AUFA
REPORT ON STRATEGIC PLAN
This report is the result of three meetings conducted to register the response of AUFA members to the administration’s proposed Strategic Plan. It represents a synthesis and distillation of the comments of members who attended the meetings. Rather than an exercise in generating consensus around conclusions previously arrived at by the executive, the report reflects the opinions of those in attendance.
It’s important to point out at the beginning that a number of AUFA members applauded the administration for devising a plan that represents an improvement over the existing one. It also represents an improvement over the managerial style and tone of the previous administration. Most seemed to agree that AUFA should not reject the plan out of hand, a strategy that would communicate the message that we are not really interested in cooperating with the administration in governing this institution. If anything, there was a general recognition that some of the report’s key concepts—transformative liberal education, engaged learning, citizenship, community-based learning—offered conceptual platforms for pedagogical experiments that might be worthwhile. AUFA members do not object to the idea of learning that promotes social awareness, that facilitates opportunities for community outreach, and that actively engages students in the acquisition of knowledge. In fact, this is precisely what Acadia’s faculty has been doing. Through courses that teach students to think critically, to investigate the world in which they live in an intelligent and informed fashion, to become independent learners capable of evaluating truth claims in a sophisticated manner, Acadia’s faculty has promoted what one thinker famously described as the “examined life.” That certainly must be considered the foundation of democratic citizenship.
Almost uniformly, however, the membership rejected the idea that the “transformative liberal education” (p.7) should come at the expense of academic standards. [Note: see page 15 of SP for list of recommendations that would cumulatively increase the elasticity of the major and thereby reduce program requirements.] To promote a pedagogical strategy that whittles away at intellectual rigor, that narrows the scope of intellectual inquiry to a few areas selected unilaterally by the administration and by the caprices of academic fashion, to deprive students of the qualifications that will avail them of graduate schools and advanced training, and to dilute course content in order to facilitate out-of-class activities or student retention threatens the integrity of the Acadia degree and our students’ futures. It also poses a threat to their intellectual formation. Intellectual development may very well be fostered through “community partnerships” (p.10), but the membership believes that this strategy must be balanced against the sometimes-difficult but ultimately rewarding project of scholarly investigation. Moreover, community-based learning as well as the other pedagogical initiatives suggested in the Plan must not amount to a de facto increase in teaching loads. The development of critical thinking, the willingness to question social conventions, the training to investigate the physical world free of illusions, the ability to understand how power is exercised and in whose interest, the capacity to grasp how as a society we have arrived at where we are and to understand why and how other societies have taken different paths, and the ability to draw upon a font of knowledge deeper than that available from popular culture is the essence of the liberal education. Short-circuiting this process in the interest of ensuring students an enjoyable time during their stay at Acadia will be to the detriment of our students. It will also undermine the university’s own hard-won reputation for academic excellence.
The membership also rejects the implication that “curricular renewal” (p.14) can be mandated unilaterally. Any attempt to implement curricular change must respect faculty jurisdiction over pedagogy and academic freedom. The suggestion that faculty should be expected to collaborate with “Student affairs professionals”(p.15) in the development and delivery of courses threatens the practice of faculty control over course content and development. It also challenges the central premise of modern higher education: that highly-trained, professional faculty offers students expert knowledge in a clearly-defined field of intellectual inquiry. Early on in the meetings, members pointed out that the document fails to acknowledge the expertise and training which faculty brings to the enterprise of higher learning. In fact, the mission statement itself makes no mention of faculty (p.4) while the “Strategic Planning Themes” privilege “Building Community” and “Investing in People” over teaching and research (p.9). Individual members objected to the idea that faculty should relinquish their professional obligations to become activity coordinators or student success facilitators. Not a single person in attendance questioned the notion that faculty should mentor and guide students. This, however, is an activity appropriate to the academic setting, not the residence lounge. If anything, it is the faculty’s mentoring, attention to student intellectual development, scholarly distinction, teaching accomplishments, and active research programs that explain the school’s national reputation. Assertions about the need to alter fundamentally the university’s mission fly in the face of these achievements, which the MacLean’s annual university poll has routinely documented. Invoking the alleged challenges presented by a “global polity” (p.6) and “today’s context” (p.4) provides a flimsy foundation for reinventing Acadia’s academic programs. They certainly do not justify changes that would fundamentally alter the character and content of the programs we now offer.
