New Legislation Will Burden Ontario's Universities with Equity Challenges and More Costly Red Tape
Toronto, ON, May 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) today responded to the provincial government's announcement of the Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025, which proposes increased 'oversight, accountability, and transparency for public school boards, postsecondary education, and children's aid societies.' While full details of the forthcoming legislation are still to be provided, OCUFA expresses significant concern about its potential impact on Ontario's publicly-funded world-class universities, particularly regarding financial oversight and efforts to promote equity.
The legislation proposes to build upon directives introduced in Bill 166, the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024. OCUFA previously provided formal feedback on Bill 166, highlighting concerns about the lack of collaboration with university stakeholders, ambiguity in implementation, and a lack of clarity regarding expert consultations, especially on critical issues like mental health, hate, racism, and student affordability. The use of vague, open-ended language in such legislation risks misinterpretation and could invite political interference.
Yesterday's announcement also revealed a proposal to introduce additional ministerial oversight over how ancillary fees are used at postsecondary institutions, and a requirement for detailed breakdowns of tuition fee revenue. OCUFA is also particularly troubled by language around admissions criteria, which appears to target initiatives aimed at increasing representation from equity-seeking groups. Again, we are concerned this could entail political interference.
"We look forward to carefully reviewing the proposed legislation and welcome the opportunity to provide detailed feedback to this government on behalf of the over 18,000 faculty, academic librarians, and academic staff OCUFA proudly represents," stated Nigmendra Narain, President of OCUFA.
"However, the prospect of yet more costly red-tape and additional distractions from the core mission of our publicly-funded universities is deeply disappointing. Rather than providing the necessary funding and support for Ontario's world-class universities to thrive, this government is introducing more bureaucracy. Instead of trying to run the university sector themselves, the Ontario Government should focus on the core issues plaguing our universities. The government can start with their responsibility to ensure universities have stable and necessary funding to provide high quality education to Ontario students."
"We are disheartened by the continued attacks on the vital goals of Ontario's publicly-funded postsecondary institutions to create more inclusive campuses and expand opportunities for qualified students from equity-deserving groups," added Jenny Ahn, Executive Director of OCUFA. "All students must still meet the same required and rigorous academic requirements for admission, so it is crucial to understand that equity-based entry factors do not replace or diminish academic standards. In fact, fostering a more diverse and multicultural student population demonstrably promotes academic excellence, encourages an inclusive student experience, and cultivates a richer learning environment for students, staff, academic librarians and faculty."
OCUFA emphasizes that truly strengthening Ontario's postsecondary sector requires genuine collaboration, stable funding, and a commitment to fostering inclusive excellence, not additional bureaucratic costs, hurdles or policies that undermine equity initiatives and academic excellence.
Founded in 1964, OCUFA represents more than 18,000 professors and academic librarians in 30 faculty associations across Ontario. It is committed to enhancing the quality of higher education in Ontario and recognizing the outstanding contributions of its members towards creating a world-class university system. For more information, please visit the OCUFA website at www.ocufa.on.ca.
Contact:
media@ocufa.on.ca
CONTACT: Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations media@ocufa.on.ca
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
The housing market is shifting—here's where it's happening most rapidly
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lambert's ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. A few days after I launched ResiClub in October 2023, I wrote an article titled 'The key housing market metric heading into 2024.' In it, I reaffirmed a point I had also made at Fortune in 2022: that some traditional rules of thumb—i.e., months-of-supply thresholds for what constitutes a buyers' market versus a sellers' market—could struggle in this post–Pandemic Housing Boom environment, where there's downward pressure on prices. For the time being, I suggested that an easy-to-create and useful metric for housing stakeholders to follow—one that helps gauge short-term pricing momentum and whether downside risk might manifest—is a local market's level of active inventory compared to that same market's inventory level in the same month of pre-pandemic 2019. The thinking was that markets where active inventory remains well below 2019 levels would still exhibit some tightness, while those where inventory has surged back to or above pre-pandemic 2019 levels would experience a shift in the supply-demand equilibrium more in favor of homebuyers. Heading into 2025, I recreated that analysis showing the dynamic was still holding true. Fast-forward to today, and this particular data cut still proves useful (overtime ResiClub believes its usefulness will diminish—just not right now). Generally speaking, housing markets where active housing inventory for sale has surged above pre-pandemic 2019 levels have experienced weaker or softer home price growth (or even outright home price declines) over the past 36 months. Conversely, housing markets where active housing inventory for sale remains far below pre-pandemic 2019 levels have, generally speaking, experienced more resilient home price growth over the past 36 months. Indeed, just look at the scatter plot below showing 'Shift in home prices since their local 2022 peak' Vs. 