...the assertion that CIGI, through the proposed agreement with York University, had any form of veto power over faculty selection or curriculum is wrong.So, I prompted Declan (the Communications Specialist) to prove it, particularly by posting the agreement to confirm the assertion - considering journalists, and the Canadian Association of University teachers claimed the exact opposite. Since there has been no reply, or posting, I found the donor agreement myself. It's conveniently posted on the CAUT website, here.
Time for some of my own independent confirmation.
It's worth noting, at first, that this proposed deal was even more dubious - in terms of funding - than the Carleton deal; within the Carleton deal, the Riddell foundation would provide funding ever year provided Carleton did what was agreed to. In this deal, CIGI would provide funding every quarter - so, four times a year. This would automatically give CIGI a greater hand as there would have been more instances to say "no" to the funding if CIGI didn't like the direction of York University. Otherwise, why not just give one giant lump, instead of 4 times a year for 10 years? Considering academic integrity doesn't require gradual, 4 times a year, incremental funding from a think-tank. I mean, if that's truly what CIGI wanted, why such an intentionally incremental funding scheme? Jeeze, even me the Preston Manning backed Clayton H. Riddell Carleton University deal wasn't that steep! Answer me that, Declan.
Now, let's look at section 3, which explains the powers of the Steering Committee. Specifically 3(iv). Section 3(iv) says the Steering Committee has to approve the annual budget for the program.
Let's think about what that means. Let's mull over the previous facts. CIGI, in the deal, would provide quarterly funding to York Unversity. CIGI would appoint 3 out of the 5 members of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee (with the majority of CIGI appointees) would approve the annual budget (largely paid for by CIGI). It's not difficult to reach the conclusion CIGI (or its appointees), in some way, shape or form would have in some way, shape, or form veto power over the budget. And by extension, what that budget goes to pay for. If I am not mistaken, that would include staff and administration of any curriculum.
So, to address the correction from Declan Kelly... tell me, how did CIGI, in this agreement lack "any form of veto power"?
Critics are confused on this point because of a failure to read the York-CIGI agreement(s) in their entirety – key sections are being omitted. The August 2011 agreement was only the first of three agreements, and the first was intended to help secure the provincial funding. As issues arose among York faculty with that agreement, CIGI agreed to sign two additional protocols written by York, amending the August 2011 agreement; those protocols were signed in February and March 2012, and made clear that all academic freedom issues and all hiring issues would be governed strictly by York’s existing policies. The hiring protocol made clear that any short list going to the steering committee of the law program could NOT be vetoed by that committee, but if any issues arose would be referred to an independent third party of scholars who would have the final decision. CIGI had no veto; at best, it had a right to express an opinion that could be entirely ignored. In summary, the three agreements must be read together – honesty and transparency in this debate requires nothing less. Pointing to one agreement and not the later agreements paints a false picture.
ReplyDeleteTo see all three of the agreements, visit this site: http://vpacademic.yorku.ca/announcements/
Also, for more on this issue and how CAUT is distorting the discussion, see this site: http://www.homerdixon.com/why-the-caut-is-wrong-about-cigi-and-the-balsillie-school/
Declan Kelly, CIGI
Declan, despite my fighting tone, I'm glad you replied civily. I looked through the protocols, and it certainly complicates things. The March protocol being the most thorough - I already looked through the February protocol, it was too vague to have any teeth when placed against the initial contract.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the March agreement. This certainly clarified a few things, and seemingly (and to some degree, perhaps, effectively) put greater control in the hands of the University. You're right to point out this needs to be looked with all three contracts in mind.
Yet, I maintain this post. Nothing in either of the latter protocols abolish or, as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong) derogate, from section 3(a) of the August contract - the Steering Committee had to approves the annual budget. CIGI would still appoints two (err three) of the members (out of five) as well, but indeed, they have to be approved by York, but that doesn't change the bottom line: CIGI is providing the funding, still appointing the members (with York's approval) and ultimately approving the budget. Indeed, this can be modified, but this is what would have been in effect, still.