Tag Archives: Working conditions

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.”

Discrimination case against #UBC now 8+ years #ubc100 #ubcnews #bced #highered

Kelly v UBC, a discrimination case against the University of British Columbia is now entering its 9th year and will continue into the foreseeable future. From 2005-2007, Dr. Carl Kelly was enrolled in the Family Practice Residency Program administered by the Faculty of Medicine. Kelly has ADHD and a Non-Verbal Learning Disability (NVLD). On 29 August 2007, Kelly was terminated from the program for unsuitability. He then filed a grievance and human rights complaint against UBC for its failure to accommodate.

In December 2013, the BC Human Rights Tribunal awarded Kelly $385,194 for lost wages due to discrimination and $75,000 for injury to dignity. The HRT concluded: “the gravity of the effects of the discrimination in this case warrants a substantial award for damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect which is beyond the highest award that has yet been made by this Tribunal.”

UBC appealed and sought judicial review.

Last week, on 24 September, the BC Supreme Court’s Justice Silverman wrote: “The Tribunal’s Decision to award $75,000 is not based on principle and cannot be supported by the evidence. In my view, the discretionary decision which resulted in that award was ‘exercised arbitrarily’ as those words have been interpreted in s. 59(4) of the ATA.  That section also denotes that such a decision is patently unreasonable. Therefore, I find that this portion of the Decision was patently unreasonable and must be set aside.”

So it’s back to the HRT.

#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.

#MarthaPiper time to clean house #UBC PR, speech writers & handlers #ubcnews #ubcgss #ubyssey #caut #bced

Listening as Stephen Hawking reads the speeches of Martha Piper, it is clear that the interim President of the University of British Columbia needs to begin cleaning house by canning the top of Public Relations, along with her speech writers and handlers.

When MacLean’s calls out your Public Affairs Office as a PR “disaster,” when when the Ottawa Citizen says you’ve sunk deep into “damage-control” mode, when faculty and indie media analysts elaborate, it’s time to actually do something.

When your speech writers reduce the lot of your faculty, staff and students to “university watchers,” it’s time to act.

When the best your hired PR specialist and handler, Susan Danard, can do is assure the world that there will be no “departure costs [$]” to faculty and students from President Gupta’s resignation , it’s time to make a major shuffle.

Instead, with this legitimacy crisis of administration well into its second month at UBC, it’s business as usual. Admin are now wont to party like it’s UBC @ 99. So when UBC announces a leadership transition, it really means that just one staff member quietly walked off campus and otherwise it’s business as usual.

The crisis of legitimacy is deep at UBC from the top levels of management, including the Academic Executives and legal counsel, through its deans and down to its middle managers, the associate and assistant deans, who are appointed at whim.

But you’d never know it. It’s business as usual for UBC @ 100. Time to clean the house of PR and admin President Piper.

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?

#UBC Toope disliked @ArvindUBC Gupta #ubcnews #caut #bced #highered

The reckons keep pouring in. Reason #14 for why President Gupta resigned just in from Chester.

14. Amidst all this speculation, one thing is certain Chester surmises: President Toope did not like President Gupta. The logic is just a short stroll down the garden path: Resident Toope dislikes Twitter, with a passion. Resident Gupta tweets @ArvindUBC, with a passion. Ergo Toope dislikes Gupta.

The former President is on record saying,

Twitter is the epitome of the immediate reaction dynamic present in too much social media. Given the short messages, and the ease of re-transmission, Twitter encourages thoughtless, reactive modes of communication. In addition, Twitter privileges the facile response over carefully reasoned discussion. If the entire world thought elegantly in epigrams like Dorothy Parker or Oscar Wilde, Twitter would be a boon to civilization. Sadly, that is not the case, and the result is mostly inane and obvious commentary masking for discourse.

Clearly Chester reckons, Toope disliked Gupta. As a computer scientist, Arvind Gupta basically invented Twitter. Toope has a distinct dislike for @ArvindUBC.

The Ubyssey confirmed as much: “Would you ever consider getting on Twitter?”

I have a very clear answer on that one. I despise twitter, truthfully. I think it’s one of the worst things thats been created in my lifetime, and so there’s no way I’m going to go on it. I dislike everything about it…. I think it’s the worst of our society, so no.

There it is– Toope despises @ArvindUBC.

Now wait a minute Chester… you’re not stating the obvious are you? Gupta actually tweeted better than Montalbano! Keep sendin us your reckons!

