Report on Simon i'rnser IJnivcrsit

b y

thC

Special Investipntin Committee

of the

Canadian Association of University Teacher

A. History and Background

At a meeting on 18 October

1967

the Faculty Association of

Simon Fraser University resolved that "the Faculty Association

indicates its support to the Executive to call in Canadian

Association of University Teachers to investigate the breakdown in

communications between the Faculty Association and the President".

The C.A.U.T. was almost immediately informed of the resolution.

While the Executive of the Faculty Association which had reconimendod

this investigation had resigned over another issue, the newly-elected

Executive brought forward the recommendation with its full support.

The C.A.U.T. is a federation of faculty associations in

forty-four Canadian universities and colleges and has an individual

membership of some 10,000 teachers. The governing body is the

Council, which is composed of representatives from each local

association. An Executive and Finance Committee of the Council is

charged with supervision of the day-to-day administration by the

Executive Secretary. The Association seeks to promote the interests

of the university community of Canada, of which each faculty

association and each individual member is a part.

On 25 November the Council, on the advice of the Executive

and Finance Committee, unanimously instructed that Committee to

accept the invitation of the Faculty Association of Simon Fraser

University. The Executive and Finance Committee forthwith appointed

a Special Investigating Committee with Professor J. B. Milner, of

the Faculty of Law at

the

University of Toronto, and Professor-J.

Percy Smith, Executive Secretary of the C.A.U.T. Professors Milner

and Smith were authorized to add a third member, and it was their

unanimous choice that Dean Alwyn Berland of the Regina Campus of th

University of Saskatchewan be appointed. Dean Berland agreed and

the Committee commenced its review of the Simon Fraser situation.

The Committee was instructed to report, with its recommendations,

to the Executive and Finance Committee, and the following report is

submitted.

• B. Our Terms of Reference

• Our only terms of reference are to respond to the invitation

from the Simon Fraser Faculty Association and we soon learned that

the invitation followed the "spur of the moment" resolution that had

-2-

been passed

36 for, 18 against, with 1 abstcmtion, The

language is, we think, less prCci5C than that which would have

been used had the proposal received more prolonged consideration.

In two respects we found that there was common understanding by

Dr.

Patrick

McTaggart-Cowan, President of Simon Fraser University,

and the members of the Association with whom we talked.

First, with respect to the "failure of communication", it'

was widely conceded that communication with Dr. McTaggart-Cowan,

the Preident of Simon Fraser University, is uncommonly easy. His

boast t

iat his door is always open to Faculty members is no idle

one. Indeed, many Faculty members reported that the President

appeared to understand, and often to agree with, their communication.

In this respect the problem is not "failure of communication's.

Rather, it is failure to get positive response to the Faculty's

communications. It was readily conceded that not all

communications could be expected to produce agreement and

acceptable administrative action. But the Faculty Association,

and, indeed, many individual Faculty members, told us that the

incidence of failure to get acceptable administrative action is

inordinately high.

Second, with respect to the "Faculty Association" and the

"President", as the communicators, it soon became apparent that

reference was being made both to the Faculty Association and to

individual members of the Faculty, including academic

administrators, both Department Heads and Deans. And the referencr.

•

to the President included reference to the Board of Governors. In

fact, we soon discovered that a possible cause of trouble at

Simon Fraser University was the blurred distinction between the

Faculty Association and the Faculty, on the one hand, and the

President and the Board of Governors, on the other.

We think it should be quite clear, on any university campus,

that there are certain jobs to be done by the faculty association,

and that they do not unduly overlap with jobs that are done by

faculty members as individuals or as members of committees. We

conceive the job of a faculty association to be twofold. Its

principal purpose is to promote the well-being of the university

community. A subsidiary purpose is to protect-the welfare of its

members. In fulfilling these purposes it is concerned to

explain to the lay members of the community and to the public th

concept of the university as a place of liberty. Among its

primary areas of concern are, of course, salaries, pensions,

academic freedom and tenure., and university government. But a

faculty association, as such, should not engage, directly in

university government. Rather,

in this area, it acts as

ombudsman, to identify and rectify instances of maladministration,

and to participate forcefully in every 'attempt to improve

administration.

Dr. McTaggart-Cowan had a distinguished career as a

meteorologist before becoming President- of Simon Fraser

University. He holds B.A. degrees from the University of

British Columbia (1933) and from Oxford (1936), and an

honorary D.Sc. from the former. He is the author of

numerous scientific papers. At the time of his appointment

as President, he was Director df Meteorological Serv

fc.r Can;d.

7 /c?../

-3-

Many of the particular matters' that we investigated, which

we report on later, are matters of university government. The

"failuret of communication", if that is the appropriate expression,

was most frequently a failure between a university committee, or an

individual Faculty member, and the President. In only a few cases

did the failure involve the Faculty Association.

The involvement of the Board of Governors, as well as the

President, is more difficult to describe. At this stage we need

only s;.ty that some of the "failures of communication" turned out

rather to be failures to achieve acceptable administrative actions

because of intervention by the Board of Governors in matters that

properly belong to the President. The

resident should have been

guided by democratically established academic committees, since it

seems to us that the President's primary responsibility is to

represent the Faculty to the Board of Governors.

10.

In one further respect the expression "failure of

communication" needs someclarification.' We discovered in a

nuiñber of situations that the failure was "one way"; that is, that

communication from a Faculty member to the President was frequently

more successful than the replies, or even independent communicatioi:

from the President to the individual Faculty members. We should

say that in, some

instances

the failure may have been limited to

internal departmental failure. Wherever the cause, we' heard

complaint that matters that the President had assured us had left

his office had not, in fact, reached the assistant professors at

the bottom of the heap, not forgetting instructors, lecturers and

teaching assistants.

11.

We concluded, after some inquiry, then, that our terms of

reference were to investigate the failure of the administration

at Simon Fraser University to take adequately into account the

advice of its individual Faculty members and committees as well as

the Faculty Association.

The Committee's Procedure

12.

Apart from some

some preliminary correspondence with the President

and the Faculty Association, the bulk of the Committee's work was

done during a week-long visit on the campus of Simon Fraser

University. The President provided us with a large room in the

Academic Quadrangle, in which we held all our meetings except

for

• two sessions with the President in his office and a couple of

informal meetings off the campus with the Executive of the

Faculty Association.

