David Naylor’s term as president of the University of Toronto has been extended for three more years by the Governing Council. The news of this extension was met with a negative reception from student leaders—particularly the University of Toronto Students’ Union and the Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students—who cited areas such as academic freedom, equity and accessibility, flat fees, and the controversial guiding document Towards 2030 framework as areas where Naylor had failed students.
While Naylor’s tenure as president has not been perfect, it has been far from an abject failure. I approve of Naylor’s renewal as president, and U of T students should not worry about three more years of Naylor.
When Naylor was selected as president in 2005, he made a commitment to improving the student experience. However, he has had to attend to both provincial and federal governments that have placed post-secondary education low on their list of priorities. This has resulted in what might appear to be compromises between institutional and student goals.
Despite that, the U of T experience has been enhanced, but not necessarily in the way student leaders expected. For them, the importance lies in lower tuition fees or allowing more student dissent. Instead, Naylor’s term and president has seen small and cautious steps, with programs like Vic One and the increased infrastructure at the satellite campuses. He has steered U of T toward remaining competitive, both nationally and internationally, a course mostly outlined in the Towards 2030 framework.
Detractors have argued that Towards 2030 will make the university less accessible to the growing undergraduate student population by reducing the number of undergraduate positions available. This is a limited view of a complex situation in which the university must remain committed to students but also increase its research base to attract them. Having the latest technology and research gives U of T a competitive advantage in hiring professors and training students, as professors and students are not going to be as attracted to a university using outdated equipment or working from outdated theoretical paradigms. Furthermore, the lowest percentage of undergraduates out of the three possible scenarios outlined in the Towards 2030 document would represent 70 percent, which is still high. Overall, St. George campus currently has about 14,000 grads and 40,000 undergrads (that’s roughly 1/4 grad, 3/4 undergrad), so the increase will be modest at best.
Criticisms of Naylor are the result of broken communication between the administration and student unions. As ASSU President Gavin Nowlan indicated, many meetings seem more like information sessions, and greater dialogue needs to be opened up between all parties concerned.
The flat fees issue is a case in point. Students were given inadequate opportunities to articulate their positions on the controversial measure at the final meeting at Simcoe Hall. A decision like this required more input from the student community, which can’t happen until student unions and the administration strike up a more respectful discourse with each other. Naylor does have the skills to engage with students at a high level, and increased communication will lead to a greater sense of student representation.
Naylor will no doubt remain a controversial figure for the next three years. However, his request for a more meaningful dialogue at the Governing Council, and overtures to the St. George Roundtable should be taken as positive signs.
Overall, he’s far from the worst president this university has ever had, and if he keeps up the good work, he may eventually be considered one of the best.
