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