All Posts Tagged With: "University of Manitoba"
Body found on Manitoba campus
Death not suspicious: police
A male body was found on the University of Manitoba’s Fort Garry campus on Monday around 1 p.m. and Winnipeg Police closed off a pedestrian walkway between the engineering building and the University Centre to investigate. A police spokesperson told The Maintoban that they’re treating it as a “sudden death” investigation, rather than a suspicious death.
Yiddish lives on Canadian campuses
As the Jewish tongue dies at home, scholars step up
Photo by scazon on Flickr
The old language of Eastern Europe’s Jews—the tongue that brought us such lively words as schmooze, glitch, klutz, chutzpah, nosh, schmuck and schmo—has been through a lot.
Yiddish was threatened by the holocaust when five million speakers—roughly half of the total—were murdered in the genocide, writes University of Ottawa researcher Rebecca Margolis.
Then it was threatened by a generation in the diaspora that was sometimes embarrassed of their parents’ foreign tongue and preferred to converse in English or another vernacular anyway.
Today, Yiddish contends with the fact that its keepers are mainly Bubbes and Zeydes of the diaspora, who may not be around much longer. According to Statistics Canada, between 2001 and 2006, the number of Yiddish speakers declined from 37,010 to 27,605 nationally. More than a third of those who remained—9,305—were over 75 years-old. Only 1,345 were under age five.
Canada’s entrepreneurial campuses
Six programs for ambitious undergrads
Photo by Birmingham City University on Flickr
From the 21st Maclean’s University Rankings—on sale now. Story by Sandy Farran.
It’s the stuff of dreams: in early 2009, University of Waterloo engineering student Ted Livingston set out to design an instant messaging app while taking part in Waterloo’s VeloCity Residence program, an intense four-month incubator for student start-ups. The program provided Livingston with regular access to an entrepreneur-in-residence, use of the latest technology, a collaborative work space, exposure to community mentors and the support of like-minded peers.
The entrepreneurial skills that Livingston acquired while in the VeloCity program propelled his instant-messaging app from the idea phase, in early 2009, to a downloadable app in the fall of 2010. Since then, four million users have downloaded the free technology (called Kik Messenger), investors have come knocking, and Livingston has donated $1 million to his alma mater to help other student entrepreneurs.
Lukács and University of Manitoba reach deal
Prof. tried to fight award of PhD to student who failed exams
The University of Manitoba says that the ongoing fight with Professor Gabor Lukács has been settled. Although specifics will remain confidential, Lukács will no longer work for the University.
The statement reads, in part: “The University has rescinded all disciplinary actions against Professor Lukács (including reprimand, suspension and denial of increment). All outstanding legal proceedings between the parties are terminated. The parties have also agreed that it is to their mutual benefit to end the employment relationship.”
Lukács was a math professor at U of M. He sued the university because his Dean gave a student who had failed exams a degree, citing the student’s “extreme exam anxiety,” which was considered a disability. A Winnipeg court found that Lukács did not have standing to challenge the Dean.
On Campus blogger Todd Pettigrew said the decision threatens academic integrity in Canada.
Lukács was suspended in Oct. 2010 for allegedly breaching the privacy of the student in question. At the time, university president David Barnard accused him of “having engaged in a pattern of behaviour with regard to [the] student which the university considers to be harassment.”
Success, one student at a time
How universities are embracing the Aboriginal baby boom
Students at Lakehead University. By Andrew Tolson.
From the Maclean’s University Rankings—on newsstands now. Story by Ken MacQueen.
It’s one of those small things that’s actually very big. The University of Manitoba has a policy on smudging: the Aboriginal tradition of burning sage, sweetgrass or cedar as a way of setting a positive tone and purifying the mind. Say a love affair goes sideways, or a professor is unimpressed with your political science presentation, or it’s autumn on the reserve and here you are in Winnipeg, lonely and blue; well, retreating to a quiet place to wash yourself in the smoke of a smudge is a way to turn the page, to gain strength and clarity. The policy on smudging and pipe ceremonies is the product of deep bureaucratic thought, legal consultation and many meetings, because, of course, there are no-smoking laws. So, it’s complicated.
