our fallen soldiers are far more deserving of a free university education than those of the esteemed professors. May God bless and protect those who protect us.

  19. I think postsecondary education should be free for everyone, with restrictions only on the number of candidates permitted in each field.
    No Canadian deserves to carry such a huge debt load that is created by sriving to become educated.
    Candidates for university entrance should not be favored based on parentage (isn’t this what private schools do?).
    Favourtism by parentage is unCanadian in my opinion.

  20. Where do we stop? Children of professors have a discount because it is part of their contract. Also the fact that parents recommending their university to their kids is good internal publicity. So it’s not the same, get off their back. If you care so much about the soldiers put your money where your mouth is. Why not give them interesting wages. Giving them free education is a joke. Everybody in canada should have free education not only university but colleges and trades. We wouldn’t need so many educated immigrants to fill jobs. They wouldn’t need your CHARITY if they’d have better pay. The fact that you think you contributed by telling them…ooh your dad/mom died so we’ll give you free education is a big joke. Give all fallen soldiers and emergency personnel, a descent pension and no tax for a couple of generations like the natives. Now we’re talking, tell that to your MP.

  21. Epic Rebuttle. Thank You.

  22. If some of you think these families should be given free tuition, then why don’t all of you coalesce your efforts and foot the enormous bill? There are poor kids right now in Canada that never had a father and/or mother that would as equally deserving as the children of these fallen soldiers. How I rationalize anything is by trying to extrapolate the prospect into a larger scenario.

    What if most Canadian men were suddenly drafted into a war? Would you say that, when they return, everything should be offered free? Food and education? Would that make any economic sense?

  23. Lots of people are killed at work. Some on purpose like cops cabbies and late night store clerks and some accidentally like construction workers fishermen and rig workers. They all contribute to society in their own way and when they are killed their families are devastated. Either apply this program to all or scrap it. And before the militaristic zipperheads start griping, I am a child of a soldier KIA in Korea.

  24. If a University wants to set up a scholarship fund from private donors to give free scholarships to any group, they have that right. I think the name of the scholarship isn’t in the best taste, because all of our serving military personnel are heroes, not just those killed in combat.
    If the University expects our tax dollars to fund the scholarship, no way! There are better ways that our tax dollars can be spent to improve the military, including better wages, and optional insurance policies with reduced rates.
    I do not agree with providing military personnel “tax-free” status, though. They choose to join the military, and I’m really getting tired of their sense of entitlement to free this and that (relatives in military). If you don’t like the pay and benefits, find another job, or unionize. A union would contribute to fairness for both military personnel and tax payers.

  25. I am in absolute agreement with Mr. Pettigrew’s comments. This is a choice that people have made to join the military. It is the same as police officers and firefighters; and any other profession that people choose to engage in that has a high-element of risk. It also places a political slant that does not necessarily represent all Canadians’ belief systems. Many Canadians do not believe we should be engaged in the war in Afghanistan. But regardless of the politics, I think very highly of our military personnel, however, I think very highly of all members in society that have chosen the dangerous professions in the acts of helping others. However, the key word is ‘chosen’.

  26. If you don’t know, which obviously most of you don’t, we have scholarships for our children (Police, Fire Fighters, EMS, etc.) and our kids can access them if we die in the line of duty or not. These scholarships are only for those who have lost a parent otherwise they must step in line with the rest of the country and either pay for their education our of pocket or get financial aide. Another big difference? If I were to die on the job today my life insurance would hand over every dime my family deserves to get, military families on the other hand get the shaft unless they have sisip. Even then a lot have been mowed over, my friend had to wait 9 months AFTER her husband was KIA before she seen a cent. In that time she had to fight with the bank because she couldn’t afford their mortgage without the money, though employed her wages could not cover all the bills. Others who have found banks without the war clause (and there are a few) still had to FIGHT to get their money, an added burden no family, military or not, should have to face.