@UBCnews says now is the time to speculate!

#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?

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.

Hiring freeze on #UBC middle managers requested & rejected #highered #caut #bced #ubcnews

Over the past year, UBC instituted a series of austerity measures, including a hiring freeze, in various faculties to correct deficits. As a result, some academic units have been downsized or stagnant. For instance, the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy has had only three tenure track faculty searches in six years, a stagnation that has done serious damage to faculty renewal and in effect, academic integrity.

Comparatively, the appointment of assistant and associate deans in the Faculty outpaced tenure track appointments in this Department. With the at whim appointment of directors added to the mix, the appointment of middle managers outpaced tenure track appointments by 3:1.

It has been frustrating and troubling that the University’s hiring chills and freezes are wink wink (i.e., preferential and selective). Hence, a request made in June to the Provost, pro tem to implement a hiring freeze on middle managers to curb the administrative bloat across the University system, Okanagan and Vancouver, was rejected out of hand. A hiring freeze on these middle managers would create a form of parity that might suggest the senior administrators acknowledge the mess they’re in.

Under the old and still current regime at UBC, a hiring freeze on middle managers was a pipe dream and dismissed with no discussion. But now, with the crisis of administration exposed by the resignation of President Gupta, it’s due time President Piper to put a check and balance on these at whim admin hires.

#FAUBC calls for #UBC Chair of BoG resignation #highered

FAUBC, August 19, 2015– The events at UBC following the unexplained resignation of Professor Arvind Gupta as President have been exceptional. Fallout from the resignation created the unprecedented situation in which the Chair of the Board of Governors is alleged to have compromised the academic freedom of a UBC faculty member. Academic administrators are also implicated in allegations surrounding this incident. Since these allegations came to our attention last Wednesday, we have been working hard to maintain the integrity of the normal labour relations processes we use at UBC to resolve our grievances. While these processes have been working well as we investigate the roles that various academic administrators have played in this case, established procedures have been compromised as they pertain to the alleged actions of the Chair.The concerns leading to this conclusion focus on the fact that the University itself has sidestepped standard protocols for handling grievances. More specifically, the Chair of the Board of Governors, the Board’s chief spokesperson, gave public, personal testimony related to the case in a University media release. We were shocked that this happened in a formal University media release posted on a University website. (This media release seems to have been removed from news.ubc.ca late Tuesday evening. We have a downloaded copy.) Mr. Montalbano has confused personal interests with the University’s interests.

As a result of this communication, we had earlier in the day decided to call for Mr. Montalbano to step aside during an investigation of the allegations against him.

By late afternoon, we became aware Mr. Montalbano was giving a series of interviews on radio and television, entirely in contradiction to the August 17th press release signed by Provost pro tem Anji Redish and Interim President Martha Piper in which it was affirmed that: “it would entirely be inappropriate to comment further on the allegations until this process has been concluded.”

And, yet, Mr. Montalbano was doing precisely this in his capacity as Chair of UBC’s Board of Governors.Finding a sound and proper process inside the University or with the Board for investigation of the concerns around Mr. Montalbano’s behaviours no longer seemed a viable option.While the University has publicly said that a grievance involving Mr. Montalbano could be managed under our usual collective agreement processes, this no longer seemed possible. Mr. Montalbano is a government appointee, not a University employee, so establishing and implementing a fair process to investigate the Chair of the Board of Governors given that Chair’s dominating presence in and apparent mobilization of the entire system in his own interest seemed challenging, to say the least.

Indeed, even though we had initiated our usual informal processes with the University in a way that made it clear that there were serious allegations against Mr. Montalbano, Mr. Montalbano did not step aside as Chair pending the conclusion of a full investigation.

We have lost confidence that there can be an internal investigation process uninfluenced by Mr. Montalbano, either within our usual labour relations processes or through a Board-driven process.

Consequently, we are calling for Mr. Montalbano’s immediate resignation as Chair of the Board of Governors. He has shown an inability to allow proper procedures to proceed and has used his office as Chair of the Board to engage personally and publicly with the issues under investigation. This behaviour is ill judged and threatens the integrity of ongoing processes.

We did not take this decision to request Mr. Montalbano’s resignation lightly. His handling of Professor Gupta’s resignation and his mismanagement of subsequent events are now compounded by breaches of standard protocols, and lead us to believe that his resignation will be in the best interests of the University and the public.

Please read our letter carefully.

