M Ift ,
1. rela
  1. WINTER 1965

(i4

To: All Senators

From: Registrar

All Members of Faculty Council

11 July, 1967.

Subject: Faculty Council Minutes

Following discussions in Faculty Council, July 6, and

Senate, July 10, I have searched the Minutes of both bodies for

a ruling on the availability of Faculty Council Minutes to Senators.

The following appears in the Minutes of Senate, November 29,

1965,

page 6, item 7:

"Mr. Bawtree requested that members of Senate

receive Minutes of the meetings of the Faculty

Council and was advised that they would be available

the office of the Registrar."

I have interpreted this Minute to mean that the Faculty

Council Minutes and papers are open for inspection in my office,

but for Senators only.

In view of the ambiguity of the Minute it would perhaps

be as

well to clarify the matter at the next Senate. meeting.

•

D.P. Robertson

Registrar

DPR/md

M Ift ,

•

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

e..LtA1

•

From

Subject ......

.Agen..

a..).Lt?xa .... A .. ....

e.ot.i.ng.

Date ..............

A .g.us.t....1.,.....

C e A F C - I.

MOTION: "That Senate invite Faculty Council to inform Senate

of its procedures."

Origin of Motion

The motion originated out of an announced appeal by

students against -a Faculty Council decision which was arrived

at by procedures held by both the Executive Council of the

Student Society and the Graduate Student Association to be

incompatible with student interests. In addition, it is a

response to the enclosed memorandum by T. B. Bottomore addressed

to Dean Matthews, attention Arts Members of Senate.

Intent of Motion

The motion was intended to enable Senate, with the

cooperation of Faculty Council, to review Faculty Council

procedures in order (1) to ensure that they do not allow Faculty

Council to exceed its jurisdiction-(as has been claimed) and

(2) to enable Senate to fulfill the requirements of the

Universities Act, Section 61 (b) and Section 64, which state

respectively that the Faculty Council's power to make rules and

regulations with respect to student discipline is subject to

the approval of Senate and that a general rule or regulation

made by Faculty Council is not effectiv

e- or enforceable until a

copy thereof has been sent to Senate and the Senate has given

approval thereto.

Wording of the Motion

The motion was intentionally worded in such a way as not

to invoke powers of the Senate and not to conflict with possible

interpretations of the Universities Act. An

invitation

Faculty Council to report to Senate cannot constitute an abridgement

of the powers of Faculty Council. The suggested interpretation

of the Universities Act submitted by a legal firm does not, then,

bear directly upon this motion, and should not have been listed

as a supporting document;

it is

rather an item of information

• sought by the President.

. . . /

5'1

Ity/47

(

-2-

Supporting documents

The enclosed documents were originally intended as

support for the appeal against a Faculty Council decision

announced at the July, 1967, meeting of Senate by Mrs. Sharon

Yandle

this appeal for some reason was not listed on the

endaifor the August, 1967, meeting, although it had been

submitted for inclusion by the Student Representatives on

Senate,in accord with Section 54(m), Section 61(b), (2), and

Section 62.

Since my motion originated out of this appeal and the

documents of the appeal are essential for an understanding of

the need for Senate to review Faculty Council procedures, I

have chosen to enclose those documents as supporting material

for my motion. All the documents were intended for Senate

with the exception of the President's memorandum, which is

available to Senate members in Faculty Council minutes

(according to the Registrar's recent memorandum on the

availability of Faculty Council minutes to Senate members).

Legal Interpretation of the Universities Act

Whereas we have the considered opinion of only one law

firm, and variant interpretations must be deemed possible, it

is perhaps worthwhile to demonstrate that the suggested

interpretation does provide grounds for the support of my

motion.

(1)

Page 2 of Shrum, Liddle

Hebenton: "The Act gives the

Senate the power to approve or disapprove the regulations

prepared by the Faculty Council;..

COMMENT: The Senate should determine whether it has in fact

had opportunity to approve or disapprove the regulations

prepared by the Faculty Council, and to this purpose must be

provided with a statement of those regulations.

(2)

Continuing the sentence cited from Page 2 of the lawyers'

statement: "...it does not give the Senate a continuing

supervisory power over the way in which the Faculty Council

administers those regulations once they are approved."

COMMENT: Be this as it may, Section 64 of the Universities

Act states "A general rule or regulation made by a Faculty or

by Faculty Council is not effective or enforceable until a

copy thereof has been sent to the Senate and the Senate has

given approval thereto." This clearly requires Faculty Council

to provide Senate, and to keep Senate provided with a copy of

its rules and regulations for Senate's consideration.

(3) Also on

Page 2 of the lawyers' statement, the next sentence

reads: "The Senate is brought into the administration of the

re g

ulations only when some person appeals a decision of the

Faculty

Council

to Senate." (My italics)

'i 7 U/t97

-3-

COMMENT: Such an appeal was announced at the last meeting of

Senate, as has been mentioned, and thus there is occasion and

cause for Senate to concern itself with the administration of

whatever regulations Faculty Council wishes to bring into

force, whether or not Faculty Council has met the requirements

of the/

Universities Act concerning rules and regulations

referred to above in this memorandum (preceding paragraph).

A footnote should be added here to correct (that is,

to differ with) the President's statement as recorded in the

draft minutes for the July, 1967, meeting of Senate: ho is

recorded as pointing out "that Ficulty Council had in fact

decided to take no action and therefore the matter seemed to

be one of appealing a procedure rather than appealing a

decision".

The Faculty Council voted to "take no further action".

This is surely a decision just as "not guilty" is a verdict.

If we are to pursue the analogy more strictly, the students'

claim would seem to be that a decision to take no further

action is like a suspended sentence - there is a presumption

of guilt. The students feel, and they are not alone in this

(see T. B. Bottomore's memorandum), tha

t Faculty Council

exceeded its jurisdiction and should have stated that the

matter brought before them was outside their jurisdiction.

It is clear that relative to this, a decision to take no

further action is a decision. Furthermore, Section 62 of the

Universities Act talks of a person aggrieved by any decision

of the Faculty Council, and does not further specify what the

nature of that decision is to be before an appeal can be

heard.

Lastly, a very important point is contained in Section

61(d) of the Universities Act: it provides, subject to the

approval of Senate, for Faculty Council to set up a student

committee to be recognized as the official medium of communica-

tion with Faculty Council, and Senate, with the right to make

communications through the President to such bodies upon any

subject affecting the students. A committee of students and

Faculty Council members (which I believe has never been approved

by Senate) was cited at the July meeting as a reason for not

supporting my motion, allegedly rendering Senate's concern with

Faculty Council on behalf of the students unnecessary. Section

62 of the Universities Act, however, states: "Any person

aggrieved by a decision of the Faculty Council has a right of

appeal therefrom to the Senate, in accordance with any rules or

regulations made by the Senate, and the decision of the Senate

thereon is final." Thus the existence of this committee,

whether or not it has begun to function effectively (and there

are members of Senate who could testify that it has not), does

not preclude the need for a motion, such as the one I am offering,

nor can it constitute grounds for not allowing an appeal against

I:'••-'

'5I

11^ /to,

aZ2Z.1

.e.

-4-

Faculty Council to be brought before Senate, which is the proper

governing body for such appeals, as set

Out in the Act.