•

.•

13.

On our arrival on Sunday, January 11+th, we took an

unheralded tour of the Campus on our own. As is well known,

Simon Fraser

University exists in lonely splcnddur in a park

at the top of Burnaby Mountain, nearly four miles by road from

the Lougheed Highway. Public transportation is barely adequate

and parking is provided for thousands of cars. The buildings

o far erected are dominated by the Library, the Mall and the

Academic Quadrangle, on the sixth floor of which are located

most of the Faculty offices. Classrooms are below, and there

is-also a "science complex" of labs and classrooms running

down the side of the hill, as does the Theatre. There are a

gymnasium, a men's residence (Shell House), and a women's

residence (Madge Hogurth House).

14.

There is a Shell Service Station off the perimeter road

away from the present parkinglots, located so as to enjoy a

magnificent view of the north slope of the mountain from a

manmade viewpoint. Its location has been a sorepoint of

contention and, we think, some misunderstanding. It is built

on land leased for twenty-five years, and it could after that

time be demolished and relocated in a more suitable place. We

confess that we are at a loss to understand by what Principles

of university campus planning it was given its present location.

15.

The University was conceived in the summer of

1963.

Construction began on the present site in April

1961

and in

September

1965

the University registered

2,500

students, more

than were enrolled at the University of British Columbia

when

had been in existence for

years. Two and a half years later,

in January

196,

the iegistr;ition was up to 5,200,

and because

the University runs a tArimester year, a total of 7,200 students

are presently in some stage of their university education at

Simon Fraser. This unprecedented growth, while a matter of some

pride, is a basic cause for the malaise we found in some parts

of the Faculty. Indeed, it is all too common to excuse gross

faults in administration by pointing to this rapid growth and

the University's undeniable accomplishments. Without wishing

to denigrate a fine performance, we think we must point out that

the headaches of growth cannot excuse all errors of

administration

at all times,or some at any time

There is a danger that the

adrninistrution.will fall into a habit of excusing itself long

after the excuse has ceased to have any validity. It is the

clear responsibility of the Faculty Association to see that this

prolongation

does not happen.

-5-

16.

The administration estb1izhed to handle this growth

differs from the typical Canadian university government in two

significant ways. Within the Simon

Fraser

University structure

the dominant administrators aro the President and the Heads of

Departments, all of whom, of

necessity,

were appointed

bcL'ore

the rest of the Faculty was found. The nrrangerrlent prov.d'a for

a single Presidcnt and some twenty-five

Heads, very loosely

organized

into Faculties of Arts, Science and 4ducation, with

part-time Deans holding office for one year and replaced by

election of the Faculty. This somewhat feudal structure raises

a suspicion that some principle of "divide and conquer" might

•

have been in the mind of Dr. Gordon Shrum,' who frequently, we

were told, speaks in Senate of what he "had in mind" when the

University was being established. Dr. Shrum is the

Chancellor

of the University, ordinarily an essentially honorific post; he

is also Chairman of the Board of Governors, a more significant

post which can be made a base of considerable influence on

university affairs. Whether the suspicion is true or not is

irrelevant here - the fact that the suspicion exists,

and

that

many members of Faculty distrust what they call "absentee manage-

ment", is distressingly relevant to our inquiry.

17.

A recent reorganization of the administration provides

for full-time deans, as what have been described officially as

"line officers". This strengthening of the Faculties is a

•

welcome introduction. It is only too characteristic of university

government at Simon Fraser, however, that this change, ir.oduced

by the Board and President as recently as 5 November

1967,

makes no

provision for limited terms for the new Deans. It thus extends the

difficulties that the Duff/Berdahl Report on University Government

in- Canada sought to reduce by the device of limited terms.

Although the new Deans will doubtless be appointed without "tentire"

and could, theoretically, be removed from office in, say, five

years, no such understanding has been reached with either the

Department Heads or the Dean of Science who has just been

appointed.

* Dr. Gordon Shrum, Chairman of the British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority, has had a long and distinguished career. He

is a University of Toronto alumnus (B.A.

1920; M.A.. 1921;

Ph.D.

1923),

is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and has

• honorary degrees from the University of British Columbia and

.McMaster University. He served in the Department of

hysics at

U.B.C.,

1925-1961,

and Was Head of that Department,

1938-1961.

•

He was Dean of Graduate Studies,

1956-1961.

He commanded the

U.B.C.

contingent of the C.0.T.C.,

1937-1946.

He has been a

prominent

member of many scientific, educational, and other

bodies. He played a prominent role in bringing Simon Fraser

•

University into being, and he is its first Chancellor.

-6-

It is difficult to understand why, in a university

conceived of while the Duff/3ord;thi inquiry was under way, basic

administrative appointi;erit3 were made without rey.trd to the ideas

Inter embodied in the Duff/Dcrd;thl Roport, and currently

understood in university circles by anyone capable of guiding the

establishment of a new university. What harm has been done to the

effective operation of Simon Fraser University by the failure to

recognise the value of limited terms for university administrators

is hard to measure, but it is auite clear that h; .d attention been

given to current thinking in

1964

and

1965,

the problems of

196

and

1968 might never have occurred.

19.

The other atypical administrative device is thedivision of'

the academic year of twelve months into trimesters of four months

each, or sixteen weeks: the spring, from January to April; the

Summer, from i'L.ty to August; and the Fall, from September to

December. Students may enter at the beginning of any trimester.

Each trimester is an entity in itself with complete courses

and

final examinations. The student may thus choose a variety of

combinations to complete his required time. He rn.ty take the Fall

trimester, work at a job during the winter (Spring trimester) and

return to his studies during the Summer trimester, when competition

for student jobs in British Columbia is at its peak.

20.

The trimester system, which has been critically reviewed

by the C.A.U.T. Committee on Year-Round Operation of Universities

in its Final Report, published as a special issue of The C.A.tJ.T.

