The following letter was sent to Paul Ramsey, Minister of Education, Skills and Training, on July 21, 1997. It is in response to his letter of July 8, 1997.
July 21, 1997
Honourable Paul Ramsey
Minster of Education, Skills and Training
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
Via FAX Transmission - 3 pages - (250) 387-3200
Dear Minister Ramsey,
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1997 responding to my letter of July 3, 1997. You raise several points to which we wish to respond.
CUFA/BC is well aware of the developments in the British Columbia post-secondary system. Our organization was a key player in the access debates of the late 1980's which led to the expansion of the post-secondary system. Our 1988 report "Access to Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia" provided much grist for the mill in those debates. CUFA/BC representatives were also in the committee rooms helping to develop the concept for the university-colleges.
During those debates, we were consistent in our message that a degree cannot simply be legislated into existence. If a degree is to have meaning, its design must be the product of the professional educators and researchers in the particular field. It is these people who have the most knowledge of the field and it is these people who can best judge the quality of programs. This is why we have consistently supported our colleagues in the colleges and institutes, through the College Institute Educators' Association (CIEA), in their efforts to implement shared governance in their institutions. Although we would have preferred to see an academic senate provided for in Bills 22 & 23 (1994), we understand that the education council was designed to reflect the different circumstances in the colleges and institutes.
Similarly, we opposed the creation of the Degree Program Approval Committee (DPAC) as an unnecessary infringement of institutional autonomy in program decision-making. We argued that it was up to the senates and the education councils to make these decisions, on the understanding that the government may not be inclined to fund new programs, as is its prerogative. Allocation of existing resources, however, must be at the discretion of the senate (or education council) and the board.
In your letter you say: "I share your view on the vital importance of academic freedom at all universities regardless of their particular focus or mandate." You cite the application of section 48 of the University Act as protection from interference from your office. Yet it is you who will decide on the appointments to the board of the Technical University of British Columbia (TUBC), and as the legislation provides for no length of term for appointed board members, it is you who will remove these people from these posts. Unlike the University Act, Bill 30 permits the appointment of provincial and federal politicians and civil servants to the board. Thus, you could potentially appoint yourself, your political colleagues, or your political assistants to this board. This leaves the institution open to political interference by you, a subsequent minister, or a subsequent government. You also say in your letter that you "will ensure that Tech BC has a rigorous conflict of interest policy." It is the responsibility of the board, not the Minister, to create such policies. Your commitment to non-interference in the institution seems to be contradicted by the evidence.
Further, you appear to define academic freedom only in terms of the coercive power of government. The history of academic freedom in Canada is replete with examples of the coercive effect of boards of governors on the life of university faculty. What you propose harkens back to the "good old days" in the first half of this century when academics were free only to the extent that they did not offend the sensibilities of their presidents or boards of governors. To the days when a faculty member was free to publicly support a political party, as long as it was the governing party. To the days, when to teach labour history, or to suggest that the study of science ought to take its place next to the study of classics was a quick ticket to the unemployment line.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers' (CAUT) Policy Statement on Academic Freedom reads (in part):
The common good of society depends upon the search for knowledge and its free exposition. Academic freedom in universities is essential to both these purposes in the teaching function of the university as well as in its scholarship and research. ... Academic members of the community are entitled, regardless of prescribed doctrine, to freedom in carrying out research, and in publicizing the results thereof, freedom of teaching and of discussion, freedom to criticize the university and the faculty association, and freedom from institutional censorship. ...
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) echo this position in their Statement on Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy, which reads (in part):
It is the essence of a university freely to pursue knowledge and understanding and to search for the reasons for things. This search implies that some of the reasons are unknown or uncertain and that opinions about them must be questioned. The right and responsibility to raise such questions is the justification for academic freedom. ... It is a major responsibility of university governing bodies and senior officers of universities to maintain an environment in which academic freedom is realized. Threats to freedom of inquiry, independent judgment and free expression may come from administrators, students or faculty members, sometimes in groups, who attempt to require all members of a department or faculty to adhere to a particular version of orthodoxy. ...
In section 8(2)(a) of Bill 30, you give the board the power to: "approve strategic program and research directions and policies, including instructional program and research priorities, program objectives and desirable learning outcomes." In other words, you have given to the board of governors the power to determine most aspects of instruction and research unilaterally without the benefit of professional expertise. Institutional orthodoxy is thus legislatively guaranteed. This is hardly a recipe for academic freedom, or even for promoting the professionalism inherent in the fields of applied study mandated in the legislation.
Bill 30 is all the more puzzling to us because it was the Harcourt government, of which you were a member, that took bold moves to legislate shared governance in the colleges and institutes, and to provide university faculty with the right to collectively bargain. Yet Bill 30 runs counter to this trend of democratizing post-secondary education. It restrains professional educators from effectively carrying out their duties, and hands over a public institution, lock, stock and barrel to private interests.
Although you may not agree with us, I hope you understand the source of our concern. We simply cannot trust that TUBC will do the right thing under this legislation, when we have so much historical evidence to the contrary. If you are not prepared to withdraw or substantially modify the legislation at this time, we suggest that you refer the legislation to the Select Standing Committee on Education, Culture and Multiculturalism so that it may consider the issues and make recommendations for the spring sitting of the legislature. Alternately, we would commend to your attention the CIEA proposal that further developments on TUBC be postponed pending a review of financial, educational and legislative issues by a distinguished British Columbian.
CUFA/BC and CAUT are prepared to assist you to realize this new type of institution, but if it is to be a university, the starting point has to be a fundamental commitment to academic freedom and shared governance. We know this can be done while meeting the specialized mandate of the institution. Please take up our offer to co-operatively resolve this situation.
Sincerely,
Robert Clift
Executive Director
c: Don Avison, Deputy Minister, Education, Skills and Training
Jim Soles, Director, Universities and Provincial Institutes Branch
Ron Dickson, Chair, Interim Governing Board, TUBC
Bernard Sheehan, President, TUBC
Dean Goard, Secretary, University Presidents' Council
Tony Sheppard, President pro-tem, CUFA/BC
Bill Bruneau, President, CAUT
Ed Lavalle, President, CIEA
Robert Blake, President UBC Faculty Association
Jean Koepke, President, SFU Faculty Association
Clare Porac, President, UVic Faculty Association
Todd Whitcombe, Vice-President, UNBC Faculty Association