Further Reason for Approving Motion

Enclosed is a memorandum from T. B. Bottomore to Dean

Matthews asking the Dean to bring before Senate some of the

very matters about which the students feel most aggrieved. The

Dean has indicated that he will speak to the memorandum in the

context of the motion I offer. The. matter, however, arising

from the Faculty and addressed to the Dean of the Faculty, is

certainly fit business for Senate under Section 54(1) of the

Universities Act.

The President's Memorandum

This document which certain members of Senate find

offensive in that, among other things, it exceeds the jurisdiction

of Faculty Council over disciplinary matters and ventures opinions

and recommendations concerning the academic competence and futures

of. the

students mentioned therein, is included because it

Constitutes an example of gross disregard for the limitations of

Faculty Council. Since the President's memorandum was a report

given to Faculty Council and included in its minutes, it may

be viewed as a proper submission as evidence that Faculty

Council needs guidance from, if not supervision by, Senate.

If it is maintained that the President did not write the report

in his capacity as Chairman of the Faculty Council, but as

President of the University, then the same clause that empowers

him to do this renders his action subject to an appeal to Senate,

Section 58 (2), Universities Act.

I would like to apologize for the unavoidable delay in

circulating this memorandum and supporting documents. It was

not until I received the agenda for the August meeting that I

realized that the student appeal was not scheduled for that

meeting, and I had intended to refer to their documentation in

support of my motion. Nor had I realized the President had

intended the lawyers' interpretation of the Universities Act

to bear upon my motion; I felt that some clarification was

called for.

7/f /

SIMON FRAS UNVEflSTY

Par FC-2

Lt1&

FACULTY COUNCIL

QDrP.DMCTgartCOWafl

(CONFIDENTIAL)

President

Sübjed....................................................................................................................... .

Date ............

April J.7, ..... L9..7 ....... . ...... . .................. ................. .. ...........

At our last meeting you asked me to interview the Live graduate students

who had appeared before us to assess their potential as graduate students in

the light of the difficulties that had arisen in order that Council might be

assured of a reasonable possibility of success.

I have interviewed the students in company with their department Head

and where possible with the Registrar also in attendance, and I have the

following observations to make.

I refer, in several of the following paragraphs, to the lack of adequate

and proper records on graduate students in the Registrar's Office. This is

not a criticism of the Registrar but a factual reinforcement of what he has

• already reported to the Committee of Heads, the Senate Committee on Graduate

•

Studies and the Senate Committee on Graduate Admissions, that the

information

was not forthcoming from some departments. A position is being filled on the

Registrar's staff to deal with these matters and all Heads are being requested

• to bring the Registrar's files on their graduate students up to date as quickly

as possible. In future, full documentation will be necessary and it will be the

responsibility of the department Head to provide it to the Registrar.

1. John Edmond-.: He has a very spotty undergraduate record filled

with failures particularly in the science subjects, where he seemed to be

trying to prove competence in maths, physics and chemistry, which obviously

was not there. He finally ended up with a B. A. class 2 in 'honors psychology

at UBC. He then took, In consecutive summer sessions 1964 and 1965, three

English courses and a philosophy course getting two firsts and two seconds.

This is some evidence that he was finding his field and I understand that

Prof. Baker thinks that he has real ability in the area of English and linguis-

tics and certainly there is evidence of this in the courses he took after getting

his B.

Mr. Edmond's file in the Registrar's Office carried very little in it

other than the curriculum vitae to support the foregoing and I think it is im-

portant that opinions such as Prof. Baker's should be recorded and placed

on file; Mr.

graduate transcript showed that he had taken, since

the fall of 1965, four courses in linguistics, but no marks had been submitted

to the Registrar and he had taken three courses in English, only one of which

had been given a mark of which the Registrar had been notified.

. . . 2

tT4J

/-. 'I,'

From the interview with Edmond I was satisfied that he had the various

aspects of the problem in focus and that there was every possibility of him

completing his

Master's

degree, as far as his mental attitude was concerned.

With the absence of marks on his graduate transcript I was unable to form any

opinion with regard to his academic standing except that he had rcccivcd an.

'A' in the one English course for which there were marks on records and he

had receied a first in a course in philosophy that he had been permitted to

take at UBC as part of his graduate program.

• 2. Ceo If r e y Me r cc r: Mr. Mercer was admitted to study for an

M. A. in P. S. A. commencing in the fall semester 1965. He has a low second-

class B. A. from Durham and therefore does not meet our minimum entrance

requirements, but as he was admitted in our first semester when things were

a little chaotic it is understandable.

Mr. Mercer completed his Master's degree program and his thesis a

short time ago and Senate has awarded him an M. A. There is an incomplete

record in the Registrar's Office of the marks and courses he completed for

this degree, and in discussion with Mr. Mercer he did not know the standing

he had obtaed in the courses and actually advised me he was not concerned

about course standings.

He has in mind continuing on a doctoral program and is searching for a

thesis topic. Apparently he was considerably impressed with McKenzie, who

was visitn g

here from the London School of Economics and participated in his

oral examinations for his

degree and is therefore considering doing

some work in comparive studies of political parties or various aspects of

local politics.. He was participating in a research project concerned with

certain aspects of the Community Chest operation and yet when I questioned

him. on it he seemed to have a very vague idea about the nature, purpose or

goals of this research.

•I would like to stress that in a half hour interview with a student studying

in a field in which I have no expert knowledge, any opinions or conclusions that

I state or draw must be considered as very tentative, but with this provision

I must in all sincerity say that I was very unhappy with what I saw in Geoffrey

Mercer. Prof. Bottomore had said in our earlier Council meeting that he

thought that his four students did indeed have the problems of the past several

• - weeks in focus and that if we saw them in the privacy of my office this would

•

be clear, even though we had some doubts when we saw them in the larger

group of Faculty Council. As you will see in other parts of this report, I did

feel quite reassured with regard to Edmond, Huxley and Stanworth, but my

• .

interview with Mr. Mercer deepened such doubts as I had. I saw really no

• quality of intellect. He perhaps realized that there was a problem, but was

•

refusing to recognize it and was building up defence blockades which would

•

effectively keep out both wisdom and judgment.

may

well be that Mr. Mercer has an intellect capable of

achieving

doctoral level discipline, but if he has I did not see it and I would suggest

that this question should be studied by competent judges very soon because

Mr.

Mercer's best interests a transfer to another university, to pursue

his doctoral program may be necessary.

3. Christooher Huxley: M.A. -student in political science,

socioiog and anthropology, who commenced his graduate work in the fall

semester of 1966.

Mr. Huxley received a low second-class B. A. degree from the University

of.York, England, and therefore did not meet the admission requirements

of the Faculty of Arts,

which

states "an applicant should have a bachelor's

degree with high second-class standing or its equivalent".

Mr.

Huxley was

given provisional entry into the graduate program at S. F. U. in a letter dated

April 29, but the only requirement stated was that he complete his degree.

There was no mention in the letter of the need for him getting high second-

class standing. His professors did, however, in their letter of reference

say that they expected him to get a high second-class, but I think the Graduate

Admissions Committee will have to review its procedures to make sure that

the regulations contained in the calendar are properly conveyed to students ........

seekin

admission.

