The Queen’s rumour mill is churning, and our readers continue to keep QCAA up to speed. Thank you! If you don’t see your gossip here today, it means we’re saving it for another post. Stay tuned!
On Nepotism and Impartiality
So nepotism and absolute disregard of impartiality and conflict of interest have hit again. The newly announced ombudsperson is the Dean of Engineering’s partner. As far as I can tell, this relationship has not been publicly disclosed. I feel for my colleagues and students in Engineering. I truly hope they never have to go to the ombudsperson to deal with a conflict.
On the Student Town Hall on the Bicentennial Vision
I want to share a disappointing and frustrating experience attending the Bicentennial Vision “Student” Town Hall yesterday evening (Feb 12th, 2025).
Listed as presenters were: Patrick Deane, Nicholas Mosey, Donna Janiec, Matthew Evans, Michael Fraser, Stephanie Simpson, Steven Smith, and Jessica Whiting.
The only people who spoke were Patrick Deane and Nicholas Mosey. Donna Janiec, Matthew Evans, and others had their cameras on but looked absolutely disengaged from the conversation. (My guess was that for some, a rousing session of Candy Crush or solitaire was enjoyed off camera).
To start — the attendance was abysmal, with people employed by the Principal’s office equalling students on the call (by my count, 8 of each). This dynamic was uncomfortable. Cameras were not permitted to be on, nor were microphones. Any person who raised their hand to ask a question was ignored. The moderator (Nicholas Mosley) requested that questions be posed with the Teams Q&A function (only seen by himself and other organizers) not through the Chat function (which would be visible by all attending the call).
In good faith, my first questions were posed by Q&A. When the moderator began posing the questions to Principal Deane, it became clear that the questions would not be posed as they were asked but rather as general suggestions of a topic for Mr. Deane to lecture about. The questions posed were so unlike what I had asked that I did not recognize until part way through the moderator speaking that it was my question he was supposedly asking. For example: a specific question on Masters funding was posed by the moderator as a question about affordability of schooling and scholarships. The answer to that question was a lengthy speech on how Queen’s actually has lots of scholarships and how sometimes those are even funded by the endowment and that no one would suggest decreasing them. Clearly, the question was not asked nor answered. Disappointing, as the question is incredibly important to the long-term vision of the university looking to 2041. Once this was the case, I cross-posed my questions in both the Q&A and the Chat, hoping that others would also recognize these discrepancies. The moderator reiterated that he preferred questions be posed in the Q&A, not public chat.
In broad strokes, Patrick Deane described a vision for the future university as one that did not have disciplinary boundaries, which worked to train students widely, and made them ready for “work” after education. He specifically noted that the future of the university would be through work opportunities, placements, co-ops. He cited that ‘students enjoy these and employers especially enjoy them.’ I cannot help but see these internships as further opportunities for students to be taken advantage of and forced to PAY to WORK. This is already the case for teaching placements and nursing practicums, when students must pay tuition in order for the opportunity to do free labour.
I am extremely frustrated. I did everything “right.” I pre-registered for the town hall. I attended on time. I was prepared. I was engaged. I had thoughtful questions. And my voice—the student voice—never even reached the ears of the person it was by all accounts promised to reach. What is the point of student consultation when admin are sitting in a sound proof room?
– From a disheartened Humanities PhD
Below, I will share some of the questions posed that were either not acknowledged, or tangentially/vaguely referenced. And, lastly, I would hate for this to be the norm for the next two town halls. There are two THIS MONTH: one for Staff and one for Faculty.
See here for registration:
Questions:
Q&A – As we look to the next decades of the University, I can’t help but think about training the next generation of academics. For current Queen’s students, can you respond to this question? Is Master’s funding still under threat? Can Master’s students expect to receive funding for their work in the upcoming academic year?
- Was answered with discussion of scholarships and “student work” opportunities
Q&A – How has your background as a professor in the humanities prepared you for your current role as a leader within the university? Do you believe that downsizing humanities departments may harm the university, its future leadership, and its academic mission?
- Patrick responded to this in part with distressing comments on the humanities. He referenced a conversation with a friend recently who “had expressed to him that if he had the opportunity to do things again he wouldn’t have gotten an English degree.”
- Patrick (who has an English PhD) also said that he felt that some fields in the humanities did not do enough to integrate their work in the ‘real world.’
Question (submitted to Q+A, repeated here): Is the university considering downsizing its administrative complement rather than its faculty/graduate students/programs in addressing our budget deficit while still honouring our academic mission?
- Not acknowledged
Question (submitted to Q+A, repeated here): Will undergraduate students, in the future, be seen as cheaper replacements for graduate students currently performing research at the university? Are efforts to increase undergraduate research preparation for the erosion of graduate funding?
- This question was the only one read verbatim and was responded to with humour saying that they were surprised by this question and joked, “because anyone who has been a supervisor to undergraduate research knows that the quality of that work is not the same as graduate research.”
Given your admittance of the value of graduate work, how is the university committed to addressing the cost of living crisis facing graduate students that prevents them from performing that work?
- This question was not acknowledged.
Queen's Coalition Against Austerity 