Senate justified in hiring lawyer

The University will hire a lawyer who will be tasked with examining Queen’s policy on program suspension. The third-part input is being sought after a motion was passed at a Feb. 28 Senate meeting.

The initial decision to suspend admissions to Fine Art was made on Nov. 9, and was immediately met with student criticism. After receiving notice in an email, BFA students cited a lack of consultation as a major concern.

Those with a vested interest in the BFA program are entitled to another opinion and deserve to know where the law falls on the issue. While Queen’s legal counsel Diane Kelly was consulted for her opinion on the issue, it’s important that the lawyer be an independent operator, rather than a University employee.

Cutting a program necessitates giving input to those who are most invested in the decision — this includes students and faculty members.

It’s unlikely the lawyer who’s hired will suggest a reversal of the Nov. 9 decision, but another opinion could spur the creation of a University policy that better outlines program suspension processes.

A similar situation happened in 2009 when the University cut programs with 25 or fewer concentrators. A response came from the Queen’s University Faculty Association who asked lawyer and Queen’s professor David Mullan to investigate.

Mullan’s legal opinion was that there should be a consultative process between the Dean and Senate before a decision is made to cut or suspend a program. It’s an example of the differing opinions that exist when determining a program’s future.

Suspending the BFA program was a fiscal decision, one that the University had the right to make. The problem with administrators’ deliberation was that it didn’t include significant consultation with Senate. Mullan’s advice needs to be respected. This would mean that for a program to be suspended, a consultative, rather than a unilateral decision must be made.

At best the Senate decision to hire an independent legal opinion will force the University to be more collaborative.

As a private institution, the University has the right to govern itself as it wishes, but administrators have a responsibility to be transparent with students, who form the basis of its operations.

The effects of hiring a third-party lawyer remain to be seen, but hopefully it will mean that in the future programs can’t be cut without due consultation.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content