Bulletin in September 1964,places a great strain on both students

and faculty in a variety of ways. It was especially noticeable to

us that communications among the faculty were more difficult because

some members of a department were off during each of the three

trimesters. In the one or two-term year, more common in Canadian

universities, most of the faculty are likely to be on the campus

during the fall and spring, and those who go away for research or

study have to choose the summer. Not only does the trimester system

make communications between administration and Faculty members

more difficult, it has the unfortunate result of reinforcing the

authoritarian administration we found so characteristic of Simon

Fraser. It is inevitable that 'decisions will have to be taken by

those who are on campus, and the irregular choice of research

trimesters by various Faculty members within a Department or Faculty

makes continuity of a committee over a six-months period awkward

enough that the busy administrator loses his taste for consulting

his colleagues.

21.

We must cmphsize the point that the trimester during which

the professor does not teach is not "holiday time". By

the

explicit terms of the Faculty Handbook, "faculty members are

expected to teach two terms each year, the third term being a

research semester." "Faculty members are also expected to remain

abreast of scholarly development in their primary fields of

interest." As to holidays the Handbook is equally explicit:

unlike their brethren in high schools, who are given two months,

"Faculty are entitled to one month's holiday each year, to be

taken during the research semester (sic)".

22.

In view of this required commitment to eleven months of

teaching and scholarship out of every twelve, it is not

surprising that some Faculty members drew our attention to

what they called "Chancellor Shrum's gratuitous insults to the

Faculty" reported in the Province newspaper of 27 October

1967.

Chairman Shrum is there reported to have said, after stating

the floor salaries at Simon Fraser, "That's not a bad salary for

eight months a year". Fairness to Chairman Shrum, whom we did no

ask to deny this report, requires that we draw attention to a

further provision in the Handbook, that "The University will not

object if faculty members are paid for work done during their

research semesters (sic) if their remunerative activity is

generally beneficial to their professional career and does not

hinder their efficiency v

hen they return to teaching at Simon

Fraser University". Whether the work is beneficial is the

decision of the Department He;Itd. Undoubtedly some Faculty

members, particularly from the sciences, may obtain remunerative

employment; but many others will be lucky to get research

assistance sufficient to meet expenses, and still others will

find it quite im

ossible to augment their income in any way.

A university that expects its Faculty to rely on outside earnings

as a regular source of income inevitably will have many

frustrated and disappointed Faculty members. They are not likely

to appreciate the description of their year as one of "eight

months".

23.

During our week on the Campus we held interviews from

Monday morning until Friday evening. We saw some thirty Faculty

members, most of whom were from the

Faculty of Arts, but there were

a few from the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Education.

Nine of them held, or had held, administrative positions, as Deans

or Heads

! of Departments. Three of them represented the"Union",

a recently organized group of Faculty members who have said that

they would consider asking for certification as the Faculty repres-

entatives in compulsory bargaining under the British Columbia Labour

Act. According to some legal gossip, the Act does

not

regard

university teachers as "employees" within the meaning of the Ict,

while other gossip, presumably equally valid, holds that they are

employees. We met with two

Teaching

Assistants, another group

also contemplating union action, and three students. We had two

long sessions with the President and two sessions and a lunch with

the Executive of the Faculty Association.

24.

We did not meet any member of the Board of Governors. When

we arrived, the President informed us that the Board

had

considered

whether it should meet with us and it had decided not to. Notwith-

standing this decision, we felt that individual members of the

Board might appreciate an interview, and our Chairman accordingly

asked the President's executive assistant, Mr. Allan Smith, to

extend an invitation on our behalf to each member of the Board

individually. Not hearing from Mr. Smith, Professor Smith phoned

two days later and learned that our initations had not been sent.

After undertaking to send them, Mr. Smith spoke to the President

about it, and the President evidently told him not to do so. While

this slight discourtesy from the President's office was quite off-

set by his hospitality generally, we mention the experience as an

illustration of inexplicable reactions of the sort that we heard

domplained of by several Faculty members. Admittedly we did not

know that any Board memberswould ask to see us, but, in view of

the diplomatic character of our visit, we felt it desirable to

have them know we were quite ready to see them.

25.

It should be clear to everyone that we did not assume the

role of arbitrators. While we made every reasonable effort to

check the accuracy of the "facts" related to us, we do not make

findings of fact as adjudicators. We sat in judgment on no one.

We tried, at every opportunity, to explain the position taken by

the President, as we understood it, to the Faculty members with

whom we talked, and, in turn, we tried to explain their position

to the President. Generously mixed with both explanations were

our own notions about the undoubted unhappiness of some of the

Faculty.

26.

Our general impression from our many interviewsis that the

concern of the Faculty Association is justiiied. There is a

serious malaise amongst the Faculty of Simon Fraser University,

and while it is largely concentrated in the Faculty of Arts, and

especially in the Department of Psychology, those unhappy Faculty

members have sympathisers in the other Faculties as well. On the

other

hand, while the complaints appeared to us to have solid foundations,

we feel that the state of Simon Fraser is by no means irreparable,

and we have every hope that with good will on both sides, the

Faculty and the Administration can get on with the very important

job of making a reality of the ideals set by the University and

shared, it was quite evident, by many of the young, and perhaps

idealistic, Faculty members that have been attracted from around

the English-speaking world.

27.

The state of affairs at Simon Fraser is undoubtedly

attributable in part to the large nusnber of inexperienced Faculty

members from different academic backgrounds. A statement dated

22 December

1967

(before the new staff for the Spring trimester,

196

had arrived) showed that there were only

professors and 44

associate professors on the fulltimc staff, but there were.

160

assistant professors and

instructors. The associate and full

professors are not notably aged; the difference in experience

between the "senior staff" and the "junior staff" was not, in most

instances, so great as to ensure

distinction

and respect for the

"senior staff" (if age and experience any longer have that effect)

Further, regardless of age and experience, the "senior staff" have

no more seniority at Simon Fraser University than the juniors. No

one has been teaching at Simon Fraser for more than two and a half

years.

The different academic backgrounds, where only one quarter

of the Faculty is Canadian, have also provided difficulties of ad-

justment. There are far fewer teachers at Simon Fraser from

Canadian than from either United Kingdom or American backgrounds.

The resulting collision of different attitudes has produced greater

difficulties because there are few established practices that could

be quickly learned and accepted. In the absence of settled rules,

newcomers quite naturally continue with the rules and practices

they know and understand, and in the hurry of establishing a

University with 5,200 students within thirty months, communications

sometimes fail.

