With less than 48 hours’ notice, 150 members of the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) logged into a meeting to discuss the Provost’s plan for seat transfers at Queen’s. The Provost’s announcement at the March 27 Senate meeting that he would move a further 200 seats from BA/BAH programs in FAS to the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering (FEAS), the Smith School of Business (SBS), and the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) has caused widespread consternation, as has his proposal to transfer an additional 100 seats within FAS from the humanities, arts, and social sciences to Computing and Life Sciences. [After this story was published, QCAA learned that 50 seats will go to Computing, 25 to Life Sciences and Biochemistry, and 25 to Kinesiology.]

The special meeting was called after twenty-three faculty members petitioned Dean Bob Lemieux for a chance to discuss the ramifications of the transfer before the Senate votes on the proposal on April 17. The scheduled Faculty Board meeting had been canceled, and, unlike other faculties, no opportunity had been planned for FAS members to discuss the proposal.

With the exception of the Dean, every member who spoke suggested that the seat transfer is precipitous. Their concerns focused on the lack of data to support the transfer and inadequate consideration of its impact on the academic and financial future of FAS.

To that effect, Member Adnan Husain proposed a motion that passed by an overwhelming majority. As per Faculty Board bylaws, a second vote to approve the motion must be taken one week later. 

The motion reads as follows: 

That the Faculty Board of Arts and Sciences advises the Senate not to approve the Strategic Enrolment Management Group’s proposal to remove 200 seats from the Faculty of Arts and Science until:

a) the Bicentennial Vision has been approved and articulates a coherent university strategic vision;

b) a comprehensive cost-benefit-revenue analysis of such an allocation has been presented to Senate;

c) a proposal for revision of the budget model has been agreed that accounts for cross-faculty redistribution (including through equitable cross-faculty teaching payments and new interdisciplinary/cross-faculty degrees).

The vote on the motion will take place on Monday, April 14, at 10:30 am via Zoom: 

• https://queensu.zoom.us/j/99758657092?pwd=TXB2S2F2aU8rM2pDeFBYT0cya1g2UT09
• Meeting ID: 997 5865 7092 
• Passcode: 388880

Please note: All voting Faculty Board members must indicate their department in their screen name to vote.

What We Know About the Proposed Seat Transfers

Where will the 200 seats out of FAS go and why?

Seats will go to the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, the Faculty of Health Sciences, and the Smith School of Business. Dean Lemieux noted that tuition for engineering is about 1.8 times that of FAS (with the exception of Computing, which charges 1.8 x higher tuition than other programs in FAS), while Commerce tuition is 2.3 times higher. 

All seats will come from the BA/BAH program, because, according to Lemieux, it is the largest program in FAS and generates the lowest revenue because of a “framework that disadvantages Arts and Science–and particularly the arts and humanities.”

The Dean noted that the BA/BAH is the largest undergraduate program at Queen’s, accounting for 27% of the total enrollment, with the 2024-25 numbers standing at 5,707 students in the BA/BAH, 3,944 in the BSc, 3,620 in Engineering, and 2,162 in Commerce. He continued: “[T]he question becomes: is this distribution appropriate? Given that our faculty complement is being reduced, how do we best manage the student experience with fewer faculty?”

On that note, the Dean mentioned that they are hoping for a further reduction in the FAS faculty complement in 2026-27 from 548 to 473, or by 8%, through a yet-to-be-announced Voluntary Retirement Program (VPR). 

The irony is that decreased enrolment is being sold as the solution for a diminished faculty complement, while a diminished faculty complement (via the VPR) is being sold as a cost-saving measure. The administration has created a problem that they are now selling to us as a solution, and the result will be the incremental starvation of FAS.

How will the 100 seats being reallocated within FAS be distributed and why?

The Dean said that 75 seats will go to Computing and 25 to Life Sciences and Biochemistry. After we published this story, QCAA learned that in fact 50 seats will go to Computing, 25 to Life Sciences and Biochemistry, and 25 to Kinesiology. While computing tuition is higher than other programs in FAS, the tuition for Life Sciences and Biochemistry and Kinesiology is not. The Dean rationalized this decision by noting that Queen’s is actively working with other U6 universities to petition the Ministry of Colleges and Universities (MCU) to raise tuition in Life Sciences and other health-related fields. This suggests that the administration is making plans based on wishful thinking.

Are more seat transfers planned, in line with the Principal’s Bicentennial Vision? 

Although the Dean responded to this question by saying that he has “no information,” at another point in the meeting he noted, “You may not have seen the specifics of the plan yet — you will see those when the plan goes to Senate — but another 50 seats will move from Arts and Science into the Health Sciences.” Will these plans be discussed with FAS faculty in advance?

What is motivating the transfer of seats to STEM?

Meeting participants were shocked to learn that the justification for the transfer is based partly on conjecture. According to the Dean, the “word on the street right now is that the province may increase the corridor…in terms of our ability to get more grant revenue, but only for the STEM disciplines. And so there is an anticipation that the BScs will generate more revenue, as we go into SMA4 (Strategic Mandate Agreement 4). Again, this is purely speculation at this point, that’s a rumour.” 

The seat transfer to STEM seems to be based less on careful planning than on guesswork. 

Are we budgeting as a university, or are we budgeting as if each faculty is its own enterprise?

