Category Archives: Students

#UBC admin exuberance to blame for Kinesiology controversy over $$ and buildings #ubc100 #ubcnews @ubcinsiders #ubysseynews #bced

On 27 October, UBC Insiders broke the story of the collusion between the UBC School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Education, and the School’s Undergraduate Society (KUS). In March 2015, the students held a referendum on a $250 fee to help pay for a new building for the School and Faculty. UBC Insiders obtained files through FoI that suggest about 16 months’ worth of influence of the School and Faculty on the students to secure a “YES” majority on the referendum.

UBC Insiders found top down influence (i.e., top of admin down) that adds up to minimally $41,624 and a curious “Make Your Mark” campaign.

Asking for an explanation of why a School or Faculty would go to these lengths to influence a student referendum, E. Wayne Ross called for a Fact-Finding investigation. Short of an investigation, Faculty administrators offered a consultation report this week (see full report below).

It’s probably just as well that there is just consultation with the School and students in lieu of a fact-finding investigation, as when the University contracts out to fact-finding, mysteriously, there are never any facts to find concerning administrators.

In this most recent report, it’s all just written off as administrative pluck, exuberance and “an excess of enthusiasm.”

Funny that, as we say the same of faculty, staff, students and their academic freedom: exuberance with surplus enthusiasm!

By way of a series of consultations, the Faculty of Education reports:

To provide a follow-up report on the Faculty Meeting item regarding, “the alleged conflicts of interest and potential ethical breaches in the School of Kinesiology’s April 2015 student referendum.”

We have consulted with various offices at the University, to determine at the most fundamental level, the evidentiary foundation that would warrant designing and arranging to be carried out, a “fact-finding” investigation. Such an investigation would be very expensive and would need a clear warrant in terms of evidence of basic problems of procedure, relationship management, finance, and/or policy.

The UBC offices we have consulted include:

  1. UBC Office of University Counsel
  2. UBC Faculty Relations
  3. UBC Office of the Vice President, Students
  4. School of Kinesiology

Regarding the School of Kinesiology there are a number of questions that have been raised concerning the “Make your Mark” Referendum of the Kinesiology Undergraduate Society (KUS) campaign (to add to KIN student fees to raise funds towards a new building) and distributed via media outlets.

On the basis of our investigation to-date, it appears that:

  1. Since the KUS took the Referendum off the AMS ratification agenda, the whole issue of the fees linked with the KUS Referendum is moot.
  2. Since neither the UBC nor the AMS/KUS policies regarding “conflict of interest” preclude Faculty/School and Student Society partnerships, there is no apparent ground for continued concern about the narrative of conflict of interest on the part of the School.
  3. The KUS may have erred in the design of “Make Your Mark” vis a vis the AMS policy of “impartial elections” but we – the University/School faculty members — do not work in a supervisory relationship to the student societies, which do not report to us nor are they governed by faculty/Schools.

With respect to “conflict of interest” – UBC’s policy on conflict of interest (Policy 97)  is concerned with personal conflicts of interest – not institutional conflicts of interest.  There has been no suggestion anywhere that the School of Kinesiology nor its executives benefitted from this matter personally (for example by benefitting financially).

There is no policy or rule that we are aware of that would preclude UBC units from partnering with student unions on initiatives they both support.  There have been several examples of undergraduate student societies contributing to buildings (in return for guarantees of student amenities) through student fees and all of these initiatives involved very substantial interactions between the undergraduate student union, the AMS, the faculty and the UBC central administration.  So the fact that the School was working closely with its KUS undergraduate society would not of itself be noteworthy.

Accordingly, we see no problem at-hand nor any substantive basis for carrying out any further fact-finding or other investigation.

There are, definitely, larger issues that lurk in this scenario worthy of a broad and open discussion that pertains to the current context of post-secondary education and the dramatic withdrawal of support from the Province and Federally — increasing fiscal pressures that have caused academic units to be more creative about issues of revenues, whether this is by seeking increases in international tuition or by creating fund raising partnerships with student organizations or with alumni to build infrastructure. These are complex matters. They are not, however, the basis for a narrative of blame or fault lodged with any particular academic unit. If there is any fault at all to be lodged with particular units it could only be, on the face of the evidence, of an excess of enthusiasm to support our engagement in the project of public education.