'active inventory for sale now compared to the same month in 2019' for the nation's 250 largest metro area housing markets. Below is the same scatter plot as the one above, only its color scheme is adjusted to show which markets have LESS active inventory now than in 2019 (BROWN) and which markets have MORE active inventory right now than in 2019 (GREEN). Click here for an interactive version of the scatter plot below. To see if this data cut still proves useful, let's swap out 'home price since their local 2022 peak' for 'year-over-year home price shift.' The answer is yes—the trend still holds. (Recently, both the Wall Street Journal and John Burns Research and Consulting created their own versions of this longtime ResiClub scatter plot.) Below is the same scatter plot as the one above, only its color scheme is adjusted to show which markets have LESS active inventory now than in 2019 (BROWN) and which markets have MORE active inventory right now than in 2019 (GREEN). The current regional bifurcation—greater weakness in Sun Belt and Mountain West boomtowns and greater resiliency in the Northeast and Midwest—shouldn't be surprising to ResiClub readers. Given that we cover that regional bifurcation frequently, we're not going to spend time in this piece discussing what's driving that bifurcation. Instead, let's discuss why this particular data cut is useful right now, and why overtime it could become less useful. This data cut's usefulness—right now—explained During the Pandemic Housing Boom, housing demand surged rapidly amid ultralow interest rates, stimulus, and the remote work boom—which increased demand for space and unlocked 'WFH arbitrage' as high earners were able to keep their income from a job in, say, NYC or L.A., and buy in, say, Austin or Tampa. Federal Reserve researchers estimate 'new construction would have had to increase by roughly 300% to absorb the pandemic-era surge in demand.' Unlike housing demand, housing stock supply isn't as elastic and can't ramp up as quickly. As a result, the heightened pandemic era demand drained the market of active inventory and overheated home prices, with U.S. home prices rising a staggering +43.2% between March 2020 and June 2022. At the height of the Pandemic Housing Boom in spring 2022, most of the country had 60% to 75% less active inventory than in 2019. Once mortgage rates spiked, national housing demand cooled off. While many commentators view active inventory and months of supply simply as measures of 'supply,' ResiClub sees them more as proxies for the supply-demand equilibrium. Large swings in active inventory or months of supply are usually driven by shifts in housing demand. For example, during the Pandemic Housing Boom, surging demand caused homes to sell faster—pushing active inventory down, even as new listings remained steady. Conversely, in recent years, weakening demand has led to slower sales, causing active inventory to rise in many markets—even as new listings fell below trend. For a market like Austin or Punta Gorda to surge from historically low active inventory levels in spring 2022 to now well above pre-pandemic 2019 levels, it has taken a significant shift in the balance of power—from sellers to buyers. That shift has also coincided with those markets experiencing outright home price corrections. Conversely, despite the affordability shock, markets like Syracuse and Milwaukee still have active inventory levels well below 2019 levels and continue to see slightly positive year-over-year home price growth. Inventory wasn't historically 'high' back in 2019—so why does climbing back to 2019 levels matter? During the Pandemic Housing Boom, housing demand overwhelmed the Denver metro housing market—pushing active housing inventory for sale down to just 2,288 homes by May 2021, down 69% from the 7,490 listings in May 2019. Since the Pandemic Housing Boom fizzled out, and mortgage rates spiked, active inventory for sale in Denver has spiked up to 12,354 active listings as of May 2025—65% above pre-pandemic May 2019 levels. While active inventory for sale in Denver today isn't necessarily that high by historical comparison, the sharp jump from 2022 inventory levels to 2025 levels in such a short window reflects a pretty big shift in the supply-demand equilibrium. On the ground that shift should feel jarring. That greater active inventory bounce up in Denver has coincided with a greater house price softening/weakening. Indeed, Denver metro area home prices as measured by ResiClub analysis of the Zillow Home Value Index are down 1.7% year-over-year, and down 7.3% since their 2022 peak. Why, over time, this data cut could prove less useful One of the common pushbacks I hear when comparing today's active inventory for sale to 2019 levels is that some