If nothing else, it’s nice to have been asked.
Last week, Shirley Neuman, the University of Toronto’s provost, unveiled a series of green papers (“discussion papers,” for English speakers) on U of T’s Academic Plan. This plan, when it’s completed in late spring, will determine the university’s actions for years to come, perhaps as far ahead as 2010. The provost is asking for student and faculty input on the plan, and this should be applauded.
The green papers (available at www.utoronto.ca/plan2003) are ambitious documents, covering everything from student housing and commuting to tenure review, diversity policies, and scholarships. The stated aim of the academic planning process is to “become one of the world’s best public research universities.”
That’s a worthy goal, but the first green paper, titled “Characteristics of the Best (Public) Research Universities,” reads like slobbery fan-mail to Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge. The University of Toronto, undeniably the preeminent research institution in Canada, seems to have a crippling inferiority complex when it compares itself to universities in the United States and Europe. The green papers are essentially directions for making U of T just like Harvard.
This isn’t necessarily bad—there are worse things to aspire to—but we have to be careful. After all, another characteristic of the best universities is self-confidence—constantly glancing abroad to see if we’re keeping up with the Joneses doesn’t exactly radiate self-worth. There are other Oxford and Harvardisms we can do without: as medical and law students are discovering, “one of the world’s best” is code for “expensive.”
Aside from this creeping Americanitis, the academic planning process so far is commendable. Provost Neuman is putting herself in the line of fire for 12 public meetings where any student, staff member, or professor can ask her questions, air their grievances, or suggest changes to the plan. People are invited to do further slashing and burning at the plan’s website.
This is a tremendous opportunity for students to make themselves directly heard by the administration, and if we don’t take it, we have only ourselves to blame. Turnout at the first public meeting, held last Friday at the Innis Town Hall, was heavily skewed toward faculty and graduate students. If the sizable undergrad population doesn’t turn out and say what it wants, we are guaranteed to be disappointed by the results. It’s simple: you don’t ask, you don’t get.
They’ve asked for our opinions. It doesn’t happen often, so let’s make the most of it.
