Tag Archives: Unions

Battle wages over best interests of #UBC #ubcnews #caut #bced #highered

By law, defined in the University Act, members 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., 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.

The next question is which member of the BoG is next?

#UBC admin crisis erodes into legitimacy crisis #caut #highered #bced #ubcnews

The crisis of administration at the University of British Columbia that began with the sudden resignation of President Arvind Gupta on 7 August has quickly eroded into a legitimacy crisis. Both CUPE and the Faculty Association of UBC are publicly questioning the legitimacy of a swath of administrators and what CUPE representatives referred to as the group of “unelected” officials on the Board of Governors.

Similarly, faculty members are questioning the legitimacy of middle managers appointed at the whim of the Deans. This has resulted in a bloat of assistant and associate deans that have little if any claim to legitimacy. Hence, UBC’s middle managers can do little more than cling to the authority of their title and entitlement.

A crisis of legitimacy forms as questions begin to focus on the legitimate nature of authority and limits to governance within institutions.

Since 7 August, the University has itself been limited to speculation on the President’s resignation.

#UBC FA holds admin & BoG to account for President Gupta’s resignation #bced #ubcnews #highered #caut

September 1, 2015

Dear Ms. Laberge [Acting Chair, UBC Board of Governors]:

The events surrounding the 7 August 2015 resignation of Professor Arvind Gupta as President of the University of British Columbia continue to be of paramount concern to the Faculty Association as well as the University and to the public at large. We therefore wish to respond to the Board’s letter to Mark MacLean dated 14 August 2015. The Board’s letter simply reasserts that the mutually entered into confidentiality agreement between the University and Professor Gupta be respected and that further details regarding his resignation not be released.

However, any terms attached to Professor Gupta’s resignation may be reconsidered by the two parties who entered into such an agreement. Thus, it is fully within the powers of the Board of Governors to initiate a negotiation with Professor Gupta to agree to rescind the non-disclosure agreement to allow for greater transparency as to how we came to the point of a failed presidency.

We therefore 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. Given the events that have transpired since Professor Gupta’s resignation, and 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.

If this agreement was put in place to protect Professor Gupta, then speculation and the public dissection of his presidency in the media have removed any intended sense of privacy. Indeed, for example, it is apparent from the 26 August Globe and Mail article by Simona Chiose and Frances Bula that a number of individuals working in the administration have been speaking anonymously to the media in a manner that is disparaging to Professor Gupta, which surely is not the intent of a non-disclosure agreement. As a result, the public is left with incomplete and unverifiable information and innuendo in the place of the truth.

Beyond the lack of a proper assessment of Professor Gupta’s performance during his year as president, we are also missing an accounting of the Board of Governors’ actions during the period in question. Much has been made of the resignations of Vice-Presidents, for example, and dissatisfaction in senior administration with these resignations has been posited as one reason for Professor Gupta’s resignation. But these resignations were accepted by the Board of Governors, so how did the Board work with Professor Gupta to conclude that these leadership changes were in the best interests of the University? We also note that there were resignations from other senior administrators early in the terms of Presidents Piper and Toope, and these never merited comment. It has always been the case that a President can put his or her own team in place, so what was different for President Gupta?

We are also greatly concerned that continued secrecy about the circumstances of Professor Gupta’s departure will make it difficult – if not impossible – for the University to conduct a search for a new president, and to ensure that the unfortunate events of this summer will not recur.

Certainly the damage caused to the University’s reputation will increase the difficulty of finding suitable candidates. Furthermore, the stream of innuendo and rumour and media attention that envelop the actions of the Board in managing the relationship with Professor Gupta will likely make qualified candidates for the presidency (or for any of the currently vacant positions in senior administration) reluctant to accept an appointment at UBC.

We therefore invite the Board to share with us, and with the University as a whole, how they envision conducting a search for a new President without disclosing the circumstances that led to the resignation of Professor Gupta.

We are currently without a permanent President, without a permanent Provost and VP Academic, and without a Vice-President for Communications. Our VP Finance has been in the position for less than 4 months, and the VP Research & International is coming to the end of his term. Meanwhile we have a major public relations crisis unfolding, complete with rumors of back-stabbing, malfeasance, conflicts of interest, and manipulation, as well as an ongoing independent inquiry into actions of senior University officials.

It is not reasonable to move forward in a positive way until all rumours of administrative failure are dispelled, and all the facts placed on the table. The reality of the present situation is that governance structures at UBC have broken down, and it is not credible to maintain that Professor Gupta’s resignation is simply a personnel matter that can remain shrouded in secrecy. The University’s reputation is seriously compromised, and further secrecy and obfuscation will compound the damage.