While the membership generally agreed that individual faculty should have the opportunity to explore interdisciplinary studies and conduct research in areas which the Plan highlights, it strenuously rejects the suggestion that these expectations can be mandated as criteria for renewal, tenure, and promotion or hiring. The criteria for career advancement can only be determined through collective bargaining. Conscious of how the Acadia Advantage program drew resources away from existing academic priorities and created an environment in which faculty were expected to adjust their activities to meet the technology agenda, members drew attention to the dangers that the Strategic Plan’s vision of research poses to their research program. To privilege one area of inquiry over another challenges the notion that the university is a place where intellectual curiosity is encouraged and rewarded, whether it leads to public policy applications or not. Drafting faculty into the march toward a university-determined research agenda reduces the range of academic investigation, stunts the intellectual creativity of the institution, undermines the international credibility of the school as a place of scholarship, privileges some faculty and departments over others, divides faculty against one another, and sends the message that research must have some commercial benefit or policy application. According to the Strategic Plan, faculty research should be filtered through a utilitarian prism—“design, implementation, and results”(p.17)—which bears little resemblance to the kind of research conducted in most humanities and social sciences departments in North America, let alone Acadia. This kind of thinking militates against one of the central claims of the Strategic Plan, namely, that it is designed to foster ‘citizenship.’ Genuine research—for both the student and the faculty member—must follow paths of intellectual curiosity if it is to address the complexity of the human condition and experience, which is at the root of all research, whether it be in the humanities or the sciences. Only then can faculty and students honestly claim to be engaged in the process of fostering citizens, a project that requires students to confront a range of knowledge uninhibited by vested interests or prescribed results. Limiting that research only invites skepticism about the sincerity of the university’s commitment to intellectual investigation and speculation about the possible market imperatives behind it.
Several members pointed out that the Strategic Plan seems inordinately preoccupied with undergraduate research (as opposed to faculty research.) While no one would dispute the place of research in any solid undergraduate degree, many would question whether the “development of research skills” is possible in an academic environment where “flexibility” (p.15) and the reduction of requirements for the major have become the hallmarks. If we are serious about our research and the future of our students, some of whom wish to continue in graduate school, we must maintain the integrity of our programs, each of which offers a unique methodological and theoretical perspective. Indeed, one AUFA member pointed to the troubles which students enrolled in multidisciplinary programs have already encountered in applying to advanced studies. Undergraduate research flows naturally from the research activities of faculty members, each of whom must have the time and freedom to investigate and publish. Compelling faculty to perform tasks that have little to do with traditional academic instruction will interfere with their research and diminish the quality of their work, which should rightly be measured by their peers in the profession, not by non-specialists. That’s not to mention the impact that extraneous activities will have on the quality of classroom instruction. Indeed, faculty must have the time to publish refereed books, research papers, and creative works since this is precisely how they are assessed for tenure and promotion according to the Collective Agreement. No less important, members were adamant that, even if faculty were to embrace various elements of the Strategic Plan, such as interdisciplinary learning and the establishment of new research centers, adequate resources must be made available; otherwise, existing programs are compromised and faculty end up performing a “stretch-out”—doing considerably more for the same remuneration. When “teaching innovation” must follow courses exclusively charted by administrators, it can hardly be described as innovative. When genuine teaching innovation—including interdisciplinary studies—lacks the resources it requires, it represents no improvement at all and a potential threat to working conditions hammered out in the Collective Agreement.
Beyond the specific issues raised by the Plan’s sections on teaching and research, the membership registered considerable dissatisfaction with the process used to produce the document. The Plan is peppered with the assertion that the faculty and other key groups have been “consulted,” yet few are convinced that this process has been genuinely bilateral. If anything, several believed that the “Acadia Conversations” (p.3) were managed in order to produce the image of democratic procedure with little if any of the substance. Many were convinced that the process of meetings, pronouncements, and “sticky notes” ratified conclusions that had already been reached long before the “timeline” ever went into effect. Furthermore, the AUFA members who attended the roundtable discussions rejected the suggestion that groups such as the Rotary Club, Computing Services, the Board of Governors, the Alumni, student affairs staff, or even the student body should have equal influence over curriculum as faculty. Again, this goes to the core of the problem with the Strategic Plan: the tacit assertion that faculty should not govern academic life at Acadia. Rather than adopt concrete suggestions from faculty about how to improve Acadia’s academic offerings—ensure smaller classes, hire sufficient faculty to teach in growth areas, improve library facilities and holdings, insist on exacting academic standards, finance existing interdisciplinary programs—the administration seems to have consulted us in the interest of legitimizing a strategic plan which the President outlined soon after her arrival. One conspicuous example stands out as an illustration of this process: while the Strategic Plan suggests that “Students and many members of the faculty and staff…value… flexibility” (p.6), meaning the ability to change majors well into a program without adding additional years to their degree, at the AUFA meetings held specifically to discuss the Strategic Plan, not even one person could be found who was willing to endorse this proposal.
The AUFA members in attendance recognize the administration’s prerogative in managing and ensuring enrolment. More than this, some expressed support for assisting the institution in its effort to recruit and retain qualified students. What they resist is the suggestion that the University’s recruitment strategies should infringe on course content and delivery, on the tradition of independent research, on contractually-guaranteed procedures of career advancement, and the character of the academic programs we offer. No less objectionable is the role which an outside consulting firm has played in generating the Strategic Plan. Several members suggested that this reflects the administration’s willingness to capitulate to a corporate model of education in place at other universities. Others believe that it represents the administration’s determination to align university curricula and research with an agenda set by external granting agencies. Almost all seemed to agree that faculty, students, the administration, and the Board of Governors are more than capable of deciding what is in the best interests of the institution. Many AUFA members are convinced that management consultants have no role to play in determining the nature of the teaching and research that takes place at Acadia University.
