This is the third in our series of posts featuring readers’ responses to the Principal’s Bicentennial Vision. 

A big thanks to all those who have copied us on their correspondence and a reminder to keep sharing your answers by cutting and pasting them into this anonymous form.

Today’s posts raise a new set of problems with the Bicentennial Vision. The first author hones in on Principal Deane’s failure to acknowledge the crisis presented by the rise of right-wing populism in societies across the globe, including Canada. They emphasize the danger of diminishing the “critical public service which the social sciences and humanities provide”  and warn against “preemptive obedience to government priorities” and “inadvertently playing into the political right’s hands.”

The second author critiques the tone of the vision paper, advocating for a “sense of imagination and playfulness instead of the cynicism and miserabilist attitudes expressed in the report.” They encourage a more introspective approach and a transparent, collective strategy that draws on considerable internal knowledge and resources to envision and remake the future of Queen’s.

Together, they suggest a leadership that is out of touch with the Queen’s community and the world.

Dear Principal Deane,

The bicentennial document is clearly driven by primarily financial motives, so I want to start my response by asking you to please stop pretending that your proposals are about a programmatic ‘vision’ of the university’s future. As a social scientist, I find your manipulation of enrolment statistics quite offensive – the ‘evidence’ you present for divesting from and transforming the role of the social sciences and humanities is simply not there in the way you claim it is. And the smart people of this university saw right through it.

So, starting from the understanding that your plans are primarily motivated by Queen’s financial needs in the context of provincial underfunding, I want to provide some analysis for your consideration on the larger political implications of your proposed transformations.

As you know, anti-intellectualism and the defunding of the higher education sector are a right-wing political project. It is of course not a coincidence that right-wing populist governments focus on transforming and destroying education – the less critical capacity exists among the citizenry to understand and critically evaluate policy proposals, the easier it is for powerful political and economic actors to shape institutions to their interests and undermine democracy. We have seen this play out powerfully in the US, of course; but the destruction or instrumentalization of education has a long history as a tool of authoritarian, fascist, or colonial rule. The assault on education has been an intentional and coordinated part of the global political right’s playbook for at least the past decade, and it is very important to recognize that this includes Canada. So, in a moment in which societies across the world, including Canada, are swept up by right-wing populist governments, you are proposing to diminish the critical public service which the social sciences and humanities provide to Canadian society: helping students understand how this world works and providing the critical thinking skills they need to become independent thinkers and informed citizens who make decisions about the kind of society they want to live in. In other words, your preemptive obedience to government priorities to reduce the social sciences and humanities to handmaidens of engineering is inadvertently playing into the political right’s hands.

At the same time, it is dramatically shortsighted to think that STEM will be spared in the ongoing assault on intellectual life. We have seen this throughout the past decades in public and government attacks on climate research, research into genetic technologies, evolutionary biology, sexual health and reproduction, or more recently on public health and pharmaceutical research, and even research on telecommunications technology. The dramatic growth in anti-science sentiment has less to do with ‘how political’ a subject or a discipline is – anything can be politicized – but more with the declining trust in public institutions in general. This declining trust in public institutions has been and will be further exploited by the right to re-mould education to align with its political project – and destroy the rest. In other words, no discipline will be safe from the right’s ongoing assault on universities, not even STEM fields.

In the last senate meeting, you said something along the lines of ‘idealism is nice, but we have to live in reality’. Well, the global assault on democracy is as much a reality as is Queen’s financial situation – in fact, as I have argued here, they’re two sides of the same coin. Austerity politics are a tool to align education with right-wing populist goals. Right-wing populism is already a reality in Canada and a growing number of European countries, and full-blown fascism is lurking around the corner in the US. It is in this context of global political transformation that we must envision the future of the university. With all appreciation of the difficult predicament this university is in financially, we must not fall into the trap of short-term distractions and resist the mobilization of austerity politics for the ongoing assault on democracy, and instead double down on the role universities can play in rendering societies resilient in this moment of overlapping global crises on a planet which is, quite literally, on fire.

Sincerely,

Queen’s Community Member

How can Queen’s ensure its Bicentennial Vision advances its Mission, Vision, and Values while adapting to the challenges and opportunities of its third century?

Find that which is undervalued and invest in it instead of pandering to market demands. Double down on the things that only Queen’s as an institution can provide that no other university in Canada can, instead of seeking conformity and standardization. A sense of imagination and playfulness instead of the cynicism and miserabilist attitudes expressed in the report.

What measures should Queen’s take to remove barriers to education, enhance diversity and inclusion, and address the increasing non-academic needs of students, such as mental health support?

Wider distribution of resources and information so that stronger collective engagement within the institution would nullify the need for FOI requests, gossip, and the general antagonism between management and staff/students. Transparency is central to a functioning democracy.

Good faith and respectful dialogue with staff and students instead of the current one which is defined by an air of dismissiveness, unprofessionalism, performativity, filibustering, and information asymmetry.

What should be the optimal size of Queen’s student body by 2041, and how should enrolments be distributed across STEM and non-STEM fields to balance workforce demands, financial sustainability, and the university’s core values?…

Student enrolment should increase in healthy proportion to teaching staff. Trying to increase class sizes to maximize enrolment numbers results in a qualitative loss to everyone involved: students receive a lesser education, educators are overworked and then underperform, and employers receive unprepared workers.

How can Queen’s strengthen its global connections and focus on mission-driven research to address real-world challenges and improve its position in rankings?

Ranking expresses a hierarchical, reductively quantitative, and competitive framing of one’s value. It would be more interesting to think more introspectively. How can collaborative and complementary processes be established that both maintain the university’s reputation while also producing meaningful work instead of applying universal metrics and a “winner-takes-all” mentality?

What innovative strategies or alternative funding models can Queen’s adopt to address decreasing government funding, frozen tuition fees, and limits on international student enrolment?

Increase in more informal courses, workshops, and programming that are not tied to a degree program but centred around interests, curiosities, networking, and new developments in fields. Courses can vary in length, commitment, and specializations.

Taking on more of a consultancy role. Professors and graduate students are very knowledgeable in their fields; why not facilitate employment opportunities where they can advise various public and private entities?

Develop in-house products, services, and technologies that can then be licensed to other institutions and companies.

What infrastructure and technological investments are essential to support Queen’s growth and adapt to advancements in teaching, research, and student services?

More informal gatherings. More of a presence on the ground. Not practicing wage suppression. Having honest dialogues. Technological solutions have a tendency to obscure underlying social issues.

As always, a reminder that while we might agree with many of the comments and ideas expressed in this series, these are the views of members of the Queen’s community and do not represent the official position of QCAA.

Leave a comment