University of Saskatchewan president defends endorsement
It’s not the first time a president has praised a politician
Photo by waferboard on Flickr
A University of Saskatchewan professor says President Peter MacKinnon’s endorsement of a Saskatchewan Party minister is unprecedented and constitutes an “abuse of power.”
MacKinnon is quoted in a brochure saying: “Rob Norris is the finest minister responsible for post-secondary education that I have been privileged to work with in my (13) years as (president).”
Len Findlay, Director of the Humanities Research Unit at the university, said presidents are required to stay neutral. “It’s a publicly funded institution and it’s a provincial responsibility,” Findlay told the StarPhoeix. “Provincial governments change and the interests of the institution and the public interest is best served by the university not being seen to align itself with one party…”
MacKinnon said there’s nothing wrong with the comment. He said that it’s important to be careful during election campaigns, but the comment was made in a speech before the writ was dropped.
But are such endorsements, even during elections, really unprecedented as Findlay suggests?
Here are some recent examples of how university and college presidents have praised political parties. You be the judge.
In March, University of Guelph President Alastair Summerlee endorsed federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s “Learning Passport,” calling it “absolutely amazing” and “a very, very positive contribution,” reported the Guelph Mercury.
In September, York University President Mamdouh Shoukri said in response to the Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal platform that: ”the goals of having the highest postsecondary attainment rate and most educated workforce in the world are the right ones.”
That same week, Sheldon Levy, President of Ryerson University, said that the Ontario Liberal’s platform included “the most progressive change in tuition policy I have seen in 40 years.”
And while their words came after the election in October, both University of Manitoba President David Barnard and Red River College President Stephanie Forsyth offered their gratitude to the NDP for promises of new funding that came in Manitoba’s Throne Speech, according to CKNW.
MacKinnon’s comments may be controversial, but such endorsements aren’t unprecedented.
To read more about what the Nov. 7 Saskatchewan election means for you, click here and here.
University of Manitoba apologizes for residential schools
Some are moved by the apology. Others ask questions.
The University of Manitoba’s President, David Barnard, has apologized for his institution’s indirect role in the residential schools that negatively impacted as many as 150,000 Aboriginal Canadians.
At a Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearing in Halifax, Barnard said that the U of M made a “grave mistake” by educating people who perpetuated the assimilation of Aboriginal Canadians.
The apology brought some Aboriginal Canadians in the audience on Thursday to tears. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo, welcomed the words.
But some public relations experts and Native leaders questioned the motivations for the apology, because the University of Manitoba had no direct involvement in the residential schools.
Barnard responded on Thursday. “The university and other organizations in Canada stood by while this was happening, and we didn’t speak out against it early enough,” he told the National Post.
But why not apologize to other groups harmed indirectly by the inaction of the University? “It’s clear that this has been a significant, damaging, traumatic experience for people that are served by the University of Manitoba. This is something that has deep meaning to people in Winnipeg and in Manitoba,” he told the National Post, adding that it may help “bring more people to university.”
The University of Manitoba is already one of Canada’s biggest centres for Native Studies and drew more than 1,900 self-declared Aboriginal students to campus this year—more than most other schools.
Of course, the U of M isn’t the only university that’s working to make universities work better for Aboriginal Canadians. Read Ken MacQueen’s feature article Success, one student at at time in the 2011 Maclean’s University Rankings issue to find out what universities from Victoria to Nipissing are doing to help Native Canadians succeed. Pick up your copy on newsstands today.
University of Manitoba asks: What should I say?
How to use terms like Native, Indigenous and Aboriginal
Photo by kwankwan on Flickr
After Deborah Young was appointed the Executive Lead, Aboriginal Achievement at the University of Manitoba in April, she quickly changed her title to Executive Lead, Indigenous Achievement.
That’s caused the school to explore in a podcast, “What do I say?” Local experts explain that there are important nuances in the terms we use to describe the decendents of those who lived in Canada first. Here are just a few of their ideas.