29.

Having said this, and having accepted it as an explanation,

if not a justification, for much of the confusion and frustration

contributing

to the unhappiness of many Faculty members, we must

add that, in our view, there are a number of matters that could

easily be improved to. the advantage of both-the Faculty and the

Administration. Some of these matters are discussed next, in

our comments on specific issues.

-10-

Comments on Siocific Issues

(a) Appointmont.s and tenure procedures

30.

We were told by more thin one of the "senior staff"

with

whom we spoke that if the contract ronewal procedures could be

clarifiqd kind rationalized a large p;rt of Simon Fraser's troubles

would be

;

overcome. The concern about appointments and tenure at

Simon Fraser strikes a familiar chord in the C .A.U.T. As early as

30 November 1963, the Lite Professor Stewart Reid, then Executive

Secretary of the C.A.U.T. , wrote to Chairman Shrum to inquire about

the policy of Simon Fraser University in the matter of tenure. It

had been reported to Professor Reid that Chairman Shrum had told

the U.B.C. Faculty Association that he was opposed to the principle

of tenure, saw no point in it, and went so far as to say that if a

c;.indid;tte for a teaching position mentioned the matter to him, such

a person would not be appointed at Simon Fraser. Chairman Shrum

replied to Professor Reid on

December

1963,

saying, in part,

"So far, this question Lof tenur7 has not arisen. None of those

whom we have appointed or interviewed has raised it and none of

the thirty or forty applications we have received has made any

reference to security of appointment. At a time when there is a

desperate shortage of University teachers, it scorns an anomaly that

there should be any valid concern about this matter".

Notwithstanding this curious reply, in due course Simon

Fraser adopted Provisional Terms of Appointment for Academic Staff

that are still in the Faculty Handbook and provide, in a way, for

tenure. Aftor a period of three years (in the case of a professor)

four years (associate professor),

or seven years (assistant

professor), a Faculty member "will become eligible" for tenure or

"appointment without term". But "appointment without term" will

.not be given automatically, or necessarily, even after a review by

the President and Board of Governors of the candidate's record as a

lecturer and scholar. Simon Fraser University "wishes to state

very clearly" that it does not subscribe to the "up or out"

philosophy. Hence, despite his eligibility for tenure, a

professor, associate professor or assistant professor may find

himself the recipient of further two- or three-year ;Appointments.

We think that what is involved in such an arrangement is not an

"up or out" philosophy, but an evasion of a proper "in or out"

regulation. It is absurd to speak of an "up or out" philosophy

that governs full professors.

32.

It should hardly be necessary to stress here that this

set of substitutions for a proper tenure policy is unacceptable

to the C.A.U.T. The Association has stated its position clearly

its recent Policy

Statement

Academic

Appointments

and Tenure.

According to

that

Statement, "Contracts for limited terms are

undesirable except for special purposes and should not be

substituted for probationary appointments". On the other hand,

tenure is not something to be"awarded". It is a required

protection for academic freedom and should be the basis of any

appointment after a probationary term.

33.

If Simon Fraser University were to adopt this attitude

toward tenure, and to discard its present series of short-term

appointments, its current problems with "contract renewals" would

largely disappear. As matters stand, it offers an ambiguous

assurance to all Faculty without tenure that if they "have

performed satisfactorily", they "will be reappointed" (our

emphasis). This promise, or prediction,' is further supported by

the assurance that "satisfactory performance will be based on

teaching, scholarly interests and other contributions to the

University and will be judged by appropriate faculty committees

subject to the approval of the Board of Governors."

34.

We think that if the contract renewal procedure is retained

because short-term contracts are not abolished, the University

will continue to have difficulties. University teachers are, by

nature, highly intelligent and sometimes given to anxiety.

Moreover, they are, especially those in the social sciences and

the humanities, controversialists. Controversy is their stock-in-

trade. If they are to enjoy academic freedom they must not live in

fear of the reaction of their Department Head to their contrary

views. Yet as long as their appointment is subject to review they

are in a state of dependency. Heads of

and Deans, as

well as Presidents and Boards of Governors, are human and suscept-

ible to the universal temptation to resist those who disagree with

us. To establish a procedure that caters to this human weakness is

to invite frequent disputes, masquerading under some false front,

pretending to be disputes about teaching, scholarly interests, or

contributions to the University. The present rules do not permit

the assertion of such honest grounds for non-renewal as that the

candidate is incompatible to the extent that his colleagues cannot

work while he is around. Nor do they guarantee that his colleagues

. will be consulted in the question. Whether or not short-term

appointments are persisted in, the 'appropriate faculty committees"

should be named so as to include a majority of representatives from

the candidate's discipline, and they should be elected by the

candidate's department,by secret ballot if necessary.

•

35.

It should also be made clear that the appointment of

academic staff is an academic responsibility . . If the university

committee recommends against an appointment, the President should

•

not recommend the appointment to the Board of Governors, who

cannot, under the Universities Act, make any appointment without

the President's personal recommendation. If, on the other hand,

the committee recommends an appointment the President has some

reason for refusing to take to the Board with his unequivocal support,

he should frankly state his position to the committee and not refer

the matter to the Board. Any less respect by the President for the

judgment of the committee is likely to leave the committee with a

distinct feeling that it has been wasting its time. At Simon Fraser

University we got the impression that most Faculty members were far

too busy at important University duties to waste any time on

committees whose advice was ignored.

(b).

Procedure on the reappointment of Professor

Kenneth Burstein.

36.

While we were at Simon Fraser the Board met to consider,

among other matters, the President's recommendation for the re-

appointment for two years of Kenneth Burstein, who has been an

Assistant Professor of Psychology for the past two years. The

matter had been the subject of some discussion over a period of

several months. It may be relevant to observe that Professor

Burstein, along with others of his colle3gues, had opposed the

appointment of the Head of his Department (a matter we discuss below).

When Professor Burstein's contract came up for consideration, his

Head informed him that he would not be recommended for renewal.