Mr. Huxley enrolled in three P. S. A. courses in the fall semester -

801, 832 and 891, but no marks have been submitted to the Registrar and the

departmental report of his supervisors is not encouraging. This raises

another point regarding applications for the $1, 000 research semester grant,

where the department is required to certify that the student is making satis-

factory progress in his degree program.. It may be that we will have to set

some

minimum sta.ndards.

While I realize one short interview really provides quite insufficient

grounds for assessing academic competence, .1 do suggest a careful re-

assessment should be made.

While in all sincerity I have to express these doubts regarding Mr.

Huxley's academic attainments, I was left in no doubt at all but that he had

a healthy and rational view of the proceedings of the past several weeks and

that these would present no hurdle in accomplishing his degree program,

and that subject to those directly concerned being satisfied that he was able

to make progress towards his Master's degree he should experience no

other problems, but I suggest that any further tutoring he may be asked to do

should be very closely monitored, to see if he indeed does have the in-

tellectual stamina to cope with the really bright undergraduate students.

...4

4. Martin Lone

y :

Martin Loney

was dmittcd to a Master's

pro-

grain in P. S. A. in the fall semester of 1966 having received a

low second-

class standing in, his bachelor degree from Durham. Mr. Loney did not

meet

he entrance requirements laid down by the Faculty of Arts and I do

not. know why he was admitted in the first place. The letters of reference

that the University received gave warning of this, one stating "he is unlikely

•

to do better than a good

22,

and further

am doubtful whether Loney is a

•

person of 'high intellellectual promise', but I do think he could benefit from

higher education and that he would put it to very good use." There are other

more complimentary remarks in the letters, but generally Mr. Loney is

painted as a marginal graduate student. The question of his admission to

•

graduate work here was apparently settled by the Admissions Committee

prior to the exam results at Durham, and as far as I can see no condition

•

was placed on his admission to meeting our high second-class entrance require-

ments. I believe therefore the Graduates Admissions Committee should

seriously consider its admissions procedures in this respect and consider

making admissions tentative until the final exam results are known and the

requisite standing assured.

Mr. Loney sees himself as the injured party being harassed by the police

and the news media and that he has done nothing that would not be readily

accepted in England, and that it is just the imperfections of the B. C. popula-

tion that has caused the problem. He

sees

himself as in opposition to the

people and the law of British Columbia and to the University, and as the

champion of the liberality in these matters practised in England.

With regard to his course work, he enrolled in two courses in the fall

semester of 1966; on one he has been given an 'A

;

on the other no mark

has been submitted. He advised that he was to. do his thesis on Agrarian re-

form in Mexico, Guatemala and Cuba, but notwithstanding that he had

achieved

1 A'

a course in Latin American politics he seemed to have a very elemen-

tary knowledge of the problems in these countries or the history of the develop-

ment. He had plans of visiting these countries this summer to talk with the

professors at the universities, but he did not know the people to contact, nor

had he made any enquiries to them. He seemed to be a bit uncertain as to

just where the universities were, but that he felt that he would be able to make

all

tiie

necessary enquiries and contacts after he arrived in the countries.

I asked about his course work; Mr. Loney said he had taken one course

in the fall semester, while the Registrar's records show him taking two. Mr.

Loney said he was taking Spanish and three seminar courses in P. S. A. in the

spring semester, but the Registrar's records show him as only enrolled in

P. S. A. 893. The three courses, he is taking in P. S. A. are seminar courses

and he said that he was required to write onepaper in each and that he had

•

written one of the three papers expected of him, that he might be able to write

one more, but the third and perhaps the second might be set over for a later

semester.

•

. . . S

e24(?J. 7

(j(z4. e

-5

I ( 1

I was very disappointed with Mr. Loney's attitude; he did not live up to

the expectations or assurances given to Faculty Council by Prof.

Bottomore

in that he was very defensive and seemed to be building up stockades to keep

out wisdom and logic in order that he might maintain his antagonistic position.

I must therefore say that I am doubtful that there is any real chance of

success in educating him at Simon Fraser University, but I would stress that

this is on/the basis of roughly a half-hour talk and I think it is urgent that Mr.

Loney's position be reviewed by a competent committee. It is clear that he

has not adjusted to his new environment in British Columbia, and I believe

that it is unlikely that he would do so in view of the past events and his

attitude to them.

Philip S t a n w o r t h : Mr. Stanworth was admitted to the fall

semester of 1965 to pursue a Ph. D. degree in P. S. A. He achieved an

upper second-class in his B. A. in June of 1964 from the University of

Leicester and was enrolled in M. A. studies at that University. There is

nothing on the Registrar's file to indicate that he completed his Master's

degree and therefore his direct admission to a Ph. D. degree may be open

to some question, but as it happened at the beginning of our first semester

when things were a little hectic, I do not intend my preceding remarks to be

finding fault.

•

In general the documentation on

Mr.

Stanworth in the Registrar's file is

imperfect; there are no letters of reference, etc., etc.

There is no record of course enrollment for the fall semester of 1965 and

no marks submitted; there were marks submitted in the spring semester of

1966, but none in the fall semester of 1966 even though the record shows that

he was

enrolled in P. S. A. 832.

There is therefore really no way of forming a judgment from the graduate

student records in the Registrar's office and on the basis of the meeting I had

with him, I would class Mr.

Stanworth

as a marginal student, but that with

hard work and some direction he has every chance of succeeding.

As far as his mental attitude to the series of unhappy events with which

he had been associated I have no doubt. Mr. Stanworth had rationalized the

situation, had it well in focus and can be counted on to apply himself diligently

to his degree program. There is therefore no question in my mind that he

should be encouraged to continue as a graduate student at S. F. U. He has a

lot of hard work ahead of him; he knows it and I think he will make the grade.

P. D. MeT agg art- Cowan.

July 24, 1967

TO: Members

'of Senate

FROM: Senate Student Representatives Simon Foulds, Stanley Wong and Sharon Yandle

Three graduate students recently brought before Faculty Council on disciplinary

charges have requested the Senate student representatives to take before Senate

an appeal of the nature of Faculty Council proceedings.

The request arose following the circulation of a report allegedly made by President

P.D. Mclaggart-Cowan at the alleged request of Faculty Council. The document con-

tained academic evaluations of five graduate students whose off-campus activities

were under consideration by the disciplinary body.

Faculty Council subsequently ruled to take no action against the students. However,

because the students consider the report to be both derogatory (if not defamatory)

and InvIolatton of the Statement on Academic Freedom of the American Association of

University Professors and the Universities Act, as well as potentially injurious to

their present and future education and employment, they are anxious that the matter

of Faculty Council proceedings be brought before Senate.

Further on this matter, the Senate student representatives have received

(I) requests from the Student Society Executive Council and the Student Action Com-

mittee for AcndemLc Freedom and University Democracy that this matter be brought

to the attention of Senate members, and

(2) a motion put forward by the Graduate Students Association Executive, to be

adopted by Senate.

The Senate student representatives therefore re

uest Senate to discuss the matter of

Faculty Council proceedings on the following grounds:

That Faculty Council is concerned exclusively with non-academic matters of student

discipline and that the Universities Act does not ascribe to it the right to make

or req'"'st academic evaluations of students,

That academic evaluations of the students concerned are both unnecessary and un-

desirable, being irrelevant to the discipline procedure of Faculty Council.

