May Update 4: Exploring UCSA's position on the College of Arts cuts

Below is the reply of Warren Poh, UCSA president, to an inquiry from UC arts student Tanja Schwalm, concerning the association's position on the proposed cuts in the College of Arts.


Dear Tanja,

Please excuse me writing the answers to your questions in-text. As there are a number of different questions I feel that this would better suit me answering them.

To begin I would like to acknowledge the time and effort you have taken to pose these questions, and I will answer them honestly and openly.

I have spent a significant part of my time working on this topic, and trust that you will find my answers adequate.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cheers,

Warren Poh

---

See text for answers…

Dear Warren
10 April 2006

I had a look at the UCSA website information regarding the UCSA executive’s stance on the College of Arts staff cuts, and as our elected student representative, I would greatly appreciate your comments and clarification on some statements published there. On the 21 March, this item was posted:

“Last Wednesday (15/03/06) the UCSA Executive passed a motion opposing all staff cuts in the absence of an academic strategic plan for the College of Arts. This motion was passed at a special Exec meeting in preparation for the Academic Board meeting held on the same Wednesday.” (my emphasis)

However, more recently (4 April), two statements were added to the UCSA website that seem to suggest that the UCSA is not opposed to staff cuts per se. These are:

“There is only information on the EFTS profile of the departments/schools in the College of Arts that are facing redundancies. We are interested in looking at the EFTS profile in all College of Arts departments and schools.

This would assure the UCSA that all schools and departments are treated fairly and that only departments and schools with truly declining EFTS would be forced to make redundancies.” (my emphasis).

“The non-specific reference to American studies (an interdisciplinary subject), in particular, highlights the difficulty in identifying which area of the programme will have staff cuts. This is not acceptable to the UCSA Executive, as the direction and strategy of the staff cuts must be sound, and relate to the overall direction of
the University.” (my emphasis)

These last two statements seem to suggest a shift from the first statement. It appears as though, in principle, the UCSA executive supports the market-driven model by which senior management run this university, and is not completely opposed to the proposed staff cuts, but would like to see some modifications within the system, based on EFTS numbers. Please clarify if this is not so.

1. The UCSA Executive does not support a market-driven model for a University. However, the UCSA Executive does acknowledge that this is the current system that the Vice Chancellors of the New Zealand Universities are forced to work with. Thus we are pragmatic enough to believe that while our utopian ideal of
a University system will never be realised, we must find a way that is fair to operate within the current system. Therefore we would like to see some modifications to the way the cuts were proposed.

How do you explain the discrepancy between these statements?

2. See above.

Is the UCSA executive opposed to all proposed staff cuts in the College of Arts, or not?

3. See above.

Does the UCSA executive now support staff cuts in certain areas of the College of Arts, if these areas have fewer EFTS than other departments?

4. We do not support staff cuts, what we want to see is data that will treat all departments equally if the staff cuts are to be based on EFTS numbers.

Even in the continued “absence of an academic strategic plan”? How do you know that an academic strategic plan, if put in place, would not provide for low or currently declining EFTS areas to be preserved, at least for the foreseeable future?

5. The University Council are the governing body of the University of Canterbury. It is their direction and strategic alignment that the Vice Chancellor must follow. This direction is also supported by the Government. An academic strategic plan would suggest that the University Council has considered the impact of cutting or keeping areas of EFTS decline. It is assumed that such a strategic plan will have the good of the University at its hear[t].

The statement seems to suggest that, based purely on EFTS, the UCSA executive finds it reasonable to “force” these areas to cut staff. Do these comments imply that the UCSA would like to have a say in which positions are cut, rather than vehemently opposing all staff cuts in the College of Arts?

6. I do not believe that our statements suggest that we find it reasonable to cut staff. And obviously it is your reading of these statements that would take it that we have “implied” that we would like a say in which positions are cut. We do not vehemently oppose all staff cuts in the College of Arts. It would be irresponsible of us to take such a stance when we do not know the full story of the matters. What we have repeatedly said is that we would like more information to be given on the situation, and that we oppose the arbitrary reduction in staff. An academic plan would prevent this situation occurring.

Is there any room, in the opinion of the UCSA executive, for low EFTS areas of the College of Arts to be preserved on the basis of academic merit?

7. If low EFTS areas are able to prove their contribution to the University of Canterbury under the criteria that I suggested in CANTA, then I am sure that all students will support the existence of these areas for their academic merit.

And finally, is the UCSA executive taking into account student opinion opposed to all staff cuts in the College of Arts as expressed by a great number of signatures to two Save Our Staff initiated petitions? Are you representing these
students who signed?

8. As you must well know, as representatives of over 15,000 students, it is our job to present views, and voice opinions that the majority of these students want. This is not an easy task, and often political and representative leaders attempt to direct and lead their constituents into a way of thinking that they think is best. I believe that in such an issue, that there needs to be widespread questioning by the student body of the issue. Students need to be informed about the issues rather than to be instructed. This is not to say that we do not represent those students that signed, but rather we also represent those students that didn’t.

Furthermore, in my opinion, senior management has thus far failed to communicate any plausible explanation to students that justifies the staff cuts in the College of Arts. I note that the UCSA executive is organising a forum “for all UC students and the Vice Chancellor” which “will give a structured environment where UC students can ask the VC questions about the quality of our education and our University” (your column in CANTA, 5 April 2006).

However, you go on to say that “[t]he UCSA Executive . . . will be there asking questions on behalf of all students” (ibid.). Could you please clarify whether “all students” will be able to address the VC directly, openly, and spontaneously, with their own questions in this forum, or whether the UCSA executive will ask “on behalf of all students”, or both?

9. I’m sure that you can appreciate the lack of structure and constructive debate that a no-holds-barred question and answer section will create. My anticipated course of action would be to construct questions that a number of people agreed with first via the UCSA website, and then to pose these questions to the VC first.

Also, will a significant amount of time be allocated to student questions? (At the all staff forum, Roy Sharp, after giving his power point presentation, only allocated a very short period of time to questions from staff, which was extended only after considerable pressure from the audience. Clearly, 15 to 20 minutes would not be enough.)

10. Significant question will be given [sic], but only to questions that attempt to gather new information from the VC.

I also note that the VC has rejected a petition with a staggering 800 signatures collected in the space of only one hour (you have to admit, a stunning result for Canterbury University!), which called for media to be present at a forum open to all students (“‘Save Our Staff’ to hold further protest”, CANTA, 5 April 2006, p.12). Clearly, students desire media to be there. Will the forum the UCSA is convening to discuss “the quality of our education” be open to media? And if not, why not?

11. At present we are still working through the details of this forum. Please see CANTA for more details as they become available.

I would be grateful if you could clarify these points at your earliest convenience. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Tanja Schwalm