Author: Neal Yonson

It looks like the President’s Service Award for Excellence is getting a facelift, or at the very least formalizing informal guidelines which were practiced for several years.

Currently, the PSAE is open to both faculty and staff, the recipients (up to five per year) receive a gold medal and a monetary award of $5000. Having sat on the selection committee this past year I gained some insight into the workings of the committee. I also learned about the tremendous individuals who work on this campus who I sadly will never get to meet. I refrain from gushing on for obvious confidentiality reasons. In any case, today I attended an ad-hoc meeting to look at some reforms which Stephen Toope proposed to us*.

One was to make this award staff-only. Another was to increase the types of awards given out to staff – especially given the addition of UBC Okanagan in 2005.

Lisa Castle, AVP Human Resources, was a guest at our meeting today where she came up with a proposal to increase the number of Staff awards in four specified areas: Service to the Community and Sustainability, Service to Enhance Student Experience, Service through exceptional Teamwork (given out to a team of staff, obviously), and Service to Creativity and Innovation. This would all come out of the Endowment, with a minimal increase in award spending (about 12 000$ per year for the extra awards).

It was agreed that service recognition to Faculty was going to be taken up by the new Provost, and that the PSAE as is would now focus on Staff. This is really not a drastic change from current practice – there has only been one Faculty member to receive the PSAE in the past seven years, and spelling out this informal preference is only transparent and fair. It further allows for the realization of separate service awards to Faculty members who serve their community, noting that of course, Emeritus Status and other designations already exist for them.

After the meeting I talked to Lisa about her projects, and she gave me insight into the four different generations of staff she was serving. Each of them had different needs of job satisfaction, and her challenge was to meet most of them and each of their unique needs. The PSAE is only one avenue out of many – younger staff would like to see their job have career openings rather than just recognition for their works.

Overall, I feel that this development was much needed on this large campus. Much like students, I get the sense that the staff can also feel like an anonymous number at times. While students, staff, and faculty all emalgamate to form the community which we find ourselves in, the immense contribution of our staff is often taken for granted and this is a small step towards fostering their growth as well.

*Speaking of which, I saw his wife outside of Shoppers Drugmart today, wearing a beautiful Art-nuveau inspired white and black patterned cocktail dress near her bicycle. I walked in and out of the Dentistry building three times, contemplating whether or not I should go up and introduce myself to chat her up(though we had met before), but in the end decided to give her the anonymity she still enjoys. Her hubby certainly would not have had this luxury!

On May 16, the Senate approved to extend the 2010 reading break from 5 days to 10 days, adding another week of jolly freedom to the schedule of an otherwise overworked undergraduate student. This, as you rightly predict, is a response to the VanOC which approached Academic Policy chair Paul Harrison with this proposal quite some time ago, and consultation to the student senate caucus was conducted during the turnover meeting (end of April) in an informal setting. To which extent the student senators consulted the rest of the student body thereafter is unbeknownst to me, due to a self-imposed temporary post-retirement retreat from anything and everything to do with this illustrious institution. Call it a refractory period.

In any case, the registrar’s office came up with a schedule of least inconvencience to students, and it’s linked here (link):

– total teaching days for term 2 will be reduced from 63 days to 62 days
– reading break will be held from February 15-26 instead of 15-19
– consequently, classes will end on April 15, instead of April 9
– exams will be held during the period of April 19-May 1, instead of April 14-28
– graduation dates will not be changed

At the caucus meeting, the following points were raised to Paul Harrison:
– there is a significant number of students living off-campus but not at home who will be affected by exams ending on May 1. Housing arrangements extend in most cases to the end of the month and there will be contractual implications for those individuals who wish to move, sublet, and otherwise make arrangements while they are still writing exam(s).
– there are several private on-campus residences (Fraser Hall, and the many more that are budding at the speed of light) which do not have to abide to the administrative orders like any residences under UBC Housing and Conferences do. We asked that the VP Students office and the UNA be approached by the Senate in order to communicate this concern.
– Transit services need to be increased on Saturday, May 1 in order to accommodate for the increased number of students who are commuting into campus

To give you some frame of reference, this is not the first time the exam period has extended into May. However, since my little project of looking into the exam schedule in 2003, it was informally agreed that spilling over into May should be avoided for reasons mentioned above. We saw the Olympics as extenuating circumstances.