In conclusion, we refer you to the words of our interim President, Dr. Martha Piper, in her introductory message to the University community: “Consider the people and influences that enabled UBC to earn recognition as one of the top 40 research universities in the world. We have built this success on a century of effort, on the brilliance of people like the Nobel Prize winning Dr. Michael Smith, like geographer Derek Gregory, and like zoologist and biodiversity researcher Sally Otto….. The people who judge universities … count alumni and faculty winning Nobel Prizes. They look for the number of articles published, especially in prestigious journals like Nature and Science. They ask how our graduates perform and they notice that UBC produces seven of every 10 B.C. Rhodes Scholars.”

The point we take from Dr. Piper’s words is that the University is only as good as its faculty, staff, and students, and that UBC is bigger than the Board, and bigger than Professor Gupta. We urge the Board of Governors in the strongest possible terms to work with Professor Gupta to negotiate terms permitting all parties to speak freely about the events that have affected us all collectively.

Sincerely,
UBCFA

#UBC says Now is the Time to Speculate #ubcnews #highered #bced #caut

With the Chair of BoG and Sauder School of Business administrators under investigation, UBC advises that now is the time to speculate about President Gupta and all University affairs, if not everything. As it should be at a research institution. As it should be with the economy in shambles.

Over the past few weeks, speculation on the sudden resignation of President Gupta has been impressive. For starters, here are some running reasons for the resignation:

  1. The University guesstimates that the resignation was a “leadership transition.”
  2. The FAUBC reports that the University also presumes that the President “wishes to return to the life of a Professor of Computer Science.”
  3. Martha is inclined to accept at face value that this was Arvind’s “decision to step down” and whatever the reason we should respect whatever the University says it is or isn’t.
  4. Jennifer suggests that in challenging Montalbano, Chair of BoG, the President lost a masculinity contest. In other words, he lost what the Romans called a ludi mingo (roughly translated as a p-ing game or contest).
  5. Wayne postulates that triskaidekaphobia finally took its toll on the President, the thirteenth in UBC’s history. The presidential hot-seat– think of the Spinal Tap drummer syndrome here.
  6. Eva fancies that the President was told by the Chair of BoG that his fountain would not spew higher than the Martha Piper Fountain, prominently configured on the highest point of campus at the centre of the Martha Piper Plaza. Alas, President Piper must be reinstalled. This reason adds missing clues and details to #4.
  7. The Ubyssey posits that the President might have found something foreboding in his “performance reports.” This may have required reading between the lines.
  8. Nassif presupposes that the President was yet another of the “victims of end runs by deans,” wherein there is a well-trodden path dating back more than a century.
  9. Charlie conjectures that Montalbano and the BoG evened the score by making Gupta’s tenure difficult after he canned or nudged out VP Ouillet.
  10. Tony has a suspicion that, post Gupta’s resignation, UBC leaders adopted PM Harper’s template of denying implication in the controversy.
  11. CUPE Locals believe that Gupta was “removed by the largely unelected Board of Governors.” Emphasis on “unelected.”
  12. Simona and Frances figure that administrators still left on campus have some answers. They gather that Gupta “didn’t treat administrators with the same care” as faculty members. Needy as they are, certain admin got anxious and jealous. “Arvind was alienating people one at a time,” one administrator confided. It was time for him to go back down to research and teaching.
  13. Andrew reckons that “there’s some kind of mutual agreement” at work. Nobody knows what this agreement is or if it was really mutual or just a fist-bump and not really an agreement in the official sense if it was just a wink wink to agree to disagree.
  14. ? [send us your reckons]

UBC says now is the time to speculate. Indeed, we’re hearing that a new motto for the next one hundred years at UBC is being bounced around in Central: Occasio Speculatio. After all, Tuum Est, the motto for the first hundred never recovered after the students in the 1960s dubbed it: Too Messed.

#UBC Chair of BoG and #UBCSauderSchool admin under investigation #caut #highered #bced #ubcnews

Following pressure to investigate the lengths taken, if any, by UBC’s Chair of the Board of Governors and administrators from the Sauder School of Business to put a muzzle on Jennifer Berdahl’s academic freedom, the Faculty Association of UBC and the University agreed to investigate the following:

Whether Mr. John S. Montalbano, Chair of the Board of Governors, and/or individuals in the Sauder School of Business identified by the Faculty Association, conducted themselves in the events following Professor Berdahl’s publication of her blog on August 8, 2015 in a manner that violated any provision of the Collective Agreement, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment, or any applicable University policies, including whether Professor Berdahl’s academic freedom is or was interfered with in any way.