Dr. Blye Frank
Dean, Faculty of Education

Dr. Mary K. Bryson
Senior Associate Dean, Administration & Innovation, Faculty of Education

#UBC Senate defeats transparency motion #ubc100 #ubcnews #ubysseynews #highered #bced #ubcgss

A few weeks ago, we posted “Shared governance hits rock bottom at UBC.” Respondents noted that there was still a glimmer of hope for governance and recoiled at the suggestion that “equally futile in introducing even a modicum of accountability or insight into the non-disclosure scandal is the UBC Senate.”

At this evening’s Senate meeting, Senator Anstee moved a motion for transparency in the confidentiality agreement between UBC and past-President Arvind Gupta, but the motion was defeated. Yes there was debate but the motion for transparency was defeated.

The initial premise holds: equally futile in shared governance– when it really counts– is the UBC Board of Governors and Senate. Sure, faculty, staff and students can banter over the objectives of a new course or the fine print of a new policy. But on the meaningful decisions at this point at the University of British Columbia, governance is dominated by developers and investment bankers and confined by legalism. The two are hand in glove.

Again, the BoG’s, Senate’s and Senior Administration’s rejection of multiple requests and appeals for accountability in the President’s resignation marks the low point of shared or faculty governance at the University. Hoping to rise to the occasion of its 100th, UBC instead sunk to rock bottom.

No facts of admin in fact-finding at #UBC #ubcnews #ubysseynews #ubc100 #caut #bced #highered

The University of British Columbia is 0 / 2 in its ability to find facts in its most recent “fact-finding processes.” The first was the Fact Finding Report: Commerce Undergraduate Society (CUS) FROSH CHANTS. The second was the Summary of the fact-finding process and conclusions regarding alleged breaches of academic freedom and other university policies at the University of British Columbia.

How or why is it that fact-finders appointed to find facts cannot find any facts of administration? Or of specific administrators?

Is it that the the facts are so tiny, so microscopic that they are there but cannot be found? Is it that facts of administration are so taken-for-granted that they are too big to be found?

Is it that facts of the administration of UBC cannot be found because they need not be found?

Is it that secrecy prevails and the evidence put in front of the fact-finders has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of administration?

Is it that legalism at UBC is in itself culpable and invariably can find neither fact nor fault with specific administrators at UBC? Is this sort of a legal fox guarding managerial hen-houses story at UBC?

Teflon Admin at #UBC #ubcsauderschool #ubcnews #ubc100 #bced #highered

We have to say, the comedy of errors continues in the administration of the Sauder School of Business while nothing sticks to the teflon Dean.

“As it happened,” the Honourable Lynn Smith reports, there was a flurry of suppressions of academic freedom in the building but “the Dean of the Sauder School of Business was away and only intermittently in touch.”

When the Sauder students chanted a rhyme about rape two years ago, again no administrators were home. In that fact-finding report, again there was no accountability. Curiously, the words “administration” and “administrator” do not appear while “student/s” appears 46 times. Then and now, there were no facts to find on administrators or administration in Sauder.

With this new non-finding in the Smith Report, Sauder Dean Robert Helsley has to be laughing.

Is this not a pattern and a failure of legalism here at UBC?

Failures of legalism and academic freedom at #UBC #caut #ubysseynews #lawstudents #ubcnews #ubc100 #bced

Faculty members at the University of British Columbia are now left in the dark of legalism. On one hand is the overuse and abuse of legalistic non-disclosure agreements, such as that between the Board of Governors and ex-President Gupta. This form of legalism prevents us from knowing why our President resigned and who was behind the resignation.

Now, on the other hand is the Honourable Lynn Smith’s Report on interference with academic freedom, specifically on whether BoG Chair Montalbano and Sauder School of Business administrators acted to suppress Jennifer Berdahl’s inquiry into the resignation. Smith delivered one of the most legalistic fact-finding Reports one could write on the case. This form of legalism prevents us from knowing why a faculty member was submitted to forces of suppression and who is accountable.

In a masterful crafting, Smith found that

UBC failed in its obligation to protect and support Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom… UBC as an institution failed [however] Mr. Montalbano, on his own, did not infringe any provision of the Collective Agreement, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment, or any of the applicable university policies. No individual in the Sauder School of Business identified by the Faculty Association, on his or her own, infringed any provision of the Collective Agreement, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment, or any of the applicable university policies. (pp. 3-4)

“UBC failed…” UBC the corporate person contravened the Collective Agreement and interfered with academic freedom. But no human person contravened or interfered.

If Lynn Smith finds the corporation of UBC liable for violating an article of the Collective Agreement and a faculty member’s academic freedom, then which of its administrators or officials are responsible? Through which administrators or officials was the University acting in this case?

