October 10, 1996
by Karl Jarosiewicz
Senate opened this year with two motions by members intended to review the Key Dates for 1996-97. Students' Society vice-president Don McGowan tried to introduce a motion to cancel exams on December 6, 1996, in memory of the women killed during the Polytechnique massacre at the Université de Montréal in 1989.
Because McGowan's request touched on a date contained in the Report of the Committee on Timetabling and Student Records approved back on November 9, 1994, procedural rules call for a motion to reconsider which must be adopted by a two-thirds majority. Should the vote be fewer than two-thirds in favour, the rules disallow any further discussion of the subject.
Professor Michael DuBow presented a motion to reconsider. Noting that he had "voted on the prevailing side when the Key Dates were approved in 1994," he nevertheless asked Senate to reconsider and to hear out the student-sponsored motion.
"The calendar of dates was well spelled out in 1994," said Professor Pat Farrell. He stated that it would be too disruptive to reconsider the schedule; among other things it would affect students' travel arrangements and the exam schedules.
"This is most unwise," he said, adding that "it's not the most appropriate gesture to remember the massacre anyway."
Vice-Principal Bill Chan concurred, saying that it was not fair to most students.
"There are other ways to commemorate the event," stated Professor Nick de Takacsy. He noted that Armistice Day is remembered with a minute of silence, not an entire day off work.
DuBow pleaded with senators not to feel threatened. "I know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is a good intention, but it doesn't quite lead to hell."
The necessary two-thirds majority didn't buy his argument. The motion to reconsider failed. Therefore, McGowan's motion to cancel exams on December 6 was withdrawn.
Recommendations by the Academic Policy and Planning Committee (APPC) to revise the guidelines for cyclical reviews of McGill units touched off a debate about the value of such reviews. APPC believes that the modifications to the Principles and Guidelines for Systematic Reviews "emphasize the importance of teaching and research over budgetary and administrative details."
The revisions attempt to incorporate comments from deans, members of the Sub-committee on University Teaching and Learning, and APPC itself within the report.
Some senators not only disagreed with the revisions, but questioned the value of the entire exercise. Some senators even suggested that the review process itself should be terminated.
"In the Faculty of Education, our direct costs (related to the review) were over $13,000, and that's in a medium-sized unit," said Professor Bruce Shore. "That's not counting indirect costs such as staff time." He added that the type of data required is difficult and costly to collect, particularly the data needed for an "analysis of employment for graduates of undergraduate and graduate programs."
"I'm of two minds regarding cyclical reviews," said Professor Farrell. "I'm sure they have some use, but how much have they cost over the last couple of years?"
The most contentious item was the composition of the review committees and the selection of external evaluators. After much discussion and very little agreement from the floor of Senate, Professor Malcolm Baines suggested that APPC review its recommendations and bring the document back at a future meeting. The majority agreed.
Principal Bernard Shapiro said that over the summer he received many reports from academics "denigrating the non-academic staff and its contribution to the University." He said that he found this trend disturbing and asked Senate and the McGill community to join with him in condemning this attitude.
"As we try to deal with the administrative financial burden, it doesn't help to circle the wagons and create a 'we/them' situation," he said. "Pressures are huge and it's easy to take others for granted."
He added that the coming year "will be a challenging one and anything you can do to help make the working environment better will be appreciated."
In response to a question about his recent meeting with Education Minister Pauline Marois, Shapiro said that she announced further cuts to the education budget in the order of $100 million to $150 million. McGill's cut would be around $22 million.
"I tried to explain to Madame Marois that this couldn't be done in the current policy situation."
He also mentioned the crumbling infrastructure at McGill. "We're falling apart," he said. He stated that every year we calculate the cost of deferred maintenance and every year Quebec tells us how much they should be giving us. However, the money just doesn't appear.
Shapiro confirmed that the discussion included the subject of raising tuition fees. "My sense is that there will be some modest rise in fees next year. The minister didn't say that, however," he added.
"A $200-a-year rise in tuition would provide some relief from the current budgetary crunch. As much as this makes me unpopular to state it, no one else has offered a more interesting proposal."