The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

UBC Publications

[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia] 1991-11-13

Item Metadata


JSON: senmin-1.0390105.json
JSON-LD: senmin-1.0390105-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): senmin-1.0390105-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: senmin-1.0390105-rdf.json
Turtle: senmin-1.0390105-turtle.txt
N-Triples: senmin-1.0390105-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: senmin-1.0390105-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Vancouver Senate Secretariat
Senate and Curriculum Services
Enrolment Services
2016-1874 East Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Present: President D. W. Strangway (Chairman), Chancellor L. R. Peterson, Vice-President D. R.
Birch, Mr. S. Alsgard, Mr. D. A. Anderson, Dr. A. P. Autor, Mr. J. A. Banfield, Miss K. Bentsen,
Dr. L. L. Bongie, Dr. M. A. Boyd, Dr. D. M. Brunette, Professor P. L. Bryden, Mr. R. Bush, Dr.
D. G. A. Carter, Dr. R. L. Chase, Dr. S. Cherry, Dr. T. S. Cook, Mr. N. A. Davidson, Dr. K.
Dawson, Dr. J. D. Dennison, Dr. G. W. Eaton, Dr. A. J. Elder, Ms. C. J. Forsythe, Mr. C. Fung,
Mr. E. B. Goehring, Dean J. R. Grace, Dr. S. E. Grace, Dr. R. D. Guy, Mr. M. L. Hanik, Rev. J.
Id, Dr. J. A. McLean, Dean J. H. McNeill, Mr.W. B. McNulty, Dean A. Meisen, Dr. A. G.
Mitchell, Ms. E. Onno, Dr. R J. Patrick, Ms. B. M. Peterson, Mrs. S. K. Prpic, Professor R. S.
Reid, Dr. P. Resnick, Mr. M. M. Ryan, Mr. A. J. Scow, Dean N. Sheehan, Dr. C. A. Thom, Dr.
W. Uegama, Dr. A. Van Seters, Dr. J. Vanderstoep, Dr. J. M. Varah, Mr. L. Waldman, Miss R.
Walia, Dr. D. A. Wehrung, Dr. R. M. Will, Dr. D. Ll. Williams, Ms. N. E. Woo, Dr. W. C.
Wright, Jr.. Ryan, Mr. A. J. Scow, Dean N. Sheehan, Dr. C. E. Slonecker, Dean C. L. Smith, Dr.
L. de Sobrino, Dr. L. J. Stan, Mr. G. A. Thom, Dr. W. Uegama, Dr. A. Van Seters, Dr. J.
Vanderstoep, Dr. J. M. Varah, Mr. L. Waldman, Miss R. Walia, Dr. D. A. Wehrung, Dr. R. M.
Will, Dr. D. Ll. Williams, Ms. N. E. Woo, Dr. W. C. Wright, Jr.
Regrets: Dean C. S. Binkley, Dean M. A. Goldberg, Dr. S. W. Hamilton, Dean B. C. McBride, Dr.
L. Paszner, Miss C. L. Rankel, Dean J. F. Richards, Dean P. B. Robertson, Dr. G. G. E. Scudder,
Miss S. Sterling, Mr. M. Sugimoto, Dr. R. C. Tees.
Call to Order
Minutes of the previous meeting
Professor Reid }        That the minutes of the second regular meeting
M    o of Senate for the Session 1991-92, having been
circulated, be taken as read and adopted.
 Vancouver Senate 10141
Minutes of November 13,1991
Business Arising from the Minutes
Business Arising from the Minutes
Dr. Autor referred to the problems concerning the Biomedical Research Centre, and
informed Senate that Dr. W. C. Gibson, former UBC professor and department head, had
told her that he had severed connections with UBC because of the way in which the
situation had been handled.
Chairman's Remarks and Related Questions
President Strangway stated that he had no remarks to make.
The Chairman read to Senate a letter from Mrs. Marion Gunning expressing thanks and
appreciation for the tribute paid to her late husband.
Dr. Grace l        That Senate express its thanks and
p.    ^r J        appreciation for the sensitivity and creativity
exercised by Dr. Dennison in preparing
memorial minutes.
Candidates for Degrees
Lists of candidates for degrees, as approved by the various Faculties and Schools, were
made available for inspection by Senate members prior to the meeting.
Dr. Sloneker l        That the candidates for degrees and diplomas,
Y)    v i }       as approved by the Faculties and Schools, be
granted the degree or diploma for which they
were recommended, and that the Registrar, in
consultation with the Deans and the Chairman
of Senate, make any necessary adjustments.
