We unfolded last Thursday’s Varsity to find an amazing story. With a title and first sentence that misrepresent an otherwise balanced account; Athletics reps crash forum (Oct. 30) paints a group of concerned students as a marauding horde. Students arrived en masse to the provost’s Town Hall because they had to leave class just to attend the meeting. Once there, they entered in a quiet and orderly fashion. But this is hardly the point.
Your story begins by noting that the Town Hall featured “A few dozen unexpected guests…” Unexpected? Students? The portrayal of students participating in the consultation process around this university’s strategic plan as unexpected party crashers is troubling. Who will be more affected than students by the direction in which this university chooses to go, and why shouldn’t they be at such a meeting?
Unintentionally, your article hits upon a greater irony. Student attendance and feedback at this meeting was unexpected, certainly by the provost who appeared stunned by the arrival of students. How else can we explain why the four Town Hall meetings organized to gather feedback on the White Paper were all scheduled during times when the majority of students were in classes? If the meeting was about feedback, why did the provost use the first half of it to make a PowerPoint presentation?
But the saddest omission from your article was the decision to ignore the substance of student feedback. A number of students spoke at the meeting-from Physical Education, as well as Arts and Science, Engineering, and graduate students; a united sentiment overlooked. They argued that physical activity and recreation opportunities are an integral part of student life. The provost was so hostile towards student feedback, she went so far as to declare a “moratorium” on these issues during the Town Hall. While the provost refused to “put athletics ahead of academics,” articulate and passionate students made it clear they weren’t asking her to do so.
More than 22,500 students use the athletics and recreation facilities on the St. George campus. They aren’t putting these experiences ahead of academic ones. The students who spoke at last Tuesday’s Town Hall made it clear to the provost that she needs to stop severing the mind from the body and begin imagining a more embodied model of education. This was by far the most far-sighted and strategic thinking expressed during the meeting.
The provost’s response to these issues was to elide them into a debate about Varsity Stadium. This isn’t a debate about Varsity. Just as the students’ rejection of a levy for a new stadium wasn’t their way of saying they don’t value recreation and physical activity.
What the provost says she wants is “increased financial support from CAR.” Even if the students on the Council of Athletics and Recreation wished to, the Council has no power to make this happen. Regardless, the provost’s solution is to encourage students to tax other students. This is not leadership pointing towards a new strategic direction for the university. It is the absence of it.
The provost says that she doesn’t underrate the importance of athletics and recreation. Indeed, we welcome her offer to join us in lobbying Queen’s Park for increased funding. However, if the only issue is money and the provost really believes that these are important elements in the university experience, we call upon her to enshrine this commitment in the White Paper. If we acknowledge this as something that many at U of T value, then we can begin to work together to provide students with the opportunities and experiences they want and deserve.
Russell Field is a student with the School of Graduate Studies, and co-chair of the Council of Athletics and Recreation. Ted Norman is also a student with the School of Graduate studies, and president of the Physical Education and Health Graduate Students Union (a GSU member.)