This, of course, beckons considerations beyond these logistical matters, on whether or not we should accommodate to, and thereby support the principles of the Olympics, of the Olympics in this city, and of the Olympics in this city in the way it has unfolded thus far. It is well known that despite of the grand principles which infused the realization of the Olympics at the cusp of the twentieth century (the celebration of human performance, sportsmanship, friendship, “global citizenship” etc), processes leading up to the events may not necessarily have lived up to these ideals in several cities.

A prime example is VanOC’s pledge to social sustainability, in particular housing. It has been reported that already hundreds of evictions have taken place in low rent housing in the inner city, despite of a promise that this would not happen. Given this neglect, it is doubtful on whether 30% of housing built for the Olympics will be converted to social housing after (another key promise).

I have been in contact with the founder (Rob Van Wynsberghe) of the IOCC (link) (an independent community coalition which has been tracking the development of the 2010 Van Olympics from the social perspective of housing, transit, environment, social accountability, safety and civil liberty (I may have missed some). In any case, the IOCC has been giving the VanOc committee some pretty grave grades (D- in a recent 24 Hrs article) so far.

He and I both agreed that there is a certain duty of citizenship on our part to respect and foster the City’s wish to host the Olympics. While a refusal to accomodate to the Olympics through congesting traffic during those five days in February would stiffle the experience of both student and winter sport enthusiast, the degree of inconvenience may or may not have been a constructive or effective way to show concern around the development of the Olympics in this city.

Nor am I certain whether it is in the best interest of the University’s already esoteric reputation to out-right refuse to collaborate and make concessions for the community at large that it finds itself embedded in.

However, if citizenship were a virtue, I would challenge this position further. It would be complacent of us to dwell simply on cooperation – cooperation for the blind leading the blind towards detriment to already marginalized parts of the City. We have a responsibility to use our cooperation with VanOC as a leverage to raise concerns about the way in which social issues such as housing in the DTES have been utterly neglected. This is a bargaining chip with great stakes. Members of the senate and individuals on AMS council should take this to heart and act, and they need to do it now.

http://www.students.ubc.ca/senate/

So, I’m still in a little bit of an awe at this, hopefully some of you sages can provide insight and calm my nerves. Stephen Owen’s website confirms that “Stephen Owen, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, announced today that he will be resigning his seat effective July 27, 2007 to join the University of British Columbia as Vice President, External and Community Relations.” (link)

While I would like to think that propriety calls for our university administrators to remain at arms’ length with federal/provincial political parties, this recent development compounds to paint the following picture:
– Stephen Toope is a founder and former chair of the Pierre Trudeau Foundation. While “non-partisan”, it’s Pierre Trudeau, Mr. Liberal posterchild from the glory days and perhaps a major reason why some individuals still support the party.
– Stephen Owen quits his Liberal MP post to join the UBC administration.

Is it just me, or is our University too close for comfort in arms with the Liberals? We have a conservative federal government, making my point that perhaps we, as a public autonomous institution, should remain appropriately outside of the realm of blatant partylines. I expect Matthew Naylor to post with vigorous defense.

Full media release from the UBC Website behind the jump:

Media Release | Jul. 5, 2007

Stephen Owen Appointed Vice President, External and Community Relations

The University of British Columbia Board of Governors today approved the appointment of Stephen Owen as Vice President, External and Community Relations.

Owen, a UBC alumnus who is the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, the Vancouver constituency that includes UBC, will resign his seat July 27 before assuming his new UBC position August 15.