Young says that she chose the term Indigenous because it’s more uniting than Aboriginal. Indigenous is a term that crosses borders and recognizes a shared history. Indigenous is the word used by the United Nations. Aboriginal is not wrong. It’s simply an umbrella term used for First Nations, Metis and Inuit people in Canada. But, warns Young: “One of my pet peeves is that people don’t capitalize Aboriginal.”
Continue reading University of Manitoba asks: What should I say?
Prof. removed from U of M thesis committee
Student passed despite “fundamental errors” says prof.
Photo by Rhett Sutphin on Flickr
One month ago, professor Gábor Lukács failed to gain standing in his lawsuit that accused the University of Manitoba of violating its own standards by awarding a PhD to a student who hadn’t passed a required exam because of disability related to exam anxiety.
Now, another professor at the University of Manitoba says a student who didn’t adequately meet a requirement was awarded a graduate degree.
Education professor Rodney Clifton tells Maclean’s On Campus that he was pulled from a thesis committee by an Associate Dean two days before a student’s oral defence of what he calls a substandard Master’s thesis that required serious revisions.
Clifton had served since 2006 as a member of a four-person Master’s of Education examining committee. When a draft of the thesis in question came to him in the summer of 2010, Clifton found what he considered “fundamental errors in the analysis of the data” on which the thesis was based. He pointed these problems out to the committee, including the supervisor Robert Renaud.
Clifton says Renaud assured him that the errors could be corrected after the oral defence, itself a fairly common practice when the errors are minor. But Clifton insisted that the data problems were too big for a conditional approval, that an entirely different method of analysis was called for, and that if the thesis did proceed to the oral defence, there was a good chance that he would vote against passing it. Because the university’s policies require unanimous decisions, his objections meant the student would likely have failed.
Clifton was rebuffed when he asked via e-mail to meet with the entire committee to discuss delaying the defence in order to give the student a chance to fix the mistakes. Telephone calls and e-mails Maclean’s On Campus left for Robert Renaud were not returned. But one of the e-mails Clifton received from Renaud indicates that the men disagreed over whether the whole committee should meet to discuss the errors. As the thesis defence date approached, Renaud wrote that he was not about to “waste the time of the committee” just to hear Clifton “rant” about problems Clifton had already pointed out.
A few days before the defence was scheduled, Renaud restated his case for letting the defence go ahead, insisting that he did not want the committee members to lower their academic standards, but that if the concerns about the thesis would eventually be fixed, and given that the student was approaching the deadline, why would Clifton want to “make things unnecessarily difficult?”
When Clifton still objected, Renaud wrote to express his disappointment with his refusal to compromise and cooperate. A day later, he wrote again, indicating that Clifton’s “reactions will negatively affect [the student’s] progress,” and telling him that since he was “unwilling to change [his] perspective,” Renaud was removing Clifton from the committee. Clifton fired back that Renaud had no business removing him from the committee, but that he was willing to have the student proceed to the defence to see if he could be convinced that his objections were not insurmountable. “It still remains to be seen,” Clifton warned, “if the student passes the oral examination or not.”
Less than an hour later—and only two days before the student defended the thesis—Clifton received the e-mail from Associate Dean Zana Lutfiyya saying that since “the majority of committee members are prepared to allow the student to move to the oral defence… I am comfortable with the defense proceeding, and in the change of committee membership.” The thesis was approved.
When Clifton asked Lutfiyya if he could see the final version of the thesis, the copy she forwarded showed, according to Clifton, that the changes to the statistical analysis were never made.
Taking him off the committee, Clifton says, violated principles of academic accountability. Faculty members must be allowed to debate the merits of a thesis. If administrators can simply replace a faculty member who objects, then that accountability disappears, he argues. The whole point of the committee, he says, is that the decision is not left up to individual administrators or even individual faculty members. ”We don’t have external agencies coming in to adjudicate us,” Clifton points out. Professors are bound to ensure the integrity of the degrees their university grants, he says.
In his more than 30 years as an academic, Clifton has never seen a case like this, he says.