Following President Gupta’s sudden resignation on 7 August, Berdahl queried whether he lost a masulinity contest. Montalbano gave her a call about this but denies that he worked to suppress academic freedom.

The FAUBC agreed that the investigation report will be circulated on a “need to know” basis. As Sandra Mathison has said, substantive administrative information at UBC is circulated on a need to know (and you don’t need to know) basis. So we’ll see whether faculty members and students need to know…

E. Wayne Ross wrote, on this case of the President’s resignation, that UBC has taken a page from the Rumsfeld files on epistemology– known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

And we ask agin, who is the mystery dean, introduced into the proceedings by the FAUBC? Another known unknown. Who is this mystery dean that was meddling with Montalbano into academic governance?

#UBC Chair of BoG resigns, Dean of #UBCSauderSchool next? #caut #highered #bced #ubcnews

In response to pressure from the Faculty Association of UBC and Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the Chair or UBC’s Board of Governors has resigned while an investigation moves to find to what lengths he had gone to place a check on academic freedom. In the midst of President Gupta’s sudden resignation on 7 August, professor Jennifer Berdahl queried whether he lost a masulinity contest. Surprisingly, the Chair of BoG, John Montalbano, who also funds the Sauder School and her Professorship, gave her a phone call.

His purpose in calling was to tell me that my blog post from the day before was “incredibly hurtful, inaccurate, and greatly unfair to the Board” and “greatly and grossly embarrassing to the Board.” He said I had made him “look like a hypocrite.”

Her Chair and Associate Dean followed up, chastising her for potentially damaging the reputation of the School and University. Berdahl concluded, “I have never in my life felt more institutional pressure to be silent.”

She explained: “When I imagine being an assistant professor at this university, or anyone without the protection of tenure, this experience becomes unspeakable. I would be terrified, not angry. I would have retracted my post, or not have written it at all. I would avoid studying and speaking on controversial topics.”

Sauder Dean Robert Helsley tried to follow up as well but then canceled the meeting with Berdahl after she indicated she would be accompanied with FAUBC representation.

Yes, these are the same administrators that bungled their oversight over gender, diversity and the undergraduate curriculum as Sauder students chanted a rhyme about rape two years ago.

It’s time, once again, for accountability. Is it not time for the University to ask for Dean Helsley’s resignation? Is it not time to offer his resignation along with Mr. Montalbano?

Is he the ‘mystery Dean‘? Put your money down on this bet…

#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.

#FAUBC introduces mystery dean into #UBC crisis of administration #caut #highered #bced

Curiously, when the Faculty Association of UBC called for the resignation of the Chair of the Board of Governors, it came short of calling for the resignation of the Dean who is cozying up to the Chair.

Specifically, the Chair of the Board also sits on a Faculty Advisory Council, and we are advised has been in communication with a Dean over internal operational and academic issues. This arrangement circumvents the formal organizational bicameral structure of the university…

Who is this mystery Dean? Why did the FAUBC fail to request her or his resignation along with the Chair of BoG? It takes two or three to tango here, as they say. Why hasn’t this Dean stepped forward to offer a resignation, having circumvented or transgressed faculty governance to ostensibly acquire capital or resources for her or his career and Faculty?

Just as the FAUBC bemoans the “absence of an informed explanation since the August 7th resignation” of President Gupta, it clouds communication with its members by raising the spectre of a mystery Dean. Exactly who is the mystery Dean?

#FAUBC questions suspicious resignation of #ubc President #highered

As questions go unanswered regarding the suspicious resignation of UBC President Arvind Gupta, the Faculty Association of UBC is pressing for answers. The University has been silent about the sudden resignation, writing off the past year of Gupta’s appointment as a mere “leadership transition.” Four years of  leadership transitions– the last two and the next two– sound more like an administrative crisis than merely a change.

FAUBC President Mark MacLean, August 10, 2015: 

Shortly before 1pm on Friday, I received a phone call from the University to inform me that Professor Arvind Gupta would resign as President of UBC effective at 1 p.m. that afternoon, and that a public announcement would be made at 1:15 p.m. This news came as a complete surprise to me, and I have spent the weekend trying to make sense of it.

This was a sudden and immediate resignation, and I am skeptical that the reason for it is simply that Professor Gupta wishes to return to the life of a Professor of Computer Science.  We of course, will not hear directly from Professor Gupta since such resignations typically come with a non-disclosure agreement.

The Board of Governors must explain what transpired to end Professor Gupta’s Presidency after only one year.  What caused this leadership crisis?

Over the past year, I had conversations with Professor Gupta about his desire for UBC to thrive as a place where faculty are supported and valued unconditionally.  He truly viewed us as his colleagues. Contrary to some of the public speculation since his resignation, he had a serious plan well under development to achieve the goals he set for himself and the University, and faculty were at the heart of his plan.

