All Posts Tagged With: "U of T"

‘Laboratory’ school has been affiliated with the university since 1910

A prestigious high school has been left looking for a new building to lease, after the University of Toronto denied its request for refurbishment. Located on the St. George campus, the University of Toronto Schools has served as a unique training ground for student teachers, while providing university preparatory education to gifted students. Described as a “laboratory” school, UTS has permitted young teachers, graduate students and education researchers, to have access to a control group for experimentation in the classroom. Now, after 101 years, beginning in 1910, the university has decided it wants the space for itself. In informing UTS of its decision, U of T explained that it was undesirable for the site to be used “for a non-university use in perpetuity,” though no firm plans have been made for the facility. UTS has until 2021 to find new accommodations.

Guy Giorno appointed fellow in School of Public Policy and Governance

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ex-chief of staff, Guy Giorno, has taken a post at the University of Toronto. Giorno was appointed as a fellow in the School of Public Policy and Governance last week, the university announced. Giorno worked as Harper’s chief of staff from July 2008 until he stepped down last month. He has since been working as a partner for international business law firm Fasken Martineay DeMoulin LLP. He graduated with a law degree from the U of T in 1989. Giorno noted the appointment on his twitter feed.

Policies need to be in place to make sure academic voices aren’t lost in the shuffle

Two professors at the University of Toronto are concerned that philanthropic gifts are doing more to determine academic priorities than the school’s own academic faculties. And their concerns aren’t completely unfounded.

Following a large donation to the Munk School of Global Affairs, the university included in the donor agreement a line that announced “international studies is a top academic priority of the university.”

But according to professors Paul Hamel and John Valleau, that was never discussed in the traditional academic circles.

“Who decided that?” Hamel asked the Varsity, the student newspaper at the University of Toronto.

“Departments will put through their academic plans that they have an idea and we find ways of doing it. An academic priority is identified on the ground,” Misak added to the newspaper. “The idea that donors are driving academic priorities is crazy, just crazy.”

But the shift towards making philanthropy a significant source of income for post-secondary institutions is still new. Only in 2007, the head of fundraising at the University of Ottawa speculated that donations could become a permanent fixture of university priorities.

“It’s become a permanent feature of how universities do their job,” David Mitchell told The Globe and Mail. “The machinery of fundraising has come of age at universities in the last generation. I don’t think it is about to end.”

And since then, the amount of donations accepted by universities has been growing steadily.

While still representing a low total number in their overall budgets, donations now represent the second-fastest growing income source for universities, growing an average of nearly 11 per cent a year between 1997 and 2007.

And with hundreds of millions of dollars lining up at their door, it’s hard for universities to say no. That’s the problem Hamel and Valleau are now worried about.

While the University of Toronto’s donor agreement specifically affirms the academic freedom and freedom of speech of their faculty, that these two professors are concerned is reason for concern itself.

The way academic priorities are decided needs to be transparent to the academic community. It’s through this transparency that faculty can feel free to bring forward their own priorities and contribute in innovative ways to the university community.

If professors feel that priority setting is solely the domain of higher bodies, disenfranchised faculty will begin to wear down the institution’s morale.

It’s important to remember that donors don’t always get to set the priorities. As Ron Joyce, co-founder of Tim Hortons, told The Globe and Mail: “There is no such thing as a bad cause really, but you have to focus your efforts,” he said. “I’ve been very fortunate. I have an obligation to give something back.”

Universities have a strong history in Canada of academic independence, important discoveries and developing brilliant minds. Donations are a necessary part of this process, but shouldn’t determine priorities. The University of Toronto needs to demonstrate to its academic faculty that this is still the case, or they will face increasing scrutiny from disenfranchised academic leaders.

Still more questions than answers

Early Sunday morning (or late Saturday night–depending on perspective) police raided the offices and space of the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU) at the University of Toronto. They arrested approximately 70 activists who were billeted there, using the GSU’s pub and small gymnasium as temporary accommodations for the G20 summit protests. Along with the visitors, police arrested Daniel Vandervoot, the GSU’s External Commissioner, and another executive who is as yet unidentified. Thus far they have not yet been released from custody.

The GSU has issued a press release condemning the arrests and they are supported in a similar statement by other student groups and by Canadian Union of Public Employees. This is essentially the same group of organizations that opposed campus closure in the first instance and which defied it by maintaining their own operations to the greatest extent possible.

Anton Neschadim is an Executive-At-Large with the GSU and he has the unenviable task, at present, of fielding inquiries from the media, from university administration, and from distressed friends and family members of those detained. Anton stresses that he was not on site for the arrests and was not responsible for coordinating the billeting of visiting activists, but with the two executives who were responsible still in police custody he was willing to answer some questions for us.

In their press release, the GSU “categorically denies any involvement in any undemocratic activity.” This seems a vague claim, so I asked Anton to clarify. He says “we did not provide the use of our space for any kind of illegal, undemocratic activity.” Although not blind to the possibility that one or more guests of the GSU might have committed some crime during the protests, Anton states that there is currently no evidence of this.