Maclean’s On Campus tried to contact Dr. Lutfiyya for comment, but received notifications that she would be away until mid-October. U of M Dean of Education Robert Macmillan, the academic head of the faculty, did respond by e-mail on the school’s behalf to say that while he could not comment on the specifics of this case since he was not Dean at the time the events occurred, he had “seen instances elsewhere when committee members, and even supervisors, have been changed as a result of conflicting views over a student’s work.” In cases that he was familiar with, he said, “the decisions have not been made lightly.”
Todd Pettigrew (PhD) is an Associate Professor of English at Cape Breton University.
Lukács decision a blow to academic integrity: Pettigrew
Professor protested PhD of student who failed exam
Photo courtesy of steakpinball on Flickr
Gábor Lukács’s case against the University of Manitoba has been dismissed. The mathematics professor took his school to court over the awarding of a PhD to a student who had failed a required exam. The court has ruled that Lukács does not have legal standing in the case.
The ruling, which suggests that professors have few options when it comes to challenging decisions made by deans, is a setback to those fighting for academic integrity in Canada.
Lukács made national news when he challenged the U of M for awarding a PhD to a student who had failed a comprehensive exam and, it later turned out, had not completed all the required coursework. Normally, such a student would have had to leave the program, but because the student later produced documentation related to “exam anxiety” the normal requirements for the degree were waived and the student graduated — despite the concerns that had been raised.
I have been critical of the university since the news of the case broke last year, and repeatedly found their arguments in their own defence to be unconvincing. More importantly, though, the Lukács case demonstrates the extent to which professors at Canadian universities are remarkably powerless to defend the academic principles we need them to defend.
In this case, the dean made a decision to award a degree to a student who, by all accounts, including those of the university’s own spokespeople and the judge in the court case, had not met the ordinary requirements set out in the university’s regulations. No one unfamiliar with the details of the situation could object that the university had gone too far, because they didn’t know the details. Anyone who did know what was going on couldn’t say anything about it because the university considers that a violation of the student’s right to privacy.
And if a morally courageous professor complains anyway, as Lukács did, the university can invoke its confidentiality policies and suspend him without pay, in essence imposing a massive fine. If he tries to fight in court, he’s told it’s none of his business. In short, if a professor believes a degree has been unjustly awarded, there’s not much he can do about it.
All of this matters immensely because if professors can’t fight for academic integrity when they disagree with a dean or other administrator, who’s left to do it? There are still some white hats in the stables of university leadership, to be sure, but administrators are increasingly corporate-style executives whose attention tends to focus more and more heavily on things like fiscal management and branding. Students, some of whom may care, come and go over just a few years and neither see the big problems nor have time to fight the big fights.
Professors, for the most part, still care deeply about profound intellectual values. They couldn’t have come this far if they didn’t. But when administrators make academic decisions despite the judgements of the scholars closest to students, and when they can hide behind confidentiality policies and legal maneuverings, the future of academic integrity in this country does not look bright.
Confucius Institutes break human rights rules
Profs working in Canada “must have no record of Falun Gong”
Photo courtesy of IvanWalsh.com on Flickr
A rule imposed by Confucius Institutes — an educational arm of the Chinese government that operates on at least eight Canadian campuses — breaks “all human rights codes in Canada,” human rights lawyer Clive Ansley told The Epoch Times.
The main CI website says that overseas volunteer Chinese teachers must have “no record of participation in Falun Gong,” a spiritual practice with roots in Buddhism and Taoism. China’s government vehemently opposes the practice and has arrested and killed many adherents, according to Amnesty International.
Barb Pollock, vice president of external relations at the University of Regina, told The Epoch Times that she did not know about the rule, but promised that her school’s agreements with China “have everything to do with academic freedom.” She also said that although teachers are selected by their Chinese partner, Hunan University, “what they teach [here] is our business.”
In June, the University of Manitoba rejected the idea of a Confucius Institute on campus. The University of British Columbia has also declined. But more than 320 exist worldwide, where they offer credit and non-credit courses in language and history.
China says that the funding of CIs—$150,000 initially and up to $200,000 per year after that— is meant to promote cultural understanding. But along with the money, schools have signed constitutions that say that “institute activities must … respect cultural customs, and shall not contravene concerning laws and regulations in Canada and China.”