That the confidential nature of the academic evaluation rendered impossible the

students

right to recourse and defense, thus contravening the AAUP Statemen': on

Academic Freedom,

That the existence of such a document may jeopardize the students' future

duca-

tion and employment more than would an unfavourable decision by Faculty Council.

•

4Lc.q

•

I ' k7

.L&

•........2

Members of Senate from Student Representatives

July 24, 1967

•

That if he did In fact Issue such academic evaluations to Faculty Council, the

President assumed the authority of the Senate Graduate Studies Committee, which

could not be legitimately done so except through delegation of that authority

by Senate or by the Board of Governors.

That If the President did issue at Faculty Council's request the abovementioned

report, both the President and Faculty Council have in this Instance extended

their areas of concern beyond that ascribed by the Universities Act and that

such extension constitutes a.violation of the Act.

Enclosed for your personal perusal please find the following documents

Document "A" - Memo, President P.D. McTaggart-Cowan to Faculty Council, April 17, 1967

Document "B" - Memo, Professor T.B. Botromore, Head, PSA Department, to Dean of Arts,

copies to Faculty of Arts

• a

members of Senate

Document "C" - Letter, Chris Huxley to Senate student representatives

Document "D" - Letter, Martin Loney to Senate student representatives

Document "E" - Letter, Philip Stanworth to Senate student representatives

Document "F" - Letter, Student Society Executive Council to Senate student representatives

Document "C" - Motion of Graduate Students Association Executive, copies to Senate

student representatives

Document "H" - AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom of students (see especially under-

lined sections,

pp.

2 and 3.

Document "1" - Letter, Student Action Committee for Academic Freedom and University

Democracy to Senate student

representatives

SIMON FASEI UNWEPSITY

•

Sim

I/fAl,

Dean of Arts

T.B. Bottomore

Head, PSA Department

Faculty Council Discussion

Subject .... .....

........... .on ...

ur..adu.te

PSA Department

Date

21at June.1967

At my request you have allowed me to consult the

papers of Faculty Council, including the report by thr President

dated April 17, 1967. I do not know what kind of discuion

took place. in Faculty Council, but I imagine that they will make

a report to Senate, and I think I have a right, as head of the

Department concerned, to submit my own observations on the matter.

I would ask you particularly to place my comments formally before

Senate.

The President's report, in my opinion, presents a

biassed evaluation of the academic standing of these students.

In the first place, it is not true to say that some of the students

did not meet our minimum entrance requirements, because they had

only lower second class honours in their B.A. degree. Nor is it

true to say that they were adñitted through some oversight resulting

from administrative chaos during our early semesters. All four

students were admitted on the basis of carefully considered

recommendations from this department which I personally approved.

In order to evaluate a student's application for

admission to graduate studies it is necessary to take into account

a number of factors besides the final grade which he obtains in the

Bachelor's degree: the university from which he comes, the nature

of his degree programme and his tutor's reports. Two of the students

concerned came from Durham, which happens to be one of the better

English universitites, and I imagine that lower second class honours

there are equal to upper second class, or even first class, in some

universities from which we accept graduate students. All four

students were well recommended by their tutors, and three of them had

already been off erred places in graduate schools in England.

The case of Mr. Mercer illustrates, very well that our

admissions policy was entirely justified. Mercer completed his

M.A. thesis in just over twelve months while acting as a teaching

assistant (and a very good one). The thesis is a good and original

pièce of work, and my judgement of it is confirmed by that of the

external examiner, Professor R.T. McKenzie, who is an acknowledged

authority in this field of political science. Moreover, Mercer

having decided that he does not wish to continue his studies in a

Canadian university after the experiences he has had, has been accepted

Ph.D. student at the University of Strathclyde, by the Professor

CouL/ - - -

Ic'

/t,

4.w

t I

Dean of Arts

(2)

21st June, 1967

• S

of Politics, Richard Rose, who is also a well-known scholar in

this field. In the light of these facts I am simply amazed that

•

the report suggests thatMercer is in some way an inadequate

graduate student. Any such suggestion is entirely false.

There are many other evaluations in the report which I

•

would challenge, but it would perhaps be tedious to go through

them in detail. I would rather refer to a general problem in the

•

evaluation of graduate applicants and graduate students in this

•

university. It is that such judgements are being made in too

many cases by people who have no experience of graduate teaching

and no knowledge of good graduate schools. Unless this situation

•

is changed our graduate programme is likely to deteriorate along

with our reputation in the academic world.

•

There is one other aspect of the report on which I

should like to comment briefly. The account of the behaviour of

•

the four students when they were interviewed by the President

rests heavily upon an 'official' view of the incidents on and off

the campus in March this year. At various times I was also

• •

disappointed in the behaviour of the students, but I still consider

that this report paints too black a picture and does not bring out

any of the more favourable aspects. I think it is well known in

• :

the university that I do not subscribe to the 'official' version of

the troubles in March, and that

1 consider the larger share of the

blame to rest with the Board of Governors. I wish my view of this

matter to be formally placed on record by the Senate.

..... ..

......•••

c.c.

President •

Faculty

of Arts

members of Senate

•,. .-

SON FASE UNERSIY

C^I

(DOCUMENT "C")

From

......... Oro

P S A Department

Sub

tu1ty

sio n

Five'

.Dab..................

' ....

Graduate Students.

......

I have not seen the agenda for the meeting of Senate on Monday July 10,

but

underétand from the Peak of July 5 that matters concerning myself and the four

other graduate students who appeared before the President in March

will be

raised.

I feel it might be helpful if I present some

observations

on the matter with

particular reference to my own position.

I have no knowledge of the kind of discussion that took place in Faculty

Council on May 11 but

presume

Council will submit some sort of report to Senate.

Permit me therefore to make some observations.

Soxnwhat more than three months have now passed since my appearance before

Faculty Council and subsequent interview with the President. At that time I was

informed that I was being interviewed at the request of Faculty Council with the

view to ascertaining my intention of attaining my academic goals. The President

subsequently wrote up a confidential report which was circulated to members of

Council in which he made certain observations on each of the five students. As is

well

known

however, the report for some reason did not remain confidential. For

this reason and since the report itself draws on such further confidential material

as letters of recommendation and reports by graduate students supervisors. I feel

it is not indiscreet for me to make comment.

Rather than speculating on what linterpret to be the intent of the above

mentioned document I should prefer to consider the President's own explanation;

namely, "to assess their (the five) potential as. graduate students in the light of

the difficulties that had arisen in order that Council might be assured of a rea-

sonable possibility of success"

(1) I see no reason whatsoever why the difficulties I had to undergo in March

over my employmentas a teaching

ssistant should have, ok will in the future,

affect my academic (as opposed to teaching)

rsuits. In other words I am

ntinuing to study for my M.A. degree and have

every

int

ention of submitting

a thesis

that

egree. I am only to well aware of my financial dependence

on a teaching

assis

tantship or research stipend; but since I was reinstated as

a teaching

sistant in March and have subsequently

eceived a research Stipend

this

has not so far been a problem. In fact, I/had

have

no in

that I should

regard the matter of further employment

efltjn a problem for the remain-

ng semesters of my programme.