It’s a basic question of corporate liability that first year law students confront. But it’s also an advanced question that tests legal scholars. One retributivist option is to acknowledge UBC corporate personhood and responsibility while at the same time holding to account senior officials, whether or not they participated in the transgressions, tolerated the actions taken, in this case by Montalbano and Sauder administrators, or just looked the other way.

“UBC failed,” and legalism is failing UBC. Jennifer Berdahl’s response takes the next step, noting she’s “disappointed that university leaders” lost sight of academic freedom. The Faculty Association’s response takes the next step in this process, noting that “Senior academic leaders were conspicuously absent and silent.”

Who then were the senior administrators that tolerated the breaches or looked the other way? Provost and VP Academic pro tem? VP Human Resources? University Counsel? Dean of Sauder School of Business?

Through which administrators or officials was UBC acting in this case?

Once again, now is the time to speculate.

Faculty Association holds #UBC to account for failure to uphold academic freedom #ubcnews #ubc100 #caut #bced #highered

15 October 2015

Dear Colleagues:

The Honourable Lynn Smith, Q. C., completed her fact-finding process last week and presented the parties with her report. We thank Professor Smith for her fair and impartial process and for producing a high quality, nuanced report, a public summary of which is available on our website (Please follow this link).

The key finding of the Smith Report is that the University of British Columbia failed in its duty to support and protect Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom and that it interfered with her academic freedom. The finding thus has two clear implications. First, the University itself actively impinged Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom by the cumulative effects of various University actors’ behaviour. And, secondly, because the duty is a positive one, requiring affirmative and proactive support for academic freedom in situations such as Dr. Berdahl’s, the University’s silence in relation to the attack by others on Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom was an additional failure.

More specifically, the conclusions to be drawn from the Report are as follows. The Report finds that the University acted without regard for the well-being and interests of Dr. Berdahl. Following her online posting of a blog, Dr. Berdahl became the target of attacks by email, by social media, and in columns appearing in the national press. At no time did any university official speak out in defense of her right to academic freedom or issue any other statement of support for her or scholarship. The Smith Report, consequently, concludes that, as a result of the combined acts and omissions of Mr. Montalbano and others, Dr. Berdahl “reasonably felt reprimanded, silenced and isolated.” The events initiated by the University following the publication of Dr. Berdahl’s blog post have had, the Report continues, a “significant negative impact” on Dr. Berdahl.

The main agents involved in the University’s response to the blog post were the Chair of the Board of Governors, Mr. John Montalbano, the Chancellor of the University, Mr. Lindsay Gordon, the Sauder Dean’s Office, as well as UBC staff and others advising the Board on how to handle the aftermath of President Gupta’s resignation. Senior academic leaders were conspicuously absent and silent.

While Dr. Berdahl received support from international scholars and experts in her field, and from faculty throughout UBC and other universities, we are troubled that neither the Administration nor the Board spoke fully and publicly in defense of Dr. Berdahl’s academic freedom. The silence with respect to Dr. Berdahl on this issue from these two central sites of university leadership is extraordinary. Senior administrators and board members bear responsibility for this failure.

These mistakes and missteps in the case of Dr. Berdahl have occurred under Mr. Montalbano’s leadership, often as a result of his direct personal involvement.

We await the responses from the Administration and the Board of Governors.

Sincerely,

Mark Mac Lean, President
On behalf of the UBC Faculty Association Executive Committee

Shared governance hits rock bottom at #UBC #ubc100 #ubcnews #ubysseynews #highered #bced #ubcgss

The Board of Governors’ rejection this week of the Faculty Association’s request for accountability in President Gupta’s resignation marks the low point of shared or faculty governance at the University of British Columbia. It’s a shame that UBC sunk to rock bottom as it intended to rise to the occasion of its 100th birthday.

Although among the 21 members of BoG there are 8 elected by faculty, staff and students, which gives a facade of shared governance, the reality driven home in the non-disclosure scandal is that governance at UBC is dominated by developers and investment bankers. Silenced or muzzled, the elected faculty, staff and students have been irrelevant if not useless in protecting the best interests and being honest with the members of the University.

Equally futile in introducing even a modicum of accountability or insight into the non-disclosure scandal is the UBC Senate. At the moment when we needed shared or faculty governance most, when it really counted, the UBC Senate accepted its Nominating Committees’ recommendation to stick with status quo practice in the search for a successor President “instead of attempting to make significant changes at this time.”

