Various theories and ideas seem to be making the rounds in response to the Faculty of Arts and Science restructuring plan.
One bizarre notion is that “Simcoe Hall” somehow ordered all these changes. In reality, the final shape of the proposals is still in obvious flux, and no specific plans have come to the central administration for formal approval and submission to university-wide governance. Another odd theory is that the A&S plans were hatched at the behest of evil right-wing benefactors. I understand the timeless appeal of conspiracy theories. However, the simple fact is that the proposals were worked up by a committee involving a number of independent-minded colleagues from A&S itself.
This leads me to the more interesting theory, advanced in last week’s Varsity by Alex Griffith (“What’s happening to the liberal arts?”, Oct. 11, p7). Mr Griffith portrays the A&S plan as reflecting current trends arising from globalization and increased competition. Certainly some political leaders and public commentators have championed differential investments in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines. Their views have helped to raise concerns that a general devaluation of the humanities is afoot in society and universities world-wide. I’ve shared this unease sufficiently to push back publicly on a number of occasions both against overly-narrow definitions of innovation and in support of the role of the humanities in successful societies. Given enrolment data, performance indicators, and recent benefactions, I am also glad to say that the humanities remain very strong at U of T. Regarding Mr Griffith’s concerns about the declining relevance of the “liberal arts” in an era of globalization, I believe the exact opposite is true. It is precisely because we live in a comparatively borderless world that, more than ever, we need the humanities and social sciences to thrive. We can argue strenuously (as seems to be the current case locally) about how best to organize them, but I have not heard anyone advocating some grand downsizing of the humanities at U of T.
The same issue of the Varsity presents another interesting commentary, this one by Maria Cichosz, arguing in favour of small inter-disciplinary programs (“A necessary piece of the university puzzle” Oct. 11, p7). I was surprised, however, that Ms Cichosz opened with this statement: “When the University of Toronto introduced its Towards 2030 academic restructuring plan in 2007, it became apparent that a major part of the project involved cutting funding to and reducing the size of small interdisciplinary departments.” It did? That’s news to me, and I’m the aging academic bureaucrat who spent the better part of a summer writing up the Towards 2030 Synthesis Report.
The material in Towards 2030 on tri-campus differentiation of undergraduate programming notes that the east and west campuses might well decide to organize more of their programs on a multi-disciplinary basis. I urged that “long-standing debates about the merits of discipline-based versus multidisciplinary approaches to defining undergraduate degree programs…require not a priori resolutions but dialogues among colleagues…” The report also noted that, on the St. George campus, the colleges had been valuable “incubators for student-centred innovations as well as new multi-disciplinary programming and related academic units.” In brief, I can find no evidence that the Towards 2030 Synthesis Report takes any adverse view of multi-disciplinary units or programs. Nor does it take any position on issues such as how to organize area studies or language instruction.
On those latter fronts, the consultation ongoing in A&S is part of a wider debate at universities that has been bubbling for decades. It stems from a big and important question: what’s the best way for a faculty to organize itself into efficient and effective units that facilitate teaching, research and creative professional activity? The answer seems to be: it depends. It depends on, among other things, the discipline at issue – whether traditional or integrative; the trade-offs arising from budgetary constraints; the extant number of appointees with backgrounds in the relevant discipline(s); and — obviously — student demand and the implications for pedagogy and the student experience.
The Provost and I will therefore wait with interest to see the revised recommendations arising from the A&S consultative process.
