Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10

To ? 

SEN.kTE 

?

From

_ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Subject

Date JUNE 26, 1973 

"That Senate approve, and recommend approval to the 

Board of Governors, as set forth in S.73-83, that 

the Department of Political Science, Sociology and 

Anthropology be reconstituted as two Departments, 

effective September 1, 1973, with the responsibility 

for the present curriculum being divided appropriately 

between a Department of Political Science and a 

Department of Sociolo g 

y and Anthropology." 

"That Senate approve that detailed program and 

curriculum presentations of the two new Departments 

be developed for recommendation to Senate not later 

than the December 1973 meeting for projected 

implementation on September 1, 1974." 

NOTION 1:

MOTION 2:

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

From

Subject.. ?

... ?

... ?

Date

I have received recommendations from the Academic

Planning Committee and wish the attached motions and papers

to be placed on the July agenda of Senate.

K. Strand

Enclosure

.

?

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 

BACKGROUND 

On October 3, 1972, the Department of Political Science, 

Sociology and Anthropology passed the following resolution 

unanimously: 

"That the Department make representations to the 

Academic Planning body of the University that the 

P.S.A. Department be split into a Political Science 

and Anthropology/Sociology Department..... 

On November 3 the question of splitting the Department 

of P.S.A. formally came before the Academic Planning Committee 

in the form of a charge from the President that the 

Academic Planning Committee 

(a)

consider briefs from the various faculty 

members within the P.S.A. Department proposing 

that two separate departments be established and 

(b)

discuss these briefs with the view to the formulation 

of recommendations to the Senate. 

The P.S.A. Student Union had earlier submitted to the 

Vice-President Academic a memorandum on the 'proposed split of the 

P.S.A. Department'. 

At the November 6 Senate meeting, the Academic Planning 

Committee was charged by Senate to consider the questions 

raised. These were 

(a)

the vote of the P.S.A. faculty to separate into 

two departments, and 

(b)

the student opposition to this proposal. 

At its meeting on November 11, the Academic Planning Committee 

decided that it could not make any recommendations (even in 

principle) nor begin proper discussion of the merits and 

demerits of the proposal until it had studied the relevant 

information and so reported to Senate at its December meeting. 

Accordingly, in an advertisement placed in The Peak of November 15 

the Academic Planning Committee invited all interested persons to 

submit briefs, or make other representations, "so. that the 

. ?

Committee can proceed to consider the question with all due care 

and deliberation". The advertisement indicated that briefs and 

any inquiries should be addressed to the Chairman of the 

Academic Planning Committee, Dr. R.D. Bradley. 

/.... 

The mechanism through which the proposal would be evaluated 

had been described to representatives of the P.S.A. faculty 

by the Dean of Arts and the Vice-President Academic and, 

in a full page advertisement on November 8, an "open letter 

to P.S.A. students from the Vice-President Academic had 

indicated the appropriate procedure through which Senate 

would be advised. A further solicitation of briefs was 

made in The Peak of 24 January, 1973, by the Chairman of the 

Academic Planning Committee. 

The Academic Planning Committee received only two 

brief submissions by the January 31, 1973 deadline. Both 

of these came from faculty members in the P.S.A. Department, 

supporting the proposed split. 

At a January departmental meeting of the P.S.A., a vote 

to rescind the proposal to split the Department was approved. 

Various members of the Department, however, reaffirmed their 

request for a separate political science department and 

continued developing a new curriculum. 

Because of the clear evidence of division within the 

Department, the Academic Planning Committee continued its 

• ? 

evaluation of the proposal to split the Department. The 

President provided the A.P.C. with a more detailed specification 

of his and Senate's earlier charge. 

The Academic Planning Committee, in seeking to fulfil its 

various charges, had received preliminary submissions from the 

two groups within P.S.A. related to proposed new curricula. 

It had requested submissions from all interested parties and it 

had undertaken an examination of the administrative structures 

in other universities in Canada and elsewhere to be examined. 

After careful consideration of these matters, the 

Academic Planning Committee declared itself on March 29 

in favour of the principle of providing separate administrative 

structures through which the basic disciplines would be taught. 

In all its discussions, however, the Academic Planning Committee 

had maintained that any separation of the units composing 

the Department of P.S.A. must. not be allowed to affect the 

programs of students already enrolled as majors and who would 

wish to continue proceeding towards degrees. The Academic 

Vice-President also indicated to faculty that the restructuring 

of the Department would not affect the contractual positions 

of current full-time faculty since these positions, whether 

probationary or with tenure, are in either Anthropology, 

Political Science or Sociology. 

After coming to its decision in principle, the Academic 

Planning Committee directed the Dean of Arts and the 

Vice-President Academic to discuss with the P.S.A. Department 

faculty the implementation of the above proposal. 