The public requests for accountability from faculty and librarians (FAUBC), from staff (CUPE) from graduate students (GSS) and undergraduate students (AMS), are symbolic of appeals for shared governance. And each appeal or request has been rejected out of hand by the University. In the words of the BoG, “personal privacy” trumps accountability and access to information of a public body. Irrelevant is its duty under the University Act to protect the best interests of the University and be honest with the members of UBC.

In 2004, the Federal Information Commissioner expressed concerns that civil servants, lawyers and managers of public bodies in Canada were managing “to find ingenious ways to wiggle and squirm to avoid the full operation of the law.”

Two recent books, The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance and The Fall of the Faculty, document this descent to the rock bottom of shared or faculty governance. UBC is not alone at the bottom and there were never expectations that it would be any different.

But the explicit rejection by the BoG this week of requests for shared governance in accounting for the resignation of a President paves that rock bottom for a long stay.

There is much more to say, as shared or faculty governance is by no means limited to BoG or Senate at UBC. At the lower levels of Faculties, Schools and Departments, there is an atrophy of shared or faculty governance. Budgets, for example, have been made sacred and secret at UBC, with Deans and Associate Deans (appointed at whim) making the budgets and centralizing more and more budget decisions while reporting less and less.

In “A Love Affair with Secrecy,” we are reminded that the “Access to Information Act was supposed to get government documents into the hands of Canadians. Instead, it has created a state in which there are often no documents to get.”

#UBC university watchers advisory #ubcnews #bced #caut #ubyssey #ubcgss

If you are among the “university watchers” identified as such in President Martha Piper’s now infamous speech to the converted, also known as UBC’s comeback speech, as read by Stephen Hawking, you are advised to watch the University from the ivory tower webcam.

Note that this cam is pointed directly at the Academic Executives’ Office, where you will not see any admin changes. As you can see, there is really nothing to see here.

Yes, an admin office is bustling with activity inside. But university watchers will not see this. University watchers are also advised to revert to google office view and the watching paint dry cam installed in the UBC Board of Governors.

#UBC #MarthaPiper speech to the converted read by #StephenHawking #ubcnews #caut #bced #ubyssey

At the University of British Columbia, a little bit of information goes a long way! Earlier this week, the final conversation between President Gupta and BoG Chair Montalbano was leaked by agent AI to Piece of Mind. AI had Stephen Hawking audition for the screen play UBC @ 100 by reading from the script.

This really did happen and now we bring you the full recordings. In this initial recording is Stephen being be coached by AI into reading President Martha Piper’s now infamous speech to the converted, also known as UBC’s comeback speech. Like Rocky says, “if you wanna go through all the battle to get where you wanna get, who’s gotta right to stop ya?”

Ok, here it is: Stephen Hawking reads the speeches of Martha Piper.

 

Yes, this really did happen, and now we add Stephen’s speculation (reason #18) to the list of reasons why Gupta resigned.

#AliceLaBerge time to respond #UBC be #RBC #ubcnews #caut #ubyssey #bced #bcpoli

Alice Laberge, Acting Chair of UBC, Corporate Director of RBC, time to disclose. On 1 September, the Faculty Association of UBC requested that you please

call upon the Board of Governors to approach Professor Gupta to renegotiate the terms of his resignation agreement so that both the University and Professor Gupta are able to speak fully to the reasons for his resignation.

On 3 September, the Graduate Student Society of UBC openly stated:

The GSS has concluded that the practices of the UBC Board of Governors are not sufficiently transparent to ensure that UBC’s values – integrity, public interest, mutual respect and equity – are maintained.

We know what you must be thinking: there is not much difference between UBC and RBC. That’s why Corporate Directors are needed on BoG and in the President’s Office.

In academia and banking, confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements are increasingly common. These agreements are increasingly used to move what would otherwise be public into a private or nonpublic arrangement, under the aegis of privacy protection.

In 2004, the Federal Information Commissioner expressed concerns that civil servants, lawyers and managers in public institutions in Canada were managing “to find ingenious ways to wiggle and squirm to avoid the full operation of the law.” Reflecting what we see nowadays at UBC, the Commissioner observed” “The attitude has truly become,’Why write it when you can speak it? Why speak it when you can nod? Why nod when you can wink?'”

In “A Love Affair with Secrecy,” Berlin writes that the “Access to Information Act was supposed to get government documents into the hands of Canadians. Instead, it has created a state in which there are often no documents to get.”