markets—like Austin and Punta Gorda—have larger populations now than they did back in 2019. It's true that some of the markets with higher inventory today compared to 2019 are also the ones that have experienced notable population growth in recent years. However, that actual population growth—i.e., a larger population base—isn't the sole reason inventory has jumped so quickly in places like Austin and Punta Gorda. Rather, it's because those markets have experienced a sharper weakening in their for-sale market since the Pandemic Housing Boom fizzled out. And that has helped push up unsold inventory in those markets. That said, over time, changes in market size—specifically population and total households—will naturally affect what constitutes a 'normal' level of active inventory. By 2035, for example, comparing active inventory to 2019 levels will be far less meaningful than it has been in 2021-2025. Some traditional rules of thumb have fallen short this cycle A rule of thumb in real estate is that anything below a six-month supply of inventory is considered a 'seller's market,' while anything above a six-month supply is a 'buyer's market.' However, that hasn't always held true this cycle, and ResiClub's view is that this rule of thumb is a bit outdated. In many housing markets, including Austin's metro area, where house prices began to decline in June 2022 with only 2.1 months of inventory, that rule hasn't applied effectively. In fact, even though Austin's inventory only peaked at 5.2 months as of April 2025, according to Texas A&M University's Texas Real Estate Research Center, home prices in the Austin metro have already fallen 22.8% from their 2022 peak, based on our analysis of the Zillow Home Value Index. A better measure of this incoming pricing weakness was the abrupt active inventory jump that occurred in Austin in spring/summer 2022 (going from 0.4 months of inventory in February 2022 to 2.1 in June 2022), which quickly pushed active listings near/above pre-pandemic 2019 levels. Big picture: In today's post-Pandemic Housing Boom landscape, comparing a market's current level of active inventory to its same-month 2019 baseline remains a useful gauge for the shift in the supply-demand balance. While imperfect, this simple metric captures the degree of tightness or softening better than some traditional measures. Markets where inventory has surged well above 2019 levels—like Austin or Punta Gorda—are typically the ones that have seen demand weaken most, restoring buyer leverage and, in some cases, producing home price corrections. Meanwhile, markets where inventory remains far below 2019 levels continue to exhibit greater pricing resiliency.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gray Television's Q1 Earnings Call: Our Top 5 Analyst Questions
Gray Television's first quarter results for 2025 were received positively by the market, as the company exceeded Wall Street's revenue and profit expectations despite a year-over-year sales decline. Management attributed the quarter's performance to stronger-than-anticipated political advertising, ongoing cost containment, and the growing contribution from local sports broadcasting. CEO Hilton Howell highlighted the impact of new local sports rights agreements, stating, 'the combination of our premier local news franchises with local sports make our local stations even more relevant and more valuable than ever.' Is now the time to buy GTN? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $782 million vs analyst estimates of $773.2 million (5% year-on-year decline, 1.1% beat) Operating Margin: 11.8%, down from 15.1% in the same quarter last year Market Capitalization: $476.1 million While we enjoy listening to the management's commentary, our favorite part of earnings calls are the analyst questions. Those are unscripted and can often highlight topics that management teams would rather avoid or topics where the answer is complicated. Here is what has caught our attention. Dan Kurnos (Benchmark): Asked about the company's strategic flexibility if deregulatory changes materialize. Chief Legal and Development Officer Kevin Latek indicated Gray Television is considering swaps and other transactions but awaits regulatory clarity before acting. Aaron Watts (Deutsche Bank): Inquired whether advertising declines were due to cancellations or delayed bookings. President Pat LaPlatney clarified that hesitancy, not cancellations, was the issue, and pointed to growth in service categories and unexpected political revenue as positive signs. Patrick Sholl (Wells Fargo): Questioned expectations for political advertising versus prior cycles. CEO Hilton Howell noted that this cycle has seen more substantial and earlier ad buys than previous midterms, but acknowledged political ad revenue is difficult to predict. Craig Huber (Huber Research): Sought details on Assembly Studios' leasing progress and financial contribution. CEO Howell stated occupancy is about 75-80%, with additional upside possible, and CFO Gignac said returns will improve as more leases are signed and new phases of development are completed. Alan Gould (Loop Capital): Asked about the impact of direct negotiations with virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs) on retransmission revenue. Latek responded that there is a significant difference in rates, but the net impact would depend on network agreements if regulations change. In the coming quarters, the StockStory team will track (1) the pace of local sports rights adoption