Open Collections

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia] Feb 5, 1921

Item Metadata


JSON: senmin-1.0115896.json
JSON-LD: senmin-1.0115896-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): senmin-1.0115896-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: senmin-1.0115896-rdf.json
Turtle: senmin-1.0115896-turtle.txt
N-Triples: senmin-1.0115896-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: senmin-1.0115896-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Array (?0l)
Saturday, February 5th, 1921.
510 An adjourned special meeting of the Senate of the University
of British Columbia was held on Saturday, February 5th, 1921, at 4 p.m.,
in the Board Room at the University offices.
511 Present: The President in the Chair, Dean R. W. Brock, Dean
H. T. J. Coleman, Mr. W. Sadler, Mr. P. A. Boving, Mr. E. G. Matheson,
Dr. E. H. Archibald, Dr. T. Hw Boggs, Dr. H. Ashton, Mr. L. F. Robertson,
Mr. T. A. Brough, Judge F. W. Howay, Mr. G. E. Robinson, Mr. W. P. Argue,
Miss A. B. Jamieson, Mr. J. H. Sehkler, Principal W. H. Vance, Mr. J.
M. Turnbull.
512 The call for the adjourned meeting was presented as follows:
An adjourned special meeting of the Senate of The University
of British Columbia will be held in the Board Room of the University on Saturday, February 5th, 1921, at 4 p.m.
To continue the business in connection with, and arising
from, the Christmas examination results and the action taken
by Faculty in reference to certain students, as outlined in
the agenda of the special meeting of Senate of Wednesday,
February 2nd.
513 A letter from Mr. II. W. Baker, who appeared before Senate on
February 2nd, was read.
Mr. Argue)
Dr. Boggs) That it be filed.
514 The minutes of the special meeting of February 2nd, 1921,
were read for the information of Senate, but not for confirmation.
515 A report from Faculty, on Senate's request for a reconsideration of the appeal of students required to withdraw as a result of the
Christmas examinations, was submitted:-
In the matter of the reconsideration, at the request of the
Senate, of the question of the standing of those students who
failed at the mid-session examinations and were asked to withdraw
from the University, Faculty submits the following report:- (202)
The Faculty would, therefore, respectfully urge upon Senate:-
(1) That students dismissed in January 1921 be not readmitted.
(2) That Faculty, in reconsidering its action in asking
certain students to withdraw from the University under
the regulation of Senate, feels that, short of disregarding this regulation entirely, no more lenient
application than it has made, could possibly have been
(3) That while the shortness of time has not permitted the
fullest consideration of the question, from the facts
before us and our own experience, we feel that the
practice which prevails in the gre^t Universities of
Canada, and which has been followed here, is not an
unwise one.
(4) That we are of the opinion that the interests of the
University will be best safeguarded if Senate's direction in this regard stand as at present,and Faculty
be given the widest discretion in applying the regulation.
(5) That Faculty notices with regret and calls the attention
of Senate to the fact that reputable and influential
citizens so far forget the respect due to Senate in its
judicial capacity as to assume that the members are to
be influenced in the discharge of their duties by
considerations of what "a few determined men" may be
induced to undertake in the way of political propaganda
directed against the University.
Mr. Robinson)
Mr. Argue  ) That it be received and considered clause
by clause.
Mr. Robinson)
Dr. Ashton ) That clause 1 of the report be adopted.
In connection with this, Dr. Ashton presented a statement
of the reasons for Faculty's position, and the Secretary reported with
regard to the practice In other Canadian Universities in the matter
of withdrawal of studentsfln mid-session because of unsatisfactory
work.    The statement of Faculty's reasons for its position is as
follows:- (203)
(1) The argument was advanced before Senate that the practice
of dismissal at Christmas, prevalent in American Universities, was justified there by the fact that they did
not control Matriculation; that it was not justified here
because we do. It was pointed out in Faculty (a) That
there is more control of schools sending candidates to
the University In America than there is here, (b) That
we do not control Matriculation, but are only represented
on the Board of Examiners.
(2) The argument was advanced before Senate (a) That this
practice was an American one, (b) That students dismissed from this University were lost to the Province,
because they went, as a result, to American Universities.
The Faculty is unable to follow this argument.
(3) The practice is not merely an American one, it is
followed by the great Canadian Universities and more
leniently applied here than at McGill, as the following
telegrams will show:-
From Queen's University, Kingston -
"The Science Faculty at Queen's for years have
dropped at mid-session students who failed in
half their papers. This year about fifteen were
dropped. The Arts Faculty is beginning this
From the University of Toronto -
"Both University and Colleges have repeatedly
refused admission to unsatisfactory students on
January 1st, opening of Easter Term."
From McGill University -
"Yes, sent away this year nine out of one hundred
and fifty in Arts, seven out of eighty-three in
Commerce, twenty-six out of one hundred and ninety
in Applied Science. Not unusual in Law, Medicine,
and Dentistry and applies as a rule only to First
Year in other Faculties."
(4) The Faculty is not composed of men who are mere bookworms, but men who have themselves taken part in sports
and student activities - some of them have created
and are giving much of their time to the very clubs
that have been cited as of value. But these same men
are convinced that training comes, not from the abuse
of all these activities, but from careful combination
of study and student activities. This lesson should
be learned at once, for the University course is only
too short as it is. (203 a)
515a  Copy of telegrams sent, February 1st, 1921, to:-
James Brebner,
Toronto University,
W. E. McNeill,
Queen's University,
J. A. Nicholson,
McGill University,
"Does (Toronto,-Queen's,- McGill University) ever exclude
students at mid-session because of unsatisfactory record?
Reply collect.
S. W. Mathews ,
University of British Columbia."
(Inserted by order of Senate, February 16th, 1921.) (204)
(5) Many parents rely upon the Faculty to encourage their
sons and daughters to obtain a balanced education.
For this many of them are making great financial
sacrifices and would resent any attitude of the
Faculty that could be interpreted as permission to
waste half the first year.
(6) As the students dismissed had failed in at least three
out of five subjects, there can be no doubt that they
were wasting their time and that they would be quite
unlikely to profit by the second term's work. They
would also call for an undue proportion of the instructors* attention in the second term and this would be
unfair to the great majority of the students.
Principal Vance)
Mr. Senkler   ) That the discussion of this matter be
adjourned until the regular meeting of
Senate, which takes place on February
16th, 1921.
Xj ,£>• /^U_^^T   S&^A>-/rfadkZs
Chairman. / Secretary.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items