Terry Russell, an Asian Studies professor at Manitoba, says that such rules compromise academic freedom, because academics are dissuaded from discussing Taiwan, Tibet, Falun Gong, or the Tiananmen Square massacre. That could result in an unrealistically positive view of China among the students who pass through the credit courses they offer in Canada, he says.
Talks end between Confucius Institutes and U Manitoba
Academics debate whether to accept Chinese cash
Photo courtesy of IvanWalsh.com on Flickr
When he first heard from a university administrator about a new Confucius Institute (CI) proposed at the University of Manitoba, Asian Studies professor Terry Russell asked for a meeting with the dean in charge. At that meeting, he asked her to carefully consider who was offering to pay for it. The money would come from the Hanban, an arm of the Chinese government that’s chaired by the minister of education. That’s the same government, as Russell put it, that jailed Nobel-prize winner Liu Xiaobo for 11 years, the same government who took the University of Calgary to task after it gave the Dalai Lama an honourary degree, and the same government that employs 50,000 citizens to scour the Internet in search of dissent. Russell says that Canadian universities shouldn’t take money from an education ministry that does such things.
Less than six months later, the university has announced that it will join a short-but-growing list of institutions that have decided against taking Chinese government money to set up CIs on campus. The university’s spokesman, John Danakas, says that “overtures were made” by Confucius Institutes earlier this year, but that “conversations have ended… for logistical reasons.” Pennsylvania State University, the University of British Columbia and the Republic of India, have also decided against CIs on campus.
But in the same month that Manitoba declined funding from China, the University of Regina and Brock University both inaugurated their new Confucius Institutes, bringing the total number at Canadian post-secondary schools to eight. More than 320 exist worldwide. China says that the funding of CIs—$150,000 initially and up to $200,000 per year after that— is meant to promote cultural understanding. But along with the money, schools, including Brock, have signed constitutions that says that “institute activities must … respect cultural customs, and shall not contravene concerning laws and regulations in Canada and China.”
Quite what that means is open to interpretation.
Russell says that means employees will feel dissuaded from mentioning Taiwan, Tibet independence, Falun Gong, or the Tiananmen Square massacre. If that’s true, the result could be an unrealistically positive view of China among the students who pass through the free language and history courses that they offer on Canadian campuses. He goes even further than that. “They’re nothing more than a propaganda and public relations exercise within the legitimizing framework of a university,” he says.
Sheila Young, Director of Brock International, takes the opposite view of their new CI. There isn’t any propaganda, she argues, but instead a fantastic opportunity for academic exchange with the world’s next superpower. “We’re in complete control of the curriculum and always have been, always will be,” says Young. The Chinese government offered to provide textbooks to them during at the Confucius Institutes Conference that she and other administrators attended in Beijing in December, but Brock has not decided which materials it will use. “Nothing has been shipped to us, where they said, ‘here these are prescribed texts,’” says Young.
Young stresses that the CI will allow them to offer many more Mandarin courses than they would be able to otherwise, plus teacher-training certification and possibly Chinese history and political science courses in the future. “There are a lot of cutbacks in the economy we’re in now,” says Young. “So the idea of getting some funding to teach in an area that hasn’t been taught [in] before is appealing.”
UManitoba teaching assistants turn down new contract
Vote to authorize strike action
Members of CUPE Local 3909, the union representing teaching assistants, markers, tutors and student instructors at the University of Manitoba, decided to reject the university’s contract proposal and approve strike action in a vote held last Friday, reported the Winnipeg Free Press.
The university’s four year contract offer called for a two year wage freeze while the last two years of the contract included an annual 2.9 per cent wage increase. 97 per cent of the union’s members voted in favour of rejecting the deal.
John Danakas, director of public affairs at the U of M, explained that the offer is similar to what other bargaining units at the university have accepted from the administration.
However, CUPE Local 3909 president Matt McLean argued that some bargaining units on campus will be receiving a wage increase in the second year of their contract as well as increases to benefits.
“We will not accept an agreement which fails to address our basic needs of getting paid for all the work we do, job security, guaranteed hours, and salary increases,” McLean said in a statement.