and the impact on station viewership and ad sales, (2) evidence of sustained political ad revenue during a non-election cycle, and (3) progress on cost containment translating into improved margins and deleveraging. Developments in industry regulation and the potential for market consolidation will also be important signals for Gray Television's future trajectory. Gray Television currently trades at $4.55, up from $3.72 just before the earnings. Is there an opportunity in the stock?The answer lies in our full research report (it's free). The market surged in 2024 and reached record highs after Donald Trump's presidential victory in November, but questions about new economic policies are adding much uncertainty for 2025. While the crowd speculates what might happen next, we're homing in on the companies that can succeed regardless of the political or macroeconomic environment. Put yourself in the driver's seat and build a durable portfolio by checking out our Top 5 Strong Momentum Stocks for this week. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Tecnoglass (+1,754% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
5 Insightful Analyst Questions From Owens & Minor's Q1 Earnings Call
Owens & Minor experienced a challenging start to 2025, as market reaction turned negative following flat revenue and a miss versus Wall Street's top-line expectations. Management attributed the subdued results largely to external pressures, especially tariffs and adverse currency movements, which impacted the Products and Healthcare Services segment. CEO Edward Pesicka highlighted, 'We can no longer absorb these costs,' referencing the significant tariff increases on imported medical products. Meanwhile, the Patient Direct segment posted notable growth, driven by increased investments in sleep therapy and sales resources, but this was not enough to offset broader headwinds. Is now the time to buy OMI? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $2.63 billion vs analyst estimates of $2.67 billion (flat year on year, 1.6% miss) Adjusted EPS: $0.23 vs analyst estimates of $0.20 (14.5% beat) Adjusted EBITDA: $121.9 million vs analyst estimates of $116.7 million (4.6% margin, 4.4% beat) The company reconfirmed its revenue guidance for the full year of $11 billion at the midpoint Management reiterated its full-year Adjusted EPS guidance of $1.73 at the midpoint EBITDA guidance for the full year is $575 million at the midpoint, in line with analyst expectations Operating Margin: 0%, in line with the same quarter last year Market Capitalization: $638.2 million While we enjoy listening to the management's commentary, our favorite part of earnings calls are the analyst questions. Those are unscripted and can often highlight topics that management teams would rather avoid or topics where the answer is complicated. Here is what has caught our attention. John Stansel (JPMorgan) asked how customers are responding to tariff-related price increases. CEO Edward Pesicka explained that while the company is working to find alternative products for customers, they must pass on tariff costs due to low margins and cannot sell at a loss. Michael Cherny (Leerink Partners, via Ahmed) requested clarification on the $100–$150 million tariff exposure and its treatment in guidance. Pesicka confirmed this exposure is largely in the Products and Healthcare Services segment and will be passed through via price increases. Kevin Caliendo (UBS) inquired about the impact of Rotech acquisition financing and its effect on interest expense guidance. CFO Jonathan Leon noted that interest costs will be updated once the deal closes, and that current guidance does not yet reflect these changes. Eric Coldwell (Baird) questioned how the timing of tariff implementation and price increases aligns, and what happens if customers reject price hikes. Pesicka stated price increases are timed with inventory turnover and that the company cannot absorb tariffs, so alternatives or loss of sales may result. Eric Coldwell (Baird) also asked whether Rotech's performance still aligns with acquisition expectations. Leon confirmed Rotech's results are in line with the deal model, with anticipated accretion in the second year. Looking ahead, our team will monitor (1) the effectiveness and customer acceptance of tariff-driven price increases, (2) the performance and integration of the Patient Direct segment as new therapies and revenue cycle initiatives scale, and (3) developments regarding the potential sale of the Products and Healthcare Services segment and the finalization of the Rotech acquisition. Execution on these fronts will be critical in shaping Owens & Minor's business trajectory and financial health. Owens & Minor currently trades at $7.96, up from $7.73 just before the earnings. Is the company at an inflection point that warrants a buy or sell? See for yourself in our full research report (it's free). The market surged in 2024 and reached record highs after Donald Trump's presidential victory in November, but questions about new economic policies are adding much uncertainty for 2025. While the crowd speculates what might happen next, we're homing in on the companies that can succeed regardless of the political or macroeconomic environment. Put yourself in the driver's seat and build a durable portfolio by checking out our Top 5 Growth Stocks for this month. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-small-cap company Exlservice (+354% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