Several other aspects of the Strategic Plan raised concerns for the AUFA members who attended our three meetings: the implications which the Plan would have for existing and future graduate programs; the consequences of adopting a plan which encourages “engaged learning” but endorses large classes and ostensibly seeks to eliminate those with subscriptions under 10 students (p.15); the consequences of a plan which claims that research centers will be “decommission[ed]” should they fail to support the “University’s mission” (p.17); the implications for existing programs in an environment where “new or replacement faculty positions are assigned in areas of greatest need, as defined by ongoing strategic planning,” (p.15); the potential for the focus on student learning “outcomes” to dilute academic standards, as well as the meaning and concrete implications of “internationalization.” The strongest consensus, however, emerged around the suggestion that AUFA must concentrate on the ramifications of this document for the Collective Agreement. While some expressed philosophical objections to several of the Plan’s assertions (ex: the definition of the “Educated Person”), and while most were unmoved by the Plan’s liberal employment of educational buzzwords and “management speak,” almost all agreed that AUFA must be attentive to the areas of the Strategic Plan which directly or implicitly threaten the Collective Agreement. These include faculty teaching requirements, jurisdiction over curriculum, contractually-established criteria for tenure and promotion, and faculty remuneration.
It’s important to reiterate that the faculty who attended the meetings criticized the Plan’s major conclusions but not the idea that curriculum and programs should be adjusted for legitimate reasons. In fact, the University has recently celebrated the accomplishments of an AUFA member who received a prestigious teaching award for integrating technology into the teaching of physics, a clear example of fruitful pedagogical innovation. Faculty members have won teaching awards, explored interdisciplinary learning, engaged in community outreach, offered their expertise to public agencies and community groups, and won major research grants. They have been ‘transforming’ students for years by introducing them to fields of investigation and bodies of literature that liberate students from the burden of seeing things from one perspective, the perspective of the “cave” in Plato’s famous allegory. They have trained students in the skills of critical thought and independent investigation, each of which benefit graduates as participants in civil society and producers in the workplace. They have done so not out of compulsion but from a sense of professional obligation. It is this which the University should cultivate. At the final meeting, one member made the compelling remark that the University can distinguish itself by returning to what it does best: recruiting highly-qualified faculty, insisting on demanding academic standards that prepare our students for the life of the mind and the life of the paycheck, and providing students with the intellectual tools to develop as rational people. To suggest that the University must reinvent itself to “respond to the changing needs of students and society” (p.14) requires a burden of proof which the Strategic Plan does not provide. It also discredits the important work which faculty and administrators have being doing at this university for years. If we have in fact achieved national distinction, then we need to think carefully about preserving the elements of academic life responsible for that achievement. Surely that distinction rests on more than laptop computers for all.
The AUFA members who attended these meetings are anything but intransigent defenders of the status quo. While they have no interest in relinquishing hard-won contractual gains, they are willing to cooperate with the administration in imagining a “vision” that sustains the best of the Acadia tradition while leaving doors open to experimentation in any one of the areas outlined in “Educational Vision: Learning at Acadia” (p.6-9). Several noted that encouraging research in, for example, environmental science makes perfect sense, given Acadia’s faculty strengths and resources in this area. Interdisciplinary projects between some departments—note, for example, the effort to combine the resources of the History and Classics, Philosophy, and English departments in delivering a hypermedia text program—are equally sensible. Obligating all departments to conduct environmental studies or adopt interdisciplinary programs, however, defies common sense and academic freedom. (See p.20, where under the aegis of “accountability” the Plan asserts that “all elements and aspects of Acadia’s programs…in every sector—must legitimately reflect the priorities, directions, and future designs described in the plan.”) Instead of filtering research through the prism of institutional marketing, the University should continue to see it as a vital feature of academic life. A vibrant academic life will, in turn, continue to draw the best students and ensure the institution’s long-term credibility. If external granting agencies object to this kind of strategy, then we have good reason to question whether or not academic research should be under the thrall of those agencies.
While this report cannot claim to represent the opinions of all AUFA members—and while the executive realizes that schedule constraints prevented several people from attending the sessions—it does reflect the opinions of many who are deeply concerned about protecting the Collective Agreement and Acadia’s well-deserved reputation for educational quality. In addition, it expresses the opinion articulated by more than one member that the administration must fulfill its contractual obligations and resolve remaining areas of dispute, including the child care center. Finally, one member suggested in the very first meeting that the Plan represents a failure of communication. If anything, this is what the AUFA members who attended the meetings are most determined to stimulate: genuine communication about the future of this institution. For all of the Plan’s claims about “vision,” there is much that remains ambiguous in this document. There are also policy directives that are crystal clear. For the AUFA members who participated in the roundtable, the areas of ambiguity must be clarified before faculty can support such an initiative. Equally important, the policy initiatives that run counter to the Collective Agreement must be opposed.
AUFA Executive, 2005 - 06