Minutes: Emergency UT Faculty Town Hall Meeting, Friday March 20th, 2015
2117 Sidney Smith 6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
Summary:
Approximately 80 people attended this meeting; attendees were primarily faculty, but also included a small number of sessional instructors. There were a few unit 3 members in attendance, who raised some of the most pressing concerns about academic freedom and integrity in the context of their precarious employment. Some CUPE Unit 1 members were invited to provide updates on the CUPE 3902 Unit 1 general meeting/vote to send the tentative agreement to general membership for ratification (which started at 3 p.m. and was still ongoing when the town hall concluded).
After a brief welcome and accounting for the funds raised and spent on the Toronto Star advertisement, discussion centred around two issues: first, the pressures being placed on instructors and administrators (as well as students and staff) by “continuity planning” , and how we could respond (individually and collectively) to those pressures; and second, how we might identify and challenge the broader structural issues that are facing the University in an ongoing way. We are hopeful that meeting attendees and others will now take the lead on organizing our next steps.
Key points raised included:
– A sense that asking individual instructors to “choose” whether to alter their syllabi and otherwise alter courses was (1) inappropriately asking instructors to replace the work of Unit 1 members; (2) an unfair downloading of responsibility to individuals and units, including Unit 3 instructors (who are in more vulnerable employment relationships) and staff; (3) is in some cases a false choice, as it appears that decisions might be made at a higher level if instructors have refused; and (4) creating a challenge in terms of maintaining the academic integrity of courses and programs, whether or not the strike continues.
– A concern with how these directives were being communicated – for the most part, they appear not to be put in writing. At the very least, this was something that participants felt should be insisted upon across departments by those asked to make changes.
– A desire for more visibility on the part of different departments’ pressures and choices in relation to “continuity planning”, so that experiences can be shared and different models compared.
– A concern that the continuity planning policy places unfair pressure on Chairs and other administrators, and a desire to support them in resisting that pressure.
– The need to use the strike as a “teachable moment”, to build understanding and connection between undergraduate students, graduate students and faculty, particularly in relation to the broader challenges we face.
– A recognition of the inadequacy of the minimum funding package for graduate students, and also concern with inequities between departments and faculties and between student cohorts (e.g., between Canadian and international students, or between those in “academic” versus “professional” programs).
– A general feeling that faculty have few outlets to make their voices heard, or to influence policy.
– A deep concern for the administration’s actions during the strike that have placed ‘academic continuity’ ahead of academic integrity and freedom, with tangible effects for instructors, students, and the integrity of the university itself.
Ideas for next steps identified were (some names already possibly identified as interested in these areas):
(1) If the Tentative Agreement is not ratified, publish a WordPress document that can be updated that lists faculty – and their courses – who will not reweight their syllabi (with an initial list collected at the meeting of colleagues wishing to make this information public). Find other ways to resist the attempt to impose individual responsibility and isolate units from each other.
(2) If the Tentative Agreement is not ratified, a Faculty Picket Speaker Series
(3) If the Tentative Agreement is not ratified, come up with language to challenge the administration’s definition of academic integrity and excellence, and explain what we are doing better – neutrality, etc.
(4) It might make sense to issue a letter on what we see as the issues coming out of the strike, emphasizing also how important our graduate students are to us and our profound concerns for our institution’s demonstration of active disrespect for academic freedom and integrity. Others have since suggested this might be done in a structured way, possibly through an UTFA Working Group.
(5) Sufficient graduate funding – how can faculty push really hard and creatively to do something about this issue, working with UTFA
(6) Is there interest in continuing this more informal mechanism (that led to the informal faculty townhall that was open to the public) that now has a gmail account attached to it, and if so, who might be interested in taking it forward?
(7) Thinking proactively, writing regular articles that can appear as op ed pieces, addressing issues like provincial funding etc. Someone could co-ordinate this strategy.