Professor Burstein "appealed" to the Faculty of Arts Salary and

Promotions Committee and, in turn, to the University Committee on

Salaries and Promotions. That Committee first decided that

Professor Burstein be reappointed for one year. This

reappointment,

although for only one year, was not described as "terminal" and may

have

been

thought of as carrying a slight rebuke or reprimand.

37.

In any case, Professor Burstein "appealed' again, in

accordance with the procedures defined by the President in his

official memorandum to

UA11

Faculty" on 25 October

1967.

The

memorandum stated, "It should be emphasized that an individual

faculty member can appeal decisions taken at any step in this

procedure and, indeed, can appeal directly to me after the finaI'

recommendation of the University Salary and Promotions Committee",

Professor

Burstein?s

"appeal s ' to Dr. McTaggart-Cowan evidently

resulted in the appointment of three members of the University

Committee as a "special committee s

' to consider the matter once

more. On 22 December

1967

the President informed Professor

Burstein in writing that the Committee had reported its recommendation

"that Dr. Burstein receive a normal two year appointment". The

President went on to say, "This has been accepted by the University

Committee on Salaries and Promotions and I will be taking it to the

Board of Governors at their next meeting'.

• 3.

Professor Burstein was presumably put at his ease just

before Christmas with this assurance from the President, but at

the next Board meeting, on 18 January, the Board found that the

Special Committee was not provided for in the Faculty Handbook and

was therefore invalid. Instead, the Board arbitrarily accepted the

recommendation of the Faculty

the original recommendation of

one-year reappointment.

13 -

of Arts Committee, which was also

the University Committee, for a

39.

This example of inept

administration,

which, as it were,

took place before our eyes, typifies the kind of procedure that

we heard complained of so frequently by Faculty members and by

the Executive of the Faculty Association. It represents not only

a complete disregard by the Board for the recommendation of it

President, but also a retroactive denial of an official procedure

established by the President. The President was presumably acting

on-behalf of the Board, and in any event he was clearly acting within

his responsibility to satisfy, himself that he was taking to the

Board the proper recommendation respecting Professor Burstein's

appointment. The Board apparently overruled the President's

promised recommendation, and we have no evidence that he changed

it or had any acceptable reason for changing it. We

cannot

understand why the action taken by the Board was more acceptable

to the President than it has been to the Faculty Association

Executive. The demoralizing effect of these actions was

immediately apparent to us when we talked with Professor Burstein,

the Executive of the Faculty Association and other Faculty members

on the day after the Board met.

•

40.

As for the Board's argument for refusing to accept the

President's recommendation, we think two observations are

pertinent. First, the "appeal" to which the Board took objection

was a matter wholly within the University Committee's recommendation,

inasmuch as. the recommendation of the Special Committee appointed

by the President to advise him on Professor Burstein's appeal was

in turn referred back to the University Committee and "accepted"

by them. The President, therefore, had every justification to

tell the Board that his recommendation was supported by the

University Committee provided for in the-Handbook. The "appeal"

was in reality only a review and reconsideration by the Committee.

41.

Second, the provision for "appeal", although not in the

Handbook, was promulgated by the President. If' the Faculty can-

not rely on the President, acting within his apparent authority,

to represent the Board of Governors, particularly in respect of

internal procedures, the Faculty are certain to suffer acute

frustration. The Board had no good reason to disapprove of the

President's appeal procedures since the "appeal" was referred

back,though concern might have been felt about an "appeal" to.

three of the members of the Committee if there had been no

reference back. In such a case 'the Board might well have

advised the President to change the rules respecting appeal to

suit the Board's taste. To have made this change retroactively

to apply to Professor Burstein, who had resorted to the procedure

in good faith,, seems to us quite indefensible.

•

(c)

Procedure on the appointment of the Head of the

Department of Psychology.

42.

The method of appointment of Dr. Bernard E. Lyman, Acting

Head of

Psychology, as head was cited to us at the prime example

of the frustrations suffered by the

Faculty. We inquired into

the matter at some length, interviewing the President, the former

Head of

the Department, the new Head, and most of the members of

.the Department, both senior and junior. Despite our careful

attention

to all these participantsin the appointment, and to the

versions offered by some members of the President's Committee to

advise on the appointment, we are still unable to say with

confidence precisely what happened. The situation was, in our view,

poetically and aptly described by one member of the Department as

a "Byzantine schamozzle't.

•43.

It would appear that at the start of the affair the

President established a university committee to advise him, and

the committee received names from the Department. It considered

them, but rejected all but one, who was invited to take the post

and refused. One thing seems clear: the President's committee

finally advised the President not to appoint a Head at this time

(Spring, 1967) but to appoint a Chairman for a year and let the

committee continue with the, search. Whether this was a majority

decision or a unanimous decision is disputed, but there is general

agreement that the Committee did, so advise.

44.

The Presidents almost immediate response was to appoint

the Acting Head to the permanent post. Whether the Acting Head,

was unanimously rejected as a candidate is still not clear to

us, but it seems quite certain that he was rejected by well over

hal.f the department, including at least some of the senior members.

45.

In one most important respect we remain in the dark

the "facts". Professor Lyman was quite confident that the

arrangement he had made from the start with the President was thit

if no new Head had been appointed

by 1 December

1966,

he would

himself automatically be appointed. He was equally confident that

every member of the Department knew this from the beginning. While

views expressed by the Department members with whom we spoke

varied considerably, no view fully coincided with Professor Lyman's.

Most of the views were

opposed

to his to some degree, and some

were flatly opposite. The only evidence that does not depend on

someone's memory is the President's memos of 16 December 1966

and

January 1967. His 1anguu;e there is consistent with his

recollection that Professor

Lyman

would

be considered

if no one

else turned up by 1 December.

fact the time was extended, with

Professor

Lyman's

consent, but there is no suggestion that any new

arrangement as to his appointment was made at the time of the

extension.

46.