 Vancouver Senate 10142
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dean Marchak informed Senate that the the Faculty of Arts had voted to grant the
Bachelor of Arts degree to Joseph Kania. Mr. Kania obtained a B.Sc. degree in 1926 and
felt that he had also qualified for the B.A. degree. However, due to some controversy over
the fact that he had taken a German course instead of a French course, he was not
granted the degree at that time. Dean Marchak stated that Dr. Harry Warren had been in
the same position in 1926 but that having taken the French course he had been awarded
the B.A.
Dr. Sloneker l        That Joseph Kania be awarded the Bachelor of
Dr. Kelsey '       Arts deSree-
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Sobrino, Chair of the Committee, presented the report.
The Committee recommended that the submission of the Faculty of Arts, which includes
the following proposals, be approved in principle:
a) the replacement of English 100 by a set of 3 credit first year courses;
b) the introduction of an admission requirement for first year English courses based
on the Language Proficiency Index examination;
c) the introduction of a non-credit writing course under a new University Writing
Skills Centre; and
d) the discontinuance of the English Composition Test.
It was also noted in the report that the Committee expects to submit a final detailed
recommendation to Senate at the December meeting.
 Vancouver Senate 10143
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Sloneker l        That the proposals of the Faculty of Arts, as
Y)    v i J        outlined above, be approved in principle.
Dr. Sobrino explained that although the Committee supported the proposals in principle,
it did have the following concerns:
1. that the universality of the Language Proficiency Index (LPI) examination
may deter good students from coming to UBC;
2. there are a number of separate courses which may result in students from
different Faculties segregating themselves in the different courses;
3. that this could lead to the dilution of the quality of the courses due to larger
sections; and
4. that the LPI examination requirement may have implications for admission
to the University if every faculty requires that students take first year
Dean Marchak stated that one of the advantages of the LPI examination is that students
will take the test prior to entering the University rather than in the middle of a course, as
is the case at present with English 100 and the English Composition Test. Another
advantage is that students who have deficiencies will be able to get special tuition at the
proposed University Writing Skills Centre.
Dr. Rosengarten, Head of the Department of English, was invited to speak. He gave
Senate some background information on the proposed changes and also outlined some of
the reasons for the proposal.
Dr. Grace stated that the matter was urgent because of the crisis which had developed in
terms of being able to handle classes that have too many people who cannot function in
English, particularly ESL students. Consequently, the
 Vancouver Senate 10144
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Department of English was unable to give these students the instruction they need to carry
on with their university work.
As a member of the Senate Curriculum Committee Subcommittee examining the
proposals, Father Hanrahan stated that while the subcommittee had reservations about
the suitability of the LPI test for students wishing to transfer to UBC, it was even more
concerned that the implementation of this test might diminish the attractiveness of UBC in
the case of top students. He also noted that several Faculties had indicated that they
would direct their students to take English 112 Strategies for University Writing, which in
the subcommittee's opinion, would automatically lead to a process of segregation. Father
Hanrahan stated that although the subcommittee approved of the proposed changes,
concern had been expressed about the possible lack of control of the size of classes. The
subcommittee felt that over- populated classes could lead to a dilution of teaching
capabilities in first year English.
Dr. Birch i        That the words "in principle" be deleted from
r^       ^     r   / J        the motion.
Dean Marchak J
Dr. Birch stated that it was imperative that the proposals be approved as quickly as
possible to alleviate the unreasonable and unnecessary burden placed upon the
Department of English in administering the English Composition Test, and expressed his
concern that the Curriculum Committee had felt it necessary to delay this matter further.
 Vancouver Senate 10145
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Sobrino stated that at the request of the administration, the Committee had made
every effort to expedite this matter. However, in the time available the Committee had not
been able to satisfy itself of the academic soundness of all the details or to propose
specific amendments, and for this reason there was a complete consensus of the
Committee in recommending approval in principle only at this time.
Dr. Sobrino suggested that one of the reasons for the present disagreement was that the
Vice-President appeared to have a different view to his own about the role of the Senate
Curriculum Committee.
He did not think that the detailed work of the Committee could be carried out on the
floor of Senate. It was his understanding that the Senate Curriculum Committee had been
established by Senate to study proposals of the Faculties, decide to the best of its ability
on the academic soundness of the proposals and report accordingly to Senate, the body
that, according to the Act, has sole jurisdiction over the academic affairs of the University.
It was not enough, as the Vice- President appeared to imply, that ample consultation takes
place prior to proposals being submitted to the Committee. While such consultations are
helpful and welcomed by the Committee, ultimately the Committee has to make its own
decisions and, in order to do so, may find it necessary to undertake further consultations.