(8) Given the number of subtle and explicit abuses of academic freedom and integrity many of us are witnessing, and the fact that little from the admin is being put into writing, it is imperative that we all document everything we can in this regard. Try to get communications that seem troubling or which are explicit violations of academic freedom and integrity in writing, and document all instances of these abuses, as they will be helpful in ongoing efforts to hold the university accountable.
The meeting closed with a reminder that this event, along with the letter to the Star, came about as a result of a sense of discontent among faculty, and the willingness of a small group to volunteer their time to channel that discontent. We are hopeful that meeting attendees and others will now take the lead on organizing our next steps.
Detailed minutes
Welcome
Report on advertisement fundraising and spending:
– Raised $12,596
– $11846 for ad
– Honorarium for the person who designed and typeset the ad
1st Hour: Devoted to a discussion based on the fact that the strike is ongoing – how to act ethically in this situation
– Changing syllabus etc. constitutes strikebreaking – What is needed is a short (3 sentence) and pithy statement that effectively communicates this (especially since the A&S position is that it isn’t strikebreaking)
– Could organize departmental letters stating department should remain neutral – we shouldn’t be putting ourselves between the University and CUPE or allow ourselves to be used in this way. The statement issued by Scarborough provides a model for other departments to do this together.
– “Non-interference” should be our framework
– Question about how courses will be changed, even if strike ends
– University’s academic continuity policy is being implemented without declaring an academic disruption (i.e., state of emergency) – Until there is a statement from Simcoe Hall to this effect, we should resist this pressure (instead of facilitating – with no or very little written documentation to this effect – the downloading of responsibility to instructors and departments)
– BUT the Dean may unilaterally step in to assign grades; chairs etc. going into classrooms
– Need to connect instructors with very large enrollments or TA support ACROSS departments so that there is more of an opportunity to handle the issue collectively
– Language of individual responsibility for courses is really part of the problem. This – and the increasing pressure to reweight courses – is also a matter of academic integrity
– Heartened by undergraduate response – they invest a lot in their educations, have to work to go to school etc. – sizeable chunk who care very much about their learning and the integrity of courses, feel insulted by course changes – encourage to write directly to the Provost.
– Moral argument used to pressure faculty about 4th year students who need to graduate – alarming that this is the message from Admin. We must think of ways to creatively turn this language back on the administration – it plays on an ethical position that no-one can be against but it is deployed very cynically.
– This situation is putting intermediate chairs and coordinators in very difficult positions, need to help our administrators to resist the pressures they are facing
– We are told that we are free to choose, but that puts all the responsibility on individual instructors when we choose not to.
– Need to have a website that we can have more open postings – CUPE has letter of support (weareuoft.ca).
– University wants us to “support our students”, but only if they aren’t TAs – we need to send a message that recognizes how illogical that is.
– So far there seems to be little recognition of the increased pressures on staff (counselors, academic advisors etc.) as a result of the strike – they have to deal with student concerns, being pressured to do additional work, and it is important to recognize and support them too. Perhaps any future discussions of this group should include the voice of Steelworkers.
– Chairs don’t have to implement “continuity” – need to organize within departments to give Chairs a clear message that they don’t have to take these steps and that we support them.
– Use sit-ins, other events to raise awareness among students about the broader issues that affect their education – students are very receptive, want to hear about, and talk about how their education is being affected
– We are not representative of all faculty, as there are several who have agreed to step in and cover the work of Unit 1 workers at the present time.
– How can we support students who are in difficult positions (e.g., 4th year students who are doing job interviews etc.) without undermining the labour action.
– Why has the University resisted coming to a resolution? It seems counterproductive. Do they refuse to negotiate on principle, or is it simply budgetary? Inconsistencies in this position, as they have a provostial committee on student funding, and there is some recognition that graduate funding has a place in its negotiations with CUPE. There is an intention to expand graduate enrollment, so perhaps the university wants to keep its options open?? Possibly in order to move to admit students outside the funded cohort?