(2) I fail to see any logical connection between my Signing an open letter to

students at Templeton Secondary School and Faculty Council's

investiga

tion

of my

academic

anding. Faculty Council does, i understand have a perfect right to

recommend

dis

ciplinary action to Senate as it thinks fit. To my

knowledge,

has yet to make any such

recoIe

ndation

The only step taken that has received

public notice is the

Pre

sident's task of

inte

rviewing those concerned as Stated

earlier. I can Only await any outcome of Senate for an answer to Faculty C

uncil's

decision or recommendation. I wish to

estion

the

procedure of Faculty Council

in asking for such an

inve

tigatjot& when to my

wledge, my department has ex-

pressed no

dissa

tisfaction with my academic progreas. Faculty Council may indeed

have the right to authorize

inves

tigations, but I would take exception to the

arbitary nature in which my academic career is being upheld toscrutiny with

th e

apparent

tention of casting

a spértion

my capabilities

(3) The students concerned apparently have hit

erto

had

pportunity of

efending

their

cademic careers to those members of Council who study the report. In my

own case references were made to confidential matters which for Obvious reasons

are not

ivulged to me. My academic standing is

valuated largely on the basis

Of a half-hour

nterview by the

resident whose field of scholarship bears zo

rela

tionship to my own. Were those directly

ncerned with my studies Consulted?

(4) I do not know if my status as a graduate student is in question. In

March the President told a Press conference the five would be allowed

to remain at the university and continue on as graduate students providing

each gave an assurance he intended to achieve his academic goals. The

press subsequently asserted that our status as graduate students was never

in question. However deliberations have presumably taken place in Council

resulting in decisions or recommendations with respect to our status as

students. The three graduate students currently on campus, namely John Edmond,

Phil Stanworth, and myself, have therefore written to the President as Chairman

of Faculty Council. The letter, dated July 5th, concludes; 'Since any such

decisions or recommendations have not yet been made known to us,. and since the

outcome of those deliberations is crucial to our continuance as students at this

university, we would respectfully request to be informed of whether in fact

Faculty Council has concluded its inquiry respecting ourselves an

if so, that

the results of their deliberations be known to us.'

At the present all I know is that the regretable document has found its

way into circulation in the academic community and I feel my

status is Jeopardized

as a result.

(5) If I may now refer to a specific reference to myself in the document I

have been discussing. Earlier I quoted the President with reference to Council's

concern over our intention of fulfilling Our academic goalé. By this and fol-

lowing on from Faculty Council's function I understand him to mean our standing

as graduate students. Yet despite this he explicitly refers to my competence

teaching assistant. I quote; "..'. but

suggest that any further tutoring

-4

4' .

'if Ic,

he may be asked to do should be very closely monitored, to see if he indeed

•

does have the intellectual stamina to cope with the really bright under-

graduate students."

By way of reply I can do no better than quote the President when in

the previous paragraph he states; ".. I realize one short interview really

provides quite insufficient grounds for assessing academic competence". If my

teaching competence, is also to be called into question I surely have the right to

request at. least some consideration of the views of those concerned with the

courses I have taught during two semesters. Criticism whether from students,

colleagues or my professors I would welcome. Suspicion of my 'intellectual

from someone unacquainted with my work frankly provokes resentment

and finds no respect.

In conclusion I would request that student representatives on Senate

raise some of the points I have presented above. The President's memorandum

has not remained confidential - a fact that may equally distress both and

and

others. I cannot pretend it was not written. I do consider it unfortunate in

so far as his personal evaluation of the five students may be too readily accepted

as in some way both legitimate and objective, neither-of which I consider to

be the case. I should like to make formal request that student representatives

on Senate propose a motion censuring the procedure adopted in investigating the

academic standing of five students and to include a demand, that the President's

memorandum is never, included with transcripts of academic records.

c.c..President, Student Council,

(DOCUMENT "D")

British EmbtassLy

Cuba

June

30, 1967

TO: Academic Senate

Dear Sirs:

I recently received from unofficial sources, a copy of the

President's remarks to Faculty Council on the subject of five

graduate students. Though the document is marked confidential

it has, I ant told, received fairly extensive publicity. It is

not my wish, at this time, and from a distance of

3,500

miles

to stir up any problems and I am writing to you to clear up a

few of the more blatant distortions in the document and to

request your assistance.

The President reports on my case 'I do not know why he was

admitted in the first place' a question which I cannot answer

except to say, for the same reasons, I presume, that I was

accepted at Manitoba and Dalhousie and also given a tentative

acceptance at Essex University, the latter, after I had ritten

withdrawing my application in the light of receiving a 2 • I

received a subsequent letter from Essex saying that it might

still be possible to offer a place. I had, however, more or less

decided by this time to come to Simon Fraser University because

of reports I had heard about tho P.S.A. Department, a decision.

which I never had cause to regret.

The President describes me as a marginal graduate student, a

qual.lty which we all seem to share in for soinc reason, even

Geoff Mercer recently awarded an M.A. after an extensive examina-

tion

by an internationally acknowledged scholar. Apart from the

selection of quotes used from reference letters the President

might have mentioned that I honoured jointly. in politics and

economics and that in the letter I, at no time, made any claims

to success. Niether do I 'point' myself as brilliant though

I never understood this to be a prerequisite for admission to a

graduate program.

•

The President then moves on in the same important vein to

describe my views on the world in general and B. C. in particular.

Suffice it to say that I made no remarks on the B. C. population,

that as somebody who is interested in promoting change I do not

see

the key to success as being 'in opposition to the people--..

of B.C., nor do I wish to export what the President terms British

Continued,,,

-2-

1.L4

('-

SM7(k7

'liberality' since I for one, do not know what he means. The

remarks I made on the subject were that in the provincial

•

environment of B. C., an issue unimportant in amny other places

•

had been blown out of proportion. I

use

the term provincial

descriptively and not preJoratively.

Finally, I cannot See what my views on B. C. or my alleged

'martyr complex' have to do with my capabilities as a graduate

student and am even more at a loss to know in what way the

President's view of what he Interprets to be my opinion, should

effect the

issue.

It seems the sole criteria of whether we

were rational and potential graduate students hinged on how

closely our political views and perspective coincided with

those of the President which hardly seems a healthy criteria,

•

I will say nothing of the President's comments on the courses I

was or was not enrolled in excepting that to Infer that I was

either misleading him or unclear myself is in line with the

general tenor of his remarks but bears little relation to the case,

The case Is as I stated It. Three papers were not 'expected' of

me since one of the seminars the 'department o

• continuous and papers are presented in any semester while the other

two papers were completed. As for Spanish, I was auditing the 100

course;sufflce it to say that through this (which Idid not complete)

and studying on my own, I acquired a sufflcient

be admitted to

the second level Spanish course at the North America Cultural

Institute in Mexico City. The first level course consists of 3

hours contact a day for three weeks plus preparation plus conversa-

tion with Spanish speaking people.

Finally, the discussion I was, to my. surprise, obliged to have

with the President regarding Agrarian reform in Latin America.

My research does not merely consist in collecting the addresses

of universities in Latin America and visiting them, nor would I

have thought it necessary to obtain the addresses in Canada even

if this were the case. Secondly, as I remember my plans at the

time of our meeting were not fixed nor my area of specialicatlon

mapped out though they were considerably less vague than the President

suggests and since not final are hardly crucial.