Several members asked about the contradictions of budgeting at the faculty level (“FAS is in deficit and needs to be ‘subsidized’ by other faculties”) and budgeting at the university level (“the university needs to increase revenue so we will take seats out of FAS and shift them to higher-tuition programs”). As one member said: “That framing–the ‘subsidy’ framing — sets us up to always be seen as needing help. But this whole situation has been structured — artificially created — over time.” 

Another member reminded the Dean that in 2019, FAS agreed to transfer 100 seats per year for three years to Commerce, FEAS, and FHS, a fact that has been overlooked in accounting for the current FAS deficit. This member asked if it is “possible that the reason we’re in such a deep deficit now is because we already lost so many seats back then — that we’ve already been structurally limited in our capacity to generate revenue”. The general concern expressed was that budgeting contradictions are creating a downward spiral for FAS, because FAS’s manufactured deficit may be utilized to justify more cuts to FAS.

Dean Lemieux acknowledged the manufactured nature of FAS’ deficit (because of underfunding, tuition frameworks, past and current seat transfers). He agreed that the current approach is creating a downward spiral for FAS. But he offered no insights into how he is working to prevent Queen’s from shifting from a comprehensive university to a technical college, saying: “I think we’re going to reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of our ability to deliver our programs.” He also acknowledged that the current manner of budgeting is deeply problematic, noting that universities “by their nature, have units that are revenue-generating and units that are cost centers—units that cost more to run than they bring in.” 

Are departments within FAS still being funded according to their enrolment?

Said Dean Lemieux: “By and large, our salary costs are fixed. Therefore, the notion that enrollment in a particular department would affect their budget allocation isn’t accurate, because those are fixed costs. … The idea that a decrease in enrollment will directly decrease budget allocations in departments is not the case.”

What did Dean Lemieux negotiate in return for conceding 200 seats?

Nothing. He said that he voted in favour of the transfer. 

FAS is making a massive concession to the university by transferring seats. As one colleague noted: “The model is: ‘We give them students, they pay us back in cash…They are actively ‘third worlding’ us, by taking our resources and keeping us in constant debt.”

At the very least, this concession would have been an opportunity for the Dean to negotiate a failsafe to ensure that five years from now, the Provost cannot take more seats from FAS because of FAS’ (manufactured) low levels of revenue. It appears to be a missed opportunity. 

Questions to which we don’t have answers

Will programs and departments be suspended?

We do not know if the administration has explicitly considered programs it deems vulnerable to suspension. Neither do we know if such programs have been informed that they are vulnerable and consulted ahead of the decision to transfer seats. However, the Dean is clear that program suspension or unit closure is the intention: “The Faculty of Arts and Science having 32 separate units is not going to be viable…..We will have to look at ways to integrate some of our smaller or more vulnerable units.” 

300 seats represent roughly 20% of the yearly BA/BAH enrolment (based on 2023 numbers), and a key concern is whether this decrease in enrollment will serve as justification for unit or program closures. How will this drop be divided among different units and programs? What units or programs are especially vulnerable to a 20% reduction in enrolment? What will be done to protect these programs? 

Why at this moment in global history, when democracy is being radically threatened, do we want to decimate the programs that equip students to navigate this world? 

What is the cost to FAS for the loss of 200 seats?

It is clear that the transfer will worsen FAS’ deficit, but we do not know its exact costs, which is consistent with the haphazard and chaotic way the seat transfer is carried out.

Are the gains in revenue significant enough to justify the costs to FAS programs and departments?

Since the administration has not released any of their planning details, we cannot know if the revenue gained by the transfer actually justifies the risks to FAS programs and departments. The issue is certainly complex, but some basic math on tuition gains raises questions about whether the transfer is solely financially motivated or if there are also ideological drivers at play. For example, the total revenue generated gain by the transfer would be around $1.4 million next year, and then grow to around $5.5 to $6 million after four years of transfers. However, due to increased teaching costs in these programs, the net gain is unclear with the slides presented to Senate suggesting a figure of around $3 million. The overall increase of $6 million in additional revenue would make up less than one percent of the total operating revenues of the university, while a $3 million increase in net revenue would raise only 8.4% of the projected deficit – is this significant enough a gain to risk losing entire departments, when it could easily be covered by revisiting how we use investment income?

Furthermore, some of the transfers do not generate additional revenue: Life Sciences and Biochemistry tuition is the same as for a BA/BAH student, and tuition in the Bachelor of Health Sciences is only $1.45 higher than a BA/BAH. While enrollments in Life Sciences and Biochemistry may generate a higher grant from the province on a per-student basis, QCAA understands that Queen’s total grant level is capped by our corridor midpoint so the provincial grant level would not increase. As outlined above, the only financial benefit that could come from these are speculative and based on guesses about future provincial policy directives. So what is the motivation to move these seats now?

What happens next?

It is regrettable that, to QCAA’s knowledge, the Dean did not consult with units that could be endangered by a 20% enrolment drop, and it is unclear whether the present decision can be reversed. Given that Dean Lemieux gave these seats away without negotiating protective measures for FAS, his repeated assurances that he will protect FAS ring hollow.

Nonetheless, Faculty Board will vote next week on the motion to delay the seat transfer. While the University secretariat is known to be antagonistic towards collegial governance (based on a debatable understanding of the powers of Faculty Board) and may deem the motion out of order, a successful motion will send an important signal to the Senate and the Board of Trustees before the Senate votes on April 17th. 

l