The proposal under discussion was dated October 3, 1991, which gave the Committee
only three weeks for its deliberations. The Committee required much
 Vancouver Senate 10146
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
more time to complete the consultations that it deems necessary in view of the wide
implications of the proposal both inside and outside the University.
In speaking against the amendment, Mr. Goehring stated that as the proposed changes
would affect every Faculty on campus, and many outside institutions, he thought it was
important that Senate have as much information as possible on the implications of these
Dr. Williams stated that he welcomed the proposals of the English Department and that
there was no question that the proposed changes represented the most important and far-
reaching change in curriculum for many years. Because of this he thought it important
that the proposals receive proper study, and that it was, in fact, the duty of the
Committee to thoroughly investigate all curriculum proposals presented to Senate for
Dr. Wehrung asked for assurance that students taking a pre-Commerce year in Arts
would be informed that English 112 would be a requirement for Commerce.
Dean Marchak stated that she was well aware that these changes would affect many
people throughout the University and appreciated that people had to be informed. This
was one of the reasons why the Faculty had hoped to get early approval of the changes as
there was much to be done in setting up the infrastructure.
Dr. Birch stated that there was a sense of urgency for a variety of reasons. He noted that
last spring a labour relations ruling affected the role of teaching
 Vancouver Senate 10147
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
assistants which compounded the demands on faculty members in English in trying to
deliver conscientiously the services that are required because of current degree
requirements within the University.
In speaking to the amendment Dr. Klawe stated that it was clear that the Curriculum
Committee supported the need for these changes, in principle, and it appeared that there
was widespread support across the University for the reasons behind the changes and
general agreement that it was a very sensible proposal for the replacement of the English
Composition Test and English 100. This, therefore, was not the issue. The issue was
whether or not the crisis involved in the current situation with English 100 meant that the
Curriculum Committee should be denied an additional month to study the proposal in
more detail. Unless there were reasons of which Senate was unaware, Dr. Klawe did not
see why the Curriculum Committee could not be given another month to submit its final
Dean Marchak responded that there was some urgency in that there was a need to put the
budget together for the Writing Skills Centre which was a major undertaking, and there
was also a need to begin the process of establishing the criteria for those who would be
teaching at the Centre. There was also the question of finalizing the details for the
administration of the LPI. However, the major reason for supporting the amendment was
that the proposed changes would obviously affect high schools and colleges and it was
therefore imperative that they be notified as quickly as possible.
 Vancouver Senate 10148
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Kelsey thought that most of the concerns of the Committee were of an administrative
nature and asked what more could be accomplished by waiting another month.
Dr. Sobrino responded that the Committee was not entirely satisfied with the answers
received in response to its concerns, but felt that through further discussions with the
Department of English those concerns could be clarified and a that a mutually satisfactory
conclusion could be reached. He added that until this evening the Committee had not
been informed of the reasons for the urgency in this matter.
Dr. Will stated referred to the question of universality of the LPI test. He stated that the
English Composition Test was a universal test that was applied to almost all student
pursuing a Bachelor's degree at UBC whether they took English 100 or not. He was not
convinced, however, that the LPI was an appropriate test other than for those students
going directly into English 100. He had no difficulty with the LPI as a placement test for
those going into first year English but other than that he had no knowledge of its
usefulness in comparison to the English Composition Test. He referred to other issues
raised, such as the number of Commerce students that would have to take English 112 as
well as the number of students from other Faculties that might be required to take this
course, and suggested that the English Department would be teaching more language and
less literature that it does at present. He stated that he would like to know what all the
Faculties were going to require of their students in this respect. He felt that Senate
 Vancouver Senate 10149
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
should know what will happen after the proposal has been adopted in terms of the
deployment of faculty, the type of faculty needed, and whether you can teach language, as
you can literature, in large classes. He stated that there were many questions that needed
answering before the proposal was approved.
Dean Sheehan spoke in support of the amendment and stated that the fact that the
proposal does affect all Faculties was a good reason to implement the proposal sooner
rather than later. She stated that many Faculties have requirements for six credits of
English 100 plus the ECT and that Faculties would have to decide how they were going to
handle the English requirement plus the LPI. She said that each Faculty might wish to do
this differently given the changes being proposed, and that they should be given as much
time as possible to make the necessary changes to their programs.
Dr. Elder stated that approval in principle would not prevent the process of consultation
within the University and would give the high schools and colleges an opportunity to let
the University know what ramifications the proposed changes might have for them.
The amendment
to delete from the
motion the words
"in principle"
was put and lost.
The motion was
put and carried.