The GSU took steps to acquire signed waivers from all their guests. So there is, somewhere, a reasonable list of who was staying there. Unfortunately police took these documents with them when they raided the space and so that information is unavailable. Anton states that guests of the GSU would have been people from the student movement, and that some collaboration with the Toronto Community Mobilization Network was part of this arrangement.

The worst case scenario, naturally, would be if those responsible for any of the violence in Toronto were using the GSU offices as a staging ground–either as invited guests or else by mingling with them. Clearly police are attempting to convey this idea and raided the space on that theory. They describe “weapons of opportunity” in the form of bricks and sharpened sticks, as well as black clothing found on site. Anton points out, quite rightly, that these objects are fairly ubiquitous. The GSU has sticks for their picketing signs on hand and there are bricks and stones all over the U of T campus. The suggestion that there is something inherently suspicious in owning a black t-shirt is too absurd to even engage with it.

What if, despite all this, one or more GSU guests really are guilty of something violent? Anton confronts this possibility head on. “We’re really not responsible for any individual’s actions. Steps were taken but we’re not police. The type of accommodation we provided was for allies and friendly individuals and organizations that we commonly work with.” He likens the GSU’s relationship to their guests as similar to that of any hotel or hostel. And while that may be a little disingenuous it does raise an interesting point. Everyone from outside Toronto who was here this past weekend was surely staying somewhere. Are the friends and family members of every outside visitor made personally responsible for their actions simply by giving them a place to sleep?

To their credit, the university administration seems to be adopting a “wait and see” approach to these arrests, and is not willing to condemn the GSU simply for hosting guests in its space. While understandably very concerned, Anton reports that the university is still “gathering facts and information around what happened” and is in close communication with the GSU. Anton also states that the university was informed the GSU would be billeting people, as it has done in the past for similar events and occasions.

Looking at the arrests as an outside observer, it’s hard to agree with demands that “all arrested activists be released.” No one is currently in a position to know what charges may be laid against the guests of the GSU, and it may indeed be the case that someone was involved in genuinely criminal acts. But it’s also obvious that even if this were true, it would be only a few out of the 70 or so arrested on site who fall into this category. Most (if not all) were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, yet for the right reasons.

It may fly in the face of the “arrest ‘em all!” mentality that has pervaded the media in wake of some truly regrettable violence on the streets of Toronto, but the mass arrests at the GSU offices should be a reminder to everyone that Canadian law does not promote guilt by association. While the GSU may have been inviting problems by hosting friends and like-minded activists for this event, they hardly become guilty by extension even if someone did something criminal and stupid elsewhere in the city that day, and neither do the other activists who were arrested on site with them. As more news develops around these arrests, it should prompt some tough questions about just how much freedom we are willing to surrender in the name of security.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Update: G20 protest turns violent

With G20 protests just ramping up in Toronto it’s worth remembering one thing. Whatever may happen on University of Toronto campus grounds, the university sure didn’t ask for this.

Update: G20 protest turns violent

Also see: On the front lines at the G20

Although it’s still uncertain just how much action to expect in and around the “designated” protest site at Queen’s Park North, what is certain is that the university isn’t taking any chances. The decision to essentially shut down the main campus for the duration of the G20 was swift and, for many stakeholders in the university, quite sudden. But then this sort of decision making has been a hallmark of the G20 from the start. With little warning the summit was suddenly in Toronto. Then the protest site was relocated from Trinity-Bellwoods Park (far from U of T) to the virtual centre of the university. And then the university announced it was closing shop. This will extend from the evening of June 23rd through the weekend, with the university resuming business as usual on Monday the 28th.

Two days of classes and numerous events on campus have been canceled. This period also includes summer exams, so some students will face difficult rescheduling while others may simply be glad for the extra time to cram. Those living in residence–an eclectic group of resident summer students, visitors from other institutions, guests and tourists–have been required to move out and either stay away for the duration or relocate to other housing provided for them. Graduate students have lost access to their laboratories and research facilities. Thousands of students have been affected, to varying degrees.

Dr. Cheryl Misak, Vice-President and Provost of U of T, describes this process as “a very complex and difficult set of decisions” forced on the university. When the residents around Trinity-Bellwoods complained about damage and disruption in their community, summit officials dropped the problem unceremoniously on the university, with buildings and facilities on three sides of the park and the provincial legislature to the south. If protesters end up spilling over in any direction they aren’t likely to overrun the legislature, so the alternative consequence is obvious. In anticipation of this, campus residences have moved their students elsewhere and every door that can be shut will be. But then universities aren’t well designed to go on lock down.

What the university should have done may be a moot point, now, but it presents an interesting problem to groups on campus who simultaneously sympathize with the goals of protesters but also have their own members to think of. Leslie Jermyn, Chair of CUPE local 3902 (representing university employees) defines the problem in terms of conflicting responsibilities. “I think there are motivations (for closure) that I can comprehend. On the other hand, I feel that the university is a public institution and as such has a greater responsibility to the public and to the community.” Meanwhile the University of Toronto Faculty Association, in debating the issue, was only able to arrive at a motion stating that the university should have consulted them first. Professor George Luste, President of UTFA, expresses concern for faculty research and dangers associated with it. “We have buildings with chemicals, radioactive material, animals, etc. I don’t think they could have kept it open with business as usual.”

