In response to Former employees speak out on Global College, published February, 22, 2012.
There are many biased claims made in the article “Former employees speak out on Global College.” However, I will simply respond to Mr. Garcia’s statement that “working at the Global College and being part of the Human Rights Program has made me question its validity,” as well as his comment, “there is no real leadership demonstrated… (and) no long-term planning.”
Mr. Garcia is entitled to his opinion, but for the sake of current and future students of the program and the dedicated and inspiring faculty members of the College, I strongly disagree.
I am one of the first graduates of the HRGS degree as well as an almost daily user of the College’s Legal Empowerment of the Poor website (LEPnet.org)
a former student who has taken the College’s experimental and intensive summer courses
one of a dozen delegates of the Global College Principal’s UN Study Tour
an alumna member of the review committee that has been working for over a year and a half to improve the current curriculum of the Human Rights degree
and one of five recent graduates from across Canada who took part in Global College’s CIDA-IYIP internship in ILO country office’s around the world. Also, I owe my current position in a Winnipeg-based consulting company, whose work is directly related to my degree, to the suggestion of a Global College faculty member.
My experience alone speaks to the validity of the program, the long-term planning that goes into each and every one of the College’s outputs, the leadership of the Global College’s principal, Dr. McPhedran, and other integral faculty and student employees, as well as the College’s continued support of current and former students of the HRGS and other programs.
In the future, The Uniter would serve its readers better if it offered a rounded and balanced perspective, rather than speaking to one obviously disgruntled former employee.
Perhaps the College’s other former staff members that the article refers to who would not speak on the record based this decision on the reporter’s unmistakably negative bias.
– Nicki Ferland