The following letter was sent to Ron Dickson, chair of the Interim Governing Board of TUBC, by Bill Bruneau, president of CAUT on July 4, 1997. It is in response to Dickson's letter of July 2, 1997.
Mr Ron Dickson, Chair
Interim Governing Board
The Technical University of British Columbia
Ste 1280-13401 108 Avenue
Surrey, BC V3T 5T3
BY FAX: 586-5237
1997 July 04
Dear Mr Dickson,
Thank you for your letter of 1997 July 2. Your several points deserve as full a reply as possible, and within the limits of my official responsibility, I have tried to deal with each of them.
To begin, let me assure you that the Canadian Association of University Teachers [CAUT] has not yet made public its strong disapproval of Bill 30, "Technical University of British Columbia Act." The resolution of the CAUT Executive, as finally approved, contained a clause limiting our action unless and until the Government of British Columbia actually passes Bill 30. If Bill 30 were appropriately amended, we would not have to take action of the sort outlined in our resolution of June 19.
I think you may have seen a version of the resolution which did not contain the limiting clause. I therefore attach a copy of the complete and correct version. The document which was passed to Minister Paul Ramsey is wholly correct in its central propositions, and in the list of actions which we plan to take if Bill 30 is passed. Only the matter of timing was left off the resolution.
I understand that Dr Lee Keener and Mr Robert Clift, President and Executive Director respectively of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia [CUFA-BC], made it clear to Minister Ramsey that the CAUT would not take action if Bill 30 were appropriately amended, or if the Technical University of British Columbia [TechBC] were authorized to exist under the provisions of the University Act.
So much for timing. More importantly, in this current round, the CAUT is not opposed to TechBC itself. Our quarrel is with the Government of British Columbia, its legislation, and its funding arrangements. We (I mean here the CAUT and CUFA-BC) have been in constant touch with the Ministry of Education, Skills, and Training, and our communications with the Minister concerning TechBC stretch back to 1995. Your disappointment "that we have not had an opportunity for dialogue" is, of course, understandable. I, too, am surprised that the Ministry has not chosen to tell you of our consistent opposition to the form of governance embodied in Bill 30. We would have been able to avoid much grief and trouble if the Minister had properly informed all of us just what he planned for TechBC. If I am given the opportunity to meet the Minister in the coming days, as representative of the CAUT, I shall be making that point.
It is entirely possible that we could jointly propose amendments to Bill 30. You will have realized, I believe, that neither the CAUT nor CUFA-BC is ot opposed in principle to the idea of a specialized science/technology university. Our opposition is to the form of governance outlined in the Bill, and to the consequent absence of assurances on academic freedom in teaching and research. Joint action might very well lead the Government of British Columbia to reconsider its unfortunate and ill-advised legislation on the Technical University.
The CAUT notes your express committment to academic freedom, and to the fair treatment of employees. We do not, however, agree with you that the Government of British Columbia "shares those ideals." Otherwise, it would not have proposed Bill 30 in its present form.
Let me turn for a moment to your remarks about the rights of employees (bottom, page 1, your letter of 1997 July 2). We agree that the legislation does not, and cannot limit the rights of employees under the BC Labour Relations Code, the Employment Standards Act, the Human Rights Code, or the Canadian Charter of Rights. This means that TechBC might well choose to opt for collective bargaining, and you have assured us that the TechBC would impose no barrier to the future choices of TechBC employees. This is reassuring news.
The trouble is that without any mention of academic freedom and tenure, and in the absence of an academic senate, these employee rights would not necessarily extend to guarantee free inquiry and free teaching of the results of responsible, disciplined inquiry in the sciences. That structural and legal guarantee of independent free inquiry is essential. It should not be possible either to bargain away free inquiry and free teaching in a university, or to undermine it by administrative or political fiat.
You mention that your Planning Council considered whether to recommend an academic senate for TechBC, but chose not to do so. In our view this was a serious mistake, and for reasons that are best understood in practical and historical perspectives, not just a philosophical one. You will have just received a copy of a letter from CUFA-BC to the Minister (1997 July 3) which gives more detail about these several perspectives. It is an especially useful letter in its discussion of Bill 30's language concerning objectives, language which points directly to the grave difficulties we find in the Bill's dismissal of an academic senate or senate-like body.