    BTW we are a military family as while as a police family (husband is military, I’m an officer)

    And so you know a LOT of us military family LOVE the title of the scholarship, in our eyes our spouses and our parents ARE HEROES as are any who are in high risk jobs. Why is it ok to call police, fire fighters, EMS who die in the line of duty heroes but it’s not ok to call military personal heroes?

    A few definitions of “hero” and if you can still say they title is not fitting shame on you! Military fits the description, as do many people, so why does throwing “military” into the mix make it such a wrong term to use?

    Hero: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities; one that shows great courage; an object of extreme admiration and devotion

  27. I beleive there is nothing wrong with having a scholarship program that is restricted to the children of those killed while serving. I also have no issue with it being a full scholafrship. I agree, the military family does not have a lot of disposable income.
    I don’t think that this scholarsship should be available to ALL children of the fallenn though. This defeats the purpose. It should be available to those who academically qualify. Otherewise it will invalidate the both the scholarship and the education it provides.

  28. This is just another case of people (Profs) over analyzing a simple situation. These soldiers lost their lives defending Canada in some sense. They are very few people that would do that.

    It doesn’t glorify the military, it simply pays *respect* to the family. Hopefully when these children go through university they aren’t treated any differently because of their scholarship, by certain elitist professors.

  29. But is not all soldiers’ children who will get scholarships, as your heading suggests; it is the children of deceased soldiers only. The glory – the honour of being a hero – is in being dead.

  30. A scholarship, by it’s own definition is based on academic achievement. Therefore, it is a earned right – not a given right.

  31. “One could argue I’m missing the “meta,” but I see the the scholarship simply as a way to provide tuition to children who have lost a parent, and by extension, a financial resource.”

    While that’s certainly true, I can think of no particular reason why such they are any more (or less) deserving of scholarship money than any other children who have lost a parent for whatever reason. People choose to join the military; others don’t choose to get terminal cancer or suffer fatal accidents. Judging by many of the responses here, “Project Hero” is motivated less by any great desire to help these families than by some form of militaristic jingoism. A father of three diagnosed with MS or ALS at 35 is perhaps not a hero, but nor does one display “heroism” by joining the military (who is being saved?) and being killed in action or – not altogether infrequently – by accident or “friendly fire”. Both are tragic, and I’d say that the children of the man with ALS are absolutely no less deserving of community – and government – support.

  32. “Where do we stop? Children of professors have a discount because it is part of their contract. Also the fact that parents recommending their university to their kids is good internal publicity. So it’s not the same, get off their back.”

    No, it’s exactly the same thing. Professors and soldiers are both paid their salaries by taxpayers. The benefits they receive–including such things as discounted tuition for their children–come at the taxpayer’s expense. When a professor’s child receives a tuition subsidy simply because of who their parents are, they are in the same way denying funding to a person who might be more deserving. Indeed, considering how much professors make on average, the tuition subsidies to their children are effectively taking money from poorer students forced to pay the full tuition, and giving those funds to the children of the rich.

    Arguing it is part of the professor’s contract isn’t any more sound. One could just as easily argue that the university is entering into contract with the military whereby the children of their deceased receive free tuition. Or for that matter, the government could legislate project hero into military contracts, if they so desired (indeed, Project Hero is being facilitated in part by the government of Saskatchewan).

    Let’s drop the charade here. The only reason that these professors oppose Project Hero is because they oppose the war in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with whether or not the program is fair to all students (many scholarships have non-academic terms of reference, including the aforementioned professor’s subsidy); nor are they making a comment about the supposedly luxurious benefits of military service that soldiers and veterans already receive. This is a purely political act aimed at a specific war that they happen to not agree with.

  33. ABarlow’s analysis is insightful, but I maintain that there are still important differences between the tuition benefits paid to children of professors and the money spent through Project Hero, because the latter is not spent as part of the normal employment terms of military work.

    If the military, out of its existing budgets, elected to offer a tuition benefit to all children of military personnel as part of its normal benefits package, I would not have a problem with that; that’s a human resources matter. But that’s not what Project Hero is. It is a special, national program whose goal is to honour soldiers killed in action and to “repay their loved ones when they make the ultimate sacrifice” (the words are Rick Hillier’s). So it comes back to the special status afforded to warriors and to the saintly status awarded to those who die, particularly in combat.