As It is working out, I hope to be In Cuba for six months, four of

those at

own expense and my non-existent contacts which the

President seems doubtful I could find, include a member of the

central committee of the Cuban Communist Party and chairman of

ASN.A.P., one of the principle agricultural agencies in Cuba, a

member of the Organization Latin America de Solidaridad, a member

of the central committee of the Cuban Young Communists, a Univ.-

ersity

Professor, the Director of the National Anthropology

Museum and numerous members of the Cuban Federation of University

students.

Continued.,.

7/i/o

I leave for Ilavanna within a week but while not give to paroxysms

of nerves I find my continued insecurity at Simon Fraser University

provide the best basis for embarking on serious research.

I hardly relish the thought of spending six months In the Cuban

•

countryside gathering data only to find I am no longer a graduate

student. Though certainly I have no Intention of stopping until

forced to do so.

The! President finally expresses his doubt as to the possibility

•

of successfuly'educating' me at Simon Fraser. The sentence lends

•

itself

to wide interpretation;however, education still means

ability to prove competence In a given academic field. I would

hope that my case will be Judged on acodemil grounds by competent

authorities and not the acceptability of my views or their Inter-

pretation by administrative bodies,

I would ask you to protest strongly the distortion expressed in the

President's letter and would be interested to know If the Senate

Association can give me any help.

I must apologize for 'writing at such great length (and probably

with great illegibility) however, 1-felt that some of the points

'warranted refutation.

Martin Loney

Graduate Student, PSA Dept.

Simon Fraser University

Excerpts

from a personal letter to:

•

Sharon Yandle

Student Representative

Senate

.,in case my responsibility come under attack, in Britain I was

a member of the joint negotiating committee between the students'

council and the university government; Vice Chairman of the

National Association of Labour Student Organizations - student

wing of the governing Labour Party; member of the Universities

Working Party of the National Union of Students - a body designed

to draw up documentation of problems and policies as requested by

the NUS...

...Finally, I have never appeared before Faculty Council, and I

•

being tried in absentia and on the basis solely of the opinion

of the Board of Governors and President NcTaggart-Cowan ...

(DOCUMENT "E")

/g/t7

24S

Ft.

Ctt&1

Academic Senate

Dear Sir,

I have been shown a document which seems to have emanated from

the office of the President and Is marked "confidential". The text

contains several statements I take strong exception to since they

have no foundation In fact, and involve the good name of close col-

leagues.

I would like to know if the document is genuine. If it is, I

wish to protest the circulation In secrecy of such a base

and

mali-

gnant text, containing as it does numerous ,judgements which the

President does not have the professional competence to make.

Furthermore, it is apparent that this infamous document has

placed not Only the good name of the people concerned in jeopardy,

but also that of the university.

I can only register my own disappointment and disagreement with

the President, if indeed he did authorize the aforementioned mem-

orandum. Should this be the case then the least that can be done

Is to extend the right of reply to those concerned should they want

to use its

Yours sincerely,

Philip H. Stanworth

cc - Student Council

(DOCUMENT "F")

't1

SIMON FRASER STUDENT SOC!ETY

simon fraser university/burnaby 2, b.c./telephone 291-3181

•

July 10, 1967

Student Representatives

Simon Fraser University Senate

DearRepresentatives:

The Executive Council of the Simon Fraser Student Society has received letters

from Chris Huxley, Martin Loney and Philip Stanworth protesting the nature of

Faculty Council proceedings in its dlsussion of disciplinary action against them.

It is their feeling that the material presented to Faculty Council constituted an

in absentia derogatory evaluation of them to which they had no recourse, and was

in clear violation of the AAUP statement on academic freedom which affirms the

right of students to defend themselves against unjust and/or secret evaluations of

this nature.

It Is the Student Society Executive Council's opinion that the point of

camera

Faculty Council meetings is to protect the students in question from a public

discussion of their cases. However, proceedings kept secret from the students

Involved serve only to violate the question of student protection for which the

original notion of secrecy was designed.

In view of these proceedings and the students' protests of them, we now write to

request that you, as student representatives, bring this matter before Senate In

accordance with the provisions of the Universities Act.

Yours truly,

Nelson H. Rudeller

President, Executive Council

Simon Fraser Student Society

(DOCUMENT "G")

SM 1

g /

TO:

Student Senate Representatives

FROM:

Graduate Student Association

Executive

4th July, 1967

MOTION:

That Senate assure that acceptance of a graduate student to the university

- by the relevant department

and the Senate Graduate Admission Committee

•

shall be final;

with the proviso that a graduate student always has the

•

right of appeal to Senate,

his subsequent academic standing,

that is, the

assessment of satisfactory

progress, shall be made by his Supervising

•

Committee only.

•

REF:

pp.

29-30,. SF11 Graduate Studies Calendar, '1967-8

•

(nb:the section referred to reads:

"To remain In the graduate program a student's

progress must be considered satisfactory by

his Supervising Committee."

•

• •

••

•

..•

••

(DOCUMENT "H")

kc SCCrCtaIy,

statemelat

)irectt,r,

lent.

tisihcr.

uirina,s Slate

lie Academic Freeaom or Students

(i/san the recommendation of Committee A on Academic Freedom

and Tenur, in October, 1960. the Council authrited

.i/./ . .

dnlnir'it of a new standing committcc, designated as Committee S on Faculty 11c,rpnriibi1ity for the Academic Free.

m of .Students. Dr. Phillip Mnnypenny, Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois, was appointed In

serve as Chairman of the new committee. Once established, Committee S gave primary attention to the tack of fonts.

lazing a statement on the academic freedom of students. Several drafts were prepared. one

which was published with

the consent of the Council in the Autumn, 1964, issue of the

AAUP Dulictin

for the express purpose of inviting reaction

and cOmt,iCnts from members, chapters, conferences, and other interested persons and organizations.

Thepreliminary Co,nucitter S statement stimulated considerable interest and response. Committee S therefore di-

rested most of its attention

during

1965 to

fi nin

the tentative .itatemeut published in 1964. The statement rrliirh

follows has been apprm'rd by the Council in principle but remains a tentative, rather than a fixed, statement of Associa.

non policy. The Council has also authorin'd Committee S to .initiate discussions with representatives of other interested

national órgauiuctions in the hope that these efJorts

might

result in the formulation of a joint statement on student

rights and responsibilities. These discussions will commence this winter.

The

Members of Committee S who prepared the following statement are:

•

Philip Mony penny (Political Science) University of Illinois,

(Chairman)

Philip Applensan (English) Indiana University

Frederick II. Hartmann (Political Science) University of Florida

Beatrice G. A'onheirn (Physiology) Hunter College

John J. Reed (luster)) Muhlenherg College

Torn J

Truss Jr., (English) University of Mississippi

William Van Alstyne (Law) Duke University

Robert i'an Woes (History) Washington Office'

Preamble

Free inquiry and free expression are essential attributes

the community of scholars. As sncrnlers of that comrn

munity. students should be encouraged to develop the

capacir .,

or critical judgment and to engage in a sus.

taiiced ..;d independent search for truth. The freedom to

learn (lecnds upon appropriate opportunities and con'

ditions

itt

the cl;nsrocirn. on the campus. and in the larger

c.usi.rnunity. The responsibility to secure and to respect

CnCIi conditions onductive to the freedom to learn is

all mc,,,i,ers of the academic community. Stu-

de..

