UTSU and the Ontario Public Interest Research Group held a public debate last Thursday to discuss the five-year strategic plan released in July by the Faculty of Arts and Science. Originally planned as a moderated debate between UTSU President Adam Awad and faculty dean Meric Gertler, the event was changed into a public forum after Gertler could not attend. Concerned audience members voiced their opinions while speakers presented their arguments.
The forum centered around the five-year plan that proposes to dismantle several area studies and interdisciplinary programs. Grievances were exchanged that the plan was formulated without consultation with the university community.
The meeting was part of a week-long event, titled DoubleSpeak: Hypocrisy and this Globalization Sh#t, that included workshops, forums, parties, and performances to introduce students to political activism on campus.
Speakers expressed their concern over the proposed structural changes, including the amalgamation of six independent departments into a new School of Languages and Literatures and the disestablishment of research units, including the Centre for Ethics, the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies, Disability Studies, East Asian Studies, and Comparative Literature.
ASSU President Gavin Nowlan recounted his version of the steps taken by the dean and provost to “fit the Faculty of Arts and Science to the 2030 plate.” He referenced the Towards 2030 Framework approved in October 2008 that proposes self-regulation of student fees and increased corporate partnerships.
The findings of a 2008 external review — which noted the faculty had too many interdisciplinary units, resulting in the resource squandering — was instrumental in the development of the new five-year plan.
Nowlan claims that early last year, Gertler requested each department to “come up with plans, point out weaknesses and strengths, and decide what to focus on in the next five years” at which point the Strategic Planning Committee would “take it all in, digest them, present reports and there would be a dialogue.
“This is not what happened,” he said. Instead of dialogue, the five-year plan that was released mirrored the earlier external review, judging that there are too many unmarketable interdisciplinary units.
Mohammed Tavakoli, professor of history and near and Middle Eastern civilizations, called the plan the “academic version of the Bush administration.”
Tavakoli considered the academic plan as evidence of the commodification of higher education and privatization of decision-making in the university.
“Usually, the decision-making process involves the faculty, chairs, and the dean. What they have done is a radical shift,” he said. “The Strategic Planning Committee, a small group of administrators, has decided the fate of the university without consultation with stakeholders.”
Tavakoli believes the proposed change of instituting a School of Languages and Literature would constitute a return to the “cheapest model” of higher education, adversely affecting student’s ability to think critically and “[destroying] alternative sites of liberal education” altogether.
Specifically, he considers the current interdisciplinary setup — where learning a foreign language is accompanied by courses about culture and history — is more conducive to producing culturally sensitive and aware students. A move where disciplines are once again sectioned off constitutes fundamentalism, according to Tavakoli.
Gertler has maintained that the plan is necessary to meet his faculty’s budgetary deficit.
Awad assessed the academic impact of Towards 2030 and claims it will focus on science, technology, engineering, medicine, and business administration programs while ultimately less focus will be given to high quality teaching in Arts and Science as an end unto itself.
“What happens to all these other things that can’t be sold? The response is it is dying out,” he said.
See The Varsity’s extensive past coverage of the proposed changes within the Faculty of Arts & Science.