McLean explained that members typically work 60 to 80 hours each semester and make an average of $3000 for the academic year, according to the Free Press.
Getting ready for the MCAT
The most important test I’ll ever write?
Even though it’s been more than a week since my last exam, I can’t relax and fully embrace summer vacation. Some of my marks haven’t been posted yet, but that’s not the problem. And I’m pretty sure that I’m not suffering from Post-Exam Stress Disorder, which is usually caused by physics or chemistry exams (I only had biology courses this semester). The reason I can’t relax is because I’m now studying for one of the most important tests that I’ve ever written: the MCAT.
For most schools across Canada, a high GPA and solid extracurricular experience are usually given more weight than the MCAT. Some schools don’t even consider MCAT scores, such as the University of Ottawa and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. McMaster University only considers the Verbal Reasoning portion of the test, and although the University of Toronto requires applicants to write the MCAT, their score isn’t included in the overall academic calculation. Instead, it’s just used as a “flag” during the admissions process, with less than minimum marks possibly disqualifying the application.
When it comes to medical school admissions, an applicant’s MCAT score isn’t a universally-important deciding factor. But it’s still going to be one of the most important tests I’ve ever written.
For one thing, the MCAT is much more important to med schools in the States and abroad. And even if some schools don’t consider the MCAT in their admissions process (or they only use cut-off scores), it’s still important for many Canadian schools, such as the University of Western Ontario. This is especially true outside of Ontario- the University of British Columbia, the University of Calgary, and the University of Manitoba all consider MCAT scores, just to name a few.
So unlike my last summer vacation, the next couple of months won’t just be a combination of part time jobs and relaxing- I’ll also be preparing for the MCAT. And stressing out about the physical sciences section.
Manitoba may get new medical school
Provincial government funds study to explore developing Brandon medical education
The study will explore the option of developing a medical school in Brandon and potentially expanding a satellite program between the University of Manitoba and Brandon University. It will also look into enhancing existing medical education programs in Manitoba.
Brandon University president Deborah Poff will chair the study’s steering committee, with U of M dean of medicine Brian Postl serving as vice-chair. “This will be a comprehensive review that will include input from local communities, health professionals and other stakeholders and we anticipate completing the study as expeditiously as possible,” Poff said in a press release issued by the province.
UManitoba town hall wrought with tension
Meeting brings out tough questions on privatization, labour relations for university officials
I’ve covered dozens of events like this during my time at The Manitoban, and while they usually lead to some tough questions for the administration, this meeting felt particularly uncomfortable and seemed to reflect that there are more than just a few disgruntled individuals unhappy with how the U of M is being run.
First up was a question about a deal struck between Aramark and the university that will see the management of the U of M’s Caretaking Services department taken over by the company in June. The deal has stirred up a certain amount of controversy, as it has already lead to four assistant managers and one manager in the department losing their jobs. It also marks the second department in the university to be taken over by Aramark in a year, after the management of the university’s Special Functions department, now Conference and Catering Services, was handed over to the company last summer.
Frank Wright, chair of CUPE Local 3007, the union representing support staff at the university, asked about the job security for staff working in the department, and if CUPE could see a copy of the contract between Aramark and the U of M.
U of M vice president (administration) Debbie McCallum affirmed that staff in the department would not be affected by the deal. Though McCallum said the contract was not available for review, she said she would be happy to sit down with Wright to discuss the union’s concerns.
For the remainder of the meeting, administrators fielding questions seemed to dodge giving honest, clear-cut answers but promised that they would be willing to discuss any concerns presented after the town hall was over. For example, one student working for the university’s food services department, which is also operated by Aramark, asked about why students were paid less than their older, non-student coworkers but often expected to work harder. She was told by Barnard that the meeting was not an appropriate place to discuss the issue—but, she could take it up with McCallum at another time.
I realize that the meeting had a limited time frame, but it was disappointing to see the question brushed off so rapidly. Realistically, this is probably the only time the average student would have face-to-face time with McCallum or Barnard.