,:.

..d endeavor to exercise their freedom with

m.i. ...ity and responsibility.

I. In

the

Classroom

The professor in the classroom and in conference

should encourage free disictission. inquiry, and expression.

Students should he evaluated solely on the basic of their

academic perf':.1asnce. not on their opinions or conduct

in matters unrelated to acadamic standards.

Protection of

Freedom, of

Expression. Students are

responsible for learning thorougnly the content of any

course of study. but they should be free to take reasoned

exception to the data or views offered, and to reserve

judgment about matters of opinion.

Protection Against Improper Academic Evaluation.

Students are responsible for maintaining standards of

447

(tL

'3M

.sllrtiiic

pet

lf'iiii.ii,c

est.ihlisheil

their

professors,

but

3. Siunlent

0igasIilaI j ot,

may

reqtiirrci

•

tlii s

sliriul

h.nc

pr.

) t cc!i o ri

through

orderly

procedures

a current list of nibrers. but they should not

r c r lu j,r,1

ag;utnt preiuiiceul

or capt

IOUS

aculeinic e

v aluation.

to submit a mernbersluu, list as a colldition of

C. I'.te'tjun

j,'nrnt

I'ii/'roper 11u-lo';urr.

Iluforma(in .. -

fliti( Ulj0j0j

recognition.

•,hiut

student

views,

beliefs.

and

political

a c soCiatiOl)s

sshit Ii ptufrs.nrs acquire in the course of their

work

4. Campus

org;lnuatIons

houId

Open

students Without respect

stl'i p

'uuc t,us.

advisets. and couuiiselors.sjiouulcj

be considered

race.

religion,

creed,

tional

orgin,

except

for

religious

qualifications

WhO,

Coll

fidcut,ai.

Protection against

improper disclosure is a

may he required by sectarian organizations.

serious professional obligation. Judgments of ability and

5. Studentsarid student organuiations Thould he flee

character may he

provided

under appropriate circum.

•

examine

and

diicuis

all

questions

interest

them, and to express opinions publicly or privately. Thcy

It.

Student Recoids

should also be It

cc to support causes by any orderly mcaui

' I

which do not disrupt the regular and

e s

sential operatio

lnstitstions should have a carefully considered

policy

SlIC

institution.

•

as to the iuu(urrn;utionu which shouhl be part of a stuide,urs

fi.

Stuudrins si'ouult.I

be allowed

to invite arid

to lur.ur

pci luI.snu'uul

vuluui'a,uuuiui

irt ord

auuti

y ,

cuututhitintis

ally

i ir t v m

their

own

choosing.

While

y ,

ordCil)

•

iii

ulist

losiun

y ,.

Ii,

u,iiuuiI)uij

,th

risk

iuulpr.u1uer

dis-

eduihutug

f;u.ihiiirs

may rru1t,irc

thur OI.Srnv;

tfl

(,(

closure,

.irauici,u,c'

and

( h

i s

cil)hi,uary

records

hiotiici

fohutilic

procedures

before

a guest

speaker

iii..

ilenl

am ate, amuti the c u'ntlinions of access to cat h should be set

appear on

campus,

institutional

control

of campus

forth ill an explicit policy Statement. Transcripts of aca

cihitiesshould

never be used as a device of censorship.

dcnuic

records

should

contain

only

information

about

should be made clear to thic academic anti larger

cInI.

iwadetnic

statuu.

IJaIS

front

disciplinary

and

counseling

mimiC1 that sponsorship of guest speakers does not luecd,.

files should not be available to unauthorized persom on

sarily imply approval or. endorsement of the

views ex.

camptm.s or to any person off campus except for the most

pressed, either by the sponsoring group or the iflSt(Uti00,

compelling reasons. No records should he keptwhich rc

•

C. Student Pa

ticipation

Institutional Governrncng

fleet the political activities or beliefs of student,. Provision

constituents

tile

academic

community,

student,

should also he mutade for periodic routine destruction of,

should be tree, individually anti collectively,

to esprcn

•

noncurrent chisplinary records. Administrative staff and

their views on issues of institutional policy and on mat

student personnel officers should respect confidential' in.: ..

tC.s of general interest to the student body. The suuticn

formation about students which they acquire

in'

the

course

body should

have

clearly

defined

means

participate

their work.

the forrntilatmu, and application of regulations affcct.

ing student affairs. Student governments should be pro'

ill. Student Affairs

teeted

from arbitrary intervention.

In ' student affairs, certain standards must be main-

tained if the academic freedom of students is to be pre-

served.

Frv'drri front Arbitrary Discrimination,

Colleges'

and tiiuivCtsjtiCs should he open to all student,, who are

iucadcuuik;ull y

qualified. Ivllilc sectarian institutions nay"

give adnuissiouu prekrencc to students of their own per-

suasion, such a preference should he clearly and publicly

stated. College facilities and services should he open to •,

all stude i

rm ;uuid itusdtuition, should use their influence

to secure cmjtm;ul acess for all students to public facilities

in the local ( uumi:numnity.

Fr,', j

4.isoctat j o,i.

Students bring to the cam-

pits a s arit'ty of interests previously acquired' arid develop

malty new interests as members of the academic corn.

inunity. They

should be (nec to organize and join as-.

SOciatiolus to uronuote their common interests,

I. :hiihiati,,uu sitli an extramural organization should

not of itself affect recognition of a student Organi7ation. -

2. Each organization should he free to choose its

own camnjuuus adviser, and institutional recognition should

not be withheld or withdrawn solely because of the in-

ability of a student organization to secure an adviser.

Members of the (acuity serve the college community when

Wt udent

hey accept the responsibility to advise and consult with

organizations: they should not have the authority

•

-Io

control the policy

such organizations.

9. Student Publications.

Student publications and the

student press are a valuable aid in establishing and main.

taming an atmosphere of free arid responsible discussion

anti

of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are

a means of bringimug student concerns to the attention of

the faculty and' the institutional authorities and of for'

mulating student opinion on various issues on the campus

amid in

the world at large.

I. The student press

0 111cl

be free of censorship

and advance approval of copy, and its editors and man

agcrs should be free to develop their own editorial poli

cies and news coverage.

The integrity and responsibility of student pub.

hitations should he encouraged by arrangements which

permit financial autonomy or. ideally, complete financial

independence.

Editors and managers should subscribe to canons

f responsible journalism. At the same time, they should

be protected from arbitrary Suspension and removal bc•

cause of student, faculty, administrative, or public dii.

approval of editorial policy or content. Only for proper

and stated causes should editors and managers be subject

"to removal and

then by orderly and prescribed pro.

ccdurcs.

IV.

Off-Campus

Freedom

Students

• A.

Exercise of - Rights of Citizenship.

As citizens, stu-

dents should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful

448

44(JP BLJLLETUl

,senibly. aiat li

ght

of prtitit'fl that other ( itIlCt"

CiiOy.

jtsIltY mtiiilPCiS and;liiiiiii5ti1t1C ,IEI(.iaLS should in•

.;rC

)%.

tt iiistiI

uit,tt;tI powers are not rinployctl to in

1111(1

Itt t iii I aisti pet tonal tlrvrlopmc n t of St

often pt.1flIte(l by their olEcaniln

s activities

.ir CCt(lSC nil dir rights of ciri,cnship.