Student groups, meanwhile, seem less restrained in their opinions and have gladly launched a No Campus Closure movement. They are simultaneously calling on the university to reverse its decision (not remotely possible now, if it ever was) and vowing to maintain their own operations as much as possible. They were also surprisingly hard to interview for this story. The Graduate Students’ Union referred only to their press release for information, while the University of Toronto Students’ Union, which represents undergraduates, missed three separate invitations to air their views. Presumably they are all too caught up in the event at this stage. But Jermyn, on behalf of CUPE, took up the challenge of offering a more nuanced view in dissent.

“The panic around where we’re going to locate the protesters suggests that the protesters are the problem. There are always people who want to do property damage, or want to make a statement that we may not agree with, but the bulk of people are there to make a peaceful statement and to stand in solidarity.” For Jermyn, it isn’t so much the university’s decision that is objectionable as the terms in which it is presented. “It feeds into the kinds of images that the mass media wants people to see–rioting and violence.” Unfortunate though it may be, coverage of the event thus far bears out this theory. And the expectation of violent confrontation only builds tension and makes it that much more likely.

Amid all of this cynicism around campus, and the expectation of violence, one small island within the university has defied the general trend and intends to remain open. Massey College is an independent graduate and professional residence on campus and therefore not beholden to the university’s orders. Though it has a reputation as a conservative institution it appears less concerned about the idea of unruly protesters than most. John Fraser, as resident Master of Massey College, promotes a more laissez faire approach.

Let’s save our public condemnation for those with malicious intent

They’re students. They painted their faces. Someone called “blackface” and lots got ticked off.

They were called racist, ignorant, foolish and insensitive, and apologies were demanded all around.

The four boys darkened their skin (and one lightened his) for Halloween. They dressed as the “Jamaican Bobsled Team” for a college pub event, and won best costume. But they didn’t have much time to celebrate. David Topping called them out on his Torontoist blog, saying they were manifesting “blackface.”

Then it took off.  Hundreds of responses, one townhall meeting and a handful of media reports later, and the issue remains as contentious as ever. (For even more details, click here.)

But do these boys deserve all the contempt that’s come their way? Are they guilty of blackface, or has the issue been blown out of proportion?

I’d say blown out of proportion.

Mind you, I don’t want to downplay the fact that the get-ups genuinely offended certain individuals. I can try to empathize, but I know I will never totally get it. Still, I don’t think that means I have to remain relativistic (as some have argued), especially on something so litigious.

So, was this blackface?

The word’s a bomb. I don’t know who first dropped it here, but others seem to have picked it up without regard to its connotative weight. And I think it’s been misapplied.

Blackface is a very specific type of makeup worn in the 19th century by white actors playing black characters. Blackface makeup exaggerated racist stereotypes, contributing to overall attitudes of intolerance. I think saying these U of T students wore “blackface” is a bit of a stretch. Just because something looks similar, doesn’t mean it’s the same.  For example, if someone wears a flashing star broach, it doesn’t mean she’s making fun of Jews in Nazi-occupied Germany. Maybe she just likes tacky jewelry.

CUPE 3902 and U of T have a tentative agreement

For those who have been following the possible strike situation at U of T, it seems that late last night (or very early this morning) the two sides came to some understanding. Like any such agreement it still needs to be ratified by the union membership. But in any typical bargaining situation once an agreement has the support of the bargaining team it’s pretty much a done deal. There’s no reason to imagine this situation is exceptional.

So CUPE 3902 maintains its very admirable record of avoiding strikes even when there is a mandate to have one. U of T surely deserves some credit here as well. As a rule, I’d suggest, it takes two reasonable bargaining efforts to avert a strike and only one unreasonable bargaining position to create one, so kudos to both sides. And I’ll admit I was wrong. Despite my gutcheck sense that this one might go all the way they pulled it out of the fire.

—

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. Even the ones I don’t post will still receive answers, and where I do use them here I’ll remove identifying information.

Dr. Ron Daniels led the University of Toronto’s law school for a decade

Globe and Mail story: Dr. [Ron] Daniels, who led the University of Toronto’s law school for a decade before moving to the United States in 2005, yesterday was elected as the next president of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, an elite research school with a world renowned medical centre. [snip] Dr. Daniels praised the United States for its ability to produce so many leading postsecondary institutions. “The United States has just been extraordinarily successful at nurturing institutions of pre-eminence when it comes to higher education,” he said. “This is what the United States has done spectacularly well.” [snip] During his decade as law dean, Dr. Daniels dramatically increased fundraising and worked to expand the school and raise its reputation. Some of his efforts created controversy, especially the increase in tuition fees. Many of his critics felt he was moving the school to a U.S. model and aligning it too closely with Bay Street.