    Of course the U or R profs object to PH largely because of Afghanistan, but there is no charade there — they say as much in the letter that started this whole thing.

  34. “Saintly status?” Why the silly exaggeration Todd?

    The U or R’s decision to keep Project Hero is a good decision.

    Canada’s military personnel are deployed by democratically elected Canadian governments (the election process and parliamentary process involve vigorous debate), often in partnership with the NATO/UN (which also debate vigorously), and usually at the invitation (always temporary) of a host country.

    This is hardly “Canadian imperialism.”

    Perhaps the Regina 16 have forgotten that Canada has been involved in many missions; combat, humanitarian, reconstruction, disaster relief, peacekeeping, NATO, UN. Perhaps they’re unaware that we’re leaving Afghanistan in 2011.

    The Regina 16 also wrote that Project Hero “erases the space for critical discussion of military policy and practices.”

    What a silly statement.

    Exactly what “space” has been erased? Is the prairie sky now smaller? Canada is still wide open for critical discussion, and the Regina 17 (they now have Todd Pettigrew’s help … he’s apparently abandoned his “harm” topic) have complete freedom and “space” to speak, discuss and to vote.

    It’s one thing to question the merits of the mission in Afghanistan – and universities should be about a free and open discussion – it’s a fair question to freely debate. But to use that freedom to insist that the U of R dump Project Hero because the “Hero” name somehow silences debate is both illogical and untrue.

    Project Hero still stands at the U or R, and the Regina 17 are still free to talk! That’s Canadian “space.”

    To suggest that Canadians are following “one unquestionable way” as an “unconditional article of faith” on any issue is likewise a foolish suggestion. As Canadians, we thrive on debate.

    Our democratic system allows for ongoing review of all issues, including foreign policy, through public discourse, a free press, debate in parliament and democratic elections.

    That’s one reason why individuals who join the Canadian military do not know what’s in their future. Once in their unit, they do not pick and choose what to do. They serve Canada, often with great bravery. Their next mission might be combat, or it might be assisting in an earthquake zone.

    They do not join in order to kill people. Todd’s comment on this point shows both insensitivity and a remarkable lack of understanding.

    They lay their lives on the line serving in a variety of missions and when they die they leave behind widows, widowers and orphans. Project Hero does not “glorify war.” It helps the children of the deceased get an education.

    As an academic, I know that many scholarships are designated for specific people groups (or “classes” to use Regina 17 leftist lingo); for females, for athletes, for English majors, for kids of parents who work for a certain company, for students of a particular province, for kids of police officers, etc. etc. I see Project Hero as a way to help a unique and needy kid who has lost a parent.

    Professors should be able to weigh evidence thoughtfully, present a reasoned position and then defend it through robust debate.

    Canadians also have every right to carefully review the opinions and presuppositions of professors in choosing where to invest resources and where to study and grow in wisdom.

    BTW, the numbers of names on the Regina Prof’s letter is apparently diminishing.

  35. There was no democratic process of either a debate or referendum put forward to Canadians to enter the war in Afghanistan. As a Canadian I do not support this mission, therefore, although I find it disturbing and very sad that our soldiers are being maimed and killed on this mission, I am very hard pressed to be able to use the definition of hero, and any subsequent benefit(s) in the name of what I view as an ‘unjust war’ – that would be defined as hypocrisy.

    Canada was once very well respected for its peacekeeping roles and missions after WWII, and as a Canadian I was very proud of this role. Furthermore, I could accept paying for this benefit as a Canadian tax payer if our soldiers were killed in the line of duty under a peacekeeping role – that would represent true heroism to me. However, as a Canadian I was never asked if I believe Canada should enter into this war.

