s.g,-cv

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, IJURNABY, B.C., CANADA V5A 1S6

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; 291.4841

April 27, 1981

William C. Gibson, M.D., F.R.C.P.

Chairman

Universities Council of B. C.

Ste. 500 - 805 West Broadway

Vancouver, B. C.

V5Z 1K1

Dear Dr. Gibson:

This letter is in response to the comment which you made

at the Friday, April 24th meeting of Ministry officials, the

three university presidents and yourself, to the effect that

the UCBC would be interested in the reaction of each of the

universities to the recent recommendations of the Council

•

on engineering education in B.C. We at SFU Were not aware,

that you were seeking our general reaction, although of course

you have been advised of the grave concerns of both our Senate

and our Board of Governors. My formal response to you, dated

April 22nd, is concerned only with your request that we respond

as quickly as possible to Council's recommendation that we

consider the appropriateness of initiating a program of engineer-

ing science at SFU. The fact that we have provided the latter

should in no way be construed to mean that we are supportive

of the Council's overall recommendations to the Minister on the

future of engineering education in this province. On the

contrary, like the Ministry officials who have commented, we

have important reservations and objections. Succinctly, we

find the report which was endorsed by UCBC to be unacceptable.

We do not take this position frivolously or irresponsibly;

rather we suggest to you that the report upon which action was

taken is virtually without rationale of any kind. Given the

important possible consequences of these recommendations to

the Province of B.C. and its universities, we

.

at SFU would

have expected a substantive report which would have been

thoroughly considered by Council and its committees before

any final recommendations were made.

i

^l

f

. .

---

William C. Gibson, M.D., F.R.C.P.

April

27, 1981

Page 2

For those of us at SFU, the issue is a much larger one

than the simple question of having an engineering faculty.

Rather, it is the fundamental question of whether this

institution is going to be allowed to initiate any of the

traditional professional schools. To deny us the opportunity

to continue to develop engineering here is taken as an

indication that, in the view of UCBC, Simon Fraser University

should continue to constrain itself to the basic liberal arts,

plus some innovative but relatively small quasi-professional

programs. Such a perspective is totally contrary to any

well-reasoned academic planning that is going on in North

America and we at SFU are not prepared to accept it. Personally,

I am not about to see my institution treated as some kind of

"second-class academic citizen" that is permitted to initiate

a few "crumbs" of new programs, but never anything of major

substance.

In making my comments here, I want to assure you that I

have no quarrel whatsoever with the University of Victoria

having a school of engineering. Certainly, I have no

desire

to begin to make comparisons between the two proposals, even

though I know both institutions reasonably well, academically

and otherwise. Let me instead elaborate some of the reasons

I believe Council's recent recommendations should be reconsidered.

First, I have already indicated my concern about the

lack of rationale, an obvious observation that everyone who

reads the statement makes. To suggest geographical location

in isolation from demography is not particularly convincing.

Similarly,

the suggestion that student urban/rural

orientation

is

a basis for millions of dollars of provincial investment

is equally unconvincing. In this regard, I am

particularly

supportive of Deputy Minister Stewart's request that a well-

documented report be prepared and the underlying rationale

clearly articulated.

For example, as nearly as I can determine, there is

nothing in the report which deals with such fundamental issues

as:

a)

the relative academic merits of the proposals

submitted;

b)

the relative capacity of the respective institutions

to provide the basic disciplinary support needed

within for a successful program in engineering;

. .

---

William C. Gibson, M.D., F.R.C.P.

April 27

0

1981

Page 3

C)

the relevant fiscal aspects of the various

options which the committee considered;

d) the demography of the province with respect,

not only to where the populations surges are

going to occur but also where economic development

of all kinds is going to take place, including

I hope, research and development activities.

As you are already aware, we at SFU have questions about

the procedures

which UCBC

employed once the report was received.

We in the B.C. university system have struggled

unevenly

over

the past few years to establish some procedures by which

educational planning could be modestly predictable. Included

in these various planning functions are the committees of

Council. In this regard, given the importance of engineering

education, would it not have been reasonable to have the Long

Range

Planning

committee consider this report? • Or, failing

that, could the Program Co-ordinating Committee not have been

helpful? Both the process used and the speed with which a

decision was reached are matters of concern to us.

.

Finally, we would

like

to observe that the means used

for announcing the UCBC engineering recommendations is of

concern. Normally UCBC recommendations are sent to the

Minister without benefit of media release of any kind, thereby

avoiding all the usual problems associated with raised

expectations and the like. Furthermore, such a low-profile

procedure allows the Minister responsible the opportunity to

prepare the way politically and financially for any major

investment. From what I have been able to determine, the

fact that the recommendations were treated in some sense as

a fait accompli is certain to make this matter of engineering

education a difficult one to resolve. For example, one can

just imagine the questions already being formulated by

Treasury Board staff.

Let me conclude by exmphasizing our perception that the

ad hoc committee's report on engineering requires further

coniTeration. This point of view is unanimously endorsed

by our Board, our Senate, and the total academic and

administrative community of Simon

Fraser

University. A

failure to reconsider

will, from our perspective,

result

in

a serious erosion of

confidence

in the work of

your Council.

Equally important, it

will

not allow this institution to

achieve the academic development necessary for its maximum

contribution to the welfare of this province.

Yours sicerely,

(IC (

•

K. George Pedersen

•

President

KGPzajj

---

William C. Gibson, M.D., F.R.C.P.

April 27, 1981

Page 4

.

cc: Dr. J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

Dr. P. Calvert, Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies

and Director, Engineering Program

Dr. R. Parkinson, Chairman, Board of Governors

Mr. P.T. Cote, Chancellor

The Hon. P.L. McGeer, Minister, Universities,

Science and Communications

bcc: Dr. R. Stewart, Deputy

Minister

Ministry of

Universities,

Science and Communications

Mr. A.E. Soles, Assistant Deputy

Minister

of

Universities

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communication.

Board of Governors

Executive Council

is

is