“Stephen Owen brings to UBC uniquely broad insight and experience developed through a distinguished career of public service that has been a hallmark of integrity,” said UBC President Stephen Toope. “His decision to join our university underscores the paramount importance we place on effective relations with our communities as UBC, already one of the world’s 40 best universities, prepares to enter its second century of service to British Columbia, Canada and beyond.”

The position description for Owen’s responsibilities states: “The External and Community Relations Portfolio is responsible for guiding and enhancing engagement with government at all levels — municipal, provincial, national and international. It develops community relationships with civil society, neighbourhood associations and social movements; enhances cultural aspects of university life related to staff, faculty and students studying, living and working together; and builds a sense of belonging to form a vibrant and cohesive community.”

“I am thrilled to return to my alma mater as a member of Prof. Toope’s executive team,” Owen said. “UBC’s strategic plan, Trek 2010, lays out an ambitious plan for the university to become one of the world’s very best. I am thankful for the opportunity to lead the communication effort around the truly compelling story of teaching and research excellence that UBC has created in the last 100 years.”

UBC units Owen will oversee include: Ceremonies and Events, Community Affairs, Government Relations, the Learning Exchange, Public Affairs, University Counsel (legal office), and university operations at UBC Robson Square.

Owen, 58, was born in Vancouver. He and his wife, Diane, a UBC alumna and a UBC online instructor in intercultural communication, have two sons. Owen received his Law degree from UBC in 1972, his Master of Law from the University of London and his MBA from the University of Geneva.

Owen’s career has taken him from legal advocacy work in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, through a variety of high-profile senior provincial positions such as Ombudsman and Deputy Attorney General, and forward to the national and international stages.

Following election as MP for Quadra in 2000, he served as Secretary of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and Minister of Western Economic Development. From 1997-2000, he was David Lam Professor of Law at the University of Victoria, and he has consulted internationally on a variety of human rights issues.

A complete CV is available at:
www.stephenowen.ca/Content/Default.aspx?pg=1004.

Owen succeeds Dennis Pavlich, who resigned in June to take on the presidency of the Great Northern Way Campus, a consortium of BCIT, Simon Fraser University, the Emily Carr Institute of Art + Design and UBC. The new institution has a focus on arts and culture, urban sustainability and digital media.

Most research-intensive universities have a technology transfer office which handles licensing agreements between a university’s research product and the private sector. This includes small biomolecules with therapeutic promise, and encompasses many more technologies with potential for health improvement or disease treatment.

The University Industry Liaison Office at UBC has been meeting with a group of students who are part of an international network – called Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. This past year, we met with Stephen Toope, VP Research John Hepburn, UILO Director Angus Livingstone, Hubert Lai (former University Counsel) to present the two goals of UAEM which are very much in line with Trek2010:
1. To ensure that health technology end products coming out of university research benefits regions outside of the realm of a “profitable market” – ie low and middle income countries
2. To promote neglected disease research such as leishmaniasis

Several successes have ensued so far from our (ongoing) meetings:
1. The Trek2010 annual framework to measure success now includes a clause which looks at how UBC technologies have been accessible by third world countries
2. A draft policy proposal is now posted on the UILO website for public consultation.

I ask all of you to please take a look at it. In short, it is a policy which pushes towards measure of “success” of UBC’s research not in terms of monetary profit alone, but in terms of benefit to human wellfare. The policy can be found here (link). Please leave your comments on the website up there after reading through it.

Roughly 2/3 of UBC’s research activities are health related at the moment, ranging from health care ethics to water sanitation techniques. Therefore, an equitable access clause in relevant licensing agreements has large potential to benefit low to middle income countries.

To give an example: stravudine (d4t) is an anti-HIV drug which came out of a lab in Yale, and has licensed with BMS (Bristol Myers Squibbs). After much lobbying by Doctors without Borders, BMS and Yale agreed to allow for the patent to be lifted in South Africa, resulting in the cost of treatment to drop from 1500$US/year/treatment down to 30$US/year/treatment. Generic competition dropped the cost by an additional 2/3. No black market backflow to other countries has been observed.