Dr. Sobrino l        That the proposals of the Faculty of Arts be
p.     a J        implemented in September 1993.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Chancellor Peterson stated that he did not see how Senate could be asked to vote on a
recommendation to delay the implementation of the proposals before it had considered
the final detailed recommendation of the Committee.
Chancellor Peterson
Dr. Resnick
That the motion be tabled.
The Committee recommended approval of a change in credits form (2) to (3) for
Pathology 408.
Dr. Sobrino
Dr. McLean
That the course change proposed by the
Faculty of Medicine be approved.
Dr. Varah, Chair of the Committee, presented the Annual Report on Part- time Studies,
Distance Education, Continuing Education and Cultural Activities 1989-90. He stated
that the report had been prepared under the direction of the Associate Vice President
Academic but that in future it would be prepared by the Associate Vice President for
Continuing Studies, Dr. Walter Uegama.
Dr. Varah
Mr. Banfield
That the report be accepted.
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
In response to a query, Dr. Varah confirmed that in future Senate would receive reports
closer to the date which they covered.
Dr. Elder, Chair of the Committee, presented the report on changes to student
membership on Senate Committees. She explained that the students on the committees
listed below were unable to attend the meetings at the times scheduled, so they were being
replaced by students who would be able to attend the meetings of those committees.
Ms. J. Lahey —
replacing Mr. J. Jacob
Mr. O. C. W. Lau
Mrs. S. K. Prpic
—        replacing Mr. C. Fung
replacing Ms. J. Lahey
Ms. C. J. Forsythe
Mr. S. W. T. Mak
— replacing Mr. D. K. Leung
— replacing Mrs. S. K. Prpic
Mr. S. W. T. Mak
Dr. Elder
Mr. Hanik
—       replacing Ms. E. Onno
That the proposed changes be accepted.
 Vancouver Senate 10152
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Resnick, Chair of the Committee, presented the following report which had been
"On November 14, 1990, Senate voted to establish an Ad Hoc Committee with the
following mandate:
To consult faculty and students with regard to the existing Senate guidelines barring
student participation from department decision- making on appointments, promotion,
and tenure, and report back to Senate on whether changes may be required to these
The committee, following its initial meeting in January 1991, decided to seek information
from Deans, Department Heads, and Directors regarding current practices within their
units. A questionnaire was sent out eliciting responses from most of those canvassed.
Most of those responding stated that student opinions and teaching were given a fair
degree of weight in appointment, promotion, and tenure decisions, pursuant to the
provisions in the Faculty Handbook. Where student participation was concerned, there
was a significant difference in practice with respect to the following: decisions about new
positions to be advertised, student membership of Search Committees, and student
meetings with short-listed candidates. In all departments and units canvassed, students
are, in fact, barred from participation in guidelines adopted in January 1973. There are,
however, a number of departments and units in different faculties in which students have
come to play a role both in the choice of fields in which new appointments are to be made
and on Search Committees to short-list candidates for new appointments. It is also the
case that many units provide opportunities for short-listed candidates coming to the
university to meet with students, particularly graduate students, in the course of their
In addition to sending out this questionnaire, members of the Ad Hoc Committee set up
meetings with the Executives of the Faculty Association, the Alma Mater Society, and the
Graduate Student Society. We can summarize this input as follows.
The Executive of the Faculty Association was strongly opposed to any formal student
input into reappointment, promotion or tenure decisions in light of the Faculty Handbook
provisions which bar even junior faculty from such participation. There did seem,
however, to be some openness to a limited student role in the appointment process,
especially if it were graduate students who would be involved. Major concerns were
expressed about the importance of confidentiality being respected, were students to find
themselves in such decision-making roles, as this would involve access to confidential
The Executive members of the AMS with whom we met supported the principle of greater
student participation in all three of appointments, promotion and tenure, though
recognizing that this would be something of larger concern to graduate, rather than
undergraduate, students. There was considerable willingness to support
 Vancouver Senate 10153
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
the principle of student participation in decision re appointments, and a continuation of
the more indirect consultative process, ie. through student evaluations, where promotion
and tenure decisions were concerned.
The Executive of the Graduate Student Society were very strong supporters of student
participation in all three of appointment, promotion, and tenure. Members of the
Executive pointed to the experience of universities such as Western Ontario where
students have been involved in decision-making in all three areas, and argued strongly that
the quality of decision-making would be enhanced through student, especially graduate
student, participation. Such participation would highlight the importance of teaching
ability, and would ensure that new areas of interest within disciplines were given due
recognition. Membership in appointment, promotion, and tenure committees would also
provide invaluable experience to graduate students, many of whom hope to enter the
academic profession in due course. Although supporting student participation in all three
of appointment, promotion and tenure, the G.S.S. Executive was prepared to accept more
limited student participation e.g. in new appointments, if it proved too difficult to win
broad agreement for more extensive changes in the current guidelines. The G.S.S.