Sincerely,
Mark Mac Lean
President

#FAUBC presses for accountability in #UBC president’s resignation #highered

FAUBC, August 17, 2015: As you may know, last week the UBC Faculty Association presented a request to the Board oaf Governors asking for more details on the resignation of Professor Gupta as President. We received the Board’s response on August 14.

We are disappointed that the Board’s response provides no new information. In essence, it asks the university community — and the public at large — to take on faith, the fact that the Board has acted responsibly and in the public interest. While the Board should normally have the trust and confidence of the university community, events surrounding the resignation of Professor Gupta make this increasingly difficult.

The resignation of Professor Gupta as President of UBC is not simply a “personnel matter” for the University, as the Board claims. Rather, there is a high expectation of complete transparency and accountability around the resignation of a President of a public institution as significant and vital as UBC.

This expectation has not been met. The absence of an informed explanation since the August 7th resignation has led to ill-informed speculation taking the place of information. In our opinion, this situation makes any non-disclosure provision in Professor Gupta’s exit agreement contrary to the public interest and contrary to the best practices expected of a major public institution.

Furthermore, the handling of Professor Gupta’s resignation and its aftermath have exposed serious weaknesses in the governance of the university, due to the apparent failure to manage significant and perceived high-risk personal conflicts of interest involving Mr. Montalbano, the Chair of the Board. The concerns raised in this regard compound those already expressed about the lack of transparency in the processes surrounding the President’s resignation. In our opinion, these conflicts of interest should not have existed in the first place and must be remedied immediately.

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, which would require that communication between the Board and the university be routed through the President (or acting President). The role of the Board is to set general policy and to manage, administer, and control of the property, revenue, business, and affairs of the University, and not to become involved in academic governance.

The Chair of the Board should not be able to meddle directly in internal academic affairs. Yet, disregard for this organizational structure as well as interference in academic affairs, is precisely what is alleged to have happened this past week in relation to the comments made by a faculty member concerning the President’s resignation by the Chair of Board.

We are also concerned — in reference to the same faculty member — about alleged violations of academic freedom and of the university’s respectful environment statement committed by a number of individuals, including the Chair of the Board of Governors. While these allegations are still under investigation, there are sufficient facts known to lead us to question how well those involved, including the Chair of the Board himself, understand the principle of academic freedom, and whether they understand their obligations under UBC’s public commitment to providing a respectful workplace environment. Each of these principles is a fundamental tenet of a university.

Mr. Montalbano’s apparent lack of understanding of the principles of academic freedom, and the questionable judgement he is alleged to have exhibited in interfering with internal operations and with university employees, have caused the Faculty Association Executive Committee to lose confidence in Mr. Montalbano as the Chair of the Board of Governors.

Given the conflicts of interest, and the missteps that that have come to light this week, we believe it is even more imperative to have the full story behind the resignation of Professor Gupta as President of UBC. Full disclosure is the only way to restore trust in the governance of the University of British Columbia.

Read More: FAUBC

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.

Divest #ubc from fossil fuel #globalwarming #faubc #bced #bcpoli

UBC faculty members, one hour left to vote on the Referendum for

 Fossil Fuel Divestment at the University of British Columbia: 

A Responsible Investment Proposal 

Go to UBC Faculty Vote (poll closes at 12:30 today, 8 February 2015)

#Dalhousie profs complaint on misogynistic dentistry students’ #Facebook posts #highered #dalhousiehateswomen

CTV, January 5, 2015–Four Dalhousie professors have gone public with a formal complaint they submitted to the university last month, which called for male dentistry students linked to a sexually explicit Facebook discussion to be suspended before classes resume on Monday.

One of the professors, Francoise Baylis, said they decided to go public because they haven’t yet been assured that the complaint has been properly submitted and whether it will be addressed.

“Students have to go back to school tomorrow morning, and in our view, the university has an obligation to provide all students with a safe and supportive learning environment,” Baylis, who teaches at Dalhousie’s medical school, told CTV Atlantic.

“Our view is that it’s important to have at least addressed the complaint prior to the students coming back.”

The formal complaint from Dec. 21 calls for the university to hand out suspensions to all fourth-year students who were allegedly involved in offensive posts discussing female students in the Faculty of Dentistry. The complaint is co-signed by Baylis and fellow Dalhousie professors Jocelyn Downie, Brian Noble and Jacqueline Warwick.

