Today at the Governing Council meeting at 4pm in the Simcoe Hall Governing Council Chambers, the last discussion of the restructuring of the Faculty of Forestry took place. Nicole Tratnik spoke on behalf of the Graduate students (speech attached below), Professor Sean Thomas also spoke on behalf of the Faculty members and Dermont O'Halloran spoke on behalf of the Undergraduate Student Union which supported our concerns. Jack Radecki, a forestry alumni and the former Executive Director of OUFC, submitted a letter about his views on the restructuring. The following comments and questions were raised: 1) There was praise about the administrative staff positions being retained. 2) There were concerns to the benefits to the Faculty of Forestry being moved to Daniels vs remaining a Faculty. There was an urge to meet the concerns of autonomy, and identity. 3) Concern was raised about the student consultation and if it was done in in a fair way 4) Why not promote the amalgamation of Forestry and Daniels and make an EDU simultaneously? 5) Concern was raised about the lack of institutional framework for forestry. If there was a delay, could an EDU be created? Could the academic board report on this next year? What are the problems in implementing an EDU? 6) Have professional faculty members from other faculties spoken up? 7) An understanding of the governance and how an EDU formed is needed. This cannot happen in parallel. Delaying this would hold up the process of making it an EDU, which takes a whole academic year to form. 8) Of the Faculty members that left, where there any substantive subfields represented? 9) is the primary motivation to save money? If so, how will the restructuring accomplish this? The responses to these questions and comments included: Undergraduate students are part of the Arts and Science Faculty, and there will be no changes to their programs. it was noted that the graduate department of Forestry will continue to exist as an independent 'graduate unit'. There can be many different graduate units in one department that reflect the different disciplines and fields. The policy on academic restructuring was followed very carefully and the consultation was done accordingly. To create a new academic unit requires an new academic plan to be made. The nature of this structure needs to be decided collegially. A note on the financial aspect - the Faculty of Forestry was not sustainable - there were not enough students, and the bulk of the funding was from the University fund. It was noted that there are forests sciences being studied at UTM, UTSC and EEB. A note from the Dean of Forestry - His focus was saving the programs and, in his opinion, this proposal was the best way to preserve the programs - which is what the majority of the concerns were focused around. Finally, a note from the incoming Dean of Arts and Sciences: The undergraduate consultation was held on a Wednesday for 2 hours, in which 2 students attended and emailed after the consultation to say that their concerns were met and they were in favour of the restructuring. The undergraduates in forestry total 122 students across 8 programs which is not stable with the current amount of faculty. The motion was carried without opposition and with 2 abstentions. Nicole's Speech Opener: My name is Nicole, I am the Forestry Graduate Students’ Association Chair. Over the past 6 months we have met with students, faculty and staff to discuss this proposal. I am here today to speak on behalf of the students. We believe that the proposed restructuring does not serve the University’s mission, and that the concerns of the students, faculty and alumni have not been met. Background: For those that don’t know the background, the history of this restructuring goes back over two decades when the Forestry’s undergraduate unit was suspended due to lack of interest. But today it is different – the success of our Professional Masters and research-based program shows much more interest and relevance of forestry, especially when climate-change is drastically changing our forests. U of T is one of 2 forestry research centers in Ontario, whose forest industry alone employs 44,000 people and is worth 13 billion dollars. Explanation: So how does the restructuring fail University’s mission? It fails to provide high quality research and education in forestry. Currently we are the oldest forestry faculty in Canada with an excellent track record of high-impact publication and a very successful professional program. We are concerned that the restructuring will turn this multi-faceted Faculty into only urban forestry and wood engineering sub-programs. The proposal fails the University’s mission to be a leading research university. The ‘academic rationale’ does not address the loss of forestry leadership – it only gives financial reasons. And there is no demonstration of how it would help financially if faculty, staff, and programs remain the same. Finally, despite the official documentation continuously stating this is a unanimous decision, the proposal wasn’t voted on by the Forestry Faculty Council, 3 of the 7 faculty members have left the Faculty, and student concerns have not been met. We have been told to wait until we move under Daniels before we smooth out the details but this is a strategy based on trust, and the mutual trust is not there. How would our negotiating position improve once we are just a set of programs in a Faculty that knows little about our field? Ask: What we are asking for are stronger institutional and financial safeguards before the restructuring to ensure forestry can flourish. These suggestions echo those made in the external review, by the Alumni, and in faculty member consultation. They are:
Forestry is unique. It is not just logging, it is the study of a system. To sum up: the proposal has thought a lot about boosting the University’s profile in wood design and urban forestry, which are currently getting a lot of policy attention and funding dollars. It has not thought at all about all the other areas of forestry that constitute the majority of our discipline such as sustainable forest management, Canadian trade, community development and indigenous forest management, to name a few. Why are we not trying to succeed in both?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Links & Important InfoGoverning Council Minutes
|
Forestry | Faculty of Forestry Restucturing |