Executive also stressed the need for Senate to ensure that the existing Senate guidelines
regarding student participation were in fact respected by department heads. Too often
students found themselves excluded from participation on Committees where Senate has
said they have a right to participate.
Your committee also checked with faculty colleagues at other Canadian universities to get
a sense of what the role of students in appointments, promotion and tenure might be.
Most Canadian universities have practices similar to our own. Some universities, e.g.
Western Ontario and Carleton, do have student representatives involved in decisionmaking in all three areas. The same is true for certain departments at McGill, e.g.
Anthropology, but not for others. In a number of universities, students participate directly
in appointment decisions and Search Committees, e.g. Ottawa, York, Simon Fraser. At
Toronto, students do not participate in appointment, promotion and tenure decisions;
however, a motion is about to come before U of T's governing body to provide for student
participation in all administrative appointments from Chair to Dean.
Our committee, after carefully weighing the information we received and debating the
issues at some length, has decided to separate the issue of new appointments from that of
re-appointments, promotion and tenure.
Where new appointments are concerned, we would recommend that the Senate
regulations of January 17, 1973 be modified, and that Senate now allow for student
representation with full voting rights in Division, Schools, Departments and Faculties, and
on relevant search committees, in matters of new appointments. Student representatives
can bring a new perspective, particularly as regards teaching, to the appointment process.
We would recommend that student representatives who would be so involved be either
graduate or senior majors/honours students. In light of the language of the current faculty
Handbook, we would recommend that the University Administration seek to negotiate
with the Faculty Association any necessary change in wording to make it possible for
 Vancouver Senate 10154
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
students to participate alongside faculty members on Search Committees, and wherever
relevant, in appointment decisions as well.
Where re-appointments, promotion and tenure are concerned, some members of the
committee are firmly in favour of retaining the existing procedures. Others would prefer a
greater degree of student participation, if the current system of peer review could be
altered. It would simply not be feasible, however, for students to become members of
relevant re-appointment, promotion, or tenure committees, when a fair number of faculty
members are barred from such a role. If the Faculty Agreement eventually were to be
changed to provide for participation by faculty, regardless of rank, in re-appointment,
promotion and tenure decisions, then members of our committee who support more
extensive student participation would recommend to a future Senate that it look into these
areas anew.
The committee also recommends that student representation be permitted in all faculties,
as regards the appointment of heads of departments, division, or schools. These are
administrative positions in the university, and appointments to them should be treated in
the some way as the appointment of Deans and of the President. Students currently
participate in search committees for those positions.
In sum, we propose no changes to the current Senate regulations barring student
representation in matters of re-appointment, promotion and tenure. We would continue to
support an indirect, consultative role for students in these matters, through teaching
evaluations and the like. We do, however, recommend that student representatives be
permitted to participate with vote in departmental or faculty committees in matters of new
faculty appointments, and where administrative appointments within faculties are being
We, therefore move that Principle 3, adopted by Senate on January 17, 1973 (page 5753),
be modified to read:
Although student opinions shall be sought and wherever practicable in a formal way,
student representation shall not be permitted at Faculty meetings and/or Faculty
committees dealing with the following matters: budget, salaries and other financial
business; scholarships and other student awards; adjudication of marks and academic
standing, and re- appointments, tenure and promotion.
We further move that students, in particular graduate or senior majors/honours students,
be permitted to participate alongside faculty members on Search Committees, and
wherever relevant, in appointment decisions as well.
Finally, we move that students be permitted to participate in faculty or departmental
committees involved in the appointment of heads of departments, divisions, or schools.
We respectfully ask Senate to discharge the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Student
Participation in Questions of Appointment, Promotion and Tenure."
 Vancouver Senate 10155
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Resnick l        That the report be accepted.
Professor Bryden J
Dr. Resnick spoke briefly to the report, highlighting the various points, and agreed to a
suggestion that the motions be moved in reverse order.
Dr. Resnick l        That students be permitted to participate in
p.    tti J        faculty or departmental committees involved in
the appointment of heads of departments,
divisions or schools.
Dr. Resnick pointed out that students already participate in committees involved in
committees to select the President and Deans of Faculties, and also that this would not be
in conflict with the Faculty Handbook.
The motion was
put and carried.
