i'

The Rcgistrar' 

l..ty.. of 

Arts ? . 

. ?

Attached is the preliminary report of the Faculty of Arts 

concerning Senate Paper S.215. 

Please distribute this paper to Senate members for the regular 

meeting in July. 

DHS:bjbd? 

ncl. 

•: 

June 27, 1969 

PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM THE FACULTY OF ARTS CONCERNING SENATE PAPER 

S.215 

At a meeting of Senate on April 8, 1969, Paper S.215, a report 

by the Chairman of Senate for discussion on "Academic Planning at Simon 

Fraser University," was referred to the Faculties for comment. 

The Dean of the Faculty of Arts referred this paper to all 

departments for their comments and held a Dean's Advisory Committee meeting 

to discuss the President's proposal. The Faculty of Arts Academic Planning 

Committee was asked to deliberate on the paper and to make a preliminary 

report to the Dean for inclusion on the Senate agenda. They were asked to 

examine the paper and present reponses to the following: 

I. Any weaknesses or deficiencies in the nature of the process as spelled 

out by the President, and 

2. The role of the Faculty of Arts AcadernicPlanning Committee in any 

planning process. 

.Acopy of the relevant points of the deliberations of the Faculty 

o.f Arts Academic Planning Committee is attached. In addition to the comments 

of the Faculty of Arts Academic Planning Committee, the following points were 

r&sed in-the Dean's Advisory Committee for forwarding to Senate. 

It was on the matter of interdisciplinary studies and programs 

that the Dean.s Advisory Committee differed widely from the PROPOSAL in 

Paper S.215. (The Faculty of Arts Academic Planning Committee also comments 

on

the interdisciplinary programs in the attached excerpt from their meeting 

on June 12th.) In Paper S.215, it states on page 3: 

"What is proposed is that, 

in the case 

now programs proposed by a group 

faculty members who are 

nót in the same department 

.

, they would first go to a Senate Committee on 

.:iflterdiscipiinary Studies (to be established) for preliminary analysis and, 

if approved by this committee, the proposal would go directly to Senate for 

approval in principle. 

"j and after approval in principle,.. . 

"

In the case 

new programs originating from members 

faculty who are not in the same 

department, . e., interdisciplinary proarams, priorities would be assigned 

by the Senate Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies." 

It is then proposed 

that these priority ratings would go to the University Planning Committee 

to generate, along with priority ratings from the Faculties, the academic 

priority list; i.e., to be ranked in terms of university priority. 

?

In other 

words, an interdisciplinary, program prbposed by individual faculty members 

(once havihg been approved in principle) is assigned a priority by the Senate 

Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies, then goes directly to the Academic 

Planning Committee to be assigned a university priority. Paper S.215 states 

-2-

that new programs proposed by departments (some having first come from 

individual faculty members within that department) would, once having been 

approved in principle, be ranked by priority within that department, then 

be assigned a prioriiy at the Faculty level, then at the university level. 

In

relation to the above process, the significant points made at 

the meeting of the Dean's Advisory Committee are as follows: 

a. Consideration should be given to the di-stinction between an 

interdisciplinary course of studies and an interdisciplinary 

course as such. 

b. Concern was expressed that an interdisciplinary program could 

be forwarded to the proposed Senate Committee on Interdisciplinary 

Studies, without being first approved by the relevant departments 

or Faculties. 

One suggestion was that a University Committee on Interdisciplinary 

Studies, as well as the proposed Senate Committee, be established. 

?

• • 

? d. 

?

It was suggested that the University Committee should be composed 

of Faculty. There was concern that a Senate Committee might not 

be

wholly academic and, thus, the argument for setting up a 

•

?

University Committee solely concerned with interdisciplinary studies.                               

.

Such a University Committee might act as an advisory board to all 

• ? 

Faculties. 

e.. Concern was expressed over the processing of inter-Faculty 

programs. One question raised was: who would approve such programs 

and whose responsibility would such programs fall under? 

From the above, it is apparent that the Faculty of Arts wishes to 

retain the right to approve and some jurisdiction over interdisciplinary 

programs fully or partly within the Faculty of Arts (i.e., programs originat- 

Ing from more than one department or between departments in the Faculty of 

-Arts), rather than having proposals going directly to the Senate Committee 

from individual faculty members. Any proposal concerning the Faculty should 

first of all be scrutinized in the Faculty by its Academic Planning Committee 

before it goes to the Senate Committee. This would have several advantages 

Jn that it would relieve the Senate Committee from receiving a mass of 

submissions on programs that have not been examined to a.sufficient degree 

at a lower level. If submissions are presented directly.to 

the Senate 

Committee, good ideas may be rejected because of inadequate arguments in their 

presentation or inadequate support. 

?

.:

f. ? 

With respect to p'roiril-y ranking, it was noted that ranking across 

departments was-essential. There was concern expressed that ranking 

might be done soley on the basis of enrolment predictions, or 

?

. • 

? pressure which would militate against departments wth low enrolments 

or new programs designed for a small enrolment. It was also noted 

-3 - 

that Paper S.215 does not give criteria for priority ranking. 

• • ? 

• g. ? 

Regarding the President's role in academic planning, 

misgivings were expressed about the cumbersome procedure 

detailed on page 3, last paragraph of Paper 

S.215. ? 

It was 

suggested that the President's role was implicit and did 

not have to be made explicit. 

?

h. ? 

In general, the Dean's Advisory Committee was in agreement 

• that an academic planning function, including an independent 

priority setting body, was needed. 

Excerpt from the meeting of June 12, 1969, of the Faculty of Arts Academic 

Planning Committee: 

We discussed (I) The President's proposal regarding academic 

planning; ? 

Interdisciplinary activity in the Faculty of Arts; we 

recommend the following: 

I. That the Faculty of Arts Academic Planning Committee 

vigorously pursue and study the suggestions set forward 

to

it on interdiscipl mary programs in the faculty and 

that this Committee take on itself the responsibility and 

jurisdiction for and of any criteria for such programs as 

they apply to arts. 

?

We call your attentionto paragraph5 

of President Strand's proposal where he acknowledges the 

role of planning at level of individual faculties. 

?

We ? 

also feel it necessary to continue studying President 

Strand's proposal in order to assess its possible effect 

on our own long-range plans. 

2. That the role of this committee be as follows: 

-

to

initiate, generate and receive practical ideas and 

priorities for the Faculty of Arts. 

?

These ideas need 

• ? 

not be tied to the immediate goals of various departments 

whose projected needs we feel are too strictly tied to 

budget potential. 

?

We are anxious to plan for and 

analyze utopian suggestions. 

?

A specific agenda for 

1969-70 will be forthcoming. 

-

to advise the Dean on matters of planning. 

-

to

establish some criteria for our operations. 

MC:btbd 