Increasingly, at UBC and RBC, public information becomes private.

At URBC UBC and RBC, non-disclosure agreements are increasingly common to deflect distracting things such as Freedom of Information requests.

Regarding President Gupta’s resignation, the BoG and Legal Counsel compressed and reduced an inordinate amount of public information to privacy protection. That’s unsustainable and troubling. How much is too much?

Please respond to the FAUBC that the terms of the confidentiality agreement have been renegotiated.

Why we should fear University, Inc. #UBC #highered #aaup #caut #bced

Fredrick deBoer, New York Times, September 9, 2015– …I don’t mean the literal corporations that are taking over more and more of the physical space of universities — the Starbucks outpost, the Barnes & Noble as campus bookstore, the Visa card that you use to buy meals at the dining hall. Enrolling at a university today means setting yourself up in a vast array of for-profit systems that each take a little slice along the way: student loans distributed on fee-laden A.T.M. cards, college theater tickets sold to you by Ticketmaster, ludicrously expensive athletic apparel brought to you by Nike. Students are presented with a dazzling array of advertisements and offers: glasses at the campus for-profit vision center, car insurance through some giant financial company, spring break through a package deal offered by some multinational. This explicit corporate invasion is not exactly what I mean.

No, I’m talking about the way universities operate, every day, more and more like corporations. As Benjamin Ginsberg details in his 2011 book, ‘‘The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters,’’ a constantly expanding layer of university administrative jobs now exists at an increasing remove from the actual academic enterprise. It’s not unheard-of for colleges now to employ more senior administrators than professors. There are, of course, essential functions that many university administrators perform, but such an imbalance is absurd — try imagining a high school with more vice principals than teachers. This legion of bureaucrats enables a world of pitiless surveillance; no segment of campus life, no matter how small, does not have some administrator who worries about it. Piece by piece, every corner of the average campus is being slowly made congruent with a single, totalizing vision. The rise of endless brushed-metal-and-glass buildings at Purdue represents the aesthetic dimension of this ideology. Bent into place by a small army of apparatchiks, the contemporary American [and Canadian, e.g., UBC] college is slowly becoming as meticulously art-directed and branded as a J. Crew catalog. Like Niketown or Disneyworld, your average college campus now leaves the distinct impression of a one-party state….

If students have adopted a litigious approach to regulating campus life, they are only working within the culture that colleges have built for them. When your environment so deeply resembles a Fortune 500 company, it makes sense to take every complaint straight to H.R. I don’t excuse students who so zealously pursue their vision of campus life that they file Title IX complaints against people whose opinions they don’t like. But I recognize their behavior as a rational response within a bureaucracy. It’s hard to blame people within a system — particularly people so young — who take advantage of structures they’ve been told exist to help them. The problem is that these structures exist for the institutions themselves, and thus the erosion of political freedom is ultimately a consequence of the institutions. When we identify students as the real threat to intellectual freedom on campus, we’re almost always looking in the wrong place.

Read More, NY Times

At #UBC, #RBC counterbalances #BMO, no worries #bced #ubcnews #highered #ubyssey

Was Martha Piper waiting in the wings?

Were Martha Piper and BMO waiting in the wings?

One of the known unknowns, as E. Wayne Ross explained, is that Martha Piper and BMO must’ve played a role in the “transition” or removal of Arvind Gupta from the President’s Office at the University of British Columbia. Now is the time to speculate. What was that role?

We may have missed it, but no one has explained how and why Martha was so readily available, at the drop of a dime, on resignation day, to race back into UBC’s President’s Office and begin sweeping things under the rug.

The known knowns of admin include the devices and mechanisms that churn and turn in the background as these types of what UBC still calls “leadership transitions” play out.

Another known known is that bank Corporate Directors do very little and so theoretically Martha could have been just hanging around with nothing better to do on that August day when John Montalbano gave her the call. And then John begins to call around to faculty members and admin, of course with different messages for the two groups. But that’s way too recent of a history to this thickening plot.

So is it way too fantastic that Martha just cares for the “magnificent University” that UBC is and jumped at the chance to save its languishing admin from certain failure. This is the righting of the ship theory that Wayne mentioned.

So yes, we need to know. Has the Bank of Montreal bought its way into UBC’s President’s Office? Over $2.2 million in recent “financial support” to UBC (chump change for BMO) can buy a bank a lot. $500k to the Sauder School of Business can buy a bank a lot. A BMO Corporate Director in UBC’s President’s Office can seemingly buy the bank something. Can it not?

