-1-

Appen3ix A,

July 14, 1969

To: All members of Senate

From: N. A. Lebowitz

Date: July 13, 1969

'Subject: Problems in the procedures of the Faculty of Arts as they

relate to Senate deliberations

At the June 2 meeting of Senate, I indicated my concern that members

of the Faculty of Arts had not had an opportunity to discuss the merits

of several new courses brought to Senate for approval by the Dean of Arts.

While I agreed that Faculty had the right to decide on its internal

procedures, I argued that Senate had the responsibility under the

Universities Act to determine whether sufficient examination of issues had

occurred on matters brought forward from the Faculty. (As indicated by

several motions and votes, a number of other Senators also were concerned

about lack of discussion in the Faculty of Arts.) Accordingly, I was

critical of Senate's action at that time and voted against several items

"on the grounds that Senate had voted with full knowledge that the Faculty

of Arts had not discussed the items in a full meeting of the Faculty of

Arts." (Minutes, p.9).

As the Minutes show

(p.

7) , I was asked by the Chairman to prcare a

paper in line with my criticisms of the procedures currently followed in

the Faculty, and at that time I withdrew my pending motion for referral.

While the accompanying paper provides for Senate members a summary

of existing rules and practices in the Faculty of Arts, of particular

importance should be the discussion of the effects of current practices

both upon academic matters before the Senate tonight (July 14) and also

upon the long-run quality of academic decisions in the Faculty.

Sincerely,

(Signed) "Michael A. Lebowitz"

-2-

I. Faculty of Arts Procedures

At the present time, the Faculty of Arts is governed according to

procedures adopted by referendum on April 11, 1969. Sent out on March 26, 1969,

the referendum did not provide an opportunity for faculty members off-campus to

vote, and it appears to have been sent out without any significant preceding

discussion. Out of approximately 190 eligible faculty members (over 220 are

listed in the 1969-70 Calendar), 76 members voted in the referendum.

Formally an amendment to existing rules and procedures (which appear,

at any rate, to have been suspended), the Dean's letter noted that a 51% majority

would be sufficient to pass any specific amendment. As often occurs with

referenda which have not been discussed adequately in advance, there appears to

have been some confusion in this vote. The Dean's letter of March 26 specifically

pointed out that:

there is no

ormal provision for Referenda in the 1.966 (current)

procedures of the Faculty. Under that item in the referendum

(pages 2 and 3) there are two alternatives: you should vote for

one or the other.

Unfortunately, the majority of faculty members voting in the referendum voted

for both alternatives. Under the circumstances, the Dean or the Dean's committee

appears to have declared the alternative which received more "yes" votes (40 to

39) the victor. Both of the mutually exclusive alternatives, it may be noted,

received a majority of the votes cast on that particular item. Neither, on the

•

other hand, received a two-thirds majority (specified in Robert's Rules of Order)

of the total number of valid ballots (69) in the referendum.

The specific aspects of interest to Senate of the current Faculty

rules are the procedures relating to Referenda and Meetings. Item 3.1.of the

rules indicates that:

After due notice and debate at an ordinary or special meeting

of the Faculty of Arts, questions of substantial importance to

the policies and goals of the Faculty shall be sent out as

referenda to those members of Faculty officially on campus

during the applicable semester. The need for referenda on

specific questions shall be determined by the membership, or

by the Dean, subject to challenge by the membership.

In addition to a majority decision at a Faculty meeting, the initiative for a

referendum may come from the Dean or from a petition signed by at least one-

quarter of Faculty members on campus (Item 3.2). Of these

three methods for

generating a referendum, only the last two are relevant at the present time.

The Faculty of Arts has had no meetings to discuss "questions of substantial

importance to the policies and goals of the Faculty." All our recent referenda

appear to have been initiated by the Dean.

Unfortunately, the procedures for calling Faculty meetings are not

entirely clear. Item 1.1 indicates that the Dean shall give "timely notice"

of meetings; and Item 1.2, that such notice shall include the agenda and any

•

relevant material. Nowhere does the Dean appear to be given the explicit

per to call meetings. (This oversight may in fact explain

why he has not

•

called any meetings.) The only reference to the calling of a meeting appears

in Item 1.3:

-3-

The Faculty is reminded that any votes taken may be rescinded

by vote at a subsequent meeting, and that special meetings for

the purpose of rescinding or other reasons may be called by

petition of 50 Faculty members.

(It should be noted that a pending referendum for Joint Faculty would give one-

eighth of the faculty the power to call a meeting of Joint Faculty. This could

create the paradoxical situation in which Faculty of Arts members find it easier

to call a meeting of Joint Faculty than one of their own.)

While there thus appears to be a mechanism for calling special meetings,

there appears to be no way to hold a general or ordinary meeting of the Faculty

-- unless the Dean deems it desirable. Even here, there seems to have been a

definite intention on the part of the voting faculty that there be at least one

meeting of the Faculty each semester. Item 5.1 (Quorum) notes that the "Dean

shall announce the quorum thrice annually in the call for the first meeting of

the Faculty in each semester." The first meeting of the Faculty of Arts for

Summer, 1969, has yet to occur.

Under the current Faculty of Arts procedures, in short, it is possible

for 'a Dean, who is disinclined to permit faculty discussion, to avoid calling a

meeting and to conduct necessary Faculty business by referenda (not previously

discussed at a meeting.) The only resort in this event for faculty who wish to

discuss general faculty business or "issues of substantial importance to the

policies and goals of the Faculty" is to run around, petition in hand -- a

process hardly conducive to providing an atmosphere for sound academic judgments.