The explanation offered for the rejection of the University

Committee's recommendation that a chairmanbe appointed for one

year at least and the search continued is that there was no one

competent to chair the Department who was also willing. We

gather that no Assistant Professor was offered the post. While

the Assistant Professors are admittedly young and inexperienced,

we have little doubt that several of them were capable of the

task, if the task were properly understood. We think there may

have bean something of a misconception of the role of a

departmental chairman under normal circumstances and especially

in the ususual circumstances here. Our attention was drawn to

the fact that the

Philosophy

Department had rotated its Chairmen

from the beginning, but it was explained that this was a small

Department and the same happy results cc)ulc not bu

expected from the Department of

Psychology. We

think it unlikely

that under a young and inexperienced Chairman a year, or even two

years, would pass without some troubles, but we doubt that they

would have been worse than the troubles experienced with the

•

present Head. We feel constrained to urge Simon Fraser University

to reflect again about its departmental structure. The Duff/

Berdahl recommendations, reached after a very thorough study of

• university government, cannot easily be sot aside.

47.

Once again the Faculty members who reported on this matter

felt confident that the President received the communication -

there was no failure. The complaint is that the President had

wasted the committee members' time. Their advice was flouted.

There seems to Iwive been no serious attack on the committee's

composition. Some queries were made about the procedure for

selecting representatives from the Faculty of Arts. Because of

changes in the Deanship at a crucial point, the nominees were not

ratified as had been expected, but no one proposed to us that the

committee ought to have been disqualified. The procedures could

certainly have been improved, and we are satisfied that they will

be, but the real point remains - what status does

'a committee have?

- 16 -

We are moved to remark, at this point, that Simon Fraser's

early strength ay be its current ieakness. At the beginning,

iower was necessarily concentral;ed in the President and Heads of

Departments. But today it is inconceivable t-;.-it a President can

run ;. university of 7,000 students, off and on campus, with a

Faculty of

315,

with only himself ;.tt the top ur.ci with so-culled

strong Heads of Departments under him. It is not enough that

there be as is planned, an academic vice-president, and full-

time deans. It should be a first responsibility of the Faculty

Association to urge on the Administration, as we do here and now,

that the Vice-President (Academic) and the new Deans be given

real authority. Unless there is a real deleCation of authority

at the top, the President is likely to be increasingly confronted

with claims of maladministration of the sort involved in the

appointments we have just discussed.

(d) Procedure on promulgation of the Report on Administrative

Reorganization.

49.

A recent report on administrative reorganization

announced

several radical changes in the administration of the University.

The report was circulated to "All Faculty" by the President on

6 November 1967. The President's "memo" announced that the

recommendations had already been approved by the Board. The

Faculty Association contend that they had no opportunity to make

•

representations before the ad hoc committee appointed to study

the matter,

which

reported to the committee of Heads prior to

.being presented to the Board of Governors. Dean McKinnon, of

the Faculty of Education, who

was chairman

irmn of the ad hoc

committee, was confident that all the Heads of Departments

knew

about the committee and had ample opportunity to make

representations, but he could not speak for the Department Heads

as to the trickle do'rri f their knowledge and opportunity.

50.

This affair seems to us to be one of the few genuine

"failures of communication" that we heard about. Certainly the

Faculty Association had a most vital concern about the subject

and could have made very substuncial recommendations. It could

have pressed for consideration of the Duff/Berduhl Report, now

two years old, whose recommendations had been in current

discussions for the preceding two years. Apparently no

consideration was given to the establishment of limited terms

for administrators, or to election of administrators by the

Departments or Faculties.

17 -

5..

It is worth reporting that we were given a copy of a

morandurn to the Chairman of the Sen.ite from the Dean of Arts,

' I.ted 20 November 1967 some two weeks after the President's announce

Irnt of the Board's approval of the reorganization.recornmendations.

The Dean's memorandum reports on a meeting of the Faculty of Arts

on Thursday, 16 November, that discussed the President's

memorandum of

November. The. Dean said, 'Faculty opinion on various

points was obtained and was taken note of by those members of Senate

from the Faculty of Arts who attended the meeting". The matters

reported have regard to the appointments of an academic vice-presidenl.

and deans. Both specific recommendations have to do with "self-

determination" by the Faculties. We are surprised that such basic

matters should have been coming up for discussion by the Faculty,

after the President's memorandum, apparently for the first time.

(e) The check-off of Faculty Association Dues.

52.

On another matter we discovered a second instance of "failure

of communication", this time reaching into a sensitive area for the

Faculty Association. According to the Association's version, the

President agreed to a system of check-off for the collection of dues

from members of the Faculty Association; the system was to be an

"opt-out" system in which every potential member on the Campus would

have his salary docked unless he gave 'notice that he did not wish to

•

be a member. The burden of opting-out would be on the Faculty member.

According to the President's version, the agreement was that he would

install the check-off, but would have to consult the Bursar about

opting out.

53.

The Bursar's position was, apparently, that it would be

illegal to dock salaries without express advance authority from the.

individual Faculty member. We do not argue that point. We have been

given to understand, however, that the only illegality is in the

first withholding of the dues of the Faculty member who has failed to

notify the Bursar that he opts-out. His

notification

would come

promptly as a complaint, and of course would be an opting-out. If

the Bursar then reimbursed him for the docked dues, the Faculty member

would have no substantial claim against the University. We can

hardly help wondering how such a procedure, which has beenadoptd at

various universities in Canada, could seriously upset even the

unsettled Faculty of Simon Fraser University.

54.

In any event, the Faculty Association came away with the view

that the President simply reversed himself after talking with the

Bursar and left it to the Association to learn on the next pay day

that no dues had been withheld. The President thou

ht he had notified

the Association President immediately after talking to the Bursar,

having already cautioned the Association President that he could not

agree on this point during their first interview.

- 18 -

55.

The settlement of this dis

ute over the facts is not

important. There was, in our view, undoubiedly a failure of

communication. It points up the advisability of confirming oral

decisions with a written record. A short bu precise record,

stating one understanding of the ;ircement rcachd and reuesting

;i correction if one is necess:try, should be adecLut.tte. Thei'c is

no need for

in overly sensitive reaction of suspicion or distrust

Human meories are far from perfect, and communication sometimes

does fail

hurd1y we think, as frequently as the overuse

of the cliche' would suggest.

.56;

The significance of this failure of the University

administration to

chm ce It

the law

nd a

ccomodate

the Faculty

Association probably loomed 1;.trger in the Faculty Association's

eyes than in the President's. At the time of the suggestion the

Union was campaigning for member. The reliance of the Faculty

Association on what they believed to be the assurance of

Administration that the opt-out check-off system would be

installed led the Association to campaign in low key when it

should have been working hardest. When the Association Executive

resigned in October, the paid-up membership was about 240. At

the end of the year there were only about 120 members, and this

loss could not be more than half accounted for by the Union

membership of

or 60.

