What Happened at Faculty Board?

Members present at a three-hour FAS Faculty Board meeting on Friday, November 22, emerged from Dupuis Hall with more questions than answers about the proposed shift to a modular degree framework.  

You can read a blow-by-blow account of the meeting below. A brief overview of what happened is as follows: At the end of a lengthy meeting, and at the very last minute, an amendment that changed the motion significantly was added without allowing the membership sufficient time to understand or deliberate over its significance. The amendment was categorized as “friendly,” but this qualification does not exist in the Faculty Board’s rules of order, according to which all amendments, major or minor, should be moved, debated, and voted upon. In the rush to close the meeting, members were asked to vote on the amended motion. The motion passed.

Over the weekend and into this week, a number of members have raised concerns about process with the Faculty Board Chair, Peir Pufahl, and with members of the decanal team. Both those in favour and those against the modular degree motion and the amendment have asked for clarity about the substance of the amended motion (it was not read out word-for-word nor projected on the screen) and an opportunity to properly discuss and vote upon it. 

On Tuesday, Chair Pufahl posted a message to the Faculty Board chat reassuring members that he has heard the concerns and questions regarding amendments to the motion, that the Faculty Board team is consulting with the University Secretariat’s office to ensure proper process is followed, and that an update will be forthcoming. 

In the meantime, QCAA has learned that FAS heads and undergraduate chairs are finally having the robust and transparent discussion necessary to make an informed decision about the merits of the shift towards a modular framework – a discussion that should have happened before the Faculty Board meeting. Even people who agreed with the amendment, and voted in favour of the motion, have expressed frustration with the lack of genuine consultation and careful thought that was put into the original motion – a motion that would instantiate the most substantial change in curriculum at this university in many decades.

We trust that this conversation, currently unfolding via email and without comment from the Faculty Office, will come to include Faculty Board as a whole when an amendment to the original motion is introduced for consideration in the manner required by the rules of order.

_________________________________________________________________________________

The Blow-By-Blow

It was clear from the start of the discussion at Faculty Board that there was no consensus about the merits and constraints of a modular degree framework, with skeptics and supporters alike making passionate arguments about both the details of the plan and broader questions pertaining to the vision and future of the faculty and the quality of the education that we are able to offer. 

As the meeting progressed, it gradually emerged that two large science departments, Chemistry and Physics, were withholding their support for the motion because it was very important to their units that they be permitted to have stand-alone majors, which is to say, majors that don’t require minors as well. One of the proposed requirements of the new modular degree program is that students who take a major in one subject will be required to take a minor in another. 

When member Beauchemin, UG Chair for Chemistry, first raised her department’s concern, member Stephenson downplayed the issue as simply one of “nomenclature,” explaining that science departments could still have stand-alone degrees, but that these would now be called “specializations.” There would then be a new category of “majors” (requiring fewer credits than specializations). Only students choosing to follow the degree plan for a major would be required to also take a minor. Member Beauchemin seemed to remain unsatisfied, but the question period moved on.

Member Chen, Associate Head for Physics, later raised the same objection, clarifying that unless Physics were allowed to have stand-alone majors, they would not be able to support the motion. Member Stephenson nodded but declined to comment. 

Eventually, the meeting began to run short on allocated time (the membership had already voted to extend the meeting once). Chair Pufahl informally asked the room if member Stephenson’s motion could be allowed time for “one final question” before moving to a vote. Seeing some nods, he announced that he would allow that question from those attending the meeting online. The questioner was member Martin, Undergraduate Chair for Physics. He reiterated a version of the same sticking point articulated by members Chen and Beauchemin, which was that his department would be unable to support the motion if it disallowed stand-alone majors. This third iteration of the objection finally clarified the point, and member Stephenson indicated that she was open to a compromise.

At this point, member Chen proposed a “friendly amendment” where something (it was unclear what exactly) would be put in parentheses and so allow Physics and Chemistry (and perhaps other departments—it was unclear) an “exemption” from the requirement for stand-alone majors. Member Stephenson quickly agreed to the amendment. Chair Pufahl and member Stephenson then clarified between themselves that this “friendly” amendment was the third of three. Having clarified the other two (truly minor) amendments, which should also have been separately discussed and moved, the amended motion as a whole was put to a vote and passed. 

Because the changes were not clearly and properly articulated, moved, and debated, many–likely most–people present who voted on the motion did not fully understand the substance or the implications of the amendment.