In support of this plan, President Gupta’s budget decisions were designed to move resources into the academic units and to mitigate the impacts that high growth rates of student numbers are having on the entire university.  As a result, significant amounts of money are set to move from non-academic operations to support research and teaching.

Does Professor Gupta’s resignation mean the Board no longer supports realigning the University’s resources to better support the research and teaching missions?

Professor Gupta saw faculty as the heart of the University and collegial governance as a fundamental principle upon which the best universities operate.  Will the Board of Governors continue to use these principles as the basis of its relationship with the faculty?

I believe Professor Gupta’s resignation represents a serious loss to UBC.  It certainly represents a failure point in the governance of the University.  We need to understand this failure and the Board must recognize that we cannot move on until we do.

I also have questions about the future leadership of the University. We have in progress searches for a Provost and VP Academic, a Vice President Research, and a Vice President External and Communications.  Those who fill these positions must ultimately hold the confidence of the President they will serve.  What will happen with these searches now?  President Emerita Martha Piper has considerable experience as a past UBC President, but should she hire three key Vice Presidents for the next President of UBC?

All of my concerns and questions aside, I am committed to working with Professors Redish and Piper under the same model of trusty and openness with which I was able to operate with President Gupta.  I have every expectation they will want to continue the positive relationship that has developed between the Administration and the Faculty Association over the past year.

I invite you to send me your responses to the President’s resignation.

Sincerely;

Mark Mac Lean
President of the UBC Faculty Association

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.

Faculty Take Strike Vote at University of Northern British Columbia

From The Tyee:

Faculty Take Strike Vote at University of Northern British Columbia
Salaries a sticking point in pricey northern city.

By Katie Hyslop

The University of Northern British Columbia’s faculty association made history Jan. 15 when it became the first faculty union at a B.C. research university to take a strike vote. The vote passed with 84.8 per cent in favour of a strike, giving faculty members 90 days to take strike action.

The university, located in Prince George, has been bargaining with the faculty association for eight months, the last three with help from British Columbia Labour Board-appointed mediator Trevor Sones.

About 70 per cent of bargaining issues at UNBC have been settled, but faculty association president Jacqueline Holler says a major impasse is faculty salaries, which are as much as 24 per cent lower than salaries at similar-sized Canadian universities.

“What the employer has offered in terms of compensation does absolutely nothing to address the situation,” said Holler. Neither she nor UNBC would disclose specifics of offers on the bargaining table.

Holler said another reason faculty deserves higher pay is the university’s frequent ranking by Maclean’s magazine as one of the top three primarily undergraduate universities in Canada.

But UNBC says there are a number of factors affecting salary negotiations: Government requirements for wages to stay within fixed financial parametres; an overall decline in enrollment; an increase in the number of B.C. universities; and increased government support for trades training.

“I’m not citing those [factors] as the most important, only to suggest that there’s a number of factors that are all at play,” said Rob van Adrichem, UNBC’s vice president of external communications. “And it all affects this situation.”

Unionized last April

The vote comes after UNBC’s faculty association, representing close to 500 full and part-time instructors, became a union last April. The faculty associations at Simon Fraser University and University of Victoria unionized around the same time.

There are six research universities in British Columbia. They include UNBC, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, Thompson Rivers University, Royal Roads University, and the University of British Columbia.

The faculty association at the University of British Columbia became the first B.C. research university to unionize in the 1980s. In exchange for the university’s support the union gave up their right to strike. Almost 20 years later Royal Roads University’s faculty association officially became a union. Faculty at Thompson Rivers University is also unionized.

With the exception of Alberta, where law prevents university faculty associations from becoming unions, there are only four non-unionized public university faculty associations in Canada. They are at McGill, Waterloo, University of Toronto, and McMaster.

Salary disputes were the common denominator between Simon Fraser, University of Victoria, and UNBC faculty associations’ decision to unionize, says Michael Conlon, executive director of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, an umbrella organization for research university faculty associations.

“I think it’s fair to say that salary increases at all the research universities in B.C. have not kept up” with the rest of Canada, Conlon said.

Attracting highly educated academics is a good reason to increase salaries, says Conlon, adding competition for “internationally renowned-faculty” is stiff both nationally and internationally.

“As B.C.’s pay scale falls farther and farther behind, I think it will be a challenge to recruit and retain the best researchers, the best teachers, and the best faculty,” he said. “I think that’s a challenge for the entire province in ensuring we’ve got a competitive and excellent system of post-secondary education.”