Dr. Resnick l        That students, in particular graduate or senior
M    j J        majors/honours students, be permitted to
participate alongside faculty members on
search committees, and wherever relevant, in
appointment decisions as well.
Dr. Resnick explained that the reason the words "wherever relevant" had been included
in the motion was that there could be occasions where faculty were being recommended
for the position of professor or associate professor, in which case certain members of the
department would not be able to vote in that decision because of the rank, and in that
case it would seem, because of the Faculty Handbook, that students would not be able to
participate. The Committee thought it should be made clear that in an appointment
decision where it is an assistant professor rank, where all faculty members do participate,
students would be able to participate alongside faculty
 Vancouver Senate 10156
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
members, but where it is a higher rank then the Faculty Handbook regulations would
In response to a query, Dr. Resnick stated that in the case of the reappointment of an
assistant professor, others at the rank of assistant professor do not participate in the vote
as there is a different set of procedures when reappointments are considered than when
first appointments are considered. If it were a new appointment all existing faculty
members at that rank would participate.
Dr. Eaton pointed out that the question of reappointments had not been included in the
mandate of the Committee. Dr. Resnick responded that the Committee felt that
reappointments did fall within the broader sense of the word appointment, and that the
Committee was in fact suggesting to Senate the guidelines established many years ago be
revised to include reappointments where appropriate.
In response to further comments, Dr. Resnick stated that the words "... and wherever
relevant, in appointment decisions as well" had been included because the Committee had
recognized the fact that in certain cases there is a search committee alone, and in other
cases it is a combination of a search committee and the department that makes the
decision, and they felt that this caveat addressed both possibilities.
Professor Bryden pointed out that the motion states that students "be permitted ..." but
that there was no University obligation that they participate. That was a matter for
Faculties and departments to sort out. What was being removed was the present
University rule against their participation.
The motion was
put and carried.
 Vancouver Senate 10157
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Dr. Resnick l        Although student opinions shall be sought and
p.    r> J        wherever practicable in a formal way, student
representation shall not be permitted at Faculty
meetings and/or Faculty committees dealing
with the following matters: budget, salaries
and other financial business, scholarships and
other student awards; adjudication of marks
and academic standing, and reappointments,
tenure and promotion.
Dr. Resnick informed Senate that the only proposed change to the original motion passed
in 1973 was that the word "appointments" be replaced by the word "reappointments".
Mr. Goehring, representative of the graduate students, stated that as a student senator he
had served on the Senate Budget Committee and Student Appeals on Academic Standing
which dealt in some respects with the matters prohibited in the motion. It also appeared
that in some departments students do serve on similar committees. He felt that to say
there should be no student participation on any of these committees was a bit harsh.
In response, Dr. Resnick pointed out that the mandate of the Committee had been to
specifically look into the issue of student participation in matters of appointments,
promotion and tenure, therefore the other issues referred to had not been addressed by
the Committee.
Dean Meisen asked if there was a reason that only Faculty committees and not
departmental committees were referred to in the motion. Dr. Resnick stated that this was
simply a recapitulation of the 1973 motion which did not address departmental
 Vancouver Senate
Minutes of November 13,1991
Reports of Committees of Senate
Ms. Forsythe expressed concern at the level of consultation and pointed out that the
Executive of the AMS did not necessarily represent the views of the AMS itself. She stated
that the Executive did not make policy for the AMS as that this was the responsibility of
the AMS Council, and there had been no discussion of the proposal in Council. Ms.
Forsythe also referred to a statement in the report that student representatives could bring
a new perspective, particularly with regard to teaching and to the appointment process.
She asked if the same perspective did not also apply to tenure and promotion issues.
Dean Grace stated that the Faculty of Graduate Studies had student representation on the
Scholarship Committee and he felt that it was important to have student input into the
policies regarding scholarships, university graduate fellowships, etc.
Dean Grace
Mr. Waldman
That the motion be amended to read:
"... shall not normally be permitted at Faculty
meetings and/or Faculty committees ...".
Dr. Resnick pointed out that the real obstacle in the issue of promotion and tenure was
the wording of the Faculty Handbook. If this were to change where rank is of no
consideration in decisions on promotion and tenure, as is the case at some other
universities, then it would be fair to ask a committee of Senate to address this issue.
The motion was
put and carried.
 Vancouver Senate 10159
Minutes of November 13,1991
Proposal to establish the Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Research Centre
Proposal to establish the Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Research Centre
It was stated in the material circulated that the proposed centre would be based on the
very substantial expertise available within the Faculty of Commerce and Business
Administration and will provide for the participation of scholars with related expertise
from other faculties at UBC and elsewhere. The Deans of the faculties have been provided
with the proposal and members of their Faculties invited to comment and to participate as
Dr. Birch i        That the establishment of the Entrepreneurship
p.    tw i J        and Venture Capital Research Centre within
the Faculty of Commerce and Business
Administration be approved.
