Provost Masi’s letter in the last issue of the Tribune was a response to The Daily’s editorial “Demanding student voices at the top” (Oct. 29, 2012). The Daily editorial criticized the lack of student involvement in the selection of a new Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning).
Our administration can play politics with competing student papers, which can even be healthy, but shouldn’t do so without mentioning the source of the letter. The Provost used many big words about democracy in his ‘letter,’ but his submission is little more than a strong assault on those with differing opinions about the role and achievements of his Deputy Provost and the procedures currently in use to select his new successor.
The Daily piece noted, “the advisory committee is just that: advisory.” This summarizes the disappointment of fee-paying students who are not recognized as true partners with this educational institution.
Also troubling is the committee’s over-representation of McGill-elected working academics and staff members. It reminds me of the famous Communist public relations notion of “social consultations,” when party members (who represented five to 10 per cent of the total population) were asked at special meetings to approve some key decisions that the Politburo had already agreed upon. Nobody was allowed to criticize top policies that were then officially recognized as the ‘will of the majority.’
Manipulative methods used by power-hungry functionaries have analogous patterns—no matter if these techniques are applied in former Libya or Iraq, Communist Russia, or here today. We have learned by chance about the questionable McGill techniques disclosed by a former student leader, Andrew Doyle. In an online comment on the editorial in question, he revealed that all previously democratically-selected delegates of one such advisory committee “were made to sign confidentiality agreements several times, and the Provost stressed the secrecy of the process over and over again.” In his letter, Masi describes McGill as “a student-centred University that puts student considerations at the forefront” after quoting various Task Forces that supposedly solve the university’s problems. Those two quotes are quite consistent and reflect the true treatment of our community by McGill’s governing bodies.
Until today, we were uninformed about the ‘intimidation sessions’ that convert isolated representatives into puppets of the administration. It is deplorable that strongly-supported delegates of academics, staff members, and students were denied the right to oppose such questionable requirements of confidentiality.
Clearly, more transparency is needed in decisions concerning the selection or evaluation of administrative leaders. It is also depressing to hear that Doyle, instead of feeling humiliated by this experience, now advises new members of such committees: “Just try not to do any damage but make the most informed recommendations as possible.” This reaction resonates with my personal impression after dealing with colleagues afraid to utter even one sentence about their work on such a commission for fear of retribution.
Taking these events into perspective, we should not be astonished by the total silence of the latest committee mandated to search for a new principal, which was formed months ago. How can we be assured what documents, statements, or declarations they were expected to sign or not? It is clear, now they are scared and so remain quiet, that it will be more effective to ask previous members of such committees. This may work, as some of them are now retired. The first steps toward demanding more transparency and respect for democracy in our universities are the most important, and thus, the most difficult. However, change is never easy.