The faculty’s previous contract expired last June, four months after arbitrator Vince Ready released a final decision on a 2012-2014 contract, which included two retroactive pay raises of 2.5 per cent.

Ready agreed with the faculty association that salaries were low compared to other similar-sized universities, and said UNBC did have the money to raise the pay of faculty members.

Bargaining continues this weekend

But while the wage increase helped, Holler says it didn’t fix UNBC’s “broken” salary structure and was negated by similar wage increases at other B.C. universities.

Holler said living in the north is more expensive than southern B.C., a factor not taken into account when deciding faculty wages.

“In most fields if you work in the north you actually get paid a little more because they understand that it’s hard to attract people,” she said.

The faculty association still hopes to reach an agreement through bargaining, and has yet to meet to discuss strike options. UNBC undergraduate classes end April 17, two days after the strike deadline.

UNBC’s van Adrichem says the strike vote itself doesn’t have an impact on the bargaining process. “The university has been and is very keen to negotiate an agreement,” he said.

Both sides are scheduled to return to the bargaining table on Jan. 30 until Feb. 1. [Tyee]

Symposium: Public Engagement and the Politics of Evidence in an Age of Neoliberalism and Audit Culture #highered #criticaled #caut #aaup

Public Engagement and the Politics of Evidence in an Age of Neoliberalism and Audit Culture

July 23-25, 2015

Faculty of Education, University of Regina

This symposium will examine accelerating trends in higher education: neoliberalism, the politics of evidence, and the audit culture. In an age in which value is often equated with accountancy, we will examine the place in the academy for public intellectualism, community-engagement, Indigenous epistemologies, and how the impact of our scholarship is, and ought to be, justly assessed. Invited presenters will provoke lively discussion, but going beyond discussion, and blurring the lines between presenter and audience member, participants will be invited to engage actively with other presenter/participants in attendance for the purpose of effecting changes at their home institutions. Opportunities will be available for reconsidering and strategizing academic issues such as faculty criteria documents, measurement rankings, traditional impact factors, and other academic matters affected by the politics of austerity, neoliberalism, and new management technologies. Action will also be encouraged through submissions to a special issue of in education (the University of Regina Faculty of Education’s journal), potentially collaborating on an edited book, TED-style dissemination videos, producing a list of recommendations, developing examples of inclusive faculty criteria documents, possibly developing a community impact factor as an alternative to journal impact factor metrics, and further actions as collectively discussed at the symposium.

Questions to be explored include:

  • What counts as scholarship and why?
  • How do we achieve accountability in an age of accountancy?
  • How do we measure research impact, (i.e., journal impact factor vs community and policy impact)?
  • Impact for whom?
  • Who and how do we determine whose evidence and what research is legitimate?
  • What can be done? How do we effect change to university practices?

CFP: Marx, Engels and the Critique of Academic Labor #highered #edstudies #criticaled

Call for Papers
Marx, Engels and the Critique of Academic Labor

Special Issue of Workplace
Guest Editors: Karen Gregory & Joss Winn

Articles in Workplace have repeatedly called for increased collective organisation in opposition to a disturbing trajectory: individual autonomy is decreasing, contractual conditions are worsening, individual mental health issues are rising, and academic work is being intensified. Despite our theoretical advances and concerted practical efforts to resist these conditions, the gains of the 20th century labor movement are diminishing and the history of the university appears to be on a determinate course. To date, this course is often spoken of in the language of “crisis.”

While crisis may indeed point us toward the contemporary social experience of work and study within the university, we suggest that there is one response to the transformation of the university that has yet to be adequately explored: A thoroughgoing and reflexive critique of academic labor and its ensuing forms of value. By this, we mean a negative critique of academic labor and its role in the political economy of capitalism; one which focuses on understanding the basic character of ‘labor’ in capitalism as a historically specific social form. Beyond the framework of crisis, what productive, definite social relations are actively resituating the university and its labor within the demands, proliferations, and contradictions of capital?

We aim to produce a negative critique of academic labor that not only makes transparent these social relations, but repositions academic labor within a new conversation of possibility.

We are calling for papers that acknowledge the foundational work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for labor theory and engage closely and critically with the critique of political economy. Marx regarded his discovery of the dual character of labor in capitalism (i.e. concrete and abstract) as one of his most important achievements and “the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns.” With this in mind, we seek contributions that employ Marx’s and Engels’ critical categories of labor, value, the commodity, capital, etc. in reflexive ways which illuminate the role and character of academic labor today and how its existing form might be, according to Marx, abolished, transcended and overcome (aufheben).

