Site Accessibility Statement
Wilfrid Laurier University Communications, Public Affairs & Marketing
September 1, 2014
 
 
Canadian Excellence

Communications & Public Affairs




Contact Us:

email: Communications & Public Affairs
phone: 519-884-0710
ext: 3070

 

The Cord, Nov. 2, 2011: Senior administration leaving faculty behind



Wilfrid Laurier University’s clarifications and corrections website is an opportunity for Laurier to provide comments and necessary corrections to information written and published about the university by other sources.

The left-hand column of the site contains excerpts from stories published about Laurier using the exact wording from the original source. Items bolded in the left-hand column text are directly addressed in the right-hand clarifications and corrections column.

Bolded items represent a selection of key points, but may not be an exhaustive list of all erroneous or misleading information contained in the article. In other words, readers should not assume that all un-bolded statements are correct as originally written.

Original Story

Headline: Senior administration leaving faculty behind












Subhead: Associate professor of history Gavin Brockett calls on President Max Blouw and other university administration to consult the greater Laurier community in planning the university’s future.







Two weeks ago, Wilfrid Laurier University hosted a conference to “reimagine” the future of universities in a changing world. Hardly advertised on campus, it was aimed primarily at senior administrators from Laurier and other institutions.

Although it was clearly an effort to position Laurier as a key player in the current debate about the future of university education in Ontario, the issues discussed are of profound importance to the Laurier community.

Laurier’s president Max Blouw opened the proceedings with an overview of the challenges facing universities today, particularly those associated with inadequate government financing and the growing number of students. Blouw concluded that the current model is under great strain: he wondered whether it is possible to sustain faculty spending 40 per cent of their time on research and only 40 per cent of their time in the classroom (20 per cent on “community service”)?

Much of the subsequent discussion surrounded the proposal that a sustainable model for post-secondary education involves, faculty devoting 80 per cent of their time to teaching. In other words faculty would teach eight courses rather than the four we currently deliver. Beyond the obvious financial returns that would accompany such a shift, two assumptions underlie this proposal.

The first is that today’s universities are failing students and must, therefore, be reformed drastically. The second is that faculty are largely responsible for this failure: we are too caught up in our own research to care for the needs of students in the classroom.

As was repeated many times at the conference, apparently there is no proof that faculty actively engaged in research are of any benefit to the learning experience. There are few at Laurier who would disagree with the fact that the university in general — and our university in particular — is facing unprecedented challenges in the midst of the current economic climate. There are also many who would agree that things need to change; that we can do better. Last week’s Maclean’s rankings would seem to support this conclusion.

How do we achieve positive change?

Perhaps the greatest obstacle is that we, the primary stakeholders, are not invited to participate in the process by which the administration hopes to address the problems that Laurier faces.

Students who pay increasing amounts for their education, as well as faculty and staff who will invest decades of their lives here, all feel that we are on the outside looking in at a process beyond our control.

The “re-imagine” conference is a prime example. Whether or not this was the intention, the fact that the event was not advertised extensively on campus beforehand, and that faculty were charged $100 and students $50 to participate, leaves the distinct impression that our input into the Laurier’s future is not encouraged.

Similarly, we watch with no small degree of incredulity as money is poured into centenary celebrations, the rebranding of the university, advertising in the Globe and Mail and conferences that try to make Laurier a name.

All at a time of supposed fiscal restraint when each year class sizes increase, courses are cut and when faculty and staff are told to do more with less. Certainly, it will be challenging and time consuming, but the entire Laurier community needs to be involved in determining our future. Co-operation and constructive dialogue must replace the confusion and frustration that characterize our campus.

These emotions are understandable. After all, what did Blouw mean when he said that the current model is unsustainable?

Is he suggesting that the administration wants to move away from the four course teaching load — the very conditions that the administration (not faculty) insisted upon in the last round of collective bargaining? What did he mean when he asked whether we really need instructors with PhDs teaching at the first- and second-year levels?