Proposal to establish a Chair in Women and the Law
Dean Smith i        That the Chair in Women and Law be
t>   { d    j J        approved.
Professor Bryden ' rr
It was stated in the material circulated that the establishment of a Chair in Women and
Law will reinforce and strengthen the existing expertise in the Faculty in the area of
feminist legal studies by expanding research and teaching in the area and by extending the
interdisciplinary focus of such scholarly work. The Chair will enhance legal education by
ensuring that graduates are equipped to assess the implications for women of legal
processes and doctrines. The Chair will play a key role in coordinating feminist studies in
the Faculty of Law's program of graduate studies, and work in conjunction with the
University's new centre for Research in Women's Studies and Gender Relations.
Dr. Cook noted that the Chair will be funded through donations and matching funds
from the Province of British Columbia, and asked if the funds had already been raised.
Dean Smith responded that the funds had not yet been raised.
 Vancouver Senate 10160
Minutes of November 13,1991
Report on the Status of UBC Degree Programs with the Colleges
In response to a further query, President Strangway stated that there had been a number
of similar proposals for which funds had be raised after approval by Senate.
The motion was
put and carried.
Report on the Status of UBC Degree Programs with the Colleges
Dr. Birch presented the following report which had been circulated for information:
"This is the third year of UBC's partnership with Okanagan and Cariboo University-
Colleges in offering third and fourth year courses in Arts and Science and the UBC
Elementary Teacher Education Program (Cariboo only).
All courses conform to UBC standards. Instructors have been interviewed by
representatives of the UBC departments and their credentials evaluated. All instructional
assignments have been approved by the relevant UBC departments and Office of the Dean.
Funding for UBC's participation in these joint ventures has been provided by the Province
of British Columbia. Under the Access program, Arts received $205,000; Science
$239,000, and Education $116,000 to defray the cost of liaison. In addition, the
University was provided $55,000 to cover expenses relating to the colleges incurred by the
Library and Registrar's Office. No UBC operating funds are being used to service our
Liaison coordinators for the Faculties are dealing with continuing development of the
programs at the university-colleges. Discussions were held about expectations for and
reporting of scholarly activity in the past year. UBC contributed medals for the top
graduates at last spring's convocation ceremonies, held at the university-colleges.
Recent visits suggest that things are going well, and morale among instructors and
students is high. First and Second Year enrolments are again up at both locations, which
may be a good indicator for next year's upper levels. Additions to the Library and Science
Building at Cariboo University-College are complete, as is the new Arts and Education
Building. Site clearance at the Okanagan University-College campus site is in progress and
construction is expected to begin soon.
The Arts programs have experienced significant increases in enrolment. Majors have been
approved in several fields at Okanagan and may soon be considered at Cariboo and in
addition, a number of interdisciplinary options are being developed. Much effort has been
dedicated to recruitment activities, monitoring courses and attempting to cultivate a
suitable academic environment.
The Faculty of Science is also experiencing enrolment increases at the university-colleges.
This year, major programs in Animal Biology, General Biology, Chemistry and
Mathematics are being offered. A proposal for a major program in
 Vancouver Senate 10161
Minutes of November 13,1991
Report on the Status of UBC Degree Programs with the Colleges
Freshwater Science is being considered and one in Resource Management is under
development. The popular lecture series initiated last year, under which nine or ten UBC
faculty members speak at each location on topics of general interest, is being continued to
heighten awareness of UBC's commitment to the programs and to foster collegial
relations. The Summer Science Fellowships, introduced in 1990 will be continued,
bringing five faculty members from each university-college to UBC for ten to twelve weeks
to engage in collaborative research.
The Faculty of Education continues to offer its Bachelor of Education (Elem.) at Cariboo
College. A UBC Coordinator is on-site and many of the instructors for the program are
seconded from local school districts.
Fraser Valley College has held preliminary discussions with UBC about entering a similar
arrangement which would commence in 1992. Should that come to fruition, we will
report on that partnership separately.
At this time, I would like to recognize the fine efforts of the Faculty Coordinators: Dr.
Ronald Shearer and Dr. Graeme Wynn of the Faculty of Arts, Dr. John Sams of the
Faculty of Science, and Dr. David Thomas of the Faculty of Education."
Dr. Birch noted that after the report had been prepared, he had been informed by Fraser
Valley College that Simon Fraser University had withdrawn a proposal for the
establishment of a third SFU campus in the Fraser Valley. Fraser Valley College had
therefore decided to collaborate with SFU in the provision of degree completion programs
in the valley.