The questions are exaggerated, for sure, and let’s have faith in the UBC Board of Governors. The Acting Chair of BoG is a Corporate Director of RBC, so what’s the concern? All the Canadian universities do this, so what’s the big deal?

At UBC, RBC counterbalances BMO. Trust the BoG and the administrators, Trust the chartered banks. Cut interest rates. End of question period. So, it is time to look forward.

President Piper now needs to please come clean on the August “leadership transition”.

*Yes, this is satire. Yes, this is parody. UBC says now is the time to speculate. Yes, this is gentle mocking. And the BMO connection is a conflict, is it not?

Pres Gupta returning to #UBC on Tuesday, Binky says #ubcnews #caut #bced #highered

Why did President Gupta resign or was he just unfriended?

Reason #15 just in from 7 year old Binky. Ok here it goes: Binky heard that ‘Martha unfriended David who unfriended Anji who unfriended Anna who unfriended Pierre who friended John and then unfriended John who unfriended Wes who friended Stephen who unfriended John…

Take a breath Binky—which John? ‘but then Barbara friended Andrew for no reason and then unfriended Louise who then unfriended Lisa who friended Martha again who friended Hubert…’

Slow down Binky, why would Martha friend Hubert? Unless… ‘I Know, then Anne unfriended John who unfriended Pam who unfriended Deborah who unfriended Stephen who friended John who then friended Martha and, can you believe it?, unfriended Arvind.’

Binky, how do you know this? ‘Like if John would just friend Arvind and unfriend Martha then Arvind could go back to school on Tuesday.’

Binky, that’s brilliant!

Everybody, send us your reckons. UBC says now is the time to speculate!

Was #UBC Toope administration a failure? #ubcnews #caut #bced #highered

“So, it is time to look forward”…

The party line trotted out by administrators in times of crises is that we need to look forward– way into the future. “So, it is time to look forward,” President Piper advises.

Advising on UBC’s crisis of legitimacy, University of Alberta President emeritus Indira Samarasekera says the same: “It is September, return-to-school month, and a time to look forward rather than back.”

Despite the admins’ historiphobia, here at the University of British Columbia, we need to begin in the past and work forward to ask: Was the Toope administration a failed administration?

After all, we’ve seen this before in universities and faculties, and yes, even here at UBC. In this scenario, the departing or incumbent President or Dean creates and leaves a mess. The incumbent leaves but the mess remains, which often takes the form of insecure managers, central and middle, invested in the status quo and business as usual. The next President or Dean arrives, inherits the mess sowed by the previous, plays cautious with the existing managers for a while but gets frustrated. Takes steps to clean house. Push comes to shove, new admin fails. For the faculty members, staff and students, the mess remains.

We’ve seen this before and it is time to ask whether President Toope’s was a failed administration, which led to this current crisis precipitated by the resignation of President Gupta?

Of course, not all administrations and administrative innovations are successes. There are many failures along the way.

UBC says now is the time to speculate but now is also the time to ask and answer (to) tough questions.

#UBC BoG members are compromising interests and being dishonest #caut #ubcnews #bced #highered

To what degree is UBC’s Board of Governors compromising the interests of the University and less than honest with faculty, staff and students? The verdict seems to be out that the members of BoG are compromising the interests of the University. To what degree? To what end? If BoG members are less than honest with faculty, staff and students, how much before this becomes dishonesty?

By law, defined in the University Actmembers of a Board of Governors at a BC university “must act in the best interests of the university.” The Faculty Association of UBC and CUPE are now questioning whether individual members of the UBC BoG are acting “in the best interests of the University.”

“Given the … incessant stream of rumour and innuendo that continues to swirl around the University, we do not believe that the maintenance of a mutually agreed to non-disclosure agreement around Professor Gupta’s resignation is in the best interests of the University, of Professor Gupta, or of the public,” the FAUBC presses.

In addition to acting in the best interests of the University, BoG members must be honest with the members (e.g., faculty members, students) and employees (e.g., faculty, staff, students) of the University. The FAUBC is suggesting that the BoG’s members are failing on both counts, being neither honest with faculty members nor acting in the best interests of the University. That’s a problem, one of the law, to be sure.

Questions of honesty are being raised as questions of manipulation, breaking a social contract and deceit are raised. The BoG Code of Conduct specifies that its members must act on the up and up.

One member, the Chair of the BoG John Montalbano, is already under investigation for allegations of taking steps to interfere with academic freedom. Here again, the question of honesty is raised.