Contributions:

  1. A variety of forms and approaches, demonstrating a close engagement with Marx’s theory and method: Theoretical critiques, case studies, historical analyses, (auto-)ethnographies, essays, and narratives are all welcome. Contributors from all academic disciplines are encouraged.
  2. Any reasonable length will be considered. Where appropriate they should adopt a consistent style (e.g. Chicago, Harvard, MLA, APA).
  3. Will be Refereed.
  4. Contributions and questions should be sent to:

Joss Winn (jwinn@lincoln.ac.uk) and Karen Gregory (kgregory@ccny.cuny.edu)

New #UBC Grad Program in Critical Pedagogy & Education Activism #bctf #bced #yteubc #yreubc #criticaled

NEW MASTERS PROGRAM IN THE INSTITUTE FOR CRITICAL EDUCATION STUDIES
CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION ACTIVISM
BEGINS JULY 2014

APPLY NOW!

The new UBC Masters Program in Critical Pedagogy and Education Activism (Curriculum Studies) has the goal of bringing about positive change in schools and education. This cohort addresses issues such as environmentalism, equity and social justice, and private versus public education funding debates and facilitates activism across curriculum and evaluation within the schools and critical analysis and activism in communities and the media. The cohort is organized around three core themes: solidarity, engagement, and critical analysis and research.

BCTFRallySignJune2014

The new UBC M.Ed. in Critical Pedagogy and Education Activism (Curriculum Studies) is a cohort program in which participants attend courses together in a central location. It supports participation in face-to-face, hybrid (blended), and online activism and learning.

A Perfect Opportunity

  • Earn your Master’s degree in 2 years (part-time)
  • Enjoy the benefits of collaborative study and coalition building
  • Channel your activism inside and outside school (K-12)
  • Sharpen your knowledge of critical practices and skill with media and technology

Thank you Jim Turk! leader of #CAUT reflects on struggles #ubc #criticaled #aaup

JimTurkMarch2014

Chronicle of Higher Education, June 11, 2014–James L. Turk is retiring from his post as executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the national union representing almost all of Canada’s faculty and academic staff members, on June 30. In an interview with Karen Birchard, a Canadian correspondent for The Chronicle, he looked back on his 16 years at the helm of the organization. What follows is an edited version of their conversation.

Q. Why are you retiring now?

A. I feel very strongly that organizations need new blood and new leadership. I probably pushed the envelope by staying 16 years. I love what I’m doing and look forward to it every morning, but it’s good for the organization to have someone else do the job.

Q. Did you achieve what you wanted to at CAUT?

A. The organization has grown and moved forward. But there’s always so much more that can be done.

Q. Like what?

A. A lot of union members treat membership like their insurance company—”We pay our dues, and if there’s trouble, there’s the union to support us.” But the reality is, our biggest obligation is to defend and protect those things that are the core of what makes good university and college education possible. There are powerful forces trying to change those things, and we have to engage our members more actively in that struggle.

Q. What issue stands out?

A. One of our biggest problems, like in the United States, has been the casualization of the profession. This means a significant proportion of the people teaching at our universities are exploited, are paid a miserable amount of money, don’t have basic rights to be paid to do scholarly work or to do service, and are often excluded from participation in development of curriculum. We’ve made huge progress in unionizing them and creating the possibility for advances, but a large part of that work is undone.

Q. What’s the future for unionism for academic faculty and staff members in Canada and the United States?

A. In Canada, university and college teachers have the highest degree of unionization of any employee group in the country, and that has been vital in protecting the integrity of our universities and colleges, as well as academic freedom and the quality of education.

The situation is dramatically different in the United States, where the majority of universities don’t even have faculty unions. More than a third of the states have laws that effectively undermine unionization, so faculty in the United States don’t have the tools available to us in Canada.

Q. Is academic freedom in Canada stronger or weaker than when you started?

A. I would say stronger, in part because now almost everybody is unionized. We have such a strong expectation of academic freedom in Canada that any university administration that violates it becomes a pariah.

Q. What are you going to do next?

A. I’ve been offered a position as a distinguished visiting professor at Ryerson University, in Toronto. I’m going to be working toward creating a center for the promotion of freedom of expression. I will also be doing some work with CAUT and with some individual faculty associations and a fair amount of media work around higher education.

Read More: Chronicle of Higher Ed

Academic #mobbing and #bullying: Special Issue of #Workplace #ubc #edstudies #criticaled #caut #aaup #bced

Preprints for the next Issue of Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor have just been released. Timed quite ideally with many Universities’ recent initiatives, this Special Issue of Workplace is on Academic Mobbing and Bullying.

Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor

Academic Mobbing and Bullying

No 24 (2014)

Articles

  • Of Sticks and Stones, Words that Wound, and Actions Speaking Louder: When Academic Bullying Becomes Everyday Oppression
    • Harry Denny
  • Beyond Bullies and Victims: Using Case Story Analysis and Freirean Insight to Address Academic Mobbing
    • Julie Gorlewski, David Gorlewski & Brad Porfilio
  • Graduate Students as Proxy Mobbing Targets: Insights from Three Mexican Universities
    • Florencia Peña Saint Martin, Brian Martin, Hilde Eliazer Aquino López & Lillian von der Walde Moheno
  • Bullying in Academia Up Close and Personal: My Story
    • Paul Johnson
  • Pathogenic Versus Healthy Biofilms: A Metaphor for Academic Mobbing
    • Antonio Pedro Fonseca

 

Workplace and Critical Education are published by the Institute for Critical Education Studies (ICES).

Thank you for the continuing interest in ICES and its blogs & journals,
Sandra Mathison, Stephen Petrina & E. Wayne Ross, co-Directors

ICES
University of British Columbia
2125 Main Mall
Vancouver BC  V6T 1Z4
Canada

https://blogs.ubc.ca/ices
https://blogs.ubc.ca/workplace
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/workplace
http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled

Sandra Mathison on the academic freedom chill in Canada #cdnpse #caut #aaup @usask #ubc #bced

“What [recent cases] share is an unbelievable authoritarianism on the part of the upper administration, a willingness to trample on academic freedom and the absolute intolerance of resistance or disagreement about program cuts and restructuring.”

Sandra Mathison, May 14, 2014– I’ll admit to a quaint hope that universities are still places where dialogue and dissent are both possible and desirable, but two incidents in the last week leave me scratching my head. The first is the theft of professor George Rammell’s sculpture by the Capilano University administration, and the second is the firing of Robert Buckingham, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Saskatchewan. The issues in the two cases are not the same, but what both share is an unbelievable authoritarianism on the part of the upper administration, a willingness to trample on academic freedom and the absolute intolerance of resistance or disagreement about program cuts and restructuring. The point is not whether each of these universities plans for budget cutting and trimming are appropriate (that would be a different post), but the response to faculty and middle management who DARE to disagree with the upper administration. If this doesn’t have a chilling effect on everyone in Canadian higher education, well we are all being just too polite.

THE CASE OF THE MISSING SCULPTURE

At Capilano University there have been severe program cuts. One program area in which cuts are deep is the arts. George Rammell, sculpture instructor, used his scholarly form of expression to comment on those cuts ~ he created Blathering on in Krisendom, a work in progress  depicting Capilano University president Kris Bulcroft wrapped in a U.S. flag with a poodle. The sculpture went missing last week:

“I immediately called security and the guard told me that orders were given by the top level of the Administration to seize it. I could hardly believe my ears. The Administration had ordered my piece removed off campus to an undisclosed location, without any consultation or prior discussion. I was shocked and not sure if this was Canada,” Rammell stated (as reported in the Georgia Straight).

Jane Shackell, chair of the Board of Governors, released a statement saying that Capilano was “committed to the open and vigorous discourse that is essential in an academic community.” But she had the sculpture removed because it was “workplace harassment of an individual employee, intended to belittle and humiliate the president.” A post for another time, but this might well be the most egregious, inappropriate use of respectful workplace rhetoric to create a workplace where dialogue, dissent, and discourse are not allowed.

Of course, Rammell’s work is easy for the University to steal, but the parallel for some of us might be an administration that comes to your office and wipes all of the files for that critical analysis of higher education book you are working on from your computer. After being AWOL for a week, Capilano University has agreed to return Rammell’s work, but has banned the sculpture from campus and Rammell calls that censorship. It is and it isn’t harassment either. So much for academic freedom.

THE SILENCE OF THE DEANS

Then comes the news, Robert Buckingham, Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Saskatchewan was fired, relieved of his professorial appointment and tenure, and escorted of the campus ~ for disagreeing publicly with the administration’s restructuring and budget cutting plan, TransformUS.

In discussions of TransformUS, middle managers were ordered to get in line and on board with the plan, and threatened if they spoke publicly against it.

Here’s the email from the provost:

That a University would want deans who are lackeys and submissive to the upper administration’s “messaging” says a great deal about that administration. Unlike the CapU incident, this is less about academic freedom and all about the importance of maintaining an openness to dialogue and disagreement within the University. Such a heavy handed administrative approach assaults our sensibilities about how even the modern, corporatized U operates. On top of all that, the termination of Buckingham comes a mere five weeks from his retirement and is amazingly mean-spirited.

CAUT director, Jim Turk said:

What the president of the University of Saskatchewan has done is an embarrassment to the traditions and history of the University of Saskatchewan and it’s an embarrassment to post-secondary education across Canada. It’s inexcusable.