If Blouw envisions Laurier as a “teaching only university,” is the vision that we become a highly regarded small-class liberal arts college as in the United States, or more like a Canadian community college or, for that matter, a high school? Now that the administration has raised these important issues, the question that begs answering is what do students, faculty and staff think about these matters?

I for one don’t doubt the good intentions of Laurier’s senior administration, but the discussion must include all members of the community. Our future cannot be imposed from above.

A friend in the corporate world tells me that companies today recognize the importance of including employees in the decision-making and planning processes so as not to stifle motivation and innovation. Successful corporate cultures strive to avoid an adversarial relationship between management and employees by working with them to achieve agreed upon goals that serve all.

At a time when universities are increasingly functioning like corporations, perhaps we need to borrow from them so that we too can be innovative, creative and competitive.

At the conclusion of the “re-imagine” conference, Blouw noted that on the occasion of its centenary Laurier is on the cusp of great change.

Just what he was referring to was not clear. However, for the health and future of Laurier it must be change that is inspired and supported by all: students, staff, faculty and senior administrators.

© 2011 The Cord

Corrections/Clarifications

The headline to this article is provocative, but not true. The university provides regular opportunities for faculty members to express their views and contribute to key discussions about the university’s future. The most obvious opportunity is Senate, which is comprised mainly of faculty members and whose meetings are public and open to all members of the Laurier community. Faculty members were also invited to express their views during the Envisioning Laurier process, the Academic Plan consultations, and the ongoing work of the President’s Task Force on Multi-Campus Governance. Dr. Blouw also holds an annual Town Hall meeting and numerous ‘Breakfasts with Blouw’ at which he invites questions and discussion on a broad range of issues affecting the future of the university.

The members of senior administration have made many and clear efforts to consult faculty members and the wider Laurier community on the university’s future. In addition to regular Senate meetings, faculty were encouraged to express their views during the Envisioning Laurier process which was run, at the President’s request, by an ad hoc committee of Senate; the Academic Plan consultations; and the ongoing work of the President’s Task Force on Multi-Campus Governance. Dr. Blouw also holds an annual Town Hall meeting and numerous ‘Breakfasts with Blouw’ at which he invites questions and discussion on a broad range of issues affecting the future of the university.

The Re-imagine conference was open to anyone interested in the future of universities, including faculty, staff and students. It is incorrect to suggest otherwise. The conference was also advertised widely on and off campus. An announcement was posted to the Laurier homepage on June 14; an announcement was posted to the Laurier100 centennial site from April through to the event in October; posters were distributed around the Waterloo and Brantford campuses in June; an email invitation was sent to every full- and part-time faculty member and every staff member on Aug. 23; news items appeared in the September and October issues of InsideLaurier; a news release was posted to the Laurier homepage on Oct. 11; and the conference appeared under the October events listing on the Laurier homepage. As well, ads were placed in the CAUT bulletin and on the CAUT website; in OCUFA’s online Academic Matters journal; in the AUCC’s University Affairs magazine; and in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Finally, the conference was promoted through numerous listserves on and off the campus.









Dr. Blouw did not suggest that universities are failing students nor that “faculty are largely responsible” for any perceived failure. Please see his presentation at: https://www.wlu.ca/documents/48792/Reimagine_conference_20_Oct_2011.pdf














The university has repeatedly invited faculty, staff and students to participate in discussions about Laurier’s future, as stated above. The most recent opportunity was the Re-imagine conference itself.














Promotion of the university is essential to attracting the funding needed to keep pace with rising cost of running a university and to attract outstanding faculty and students. Telling the Laurier story in a very public way benefits all members of Laurier community, it brings more and better resources into the classroom, and it increases the value of a Laurier degree.







Dr. Blouw restated the legitimate and widely acknowledged observation that the current structure of most universities, in light of the funding climate, is not financially sustainable.

First, specific items in the WLUFA collective agreement were agreed upon by both parties and were arrived at through negotiation. Second, Dr. Blouw is not suggesting a move away from a four course load as specified in the current collective agreement which was negotiated between faculty and administration and which reflects the agreement by both parties on this point.