A subsequent question is which member of the BoG is next?

#NLRB decision v athletes & students as shadow workers #highered #criticaled #ncaa

There are a few high profile workplaces wherein the worker pays to work: amateur athletes in sporting venues, strippers in strip clubs and students in classrooms are among the most notable. On 17 August however, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned Northwestern University’s football team’s bid to unionize as employees. This overturned a 2014 regional NLRB decision paving the way for players to unionize.

The decision hinges on whether athletes are “primarily students” and whether those with funding or paid jobs are “statutory employees.” The NLRB did not rule on these questions and researchers have yet to adequately theorize the problem of whether students per se are workers. If students are workers, what type of workers are they?

Ivan Illich offered the best analysis thus far in depicting students as shadow workers (see also NYT article). Without the shadow work or unpaid work of students, and increasingly professors, academic capitalism would come to a halt or at least be curbed. Paying students for studying and performing in classrooms would mean that colleges and universities would have to recognize all students as the workers or employees that they are. The 2004 NLRB decision that graduate student teaching assistants are “primarily students” entirely overlooks shadow work. Like the athletes at Northwestern, all students would have the prerogative to unionize.

Compensating or remunerating shadow work would mean that colleges and universities would have to recognize that most of its faculty members are doing the work of two these days.

But the counter question is why faculty members are all too willing to do the work of two? This academic shadow work buttresses and contributes to the growth of academic capitalism—it bails out the system from certain failure. As Illich says, “increasingly the unpaid self-discipline of shadow work becomes more important than wage labor for further economic growth.”

In “Threat Convergence,” we tried to work through this problem by analyzing the changing nature and definition of the academic workplace. It’s a start. Given the fragmentation, intensification, segmentation, shifting and creep of academic work, it is due time researchers attended to the problem as opposed to the continued romanticism of the intellectual.

Threat Convergence: The New Academic Work by Petrina, Mathison & Ross #academicfreedom

THREAT CONVERGENCE:
THE NEW ACADEMIC WORK, BULLYING, MOBBING AND FREEDOM

Stephen Petrina, Sandra Mathison & E. Wayne Ross

The convergence of the casualization, fragmentation, intensification, segmentation, shifting and creep of academic work with the post-9/11 gentrificaton of criticism and dissent is arguably one of the greatest threats to academic freedom since the Nazi elimination of the Jewish professoriate and critique in 1933, Bantu Education Act’s reinforcement of apartheid in South Africa in 1952, and McCarthyism in Canada and the US in the 1950s and 1960s. In the history of education, this would be quite the claim yet the evidence seems to speak for itself. Academic work has been fragmented into piecemeal modes and intensified as academics absorbed, through amalgamation, traditional clerical staff and counseling work. The balance of the academic workforce has been reduced and casualized or segmented to an “at whim,” insecure, unsalaried part-time labor pool, the 8-hour workday and 40-hour academic workweek collapsed to 60-80 hours, and the primary locus of academic work shifted off-campus as the workplace crept into the home and its communal establishments. Academic stress— manifested as burnout through amalgamation and creep of work, and as distress through bullying, mobbing and victimization— underwrites increases in leaves of absence. Non-tenure track faculty are hit particularly hard, indicating “contingency or the precariousness of their position” as relentless stressors.

Nowadays, it’s whimsical to reminisce about work-life balance and promises that the academic workforce will be renewed as boomers retire with baited expectations, or that the workweek and workplace for salaried full-timers could be contained within the seduction of flextime and telecommuting. In many ways, the flexible workplace is the plan for boomers by boomers with both nest eggs and limits on retirement age breaking. As currency values, retirement portfolios, and savings spiral downward while dependent children and grandchildren and inflation spiral upward, incentives to retire erode. Precariously unemployed, underemployed and part-time academics aside, boomers still in the academic system are trended to face the biggest losses. As economic incentives to retire decrease, incentives for intellectual immortality and legacy management flourish with the boomers’ political leanings moving toward the center. One can hardly blame them.

