The following letter was sent to Paul Ramsey, Minister of Education, Skills and Training, on July 3, 1997. It follows up a meeting between Ramsey and CUFA/BC representatives held on June 26, 1997.
July 3, 1997
Honourable Paul Ramsey
Minister of Education, Skills and Training
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
Via FAX Transmission - 5 Pages - (250) 387-3200
Dear Minister Ramsey,
Dr. Keener and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on June 26. We requested the meeting because CUFA/BC and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) have grave concerns about Bill 30 - Technical University of British Columbia Act. CUFA/BC and CAUT believe that Bill 30 establishes a form of governance that will negatively affect the quality of programs and the credibility of credentials, and undermine the learning and scholarly community necessary to a world-class university.
You asked us to comment on how we think the proposed legislation would impair TUBC's ability to offer flexibly quality programs. There is no doubt that Bill 30 grants TUBC a "flexibility" the University Act does not provide. The board of governors is given the authority under section 8(2)(b) unilaterally to "establish, change or discontinue programs" without reference to any educational considerations, and constrained by its employees only to the extent that the board must give notice of termination of employment as provided for under the Employment Standards Act.
We can imagine, however, a circumstance where this legislative structure would lead to inflexibility in excess of that ascribed to the existing universities. Your government is well aware of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in both health care and sponsored research. Let us suppose that a large pharmaceutical company were to participate on the board and advisory committees of TUBC, and through those bodies manage to establish a program rich in organic chemistry, to the virtual exclusion of inorganic chemistry. Let us then suppose that an upstart pharmaceutical company (such as AnorMed in the Fraser Valley) is pioneering the use of bio-inorganic chemistry in developing inorganic compounds for medicinal uses. It approaches TUBC to establish programs to meet its needs, but as the decisions on programs and courses are being made by the board of governors on which the big pharmaceutical firm is entrenched, the innovative firm is shut out. In this instance the lack of an academic senate or equivalent body to balance the interests on the board results in the loss of an opportunity for innovation.
The legislation may also impair TUBC from delivering credible programs. Credibility in academic matters is built on a complex system of professional judgment. An educator must trust that a colleague has taught a student sufficiently well in a prerequisite course such that the student will have a chance to succeed in her/his course. Similarly, educators at an institution must trust that their colleagues at another institution have properly prepared a student for graduate studies. Such trust is built through a number of collegial relationships: decision-making on academic matters in academic senates and equivalent bodies, peer review of research, participation in hiring decisions, sharing of administrative duties, participation in academic conferences and societies, and joint research and teaching. By taking formal academic decision-making out of the hands of professional educators, as represented by a senate, the Technical University of British Columbia Act presents a real barrier to educators at other institutions trusting the quality of its programs, and thus imperils the credibility of those programs and of the institution as a whole.
Further on the issue of quality, the tenor of the debate about TUBC gives us the impression that government thinks a quality university program can be delivered independent of research and scholarly activity, that it can simply be packaged and sold in the form of a CD-ROM, web pages, or instructional kit -- we disagree. The mission of the university is to advance human knowledge through teaching, research and other scholarly activity. A quality university program, particularly at the level of graduate studies, will integrate advances in knowledge and will, ideally, form a symbiotic relationship between learning and research such that the two nourish one another. By taking academic decision-making out of the hands of educators and researchers, this link is broken and program quality is endangered -- this is precisely what the legislation does.
We recognize that it was always government's intention to create something different with TUBC, and thus it would not necessarily look like a traditional university. We were concerned by this, but decided that as a differentiated system of post-secondary education and training is inevitable that we would make good-faith efforts to work with these new types of institutions. This cooperation was predicated on the assumption that professional educators and researchers would be free to exercise their collective judgment in the development of instructional programs, courses and research programs in keeping with the mandate legislated by government. This learning and scholarly community is one of the defining features of a university. Bill 30, in contrast, provides the veneer of a university to what is, essentially, a private trade school funded from the public purse. The board of governors exercises control over nearly all academic matters, and where it does not exercise that control directly, it does so through the control of appointments to advisory bodies, and appointment of the institutional president. Educators and researchers are relegated to a secondary role, important only to the extent that it is they who carry out the directives of the board.
We view Canadian universities as a public trust. They are neither an arm of government, nor are they wholly autonomous. They find their strength and creativity in a dynamic tension: education for social roles versus training for economic roles on one continuum, and esoteric inquiry versus practical problem solving on another. With the assistance of government, the private sector, and social groups, it is up to the university community to find the balance between these forces. We recognize that this independence can be frustrating for those outside the university who would rather have their interests directly served, but surely there must be an element of our universities, of our colleges, of our hospitals, of our schools, and of our courts that exists to balance the interests of a changing government, a fickle economy, and social fashion. We in the universities are criticized for being resistant to change -- this is a misperception. The university of 1997 would be very nearly unrecognizable to a student or professor looking forward from the year 1967. We change quite readily when we are convinced, through argument and through reflection, that such change is in the best interests of the public trust we serve. This is our role in a democratic society.
CUFA/BC and CAUT believe that Bill 30 undermines this role, that it will lead to non-credible credentials, and that it is a direct threat to the objective, curiosity-driven scholarly activity which advances our knowledge and fuels our economic and social growth. Accordingly, the members of CUFA/BC and the CAUT Executive Committee have authorized severe sanctions should Bill 30 pass third reading as is. In this event, CUFA/BC and CAUT will advise academics across Canada and worldwide that TUBC does not meet international standards for academic governance and academic freedom, and that, accordingly, they should not accept academic or administrative appointments at TUBC, nor should they engage in cooperative instructional or research projects. We will also advise British Columbians and Canadians of the threat to the public trust represented by the creation of TUBC in its current form.
We do not take this action capriciously. We have advised you and your predecessors on a number of occasions of our preoccupations, and now our objections, without effect. Government holds the power to determine who may grant a degree, but it is the academic community which holds the power to judge whether that degree is credible. We hope that you will see the difficulties on the path you have chosen, and provide an opportunity for a cooperative solution. For our part, we are preparing a detailed set of amendments to the legislation which we think will satisfy the mandate for TUBC and respect control of academic matters by the educators and researchers of the institution. We will forestall public action to the extent that it is clear there is a will to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution to this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Clift
Executive Director
attachment: CAUT Executive Committee Resolution
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