IniIiItsliO .4 nnih"rily

,III

Cnn ni

I'rnalttri.

Activities

f s tu

icitti may upOn

OCCSSIOH

result its Violation Of law.

In such ca''. insnitIItiOnil officials should apprise Stu

dents of their lqal rights alit1 may offer other assistance.

Sunkliti who siolatr the law may incur penalties Pre-

scribctl by civil authnritiC5. but institutional authority

should Beset be used merely to duplicate the function of

general laws. Only where the institution's interests as an

academic community are dis

inct from those of the gen.

cral COiflhuItIttli y thouhl the special authority of the in

ttIttIti 0

be acurirnl. Thç iudrnt who incidentally vio-

lates jiistlttitltuhi'Sl regulations in *hc course of his off-

(aflil)tiS

act i vi t y

SuCh

as those relating to class attendance,

hould be suliject to no greater penalty than would nor-

mally be im1,rnsrd. institutional action should be inde

pcnticnt of Eomanunity pressLift.

5M ,

and the objet is or j

for,ii;iwii otiiit. The SIUdCnt

should be pi cseiit. if pocsihk. clirinig tile search. i. or

premises not

0ti

ttcnlied by the jns(itUt;Ofl, tIne ordinary

requirciurlits (or lawlul search should be Followed..

2. Students (lenCCterl or srrcslC(l

ill

the course of

serious violatiotis of ins

i t u t

ional reguilationt.- or in•

fractions of ordinary law, .010

11 1d

"'If)

filed of their

right_s. No form of harassnient should be utrd by in-

stitutional rcprC3C1%tat

1Vcs

to coerce admissions of guilt

or information about conduct of other SUSpCCICd persons.

Status

Student rending Final Action.

Pending

action on the charges, the status of a

studen

t should

not

he altered, or his right to be pvc.sent on tine campus and

to attend classes suspended except for reasons relating

to his physical or emotional safety and wcll.being, or for

reasons relating to the safety of students, faculty. or

university property.

1). Hearing Covnniitfre Proredttr3.

The formality of

thc procedure to which a student is entitled in disci-

plinary cases shoukl be proportinliate to the gravity of

the offense and the sanctions

which

may be imposed.

Minor penalties may he ascssed informally tinder prc-

scribed

procedures. When misconduct may result

V. PrOCCdU1 Standards in Distiphiflall Proccedings

serious

;cnaltics, tine student should have tiiC right

The disciplinary powers of educationa

institutions are

hearing

before

regularly

constituted

hearing

corn

inherent

their

responsibility

protect

their

educa-

mittee.

aton

the use of their

I. The

hearing

committee

should

include

faculty

tional purpose through the regulation of

facilities and

through

the setting of standards

of con

members or,

if regularly

included or requested

the

duct and scholarship for the students who attend them.

accused, both faculty and student members. No member

ttee who is otherwise interested in

In developing responsible student conduct. disciplinary

the

hearing commi

- 'cding' play a role substantially secondary to counsel-

the

particular

case

should

sit

judgment

(luring

the

gumid.inre. admonition, and examp

Sni

le. In the excep-

proceeding.

t_il

circustaflcet when these preferred mea

's fail to

2. The student should he informed, in writing, of

resolve problems of student conduct, proper procedural

the

reason

(or

the

proposed

disciplinary

action

with

safeguards should be observed to protect the student from

fficient

particularity,

and

its

ifficient

time,

to ensure

the unfair irnpOcitiOfl of serious penalties. The following

opportunity to prepare For the hearing.

are r

cco

com

s proper safeguards in such

proceed-

3. Tine student appearing before the hearing corn-

•

mitlee should have the right to be assisted in his defense

Notice

Standards

Conduct

Expected

Sits-

by an adviser of his choice.

edings should be instituted only

4bur

e b

den

urden of proof should rest upon the officials

dents. Disciplinary proce

for violation of standards of conduct defined in advance

bringing the charge.

and published through such means as a

student handbook

5. The student should he given an opportUtsity

generally available body of uiiiversit

regulations......

csdfy and to present evidence and witinesses. lie should

inses

huoihnl be as clearly defined as possible. and such

have an opportunity to hear and question adverse wit-

Offe

vague phrases

is "undesirable conduct

conduct iii'

msesscs.

ItO

case should

the committee consider state-

•

juriouc to tine best iiiterects of the institution" should

mcnts againt him

tiniest !e

has

been

advised

their

avoided.

Conceptions

misconduct

particular

the

oiitChit and of the name of those who made them, and

jflst j tUt j

ofl meet' clear arid explicit definition.

nlcss

Infls bcen

given

opporitiflity

rebut

tin.

Invecti.'aIiO1

Student Conduct.

i,n1crcmitCs

which

might

otherwise

drawml.

1. Exrept

tinnier emergency

circtimttatices,

premises -

- 6. All iflttcrs upon which the decision may be hase1

occupied b

students

and the personal possessionS of StU.

flutist be introduced into evidence at the proceeding before

•

dents should not he searched unless appropriate author'

the hearing committee. The decision

should

he based

i7atiOn has been obtained. For premises such as dorm"

solely upon such matter. - Improperly acquired evidence

tories ccimstrlhcci by the institution, an appropriate and

should not he admitted.

•

responsible authority should be designatedto whom ap'

7. In

the, absence of a

transcript, there should

l ade .

before a search is conducted.

both

a digct and

verbatim record, such as a tape re

plication should be n

W "

11111,Ir

ctulrt

nifering comparable guarantieS may be an

8. The decision of the hearing committee s

heapplkati0h1 should specify the reasons for the search ' -

cording of the hearing.

hould be

final,

suhject

the

student'S

right

appeal

to the

•

ccr;flahle

ttltUte for the procedural

standards set forth

ard of the institution.

governing

In this

tedium.

449

WINTER 1965

t ;^

eu,e

•

(DOCUMENT "P')

July 6, 1967

Mrs. Sharon Yandle

and

Mr. Simon Foulds

• Student Senators

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby 2, B.. C.

Dear Mrs Yandle and Mr. Foulds:

The Faculty Council decision to request confidential

evaluations about five graduate students (Chris Huxley,

Geoff Mercer, Martin Loney, Phil Stanwr

rth, John Edmonds)

constitutes a breach of the rights of the concerned stndents.

The "confidential memorandum" allegedly issued by

President McTaggart-Cowan was widely

and

publicly circulated.

The damaging accusations could detrementally affect the

future careers of these students,

The Faculty Council has unilaterally:

(1)

damaged the reputations of the five graduates

•

named.

(2)

initiated arbitrary proceedings in which there

were no provisions for the right of defense.

This action undoubtedly sets a retrogressive precedent

for university government at Simon Fraser.

I am requesting a ruling from the Senate on whether or

not Faculty Council

can

make or accept evaluation of students

without allowing the students

any

right to recourse or defense.

Yours truly,

Donn Korbin

Chairman

Student Action Committee for

Academic Freedom and University

Democracy

DK/in

•