In response to a query by Dr. Dennison, Dr. Birch stated that the agreements between the
University and the colleges were initially signed for a period of five to ten years. He stated
there was no basis on which to refine that estimate but the University was moving in the
direction of greater control by the colleges over their offerings. At the moment, however,
there was no mechanism in place at the colleges that would approximate the kind of
academic scrutiny given by the Senate Curriculum Committee and the Senate, and this
was an important issue if the colleges were to become autonomous degree granting
 Vancouver Senate 10162
Minutes of November 13,1991
Report on Enrolment 1991-92
Dr. Will noted that 340 Arts students and 79 Science students were enrolled in the college
programs and asked why the Faculty of Science had a larger liaison budget than the
Faculty of Arts. Dr. Birch responded that the Faculty of Science had been very heavily
involved in the development of laboratory courses which entail a whole series of
laboratory exercises and set-ups.
Report on Enrolment 1991-92
The report on enrolment for 1991-92 had been circulated for information.
Dr. Elder said she had been asked by a member of the Department of History why he had
over a dozen unclassified students in his third year history course taking seats that history
students might occupy. On checking through the enrolment figures Dr. Elder noted that
there was a whole new category category of persons under Graduate Studies listed as "no
administering Faculty". She stated that there were eight in that category last year and that
this year there were 49 students listed under the Master of Arts, and under Master of
Science last year there was one person and this year there were 52. She found it puzzling
that there were students who were not in any Faculty who were doing a Master of Arts
program. Dr. Elder then drew attention to the statistics on unclassified students, and
stated that large number of students in Third Year was probably accounted for by the
Ritsumeikan students. However, on further inspection it appeared that under the Visiting
category, which presumably meant students visiting as unclassified, the Ritsumeikan
students had been included again. Dr. Elder requested that the Registrar's Office be asked
for clarification as to what the figures mean.
Dr. Resnick stated that he also had concerns about the unclassified category, particularly
the Fifth Year. He stated that in many cases this represent students who are thinking of
applying to graduate programs, and that this puts a great deal of pressure in
 Vancouver Senate 10163
Minutes of November 13,1991
Academic Year 1992-93
certain departments on fourth year courses which are meant to be limited and seat a very
small number of students. He asked if there were any guidelines regarding enrolment in
Fifth Year. Dr. Elder responded that a department has the right to exclude any particular
category of student from any particular course the department wishes. In response to a
further query it was confirmed that any student with a degree would be given an
eligibility to register in Fifth Year but would not have access to the system until much
later than other students.
Dr. Will stated that it was the intention of the Senate Admissions Committee to try to get
a handle on what was happening with unclassified students. He said that the number had
increased greatly, and that as a result of Telereg unclassified students had easier access to
many of the restricted courses. This had resulted in majors students not getting into the
courses they preferred, and in some cases they had not been able to get into required
courses. The Committee was very concerned that students who are not on a degree
program are getting preference over students who are on a degree program.
Academic Year 1992-93
The proposed dates for the 1992-93 Academic Year had been circulated. Dr. Williams
expressed concern that the Christmas Examination period in 1992-93 was 13 days,
particularly since the University was introducing more and more one term courses where
examinations were final at Christmas. He stated that although it had been the intention of
the University to try as far as possible to equalize the December and April examination
periods, no progress had been made in this regard. He felt that the examination period for
December 1992 was totally inadequate and suggested that it be changed from December 8
to December 1. In response to a query by Dean Meisen, Dean Grace confirmed that the
date of June 1st as the last day for the Faculty of Graduate Studies to receive
 Vancouver Senate 10164
Minutes of November 13,1991
Report of the Tributes Committee (in camera)
recommendations from departments for overseas international students to be admitted in
September was one month earlier.
Dr. Sobrino l        That the proposed dates for the 1992-93
t^       ci    i l       Academic Year be included in the Calendar.
Dean Sheehan J
Ms. Lahey stated that in discussions with the Registrar about complaints from students
whose examinations were scheduled too close together, she had been informed that there
were already problems with booking rooms and the number of examinations to schedule.
Shortening the examination period would obviously create further problems.
Mr. Lau stated that because of the problems that had been raised, consideration of the
motion should be postponed until the next meeting.
Mr. Lau i        That the motion be tabled.
Ms. Lahey
Report of the Tributes Committee (in camera)
Dr. Dennison i        That Dr. Fritz Bowers to offered the status of
p.    o  i   • J        Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, December 11, 1991.


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