We are currently starting to meet with federal politicians, and have made presentations to CASA in order to lobby for more CIHR/CIDA funding in order to allow for more research activities to occur in this neglected field of science. There are several researchers (faculty members, students, staff) who express keen interest in neglected disease research, but simply do not find the funding.

If you wish to learn more, visit our local and international website.

Noticed UBC in the national news lately? It’s probably because of the University Golf Course. So what exactly is happening? How about an explanation – in timeline form.

1990: Developer David Ho leases the University Golf Course, on University Boulevard, from the provincial government. The land has what’s called a “restrictive covenant” attached to it, which means that it must stay as a golf course until the government says otherwise.

2003: The government decides to sell the course to UBC for $11 million. As part of the deal, UBC agrees to keep operating it as a golf course.

2004: The Musqueam First Nation sues the University as well as the provincial government. The claim the land and that the government was getting rid of it to frustrate their claim. (Note: First Nations can only claim land that’s still property of the Crown. Had the government sold the land, the Musqueam would have lost any claim they otherwise would have had.)

2005: The BC Supreme Court, applying Haida/Taku, finds that the government had a duty to consult with the Musqueam before selling the land. (However, they find no legal duty on UBC’s part to consult.) The Court puts the sale on hold for two years, while the government consults.

2007: The Globe and Mail reports that the government is planning to transfer the golf course land to the Musqueam.

As you may have noticed, it’s kind of a big deal. First Nations across Canada have been increasingly asserting their rights, and deliberately ramping up the public affairs rhetoric. Tomorrow had been claimed as a “Day of Action;” the scope of the protests will be significant. On the other hand, a variety of locals are, well, restless. Some UBC old-timers (Bob Hindmarch, Marty Zlotnik) are up in arms, and there’s threats that this could cost Gordon Campbell his Point Grey seat. There’s a self-appointed “town hall” this evening.

There are some significant long-term issues here:

• Will the restrictive covenant bind the Musqueam? Can the Crown restrict the land once it’s been handed in a land claim settlement?
• Will the Musqueam pull a UBC and develop the hectares of prime real estate and become a UBC-style land developer?
• What’s UBC’s position? Do they still want the golf course?
• How does having Musqueam land inside Endowment Lands impact UBC’s governance?

It’s a fascinating time to be watching this one.

A polemic by Arts councilor Nathan Crompton

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has an enemy in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.
-Machiavelli

At today’s AMS Council meeting there was a motion to create a committee that would “consider the feasibility” of a Citizen’s Assembly at UBC. A Citizen’s Assembly would be a diverse group of students funded and by the AMS to share with the student body its informed and researched positions on student elections issues and candidates. The Assembly would be made up of UBC students selected on the basis of what is called a “stratified random sample”, which is a sample drawn on the basis of various categories (i.e, gender, faculty, students with loans/students without, etc.) in order to create a “micro group” roughly reflective of the entire student body.

Even though the motion was only to create a committee – not to approve the Assembly – council reacted defensively against any proposal that would “take power away from the single voice of the AMS”, to quote one councilor. Another councilor complained against “giving power to the masses[…]especially if they are not asking for an Assembly”. One journalist was capable of noting the defensive nature of council’s reaction, which led others to reassure councilors that a “committee would not take power away from the AMS.” An executive spoke of the “dangers” of the proposal, which to many seemed real: one councilor saw the Citizen’s Assembly as a “parallel state”.

As debate drew on, councilors became impatient with the motion. The hired speaker for the AMS informed us that he wanted to go drinking and that the meeting should be expedited! The debate was becoming fragmented, like in a “chaosmos”, though in a good way, (which is why I use Deleuze’s term), since nobody had yet explored the new proposal nearly enough to take a position. If a position could have been taken at all, it would have been to vote in favor, and not because the Citizen’s Assembly is ideal, or even good, (a Citizen’s Assembly will not solve the “root problems” of democracy, as was claimed by the presenter). The motion should have been approved because it was for the creation of a committee. And it should have been approved out of a creative inspiration, as an experiment regardless of its apparent merits. We should of course recall that that in the present moment democracy is not functioning.