– Working groups to discuss student funding are subject to provostial approval, not binding, so difficult to put faith in that process.
– Lump sum payments to CUPE degrade through rising costs, and also through increased enrolment.
– Not all chairs and administrators are resisting academic continuity – we need to have public statements to make the alternatives known and put pressure on them.
– Not clear to instructors what the consequences will be if we refuse to change marking scheme – worry about the alternative; possibility that University might give everyone a pass in courses if faced with collective resistance of this kind
– Categorizing of courses – by colour (green, yellow, red) – some people were asked to do this themselves, other had that done for them (vast majority have been coded by others; people weren’t asked if they WANTED to change their syllabus or not); course categorization could be used to put pressure back on administration (to highlight what courses would not be able to provide a complete grade). Again, a sense that none of these directives were being put in writing.
– Need to get out on the picket lines; Admin highlights the limited visibility of picket lines as a sign of weakness.
– Picket Solidarity Speaker Series – faculty give informal “walk and talk”, put schedule online.
– Tenured and tenure-track faculty should walk out, similar to undergraduate walkout (some discussion that under University regulations this could constitute insubordination so tactically might not be a wise move).
– Possible things we might want – extend the term so TAs can finish their work.
– Academic integrity is important, but so is not interfering with the work of TAs (connected but separate); academic integrity is not assured through the current mechanisms the university administration is seeking to impose.
– Seems like a very confusing situation on the ground – everything is so uneven that students are asking for changes in courses without TAs, feeling unfairness about who is working 12 weeks versus those who only worked 5.
– Need to know that other people (instructors, chairs) are resisting pressures to change syllabi etc.; Need to put this information online so that people can sign on, or think of other ways that we can see that there are others who are feeling/acting the same way
– Area for declaration of “not changing” syllabus, and/or talking about what choices we are making and/or forced to make, so we feel part of a larger community
– Wear academic gown to picket line, lecture in them – as a way of underlining the dignity of the position we have taken and to reclaim the language of academic integrity and academic excellence – it is because we believe in it that we have taken this stand.
– Teach-ins!
– Using the strike as a “teachable moment” – use as content in courses, be sure to explain clearly why and how syllabus is changing, and/or why it is happening in other courses (don’t tell them what to do, but give them permission to ask questions and help them to understand what is the context is for these descriptions).
– Useful for people in graduate-only units (eg. OISE) to know how they can support instructors with TAs or more generally.
– Students are voting to change syllabi because they want to have closure, but also without necessarily having a sense of meaningful options, or the implications of their rushed choices.
– Need to widen net beyond the list of signatories – make sure others are aware.
– Question of how outstanding coursework etc. will be graded – TAs may not be paid for 2 weeks, even if they wanted to work their full hours to make up grading (still have a lot to figure out in terms of how to make sure the work can get done; may need to put pressure on departments to “repost”.
– Concern about being considered “insubordinate” if not sending assignments in to “volunteer” graders – need to think about how to push back, make sure we have clear and consistent interpretation of our rights.
– Concern that the University has proceeded with course evaluations (distributed to students last week) during the strike as an incredibly disrespectful gesture to students, TAs, and instructors. This in itself should be critiqued. Students should be encouraged to use the ‘comments’ section to express their views on how the strike has impacted them and their learning.
2nd hour – Thinking forward
– Put pressure on university to increase minimum stipend; Admin not getting that this is too low; could there be a committee that had more “teeth” to get a stronger funding commitment? (Form committee to move forward).
– Need to find ways to address the deep structural issues that will remain no matter what happens with Unit 1.
– Problems – no connection between funding for students and enrolment; university running on exploited and precarious labour.
– Absence of structured opportunity for faculty to weigh in on issues related to the shape of the university – need to argue and organize for a larger voice in the governance of our institutions.
– Call for transparent information about the funding/budget of the university.
– Participatory budgeting an idea that has come up in Students First – what is the money being spent on? How could this be reshaped?
– Possibility of changing salary structures at the university (admin partially responsible; transfer of funding from “income generating units” to professional schools etc.) – need to think this through and also shift a discourse in which for instance the Humanities and Social Sciences are consistently represented as a drain or as not providing value.
– % of compensatory budget that goes to faculty not as much as many think (gone down from 12% to about 8% now).
– Now have a mechanism for doing this work in UTFA through the new Memorandum of Agreement.
– TA hours for courses very low here (not enough hours for TAs to go to classes, we are below other institutions) – joint interest in highlighting where U of T is in terms of how many hours we have per student, per course etc.
– We become police of low TA hours etc. (DDAH Forms) – need to be aware of how we become complicit in exploitation of our TAs, esp. as their hours decrease.
– Transparency is not necessarily the issue, but there is not clear mechanism of accountability (so not just consultation, but need to be able to “audit” admin the way they do to us).
– Faculty rally/walkout, irrespective of what happens with Unit 1 – need to have a committee to plan (maybe do a rally rather than a walkout, so that faculty cannot be brought up as insubordinate).
– Integrity of undergraduate courses has been undermined for many years – TA resources are not available, so have to make hard choices about assignments.
– Unit 3 instructors are facing similar challenges in terms of courses that don’t have very high % grades in – need to be connected in with the faculty better.
– Instructors being asked to submit term work, especially for 4th year students, and their grading is possibly being turned over to unknown graders. UTFA was contacted by a colleague about this situation and received the following information for circulation:
The matter you raise is very serious and we have been in touch with several members about this. The key points are as follows, but if any of this is ambiguous, please feel free to [get in touch]:
Yes, members have to comply with this type of request as the assignments and exams do not belong to instructors..
However, despite the formal obligation to comply, UTFA is willing to grieve such requests, including on the grounds that in order to retain academic freedom in teaching, instructors needs to have supervisory control over evaluation. Members who wish to pursue such an argument should be in touch with us.
Members confronted with such requests (to turn over papers etc) should ask for the request in writing and indicate that the request is likely to undermine academic freedom for course instructors.
Members given such instructions in writing are requested to provide copies to UTFA.
Members should inquire of whoever is making this request to turn over papers etc. the exact origin of the request (that is, is the request originating with the chair, the Dean, elsewhere, etc.).
– Increased enrollment of graduate students a priority for admin (www.towards2030.utoronto.ca/reports/tf_report_2.htm) – not meeting targets, turning away some of our qualified applicants are turning us down – need to document lost students.
– Pressure admin to do things in writing.
– Ontario is last in funding universities; need to highlight that and pressure province to do more.
– Question to think about: how funding packages get shaped and how this affects students (e.g., external awards, RA versus TA).
– Let undergraduate students know that there is a possibility that “volunteers” may mark their assignments, invigilate exams, etc. (as a result of the strike – see for instance the letter from the Admininstration on this and the response from UWS Local 1998 on wordpress).
– Unfairness between departments within Arts and Science.
– Need to start talking about how to fund 5 or 6th year students, being done through grants, also some faculty in some departments no longer able to take on graduate students because they can’t afford it.
– Need to start writing and posting statements with our pictures in the interest of visibility.
– CUPE can help with labour on activities, grads want to work together with faculty, faculty should feel free to reach out to faculty.outreach@weareuoft.ca
– Problem is precarity and insecurity of graduate students, not necessarily wages.
– Possibility of making a statement at convocation.
– Do a letter in the Globe and Mail, ad or op ed, if someone can take a stab at the first draft, we can all edit.
– Issue of split within graduate students (some in sciences and engineering have significantly higher funding, and this is not reflected in how vote will be seen).
– Need to talk to chairs and undergraduate coordinators about how to get the TA hours back for course that have lost them through the agreement – faculty in some departments may need support as they have less supportive chairs (could provide a broader statement saying that this would be a good idea).
the-list.ca 