3.

The decision was first discussed by the Dean and Vice-President 

with Drs. Rush and Whitworth, Acting Chairmen of P.S.A. 

during 73-1 and 73-2 respectively. The Academic Vice-President 

then wrote a letter to all P.S.A. faculty informing them of 

the status of the propbsal and subsequently the Dean of Arts and 

the Vice-President Academic had a three hour meeting with 

twelve' members of the faculty on the 14th of May. A letter 

was written to P.S.A. majors on May 17 informing students of the 

developments. At the meeting with faculty, only two members 

indicated opposition to the split of the Department with the 

majority favouring the proposal. It was indeed suggested that the 

likelihood of the split had already had a beneficial effect on 

personal interactions within the Department. 

Subsequently the Academic Vice-President called a meeting 

on June 6 to provide information to students and others 

interested about the developments. This meeting was boycotted 

by the P.S.A. Student Union. Subsequently an "open forum" was 

sponsored by the P.S.A. Student Union on June 22. 

The Academic Planning Committee considered the reports 

of the Dean and the Academic Vice-President regarding the May 14 

meeting with P.S.A. faculty and arguments presented at the 

June 22 forum at its meeting on June 25. The Committee voted 

• ? 

to recommend that the P.S.A. Department be split into two 

departments, Political Science and Sociology & Anthropology. 

RT I ONALE

The Academic Planning Committee believes that the proposed 

split will alleviate many of the existing tensions within the 

P.S.A. Department, will lead to the development of more 

effective disciplinary programs in the Social Sciences and, 

through inter-departmental contacts either within the Faculty of 

Arts or using the mechanisms which now exist within the Faculty 

of Interdisciplinary Studies, will lead to more effective 

development of true interdisciplinary programs. The Committee 

is also convinced that the variety of offerings available 

to students will be increased, that the opportunities to 

undertake disciplinary studies in depth will be enhanced 

while a variety of interdisciplinary courses should inevitably 

follow if the expressed interest in such work exists or can be 

stimulated. 

In formulating its recommendation, the Academic Planning 

Committee has considered the advantages and disadvantages 

associated with the current administrative grouping of the 

disciplines of Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology. 

Through its actions over the past three years, the 

Academic Planning Committee has indicated a concern for the 

effective development of interdisciplinary studies at 

Simon Fraser, through the development of the Division of 

General Studies and the new Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies. 

/.... 

4.

The Department of P.S.A. was originally set up as an 

interdisciplinary department and consequently the present 

recommendation to split the Department into two separate 

entities may appear somewhat inconsistent with the Committee's 

previous recommendations. However, in the view of the Academic 

Planning Committee, the success of interdisciplinary programs 

depends not only on the commitment of individuals to such 

programs, but also on a consensus among the faculty involved 

about the philosophy on which the interdisciplinary cluster 

of subjects is based, and about the practical implications of 

this philosophy. Such a consensus, in order to form the 

foundation of a viable program, must be the result of a 

profound agreement and not a mere compromise among conflicting 

opinions. 

The Committee feels that such a consensus does not exist 

within the P.S.A. Department and thus it has not been successful 

in developing genuinely interdisciplinary programs, either 

at the undergraduate or at the graduate level. Further, while 

the walls have in theory been struck down between Political 

Science, Sociology and Anthropology, virtually no interdepartmental 

activity with the other social sciences and Philosophy has existed, 

hindering the development of integrated social science curricula. 

More important, however, the present undergraduate programs in 

P.S.A. do not provide, in many core areas, the basic curriculum 

. ?

material appropriate for students majoring in each specific 

discipline. Consequently, in many cases, there is an inadequate 

preparation for graduate work at other universities. 

It is the view of the Academic Planning Committee that the 

basic disciplines now joined in the P.S.A. Department would best 

be developed within new administrative structures. At the same 

time the Committee believes that effective interdisciplinary 

work in the Social Sciences can better be facilitated by 

appropriately qualified and sincerely interested faculty members 

working in specific Faculty programs or through the administrative 

arrangements offered within the Faculty of Interdisciplinary 

Studies. 

•

?

B.G. Wilson 

Vice-President Academic 

27 June, 1973 

PEii'

-r

?-• 3

P5k Student Union 

..Room

5053 AQ

Simon Fraser University 

July 

4,

1973

Dear Senator; ?

During the past year, the PSA Student Union has taken a positi0t opposing

the

proposed split of the PSA Dpartrneflt and supporting the re_estab11& 

nt

of

a

truly IntordisCiPlir7 Social Sciento at Simon Fraser UniversitY 

This 

po5iti,

which is 

8taflt with our continu.d support of the CAUT ctnsure, has bcn stated 

pab1i1Y on several occassiOns including the 1972 November Teach—In and

mor*i

recently at the 1973 June Opon Forw. Since this important issue will be appear'tg

before Senate,

would like to sumariO for you the najor points underlying

our stand.