We know

that there was some duplication

of membership.,

57.

It seems clear that the unfortunate events of October

wettkenecl the Faculty Association on the Campus. No one can take

any satisfaction from this state of affairs. From our discussions

with the Union representatives we concluded that the Union would

be quite hapy with a strong and effective Faculty Association.

They claimed to be interested

only

in forcing action. Despite

the fact that both the retiring Executive of the Faculty

Association and the new Executive invited this Committee to the

Campus, these Union representatives claimed, credit for our

presence. At least we felt doubly or triply welcome. We were

also welcomed by President McTaggart-Cowan, who said, in his

letter,

'I ant a strong advöcate of a well developed Faculty

Association.as an essential component

on a

university campus,

and even though as far as our Act is concerned it is outside

the corporate structure of the University, I look upon the

Faculty Association as an essential component of the

University community in total. I look forward to a steady

strengthening of the links between the administration and

the Association on a broad basis, covering all areas of

common interest.

- .L) -

We agree with the President that a well developed Faculty

Association is essential,

but we do not share any poss.ftie

concern

he may have thut it is "outside the corporate structure of the

University"

It is rglitiy oueside the corporate structure and we

sincerely }ixpa that it will remain so. Vie look upon the Faculty

Association as playing the r6le, of omhudsm.tn, keeping its eye on

government within the corporate structure, over alert to see

that

academic freedom is m;.tinta.inod in this "place of liberty", and

pressing constantly for the highest and best that is att;.tin.ible

in the university community.

59.

IF it is to serve this function effectively, the Faculty

Association must be able to provide a forum in

which

its

mcnbers

may discuss with the gr'o:ttcst candour any matter tlw.it they may

feel to affect the well-being of the University. It is a fact

of common experience that the presence of the very senior

administrators of a university, especially th.it of the president,

will inhibit discussion and reduce the effectiveness of the

faculty association as a forum, not to say a safety-valve. For

this reason many faculty associations do not extend .momborship

to such officers as the university president and vice-presidents.

Where they do so, it is common practice, and in our judcrucnt wise,

for such persons to absent themselves from association meetings,

except when they are especially invited to attend. It is our

opinion that membership in the Faculty Association ought not to

be extended to such officers or to the Chancellor.

(f) Faculty Association representation on University

Committees.

60. The role of the Faculty Association is brought directly into

consideration by the contention of the:Executive that the

President has not always appointed a Faculty Association

representative on University committees. We were told that

representatives had been appointed to two

on Pensions

and on Food Services. The President thoughts that there were

representatives on more of the

Committees, but we didn't ask him

or the Association to check. We

question

whether this involvement

does not put

the

Faculty Association at some disadvantage, since

its principal role, in any matter on which there is a University

Committee, is to appear iri support of its policies as they affect

the matter before the. Committee. To have a member on the Committee,

which, if it is properly constituted, has

. adequate representation

of the Faculty

anyway, is likely to

be as much an embarrassment as

a help.

'1M

20 -

Our concern in this matter is rither that the University

itself is not as well organized as it might be Lo insure that

individual Faculty members play effoctivel their approprite roJ.

in matters that seriously affect them. The Univrsity community

not to be compared with a business corporation, much thou

h some

administrators may be tempted to the comparison. A university is nui

a business, a government or an army. It is a democratic community.

The notion that all power should be concentrated at the top simply

won't work. Fifty years ago it mi

ht have done so, but ideas of

community and democracy have changed in that interval; a failure to

meet this change fairly and squarely will only prolong' and intensify

unrest.

62.

Wefelt a high degree ofconfidence, in our discussions with

the Union representatives, with the Teaching Assistants and with the

students, that they wanted, not merely recognition, but a genuine

sense of participation in the community matters that so seriously

affect them. We could not dispute the justice of this desire. The

C.A.U.T. has long advocated the strengthening of democracy in

university life. Je believe that in the older and perhaps more

conservative universities this ideal is being achieved, and achieved

in a more effective way than at Simon Fraser University, despite that'.

University's announced goals and the President's expressed sympathy

with the ambitions of the Faculty Association.

• -

63.

Part of the explanation for the overlap of Faculty and

Faculty Association interests may be. found in the inadequacy of the

Senate,

which,

like most senates in Canadian universities, is a

mixed body of academic and lay members. There may be an unrecognized

need at Simon Fraser University for a wholly academic body that

includes all Faculty members and has a real responsibility for the

development of academic interests affecting the whole University.

The only occasion now for assembling the whole Faculty is in a joint

meeting of Faculties, which is provided for, incidentally, in one or

two minor places in the Universities Act. There now exists no

establishment, no statement of jurisdiction, beyond the two instances

in the Act, and no machinery for regular meetings and the appointment

of committees. The present practice, by which so large a number of

committees are chosen by the President and frequently chaired by him

is unwise. Inevitably it results in reports going to the President,

who may or may not give them full 'circulation to the general Faculty,

or a suitable-opportunity for them to be discussed by the Faculty.

It may be very helpful to have an academic body available and

organized, in advance of crisis situations. The organization of such

a body should provide for committees responsible to it.

64.

It may be objected that there would be very few' Faculty memb

who would bother to attend meetings. Certainly as the size increases:

this would likely happen. This anticipation of poor attendance is

not a reason for not establishing a forum. It may be more important

to find a smaller place that cannot hold all the Faculty, but lends

itself more effectively to good debate and discussion. If the crowd

overflows, the meeting can always retire to the Academic Quad for an

• . H

21 -

open air gathering on the first fine day. Meanwhile, in the smaller

room effective discussion can continue and smaller committees can

be established. A University as committed to the inter-

disciplinary approach as is Simon Fraser might explore this notion

more carefully. We understand that it works effectively at the

University

Saskatchewan.

E. Condlusions and Recommendations

65.