“The purpose of the Complaint was to trigger an interim suspension prior to the start of classes on Monday, January 5, 2015,” the professors said in a statement emailed to CTVNews.ca on Sunday.

The complaint cites a number of posts allegedly made by fourth-year students in the Facebook group called “Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen.”

One poster reportedly joked about using chloroform to render a woman unconscious. Another asked members which female students they would like to have “hate sex” with. A third post showed a photo of a woman in a bikini with the caption: “bang until stress is relieved or unconscious (girl).”

The formal complaint matches these allegations up to violations under the school’s Code of Student Conduct. It says offending students should be suspended because they “pose a threat of disruption or interference with the operations of the University and the activities of its members.”

Baylis said the formal process was engaged because some of the affected female students either did not consent to, or were not approached about the informal “restorative justice” approach the university decided to take.

On Dec. 17, university president Richard Florizone said administrators were looking into informal complaints by women who were subjects of the offensive posts. He also left the door open to a formal complaint process if the affected women chose to pursue it.

“I ask for our communities to give our students and university administrators the time to complete their work through the restorative justice process and forge meaningful, responsible outcomes,” Florizone said in a statement.

“Our overall response must also address cultures of sexism, misogyny and sexualized violence,” he added.

Baylis said the offensive Facebook posts require both an individual and a “systemic” response.

“All of us believe that we’re at a very unique cultural moment in time where we’re actually able to name the problem publicly, to call this misogyny, to talk about gendered violence,” she said.

Read more: CTV

Read the Complaint: 

Statement from faculty members who brought a complaint under Dalhousie University’s Code of

Student Conduct re: the “Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen”

We are at a distinct cultural moment in which real change with respect to misogyny and gendered violence is possible.

Events involving the “Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen” create a complex situation demanding thoughtful, sensitive responses from a variety of perspectives using a variety of procedural tools.

We ground our engagement with this situation in commitments to:

  • acknowledging that the problem of misogyny and gendered violence exists on Dalhousie campuses and campuses across the country;
  • doing the work required to make our campuses safe and supportive learning environments for all members of our community and with particular concern for women and members of other vulnerable groups;
  • ensuring due process;
  • pursuing an integrated approach involving both systemic and specific responses.

President Florizone has committed to responding to the specific incident within the Faculty of Dentistry and to seeking strategies for meaningful long-term change. Our formal Complaint is an effort to contribute constructively to the comprehensive response required.

Female students open letter to #Dalhousie president Florizone #highered #ubc

Photo by Stephen Puddicombe/CBC

Photo by Stephen Puddicombe/CBC

CBC News, January 6, 2015–A group of fourth-year female students from Dalhousie University’s faculty of dentistry have written an open letter to the president of the school, saying they feel pressured to accept the restorative justice process to resolve the Facebook scandal that has rocked the school.

In a two-page letter addressed to Richard Florizone and disclosed to CBC News on Tuesday, the four unnamed students say they are not willing to accept the university’s response to the Facebook page called the Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen.

The page was created by some male students in the fourth-year dentistry class and contained misogynistic and sexually explicit posts, including a poll about having “hate” sex with female students and comments about drugging women.

The women say in their letter that they “do not wish for the sexual harassment and discrimination perpetrated by members of our class to be dealt with through this restorative justice process.”

“The university is pressuring us into this process, silencing our views, isolating us from our peers, and discouraging us from choosing to proceed formally,” says the letter.

“This has perpetuated our experience of discrimination. This approach falls far below what we expected from you, and what we believe we deserve.”

The women also say they are concerned about their future at the school.

‘We have serious concerns’

“Telling us that we can either participate in restorative justice or file a formal complaint is presenting us with a false choice. We have serious concerns about the impact of filing formal complaints on our chances of academic success at the faculty of dentistry, and believe that doing so would jeopardize our futures,” they wrote.

“The reason we have not filed formal complaints is also the reason we have not signed our names to this letter.”

Read Letter: Open Letter to President Richard Florizone

 … We are writing this open letter to inform you that, after considering the information that was presented in that meeting, we do not wish for the sexual harassment and discrimination perpetrated by members of our class to be dealt with through this restorative justice process or under the Sexual Harassment Policy. We feel that the University is pressuring us into this process, silencing our views, isolating us from our peers, and discouraging us from choosing to proceed formally. This has perpetuated our experience of discrimination. This approach falls far below what we expected from you, and what we believe we deserve….

Read More: CBC

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?