A long weekend means a short newsletter this week!

It is almost the end of May, and we still do not know what’s up in ArtSci in terms of staff layoffs. We know they are coming. But when exactly? And how many? It’s a few weeks since the VEI program applications were due. Many (all?) applicants already know whether their applications were approved. But the Dean’s office has yet to say how many people applied, and how many applications were approved. We also don’t know how much money the Dean’s office hoped to save with this program, or what the actual savings are going to be. How much will the FAS staffing budget be reduced through the VEI? Given the modest salaries paid to staff at Queen’s, it would take a lot of uptake to make a significant dent in the deficit that has been attributed to FAS.

1. Last week the Gazette published a statement about the 2024-25 budget. The statement announces a projected operating budget deficit of $35.7 million and promises that the university will continue to cut expenditures to “more closely align with our revenue.” Speaking about future cuts, Principal Deane again misses an opportunity to acknowledge – and publicly regret – the damage such cuts will bring to staff, many of whom will lose their jobs. “While these decisions are not easy and some of the work ahead will be difficult,” the Principal says, “it is necessary and achievable.” In their failure to make visible the human toll of these cuts, the Principal, the Provost, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science and other senior administrators present the task of bringing the budget “to structural balance,” as if it were merely an accounting exercise. The failure to acknowledge the effect on people makes it possible to present budgeting decisions and the processes they engender as inevitable and clear cut. But, there are always alternative decisions that could be made. Queen’s has decided to prioritize the growth of capital reserves at the expense of people’s jobs. Imagine a different administrative priority grounded in respect for the human capital, the institutional knowledge, the job-specific expertise, and the working relationships that allow the institution to function.

2. QCAA’s commentary on the 2024-25 budget statement, in particular decisions around the use of (significant) investment income, appears here. As this commentary notes, senior administrators have refused to engage in discussion of possible sustainable use of the university’s considerable investment income, a position they have tried to justify with overly simple narratives about market volatility.  

3. There is also some interesting discussion about the budget statement here. To what extent are the university’s constant references to large (exaggerated) projected deficits an attempt to shape the climate in which almost all of the unions on campus will enter bargaining this year?

4. As staff members in the Faculty of Arts and Science continue to wait for information on the promised major restructuring that will leave some without jobs and others with transformed and increased workloads, the FAS newsletter, What’s Up ArtSci has nothing to say on these fundamental concerns. Instead, it offers one small item about academic consideration for students and an announcement that May is “Teaching and Learning month.” What’s up, indeed. Staff, in particular, would like to know. To our knowledge, no one has responded at any administrative level to the concern raised by the majority of department heads in FAS that the intended restructuring will be catastrophic for the academic work of the faculty. Department managers have raised similar concerns, namely that these plans are proceeding without any input from those who actually manage departments. Moreover, budgetary decisions have been driving potentially damaging changes to the academic character of FAS without significant academic oversight (via Senate or Faculty Board). At a recent meeting held for department managers, there was no opportunity for input; people in the Dean’s office have already decided what is going to happen. The information that was shared with department managers was vague, incomplete, and grounded in ignorance of the tasks staff perform and how units actually work.

5. Another item from the ‘devaluation of higher education” file: an article from the Guardian that opens by saying that 40% of UK universities face deficits. The general secretary of the University Colleges Union, Jo Grady, says, “The funding model for higher education is broken and needs radical change to put the sector on a firm financial footing. Unfortunately, the Tories seem intent on making the situation worse through constant attacks on migrant students and workers.” We know a similar story.

Thanks to the colleagues who provided copy and advice for this week’s newsletter.

Leave a comment