He’s right about that!

#UVIC and today #SFU faculty & librarians vote to form union from association #UBC is next #caut #cufabc #bced #bcpoli

The 83% vote by UVIC faculty members and librarians and near 75% vote by SFU’s to form a union out of existing faculty associations is extremely good news for academic labour in British Columbia. The difference between faculty association and union in BC is this:

The basic legal difference is that our current status is a grant of the University itself, which has agreed to bargain certain matters with faculty and librarians; certification means that those rights are granted by the Labour Board and recognized in law. Rather than a bargaining relationship in which SFU agrees to allow us to negotiate certain items, our bargaining relationship would be protected by law, and would extend to any employment matter that we would choose to negotiate.

Please UBC faculty association Executive, bring this vote for a strike clause to the membership to act as a union with full rights. The last five rounds of bargaining have been so tremendously frustrating for the membership and ground hard won is quickly eroding. Wages, piecemeal for many, of our PT members are as pitiful as they get— well below minimum wages once hours in are factored.

* * * * *

SFU Faculty Association, May 15, 2014

SFU Faculty and Librarians Approve Certification as a Union

Members of the Faculty Association of Simon Fraser University have voted to become a certified union under the BC Labour Relations Code.

The results of the certification vote are as follows (the results are unofficial until confirmed by the Labour Relations Board):

Eligible voters: 1091
Votes cast: 800
Percentage turnout: 73%

The question voted upon was: “Do you want the Faculty Association of Simon Fraser University (SFUFA) to be recognized as a certified union, under the Labour Relations Code, to represent you in collective bargaining with your employer, the University?”

Total ballots: 800
Spoiled ballots: 0
Valid ballots: 800
In favour: 590
Opposed: 210

As a result of the vote, the Administration and Faculty Association must now begin negotiation of the first collective agreement.

The University Administration and Faculty Association respect the choice made by faculty members and librarians regarding their preferred form of representation. Both the Administration and the Association are committed to maintaining the positive working relationship we have enjoyed.

Jonathan Driver
Vice-President, Academic, Simon Fraser University

Neil Abramson
President, Faculty Association of SFU

* * * * *

UVIC Faculty Association, January 24, 2014

On January 24, 2014 the results of the certification vote for faculty and librarians at the University of Victoria were announced.  The results are as follows:

  • Eligible voters: 860
  • Votes cast: 711
  • Percentage turnout: 82.67 per cent

The question voted upon was: “Do you want the University of Victoria Faculty Association to become a certified union that will represent you in collective bargaining with your employer?”

  • Total ballots: 711
  • Spoiled ballots: 0
  • Valid ballots: 711
  • In favour: 448
  • Opposed: 263

The next step in the certification process is the issuance of a formal certification order by the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia.  The Faculty Association and the University Administration are then required to commence collective bargaining in good faith with the objective of achieving a collective agreement that will replace the current Framework Agreement between the parties.

CFP: Academic Mobbing (Special Issue of Workplace) #edstudies #criticaled #occupyed #bced #yteubc

LAST Call for Papers

Academic Mobbing
Special Issue
Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor

Editors: Stephen Petrina & E. Wayne Ross

Editors of Workplace are accepting manuscripts for a theme issue on Academic Mobbing.  Academic mobbing is defined by the Chronicle of Higher Education (11 June 2009) as: “a form of bullying in which members of a department gang up to isolate or humiliate a colleague.” The Chronicle continues:

If rumors are circulating about the target’s supposed misdeeds, if the target is excluded from meetings or not named to committees, or if people are saying the target needs to be punished formally “to be taught a lesson,” it’s likely that mobbing is under way.

As Joan Friedenberg eloquently notes in The Anatomy of an Academic Mobbing, the toll taken is excessive.  Building on a long history of both analysis and neglect in academia, Workplace is interested in a range of scholarship on this practice, including theoretical frameworks, legal analyses, resistance narratives, reports from the trenches, and labor policy reviews.  We invite manuscripts that address, among other foci:

  • Effects of academic mobbing
  • History of academic mobbing
  • Sociology and ethnography of the practices of an academic mob
  • Social psychology of the academic mob leader or boss
  • Academic mobbing factions (facts & fictions) or short stories
  • Legal defense for academic mob victims and threats (e.g., Protectable political affiliation, race, religion)
  • Gender norms of an academic mob
  • Neo-McCarthyism and academic mobbing
  • Your story…

Contributions for Workplace should be 4000-6000 words in length and should conform to APA, Chicago, or MLA style.

FINAL Date for Papers: May 30, 2014