I say "senate-like" body because there are British Columbia university colleges, which grant degrees, and which have Education Councils that act in the stead of academic senates. The Councils are thought to be at arm's length from the governing Boards of the colleges. We are unsure whether the Councils are sufficiently strong guarantors of academic freedom; they are largely untried. But we have confidence that our colleagues in the College and Institute Educators' Association of British Columbia will not rest if it becomes clear that the Councils are empty cyphers, or weak cousins to the governing Boards. At any rate, TechBC is a university, not a university college or community college. If it wants to opt for community college status, that would require a change in name.
As to Royal Roads University, the CAUT is opposed to its governing arrangements for many of the reasons that cause us to oppose Bill 30. Given the provincial government's approach to this whole matter of university governance, we shall have to review our policy and attitude to Royal Roads University, in consultation with colleagues at work in that institution, and in close collaboration with colleagues across the province and nation.
I come now to the last paragraphs of your letter.
The CAUT has never agreed to the proposition that academic senates, by whatever name, are necessarily "inefficient" and "unresponsive" bodies. The historical record shows that they are, in fact, highly sensitive to the political, social, and economic forces at work in the surrounding society. But our point is that the public demand for accountability--and for trustworthy and expert decisions in matters of curriculum, teaching, and research--is best answered through the mechanism of an academic senate. In order to ensure open and participatory decision-making, which is the basis of accountability in higher education, an academic senate is not just the best solution--it is imperative.
As I said earlier, we were pleased to note that you believe a common and agreed approach to government might persuade them to reconsider the legislation. I agree that these are, in any case, the early days of TechBC, and that the development of its governance practices remains for the future. Alas, this is not the case for its governance structure. It will be hard to persuade this legislature, or a future legislature, to rescind important elements of Bill 30, once it has been passed into law. This is all the more reason to do something about this matter as soon as practically possible.
Finally, let me be as clear as I can in answer to the questions you put on page 3.
1. Has the resolution been passed by the CAUT membership, etc.?
The Resolution you have seen (revised version attached), is the policy of the Executive Committee which acts for the membership between meetings of the governing Council. The Executive, however, may decide to postpone all or some parts of its resolution until the next meeting of the governing Council in November. That will depend on the action of the Government of British Columbia.
You should know, too, that the Faculty Associations at the four public universities in British Columbia have (as of 1997 July 03) adopted this same resolution.
2. Have you already implemented measures to attempt to thwart our hiring of academic staff?
Not yet.
3. Is the resolution proposed policy, still under discussion and review?
No. This resolution envisages political actions which are justified under standing policies on university governance, openness, and academic freedom. These policies are most easily read at our Web site, http://www.caut.ca. Click on either "map" or "policy statements." I would be happy to forward copies to you if you would find that helpful.
*************
I can't see why our two organizations should have serious difficulty arriving at a good working relation. I say the same of CUFA-BC and TechBC.
As you know, the CAUT (and with it, CUFA-BC) work consistently and productively with more than 70 Canadian universities, and with British Columbia's colleges and institutes. And speaking for myself, I would very much like to maintain an open line of communication with you and with your staff.
I would welcome the opportunity to meet you, and suggest that a representative of CUFA-BC be present. My current plan is to be in Vancouver during most of the next eight weeks. I'm typically at 224.3889 in the mornings (7.30-noon) and after 7.30 p.m. My fax (224.9242) functions 24 hours/day. My e-mail is: william.bruneau@ubc.ca. As I understand, a representative of CUFA-BC would be able to join us at any time.
To reiterate, our difficulty is with the government. I very much hope they can be persuaded to reconsider Bill 30. It would be wonderful if you could join us in a constructive campaign to change their minds.
With every good wish,
William Bruneau
President, Canadian Association of University Teachers
| cc. | Minister Paul Ramsey, Ministry of Education, Skills, and Training |
| Deputy Minister Don Avison, Ministry of Education, Skills, and Training | |
| Executive Committee, Canadian Association of University Teachers | |
| Acting President A. Sheppard, CUFA-BC | |
| Executive Director Robert Clift, Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia |