Associate Dean (Academic) Jenn Stephenson has been on a public relations blitz in the run up to a major vote at this Friday’s Faculty of Arts and Science Faculty Board meeting.

Clearly nervous about resistance, Stephenson took to the pages of the Queen’s Journal to defend the controversial modular degree framework, which will reduce the minimum number of credits required for degree plans in the Faculty of Arts and Science. 

Then, this morning, Stephenson took the unprecedented step of writing to all FAS heads and undergraduate chairs, directing them to vote in favour of the motion. The message names and criticizes an individual faculty member—one of Queen’s’ most respected teachers—for voicing concerns about the modular degree plan and its potential effect on class sizes. Singling out an individual colleague who has been articulating legitimate concerns, shared by many others, marks a new low in poor process in the Faculty Office.

It also speaks to the erosion of democracy and increasingly authoritarian tone of governance at the university. The last line of Stephenson’s email stands out in this regard: “Given the work that you have already invested in the success of this initiative, it is important that you and your departments attend Faculty Board on Friday, to speak/vote in favour of the motion.”

As one colleague said of the Associate Dean’s message, “I find this attitude that everyone should just shelve their questions and concerns because the committee or dean has done all this work and made their decisions is totally antithetical to collegial governance and an ethic of transparency. This is becoming all too common at the university.”

Process concerns are a key reason why units are split over the modular degree format. Some have voted to adopt the change pending approval at Faculty Board believing that a modular approach would provide students with more flexibility and greater multidisciplinary learning. Others are agreeing to the initiative out of necessity. Hiring freezes and budget cuts have made it difficult, if not impossible, for some units to offer their programs, and allowing students to take more courses in other programs will circumvent the need to hire adjuncts (let alone tenure-stream faculty or course-support staff). 

Regardless of whether faculty, staff, and students support the modular approach for their particular program, there is a shared sense that the changes have been rushed through without adequate and holistic research, justification, or discussion.

Stephenson repeatedly uses the word “consultation” but the criticisms she has heard throughout this past year, especially regarding guiding principles and haste, have been met with silence or, worse, admonishment. She accuses our colleague of “obfuscation” without evidence, while she herself has refused transparency. 

In this environment, many questions about the modular degree framework remain:

  • What are the pedagogical and academic reasons for the proposed shift?
  • What are the consequences for the faculty as a whole, not just for individual programs?
  • What modelling has been done and what does it reveal about the number of courses we will be able to offer going forward, about the implications for the availability of a diversity of courses, and for plan counts?
  • What will be the impact on class sizes not just next year but in five or ten years’ time?
  • Will a modular framework actually lead to greater choice for students in the long term?
  • What will the change do to student distribution across programs?
  • Will the adoption of a modular approach make us indistinguishable from our peer institutions?
  • How will the new degree structure allow Queen’s to stand out as a prestigious purveyor of undergraduate education in Canada?
  • What are the implications for already under-resourced small programs that will almost certainly struggle to offer electives, maintain enrolments, and justify future hires?
  • How does the modular degree plan intersect with work to introduce breadth requirements?
  • What supports are in place to manage the workload that the change implies for undergraduate chairs and support staff?
  • Given the transitional state of the budget model, will departments with multiple minor degree programs be granted the same “count” as majors and specializations?
  • What is the rush to push the modular framework through without consultation that includes addressing criticisms and concerns in a transparent and thorough manner?
  • Is there a good reason for this shift other than it allows FAS to radically reduce teaching staff and accelerate the march towards a diminished liberal arts education at Queen’s?

_________________________________________________________________________________

FAS Faculty Board will take place on Friday, November 22 at 2:30 pm in Dupuis 217.

Zoom: https://queensu.zoom.us/j/99758657092?pwd=TXB2S2F2aU8rM2pDeFBYT0cya1g2UT09

Meeting ID: 997 5865 7092

Passcode: 388880

Leave a comment