University Affairs Update: The Art History Issue
For those who had not heard, the Art History program has not been phased out.
At the Senate meeting on Wednesday April 14th, 2010 the motion to phase out the Art History program failed. The Faculty of Humanities then brought forth the motion to reconsider the phase out of Art History at the Wednesday May 12th 2010 meeting, which also failed. Any attempt to phase out the Art History program will not be able to occur until the fall and it is important to let you know what this means. At both of these meetings the issue of a lack of student involvement was mentioned, both in being informed of the process and also in having any say over it whatsoever.
The vote breakdown of the April 14th meeting was:
15 in favour
10 against
8 abstentions
Link for summary of April 14th Meeting.
In the senate abstentions count as No votes, and as a result the motion failed by a combined total of 15 Yes to 18 No. Following this vote, many believed that any attempt to close the program would not occur until the fall.
This was not the case, however, and the Faculty of Humanities brought forth the motion to close the program once again at the next senate meeting May 12th, 2010. The motion brought forth was a motion to reconsider and it required a 2/3rds in favour vote in order for the senate to actually even vote on closing the program of Art History.
The vote breakdown of the May 12th meeting was:
27 in favour of reconsideration
14 against reconsideration
2 abstentions
Link for summary of May 12th Meeting.
In order to reconsider the motion 30 votes in favour were required and once again the program of Art History narrowly escaped being closed.
At both of these meetings a lack of student consultation was alluded to, and the MSU explained that following the April 14th meeting the Faculty of Humanities had not consulted the MSU nor informed it of its decision to reconsider the motion to phase out the Art History program. Instead it was highlighted that the MSU learned of this through the Hamilton Spectator rather than being contacted by the Faculty itself.
So, what does this mean? Well, this means that communication will take on a bigger role in the event of a program closure, and that the MSU should ensure proper communication occurs. If I have learned anything from this experience (and I have been involved in this since February) it is that as an organization the MSU can affect decisions made by the university, but only if it is well planned and strategic. There is an opportunity here to ensure that students are involved in the decisions that directly affect them but as a body we must be coordinated and unified.
A quick correction:
The SRA members for Humanities did have communication with the Associate Dean of Humanities between the two votes. The SRA members learned of the reconsideration motion from the Faculty prior to the publication of the Hamilton Spectator article.
As for September, we’ll see what happens. The big question right now is what other departments will have to face cutbacks to course offering, CLAs, and sessionals to fund Art History. This is the question that needs to be addressed right now while also thinking about another motion to close the Art History program.
Hey Joey,
I agree that we will have to wait until September to see what happens. The financial situation of the university is a tremendous obstacle, I had heard at that senate meeting that McMaster currently possesses a $100 million deficit. This is certainly a harsh reality and as a result there may be difficult changes to our university.
I think from this experience I have witnessed just how complicated program closures are. There are a number of issues to consider with program closures such as financial viability, the impact the closure will have on the reputation of the university and the effect of the closure on alumni’s degree. These varying concerns make program closures incredibly difficult and that is why I have come to believe some form of a plan is necessary or else an organization like the MSU could run the risk of playing favourites.