For Senate, our main concern should be with the quality of reports from

the Faculty, and we should be certain at all times that all members of the Faculty

have had a full opportunity to discuss academic matters of substantial importance

at a Faculty meeting before the report of Faculty is brought to Senate. While

Section 64 of the Universities Act indicates that no general rules or regulations

made by a Faculty are effective or enforceable until Senate has approved them

(a process which does not appear to have occurred in this case), Senate could

best show its disapproval of current procedures of the Faculty of Arts by

returning its reports to the Faculty for discussion.

II. Short-Run Effects of Current Procedures

New Courses (S.247)

As mentioned earlier, there is no opportunity at present for Faculty

to discuss the content of new courses. The Curriculum Committee meets, makes

its recommendations and Faculty receives a referendum. Other than in the

Curriculum Committee, there is no discussion of courses from members of associated

disciplines; no prior notice of potential new courses is given so that questions

can be directed through Curriculum Committee members. This procedure, eliminating

faculty discussion, appears to be directly contrary to that in the Faculties of

Science and Education. Again, the only recourse for a faculty member interested

in a general faculty discussion of a new course is to begin a petition -- and to

look for 49 other faculty members. This procedure, again, is hardly one designed

to provide sound academic judgments, and it is not one to which the Senate should

subscribe by accepting the decisions which are its.result -- if Senate is

performing its duties under the Universities Act.

-4-

Report on Graduate Studies (S.245, S.245a)

On this matter (which certainly is of "substantial importance to the

policies and goals" of the Faculty), there appears to be little evidence of

direct faculty involvement. The Dean's letter of December 12, 1968 to the

Registrar notes that the Faculty of Arts voted against the implementation of

the Harper Report in a referendum. Since then, there appears to have been no

effort to obtain Faculty views even by referendum. Paper 245(a) indicates that

"a major submission was made through the Faculty of Science following discussion

that body, and through the Faculty of Education." The Registrar informed me

July 11 that, other than the Dean's 'note of December 12, there have been no

submissions from the Faculty of Arts.

Senate now faces the prospect of approving a proposal with major

implications for the university -- a proposal which has received no general

discussion in the largest Faculty in the university. It is quite possible that

a majority of the Faculty of Arts may not understand the implications of this

paper, may not even know it is being discussed in Senate, or may believe it was

laid to rest in the referendum noted in the Dean's letter of December 12. Since

the paper proposes the removal of faculty members

who are candidates for higher

degrees from graduate studies committees, there may be serious implications --

which certainly should have received general discussion in the Faculty of Arts.

The.failure to call a meeting may, in this case, reflect the Dean's judgment

that this is not a matter of "substantial importance to the policies and goals

of the Faculty.

Senate should suspend judgment on this crucial issue until there is

opportunity for a complete discussion of this paper in a meeting of the

Faculty of Arts.

Academic Planning (S.215, S.215(a), S.215(b), 5.215(c))

The paper on Academic Planning, presented to Senate on April 8, again

has not received any general discussion within the Faculty of Arts. Again, in

contrast, both the Faculty' of Science and the Faculty of Education held meetings

and have submitted reports of those meetings to Senate. (S.215a, S.215b)

Since Senate specifically directed the paper back to the faculties, for

comment, a report has indeed come back to the Senate. But it is only "the

Preliminary Report of the Faculty of Arts." Paper 215(b), which consists of

reports from the meetings of the Dean's Advisory Committee (Committee of Acting

Heads) and the Faculty of Arts Academic Planning Committee, is particularly

revealing, however, in its indication of how far we have departed from the

concept of a Faculty. Following a statement of the conclusions of the Dean's

Advisory Committee (p.2), the Dean notes:

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

wishes to retain

We, of course, do not know what the Faculty of Arts wishes. A process appears

to have occurred, however, in which the Dean has substituted for the Faculty

and the Faculty views, the views of his committees. Senate, which expected to

learn what the Faculty of Arts believes, should wait until the Faculty has had

the opportunity to discuss Paper 215 in a meeting in the same manner as the

other two faculties.

-5-

III. Long_Run Effects

•

In the short run, the effect of current practices in the Faculty of

Arts is both to deny faculty members the opportunity to express their views on

current academic matters before the university among peers from other departments

in the Faculty and also to deny Senate the product of such open discussions. It

is likely that the effect of these practices can be seen in matters besides those

before the Senate tonight, and the full extent of the problem may be uncovered

only by a careful study by the Senate of the practices of the Faculty of Arts.

As important for Senate as the short-run effects, however, are the

potential long-run effects. The absence of Faculty meetings means both that

Senators from Arts are unable to inform the Arts Faculty of matters before Senate

and

also that they are unable to bring a representative view to the Senate from

the Faculty. Rather than acting as representatives, they cannot help but bring

their own views only or those of their close associates. In the absence of

faculty meetings, the selection of candidates for Senate must also be affected;

without an opportunity for Faculty members to evaluate individuals from their

contribution to faculty meetings, Senate candidacy can easily reflect departmental

politics and political intrigue. Little else will be left.

The absence of faculty meetings also cannot help but foster fragmentation

within the Faculty, reduce contacts among individuals from different disciplines --

and, in general, bias academic decisions against interdisciplinary approaches within

the university. This same lack of faculty meetings also reduces the sense of

identification with the university; without faculty meetings (and, in some cases,

departmental meetings) faculty members will naturally view their position here as

paid individuals rather than as members of a university community.

Senate, the highest academic body in the university, has the responsibility

to deal directly with these issues. If it is truly concerned with matters of academic

soundness and the well-being of the university, it will not seek an expedient solution.

-48