I have been doing some reflecting on the contradictory,
overlapping, and entwined roles that faculty end up in when we serve as an
elected governor.
As a faculty member I am afforded certain liberties by
virtue of academic freedom. I understand that this includes the ability to
criticize my employer, (the university and it’s officers) without risk of
sanction. I also understand that this includes the ability to conduct research,
to teach, to publish and to publicize my research and my opinion (here thinking
in the context of legal expert opinion) without harassment or interference from
the university writ large. Furthermore there is an expectation of protection
from publics wishing to harass one’s academic freedom. This is constrained by
the idea of it being limited to action within the law. At UBC a faculty member’s academic freedom is expressed as “the freedom, within the law, to pursue what seems to them as fruitful avenues of
inquiry, to teach and to learn unhindered by external or non-academic constraints,
and to engage in full and unrestricted consideration of
any opinion.”
In recent years the provincial government has enacted laws
regulating behaviour within the workplace that might be considered to, in some
ways, limit a faculty member’s exercise of academic freedom. There are
workplace regulations prohibiting bullying and harassment supported by
provincial legislation. There is a suite of human rights and labour laws that
structure what one (including one’s employer) can do in the workplace as it
relates to interactions with other people. UBC has also put in place a
respectful workplace environment policy that also acts to constrain academic
freedom. These constraints don’t limit the
scope of research or opinion. What they focus on is behaviour and the
proscription of forms of address that demean or belittle another person.
So that is simply in the domain of being a faculty member.
Some rights to research and publicize one’s research and related perspectives
plus a capacity to criticize one’s employer without worry of sanction.
As a member of the board of governors it would seem that a
new level of rules/legislation comes into play that in some cases might be said
to reasonably constrain a faculty member’s academic freedom. I am thinking about the intersection
of the university act (act in the best interest of the university") and how that is expressed locally via the code of
conduct. How does being a governor materially change my role, what additional
responsibilities and obligations and even constraints come to bear upon me?
Where is the line between my academic freedom rights as a faculty member and my
fiduciary duties as a governor?
For example, during the J. Furlong affair (2017) I was
publicly opposed to him speaking, was critical of the university’s action taken
first hosting him, then cancelling him, then waffling and hiring him back with
an apology to him. At the time I had been elected to the Board, but had
not been formally seated (my term began in March of that year). Taking a public
stand on an issue related to the university is kind of action that I would have
taken many times previously and have continued to do so since becoming a
governor. I engaged in several media interviews and posted comments about
the situation on social media. I also came to know (via a media FOI request)
that the administration had been recording and tracking my social media
statements as part of their background review of what to do about Furlong. I subsequently received a threatening letter from an anonymous person (after a news story that named me and my opposition to the talk). I reported the threat to the RCMP and the university. In
return I received a strong letter from the president’s office affirming my
right to express my views publicly and expressing empathy about the threat.
My point with this story is that as an individual faculty
member I criticized my employer, expressed those criticisms publicly, faced
personal threats, and received strong support from the university that I was
acting within my rights as a faculty member. I would add that my criticism
focussed on the university’s role in sponsoring a speaker that for some
survivors reinforced a traumatic experience. I made an effort to avoid any
personal comments about any of the university personnel or the speaker
regarding their character or personalities. I referenced the voice of
survivors or spoke to aspects of intergenerational trauma. I refused to castigate individuals.
I have continued to raise critical points about UBC while
serving on the board and consider it appropriate to do so. I sometimes get things wrong (which I correct
as soon as I realize it). Occasionally people
will express dislike with how I characterize particular statements or positions
(that’s part of the cost of public commentary). I try not to make comments on
the nature of a person. I focus instead on documented and observed actions about
which I will comment.
As a governor I gain access in a different way to
administrative leadership than I did as a frontline faculty member. It’s not
that we don’t send letters of request, complaint, or information to Deans, VPs,
the provost or the president. Many faculty do; I certainly did. But UBC’s
formal hierarchy is such that with normal functions we follow a line of authority –
first our Department Head, then the Dean- and move up levels of authority if
supported. But as a governor I am working with members of the university executive
in a way that I never would have had access to before.
Prior to being a governor I lobbied the Office of the
University Counsel regarding a clause in a UBC journal’s author agreement
regarding the retention of moral rights. I was critical of the agreement. This was a
communication and criticism that occurred in my role as a faculty member. The response that was returned (it
arrived some time after my complaint) was formal and specific. A modest
change did occur and that was the end of that. As a governor I have a fair bit more communication with members of the university leadership. It is reasonable to assume
that the only reason I have this kind of communication now is that I am a
governor. If, for example, I email the
provost today I presume he thinks it is from Charles the governor, not Charles
the faculty member
Being a governor places me into a materially different
relation to the operation of the university than I was in as an individual
faculty member. I have a duty, a legal obligation, to act “in the best
interests of the university.” This places
me in a position of casting votes and making decisions to effect the
university’s best interests. As such I
actually embody an aspect of the governing authority of the university. As an
individual I can remain critical, but as a governor I have an added obligation
to moderate and accommodate to the fact that what I say or do can have real, material
impacts beyond a minor change in an author’s agreement to publish. I can remain a critic but while a governor my
critic’s voice also carries traces of the structural power of decision-making.
If I am unable to acknowledge that then I cannot be an effective faculty
governor.
It is not really clear where the line between my rights as
an individual faculty member intersects with my obligations a university
governor. Over the years some faculty governors
(perhaps most) have taken a fairly conservative stance on that line and have
remained essentially silent during their term of office. They
keep their dissent (if they have any) out of the limelight. At other times
there are those who push the limits so far they render themselves ineffectual. Ideally we need to find the place wherein we
can work to effect within the current structures of power while also maintaining
(if we are so inclined) a principled voice of critique to deploy when and where
it is needed.
I won't claim to having found that magical spot, but it's where I'm heading.
No comments:
Post a Comment