Things in the meeting were becoming more “out of order”, as one councilor complained. It was in this environment that the firm position of an authority – council President – was welcomed by most councilors. The president proposed an amendment to undermine the possibility for a committee that would be oriented towards an Assembly. Councilors began knocking the table in support when people spoke in favor of changing the motion wording from “a committee to explore the Citizen’s Assembly” to, “a committee to find ways to involve non-involved students”.

The rewording was of course condescending to the author of the motion, but also to the student body in general – the AMS community’s attitude toward “apathy” is incredibly facile. Councilors have a sense that, “we are involved, other people aren’t because they are not us”. Or worse: “why don’t more students pay attention to what I do that is so important?” But in fact, student non-involvement is very complicated. 6/10ths of students take a full course load while working part-time and full-time, (while collecting massive debts of course). Most of the students involved in the AMS community are from the 4/10ths of students who don’t work and who are from bourgeois and professional family backgrounds. Not only are they confident (many of them are trained to be future leaders of Canada, etc.), they emerge from a system that works well for them – this is what I mean to introduce this polemic with the quote of Machiavelli. It is fitting that the “democratic” position of many councilors is the one: “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

Read more behind the jump

What do they mean when they say, “don’t burn bridges with the university” and “be professional”? They mean that we must cross those bridges and settle down in that seat of power, because we deserve it – don’t ruin your chances. It is in this context that many marginal members of the community are not confident or, on principle, not interested to become involved in the AMS, or any power system. And it should be recognized – the university and student governments keep much of the institutional racism they were founded on. There are brothers and sisters in the community who do not feel like participating alongside mostly white men who mostly plan beer gardens.

These are political questions but there is a way to make an “apolitical” argument in this instance, in the way that “nonpartisanship” is so fashionable today. Simply, there was nothing in the original Assembly motion that prevented the creation of other committees. If people had other ideas in mind about how to involve the student community in the AMS, they could have made a proposal. But those alternative ideas would not have been threatened by the existence of an Assembly committee, and hopefully their ideas would add to it.

We could theorize on the fact that the motion was gutted even though its was only a motion to strike a committee to explore the possibility for an Assembly, not for an Assembly as such. History tells us that elites have not been reactive, only reactionary. In his unpublished notebooks, Marx reflected on the prospect that European ruling classes might gain class consciousness before the workers themselves. Marx’s speculation was made true, of course. Not soon after he wrote, the repressive police-state of Bismark effaced the possibility for socialism in Germany by establishing of one of the first welfare states. Bismark anticipated democracy – he was ahead of democracy qua democracy. It is a maxim: an elite’s ability to anticipate unwanted democracy is essential to liberal democracy in the first instance, that is its primary characteristic: to allow a level of formal democracy necessary for the prevention of actual democracy. Democracy is sanctioned, or “repressively desublimated” (to slightly alter a notion from Herbert Marcuse.) Democracy here is allowed only to the extent that class structures are properly preserved.

But unlike in Marx’s time, elite rule is not coordinated today, or, it is not only coordinated. It is spontaneous, since the conspiracies are not in back rooms, or, not only in back rooms – if they can even be called a conspiracies. Certainly no conspiracy even exists at the level of the AMS! But it is precisely its non-conspiratorial nature that makes liberal democracy so pernicious. For example, the mood in council today was neither sinister nor heavy. It was anticipatory like Bismark and like Marx predicted, but not coordinated in the way of Bismark. People spoke on intuition, not out of some presupposition, and not even from a conscious set of ideological commitments. Elite ideology is so well entrenched that no coercion is necessary, and neither is debate. This is liberal consensus, where ideology operates at the pure level of the political unconscious. Dissenting in t
his totalizing environment is barely optional at times. But there are many people who don’t dig the consensus, if at least because its totally boring.