Enthusiasts of anything “flexible” (learning, space, time, work, etc.) and everything “tele” (commuting, conference, learning, phone, work, etc.), academics readily workshift with additional liability but no additional remuneration— instead is an unquestioned acceptance of the “overtime exemption”— while the employer saves about $6,500 per year per worker in the tradeoff as worksite or workspace shifts from campus to home. The academic workweek is now conservatively 60 hours with many PT and FT reporting persistent 70-80 hour weeks. Perhaps academic women can finally have it all after putting in the 120 hour workweek. One reason institutions now cope with many fewer FT hires is that academics are all too willing to do the work of two. As Gina Anderson found a decade ago, “with apparently unconscious irony, many academics reported that they particularly valued the flexibility of their working week, in terms of both time and space… in the same breath as reporting working weeks in the order of 60 hours.” For most academic workers, the cost of flexibility is effectively a salary cut as overheads of electricity, heat, water, communication and consumables are shifted to the home. Carbon footprint reductions are a net benefit and for a minority, the savings of commuting and parking offset the costs of this homework or housework. What is the nature or implications of this increasing domestication of academic work and displacement of the academic workplace? For academic couples with or without children, the dynamics of housecohabitry, househusbandry or housewifery necessarily change as the academic workplace shifts and labor creeps into the home. With temptations to procrastinate on deluges of academic deadlines, academic homes have never been cleaner and more organized. Nevermind the technocreep of remote monitoring. Over the long run, although some administrators cling to the digital punch card and time stamp with HivedeskWorksnaps or MySammy, “smashing the clock” in the name of flextime and telework is about the best thing that ever happened to academic capitalism.

This is not exactly a SWOT analysis, where Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats are given due treatment. Rather, the focus is on this threat convergence as it resolves through historic displacements of the academic workplace and work. To what degree are the new policies for academic speech inscribed in academic work, regardless of where it’s done? As the academic workplace is increasingly displaced and distributed, are academic policies displaced and distributed as well? Observed at work, monitored at home and tracked in between—these are not so much choices as the cold reality of 21st century academic work.

Read More: Threat Convergence

New Workplace Issue: Academic Bullying & Mobbing #highered #ubc #caut

New Workplace Issue #24

Academic Bullying & Mobbing

Workplace and Critical Education are published by the Institute for Critical Education Studies. Please consider participating as author or reviewer. Thank you.

New Workplace Issue: Reforming Academic Labor, Resisting Imposition, K12 and #HigherEd #criticaled

New Workplace Issue #25

Reforming Academic Labor, Resisting Imposition, K12 and Higher Education

Workplace and Critical Education are published by the Institute for Critical Education Studies. Please consider participating as author or reviewer. Thank you.

#Dalhousie students, staff & faculty rally against admin mishandling of dentistry students misogynistic Facebook group

DSC_7714-1024x682

Jennifer Gosnell, DalGazette, January 6, 2014–“Hey hey, ho ho, misogyny has go to go,” roared a crowd of about 200 people gathered at a rally yesterday afternoon outside Dalhousie’s Henry Hicks Building.

The rally targeted Dalhousie administration’s reaction to a misogynistic Facebook group made up of male dentistry students.

The rally came right after the announcement that Dalhousie University has suspended the clinical privileges of thirteen men in their fourth year of Dal’s Doctor of Dental Surgery program.

These men were suspended as Dalhousie’s ongoing response to complaints against the men’s posts in a Facebook group called the Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen where some of them posted comments about female classmates that included discussions of sexual violence.

The protestors rallied together against a lack of action on Dalhousie’s part and a lack of justice on the part of victims of the posts and survivors of sexual assault.

Jennifer Nowoselski, Dalhousie Student Union Vice President (Internal), spoke of her experiences witnessing harassment on campus.

“I cannot tell you how many students across various faculties come to the Union with complaints of discrimination on a regular basis,” said Nowoselski. “I am enraged.”

“No options to address sexist comments? No options to address sexual harassment? No options to address sexist treatment of women students? Out of justified fear, individuals cannot demand action to make them feel safe on this campus. There is no safe internal process available to our members,” Nowoselski said.

She turned her questions to the Henry Hicks building itself, which hosts university president Richard Florizone’s office.

“Through a media storm, voiced concerns through students and community members, a community-organized rally, petitions, a formal complaint from faculty, threats of losing funding, concern from the government, and with the entire country watching, you created a task force?” Nowoselski asked.

Board members of South House, a student-funded sexual and gender resource centre in Halifax, spoke at the rally. They voiced issues of concern about underfunding for their volunteer-driven services that are often turned to for support by people who have experienced sexual violence.

Various survivors of sexual violence took to the megaphone to discuss the impact of their experiences.

One survivor said she was sexually assaulted by her dentist.

Others shared stories of going to Dalhousie’s offices to report their abuse and being met with blame or disbelief.

Read More: DalGazette