  36. Kay, there was actually considerable debate (both public and in parliament) in 2001 when Canada, under the Chretien majority government sent Canadian personnel to Afghanistan, but you’re right, there was no referendum. A referendum is a very rare event in Canada’s history. Additionally, there was frequent opportunity for debate with three federal elections since 2001. There were federal elections in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The deployment of Canadian personnel and the nature of their deployment in Afghanistan were a significant points of debate in each of these elections. Letters to editors, town hall meetings, televised debates, opportunities to dialogue with local candidates, opportunity to join a political partly, opportunity to run as a candidate all gave Canadians an opportunity to be heard in our great democracy. The current government (in spite of firm words from the US Secretary of State) is committed to pulling out of Afghanistan in 2011.

  37. Well Wes this is where we disagree. There was no debate or democratic process offered to Canadians in 2001 to enter Afghanistan. Post 9/11, Canada entered Afghanistan in as early as October 2001, and further enhanced it’s presence in November 2001. This agenda was a pressure tactic enforced by the US government and its military on Canada to take this stand and abandon it’s primary peacekeeping roles. We further witnessed the strong-arm tactic applied against Canada back in 2002 by the US in it’s attack on Iraq. However, Canada had the political will to say no (thankfully) regardless of the abundant pressure by ‘big brother’ south of the border. In the 2004 election both the Conservatives and Liberals did not even address Afghanistan as a Platform issue, let alone a back-burner issue. This suggests to me that our main political parties were not only in agreement in Canada’s participation, but probably in collusion of this political agenda, even though it was a very unpopular amongst Canadians.

    As for 2011 it will be very interesting if Canadians will be returned home. We are just starting to see the pressure tactics being applied by the US to remain in Afghanistan. I sincerely hope this Government has the political will to live up to its promise, however, I do not. I believe the military will remain, however, under a different guise, and if that is the case maybe Canadians will demand their ‘political will’ be addressed.

  38. Enough, even with a limited education it didn’t take me long to do my homework on this subject. Now I will exercise my right, given to me by the armed forces, to express my right of ‘Freedom of Speech’. Let us shine a light in dark places. Let us demand an investigation into nepotism in our education system. It is time. Give all children of vets a scholarship not just to those who had parents who died while serving. Have we forgotten that soldiers come home after experiencing extraordinary situations changed as a result? PTSD is but one example. Soldiers do have better things to do with their time then worry about whether or not the future of their own children have been secured. “Children of Deceased Veteran Education Assistance Act; Qualified clients must enter the program before they are 25 and assistance cannot be extended beyond the year in which they turn 30”. Change the Act!

  39. Then as a Canadian who has chosen my profession I want the same benefit, the same as our military personnel have chosen theirs.

  40. Kay, thank you for your indirect mention of public opinion polls.

    I failed to mention that debate and democratic process in Canada also involves public opinion polls as a simple poll search of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan will show.

    As for the scholarships topic under consideration, here is a public opinion poll summary . . .

    “Most Canadians support the Project Hero initiative and many disagree with the point of view of 16 University of Regina professors who recently questioned the program, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

    In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,000 Canadians, 77 per cent of respondents support the Project Hero program—created by Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Reed and Retired General Rick Hillier—which offers free tuition to the children of Canadian soldiers killed while serving in an active mission. Only 11 per cent are opposed, and 12 per cent are undecided.

    Earlier this month, 16 University of Regina professors sent a letter to the school’s president, Vianne Timmons, urging the school to withdraw from Project Hero. The professors stated that Project Hero “represents a dangerous cultural turn,” “associates heroism with the act of military intervention,” and “erases the space for critical discussion of military policy and practices.””

    Since 2001 there have been many Canadian public opinion polls of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. Thankfully, our democracy allows for this.

  41. The professors spouting this garbage should remember that their right to express such asinine claptrap was bought with the blood of soldiers defending our way of life.

  42. I’m not surprised that professors are spouting this BS and as a military member I find it quite insulting. Why do they feel the need to chime in on a scholarship fund brought together with private donations. How many scholarships/bursaries etc are out there with specific requirements for consideration? Too many to count.

    Sometimes I wish our country had compulsory military service just so we wouldn’t have to listen to these pompous academics that do nothing but read books all their life and feel the public should listen to their almighty opinions on the military.