One issue that stirred up a heated debate between university officials and students was the party bus ban on campus. The university banned the buses in January, with a memo sent to student group leaders and local bars saying that the university was reviewing its alcohol policy, and the decision came “in light of recent incidents that have been the direct result of bus trips organized by local nightclubs.”
Residence student Zachary Leclerc argued that there was virtually no student consultation on the decision, and that the ban had made it extremely difficult to organize events for residence students this past semester.
McCallum stressed that the ban was over a safety issue, and that “most universities have banned party buses.”
“What’s safer,” having students drinking and driving or having them drink too much on a bus? Leclerc shot back, to which McCallum replied that it was “not our responsibility to provide buses so they can overdrink.”
Though the meeting was originally scheduled so that Barnard could give a presentation touting the university’s Outstanding Workplace Initiative, a project with the goal of making the university a better place to work, this was attacked as well. After a video was shown celebrating the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (MCHP), a pristine research centre located on the university’s downtown campus, chemistry professor Philip Hultin argued that it only demonstrated “everything that is wrong with the university.”
Hultin went on to explain that the video didn’t realistically portray what the university was actually like as a place of work and only highlighted the dichotomies between units on campus. I’d have to agree with him, since the MCHP looked like it was far from some of the leaky, decrepit buildings on the Fort Garry campus that most students and staff have to shuffle through.
I doubt that any of the problems brought up at the meeting will be solved, or even addressed, anytime soon, but it did feel good to see faculty, staff, and students alike raising their voices about them, rather than stew in the apathy that plagues the U of M campus all too often.
CFS-MB chair escapes impeachment
Motion alleges chairperson ‘failed to consult’ with executive members on her activities
For this week’s issue of The Manitoban, I reported on a motion that was brought forward to impeach Canadian Federation of Students-Manitoba chairperson Alanna Makinson by CFS-Manitoba Local 96, the University of Manitoba Graduate Students Association (UMGSA) at a Feb. 10 Special General Meeting.
The motion alleged Makinson “failed to consult with executive members with respect to her activities in relation to the operations of the Manitoba CFS,” according to a copy of the meeting’s agenda obtained by the Manitoban:
“The motion also claimed that Makinson had failed to communicate in the official languages of Canada, violating National CFS Bylaw 13; had not met with all member locals on their campuses, ‘which resulted in a lack of participations and disconnect between member locals within Manitoba CFS’; and that issues of communication, meeting timelines and deliverables, and violations of the bylaws ‘were brought forward to the attention of the chairperson by phone, email and at provincial executive meetings without resolution’,” reported The Manitoban.
The motion was defeated, with only two of the five CFS Manitoba locals, UMGSA and Association etudiante du College universitaire de Saint-Boniface (AECUSB), supporting the motion.
Makinson told The Manitoban she was “taken aback” when she saw the motion, and felt that “there were many, many opportunities built in through our democratic structures, the provincial executive, to direct any concerns that they might have.”
UMGSA president Meaghan Labine explained that the motion was not meant to be “hostile”, but an attempt to resolve concerns she says UMGSA had brought up on numerous occasions, stressing that they were primarily concerned with holding provincial staff accountable.
“This isn’t a high school club. You have to treat people professionally and set clear mandates and communicate effectively [ . . . ]” said Labine,.
“We need to see results for our graduate students; there’s limited time, there’s limited resources, and you only get a year to be effective.”
A motion was also brought forward by the graduate students association for the creation of a development and review committee to examine the performance of provincial office staff and full-time chairperson, which was tabled for further review by the provincial executive committee.
While Makinson told The Manitoban that CFS Manitoba had no problem with conducting performance reviews, she felt “they definitely need to be done in a proper way.”
“We don’t want to create an attacking environment; we don’t want to create a hostile environment,” Makinson said.
There was no ‘muzzle order’ against Lukacs
Court reserves decision on whether lawsuit can be heard
On Thursday a judge appeared to have dismissed the notion that math professor Gabor Lukacs was suspended from work as punishment for suing his employer, the University of Manitoba, as has been suggested by both Lukacs and his supporters.