IntrdisCiPi7 Social Science means the creatiOn of a new ethodol0gY for

i ?

I'j••j. ?

Ci ?

...

the apriori separaUofl or splitting of hunan activity into Poiitical, social, and 

is no longer the most fr 

uitful 

?

97 in which to 

expand our undor-'

cultural aspects 

tndir.g of the acts of man. In one sense,

it is 

a call for a return to the holistic 

approach of the

social

philosoPhY that preceded

the estah11h 

?

of the separate 

aoc1olOT, &nd nthr

poIogY. But, it is definitely

disciPli105

more than a 

ractiOfla17

po1itical5CiC

desire to recreate the social >?clati0 of that

tim'39

the excesses 

excesses of which gave rise to the need for a more 

yt.iAtiC

approach. PSA 

jeflCS

in

that it hopes to build upon the advances 

in

factual 

knowledge,

clearly 

means 

theory and

social 

technique that have been prduccd daring the past 

3

event - five 

years by rawec.ving the currently 

disparate and overly specialized disciplines into

& new holistic franeJOtiC. 

The first

step

the cretion of 

an

Interdisciplinary Social Science can be 

the Jw

açiti0fl

of factua]. rc.torial, thcorie3, and invcstigatl'/O app .chos frort

to or more dP1'

in d1t:'

,dth a relati

tnnil

range of vrebloLls. This

-2-

is a course restructuring known at SPU as 

Interdisciplinary &dJ.

the extent

that it, 

helps break down 

departmental

and intellectual boundaries, it can certainly 

be an 

Important development toward more holistic and less narrowly visioned approahee 

to the study of any phenomena. 

However, Interdisciplinary 

Studies, as presently constituted 

presupposes the 

indefinite existence of currenly 

separated

fields of 

inquiry. Political 

Science,

Sociology, 

and Anthropologyha-re 

already passed through 

this stage 

of

reeonstruttion. 

The establishmsnt of a combined PSA department in 1965 signified this fact and initiated 

the creation of a new holistic social science. This stage, 

which clearly requires 

the full support of aU faculty, graduate 

studetna, and undergraduates was seriously

disrupted with the firing of .8 

12 faculty members from the department between 

1969

and 1971. 

Since that time there has been no strong committment on 

the part of the remaining 

faculty 'there to develop joint courses and programs necessary for the re4ntegration 

their 

disciplInes. 

Instead, many have allowed themselves to become aidtrackod 

by participating in a series of counterproductive personal squabbles. 

Now several

of these sce professors, 

who have failed during the last four years to p?odue 

even

one fac1ty/stueirt seminar series on how to go 

about the

difficult innovative task 

-

of re-integrating 

their disciplines, come to yo'i by wey 

of

Vice President Ullecn and 

?

the Academic Planning Cot!nittee with a proposal to 

spilt

the

department, . And

what 

are their reasons? Are they based' on the 

experience nL' smious

intellectual offort37

No, these faculty members claim that political- scientists cannot get along with 

sociologists and anthropologists. On what is this univorsal law of social 

science 

based? A sample of less than trnxty, 

during the years 1969 

to 1972 at Simon Fraser 

University. And what inference do they draw from this into rdiscipliriary study? Die- 

mantle PL Split it apart 

as an 

administrative unit. And do 

this 

oven before an 

coptablo curriculum has been drawn up dose bing exactly what the new 

departments 

n.pe to achieve. Clearly 

c.his is 

not

science; it is non-science. 

The currrt faculty iiembei-s, like thoso who ware fid, wure hired not to th 

?

Department 

of Political Science or 

to

the Dpartnt of Sociology or to the Dopart.tiont 

j

of

Anthropology. They signed contracts agreeing to work 

in the Interdisciplinary 

Social Science of 

PSA. Those who call for the segregation of disciplines and the 

establishment of separate departments, clearly admit that they are incapable of fu]... 

filling the conditions of those contracts. The PSA Student Union 

strongly 

recoends 

that along with the rehiring of the fired faculty, additional professors be hired 

who

believe 

in

the concep of PSA to replace those 

who

have signed 

their own admiasions 

of inconipotanee. 

turiizg

the past three years, despite the lack of faculty leadership, memy 

PSA

graluste and undergraduate 

students have remained conittod to the concept of an 

4iteated

approach to social

eCIeIICO.

We have written many articles for the PEAK, 

sent letters %nd hold meetings with various membera of the faculty, administration, 

and Provincial govcrzniant, and have 