We have concluded that there is a serious "failure of

communication" at Simon Fraser University in the sense that there

is strong dissatisfaction with the

response

of the President to

communications, especially communications from various committees,

received and understood by him. We think this dissatisfaction has

its origin in the concept of administration at Simon Fraser, which,

in a general way, is adversely affected throughout by absentee

management and an undemocratic distribution of power along uncerta:u

lines. We cannot stress strongly enough that a university is a

largely self-governing community of scholars. While for many

purposes it is essential to have individual academic administrators.

rather than committees, it is preferable that the administrators be

responsible to the Faculty members, whether as a committee, a

Department, or a Faculty, rather than in some vague way to the

Board of Governors, independently of the Faculty members.

66.

While we think that the dissatisfaction of Faculty members is

well founded, we feel that their complaints can be remedied by more

forthright administration, with a redirection of responsibility,

especially as the University increases, in size and experience, and

by a greater sense of give and take in some Faculty members. We

were generally impressed by the reasonableness of the Faculty member:.:.

and we could not conclude that their behaviour was irresponsible.

In some cases, we felt that the most inexperienced teachers simply

haven't been around universities long

enough

yet to know what to

expect, even in the most liberal of democratic university communities.

No community of humans will ever be as harmonious as a community of

angels.

(a) The relations of the President to the. Board of Governors

67.

We recommend that the Faculty Association press upon the

President and the Board the urgency of the need for redirection of

responsibility for decisions within the university. Those matters

of academic judgment, of which appointments and promotions are primp

examples, should bedetermined by the Faculty acting through

established democratic procedures, subject only to a veto power in

the Board. The President must recommend an appointment or promotion

before

question

the

Board

recommendation

has any jurisdiction.

only if it chal-lenges

The Board

the

should

President's

be able

integrity or capacity to apply fair procedures. Otherwise it should

approve the appointment unless it has information not available

- 22

c4/ /€L/, r

to the President, which it should reveal and then ask the President

to reconsider the matter.

(b) Faculty

me tings with the Board of Governors

Unless and until there are at least three members of the

Board elected by the Faculty from the Faculty, we recommend that

there be established regular meetings of the Board, the President,

the Faculty Association and representatives from the Faculty elected

by a joint meeting of the Faculties.

69.

It is clear that there is undue emphasis on Department Heads

at the expense of Deans, which may be in the process of being

corrected. Clearly also there is undue emphasis on Heads and Deans,

as well as the President, at the expense of Departmental and Faculty

members. We recommend that the Duff/Berdahi recommendations res-

pecting short terms of office for academic administrative staff be

carefully considered by Simon Fraser University, from the Board of

Governors all the way to the Faculty Association. The more democraI.

principles of organization advocated by Duff/l3erdahl have already

been adopted in some universities, and current pressures from both

• faculty and students make their adoption everywhere only a matter of

time. With a short term appointment by a democratic process there

automatically comes"tenure" for that short term, thus guaranteeing

department and faculty greater independence. Although the Duff/I3erdah

Report does not recommend a short term for a president, we should our-

selves unhesitatingly recommend it for the same reasons that Duff/

Berhadi recommend it for other administrators. If a president holds

office for a short term, and even more so if he is democratically

.appointed for that term, he

may find much easier the difficult task

of representing the faculty to, and at times against, the board of

governors.

(d) The establishment of an exclusively academic body with substanti:

powers.

70.

We recommend that the University consider the establishment

an exclusively academic body representative of the whole Faculty.

Whether this is better done by redesigning.the Senate to make it both

exclusively academic and more representative, or by establishing a

formal structure for joint meetings of Faculties, with specific

powers of decision and recommendation, we need not decide here. Th'

present confusion between the Faculty and the Faculty Association

seems to us to betray the need for better Faculty representation

on many matters.

Ce)

doiiono! :

.;ointm;i:-v.: te.i:.u'3 polici :lcnj

Lkic.kU.ftjs.

71. We strori

that rne'.mlo contracts he

or di s cont:Lnued co:!p1cte1; ;.t that th University adopt forthwith

tenure pror:tmmo aloui; the 1in•s

the C ... U.T. Policy

St, timnt.

741-,

.Jc

do not. feel that "v"

c;.' n reco:end sp;eific renie.:iia.1

action ill rs;pect o' those specific issues on which

tie

have

coiiented

;.1b

ove . We did act pro ea '

.l as jud;e.; arid we arc not in

position

to Judge , coiidein or

sentence .. 'Jo do thinh, however,

that those ttters woiild bc:ir i'cvieti in a neetin; with those

Faculty iemburs indivic'ue ily affected, the

? :

tcu1y .'soci:stion

;.tn he Pi'esicnt, so

tlllt

each has a cnan cc to clarify his

point of view to the others.

think

the essential solution is

the deler;'tion of authority in c].c:tr fashion to various

democratically established

conc.iittecs

within the University

community.

73. In conclusion, we viint to

:-,t;tto

our confidence

that

the urh;.ppy situetioi at 3i;-ion i:scr UlliverFiity can be

s;.ttisi

;tcori1y set,lu u. hoiu ren....

natic'ns or u.siiss;tls tath:i.n

the UniversiDy.

:ftisty \athdrm:;:l or ro!lov;il

tkllS st:o could

only add to the

bitttrness and

create conditions in which suitable

repl;.ic uriont iiould be vii'taail,r

ipOs

aible

1h:it Is rcded is a

clear und orstnndn:; o.

hs rw;pon3:Lblity or tn e orrnaticn,

direction, and edinistretion of acadoic polic

. The board of

Governors

ut see it r:iodost role .tn a now liht. The President

and Faculty

iust share rusponsibiiity for ;.ill aspects of

;.tcadeinic

policy, including its ;tci1:iistration. They ;

l iust be

roacty to

advise the Lo;krd on all other iiitters respecting the well-being

of the University conunity. Indivi.ual Faculty members must

acknowledge dcci sions taken by

do!locratic;iiiy

appointed

academic

aduinistrators actin alone or on the advice of coLnmitteos. 'rho

Faculty Association

iust stand firi a in its insitonce that this

clear

understanding be rachod - ;.nd soon. Simon Fraser

University is too important

to the future

of British Columbia

Lor any

lesser compromise to be

acceptable.

J.B. Iilncr, Chairman

Alwyn 1cr1and

J. Percy Siith