Lukacs filed a lawsuit against the U of M in the fall to reverse a decision, by Dean of Graduate Studies John Doering, to waive a comprehensive exam for a PhD student. The student, who had failed the exam twice and was asked to withdraw from the PhD program, is said to suffer from exam anxiety. Lukacs claims that Doering, as an administrator, has no authority to make academic decisions. Shortly after filing his court application, Lukacs received notice that he was being suspended for three months, a sanction that ended at the beginning of January.
The university has maintained that Lukacs was suspended for violating the student’s privacy, but suspicions immediately arose, mostly through dozens of online comments, but also in a petition from his students for him to be reinstated, and in official protests sent to university brass. A grievance filed by the faculty association argued that Lukacs was treated “unreasonably, unfairly and in a manner contrary to the collective agreement.” Surely, many observers argued, Lukacs was suspended for daring to challenge the administration.
But yesterday, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Deborah McCawley seems to have quashed that argument. Addressing Lukacs’ lawyer Robert Tapper, the judge said, “Your client was not ordered to desist discussion of academic integrity. It’s not right to say it’s effectively a muzzle order.” On that particular point, the judge was siding with U of M counsel, Jamie Kagan, who had argued “When you disobey your employer, there is going to be a consequence, and Dr. Lukacs felt that consequence.”
When Lukacs first filed his court application, the student was identified by name. The name was later redacted, and replaced with the initials AZ, after a publication ban was ordered.
Despite arguments surrounding whether or not Lukacs was legitimately suspended, Thursday’s hearing, the Winnipeg Free Press reports, was dedicated to the question of standing. Kagan argued that Lukacs, who didn’t teach the student, and was not on the math department’s Graduate Studies Committee until after the exam was waived, was not individually harmed. “His rights are not affected. He has no skin in the game,” Kagan said.
Tapper countered that Lukacs, as a member of the math department, has a direct interest in the case because if the university comes to be seen as a “diploma mill” his own reputation will be at stake. “The University of Manitoba has nothing to be proud of in this case,” Tapper said.
For now, McCawley is reserving her decision on whether Lukacs’ lawsuit will even be heard. But even if the court rules that Lukacs has no standing, the university will still likely find it difficult to claim anything but a narrow legal victory. In November U of M faculty rejected a senate motion that would have recognized “that the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies has jurisdiction to waive academic requirements.”
Even when the story is no longer of interest to media types, grudges within universities can be held for years, and often decades.
Lukacs is a ‘busybody’
First reports of court case start rolling in
Preliminary reports on the court case between the University of Manitoba and Gabor Lukacs are starting to come in. The Canadian Press reports that the U of M’s lawyer, Jamie Kagan, argued that because the student has already received his degree that “There is no longer any framework for there to be a dispute.” Lukacs is asking the court to reverse a decision by the Dean of Graduate studies to waive an exam requirement for a PhD student. The student is said to suffer from exam anxiety.
As expected, Kagan argued the decision has not caused any direct harm to Lukacs and that he has no standing to argue the case. “His rights are not affected. He has no skin in the game,” Kagan said. Lukacs was also dismissed as a “busybody.”
The assistant math professor’s lawyer is addressing those arguments this afternoon and Justice Deborah McCawley is expected to reserve her decision.
For background on this story, please see our earlier coverage.
Lukacs court hearing today
UManitoba to defend waiving exam requirement for PhD student
The University of Manitoba and math professor Gabor Lukacs are in court this morning over the awarding of a PhD to a student who did not meet all the requirements. Lukacs filed a court application in the fall to reverse a decision, made by the Dean of Graduate Studies John Doering, to waive an exam requirement for the student. The student had failed the exam twice and under faculty rules, he was required to withdraw from the program. The student, whose name is protected by a publication ban, is said to suffer from exam anxiety.
In response, university president David Barnard sent a letter notifying Lukacs that he would be suspended for three months, on the grounds that he violated the student’s privacy. In court Lukacs is expected to argue that Doering, as an administrator, had no authority to waive the exam, particularly since it was against the wishes of the Graduate Studies Committee in the math department. The university for its part will likely argue that Lukacs has no standing, and that he cannot claim to have been harmed in any way by the decision.
UPDATE: This story has been updated here.
