Senate Meeting Report, 2012-02-15

From: Marc Richard
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 10:15 AM
Cc: Marc Richard
Subject: Senate Meeting Report, 2012-02-15

Senate Meeting Report, 2012-02-15

Colleagues,

The following is a summary of the Senate meeting which took place on Wednesday, February 15, 2012.

The meeting began with Principal Munrow-Blum presenting a motion to authorize having the session transmitted by live feed to the auditorium of the Redpath Museum and, in view of recent events at McGill, to authorize restricting access to today's meeting to Senators and to a limited number of spectators, including a few representatives of the campus media. The motion was adopted.

Dean Manfredi read a resolution on the death of Professor Harry M. Bracken. Senate then adopted the minutes of the last meeting ( ), the report of the Steering Committee ( and the agenda (not yet posted, owing to several revisions made to the draft agenda which had been circulated prior to the meeting). Item 4 of the Steering report, dealing with the presence of a photographer from the Office of Public Affairs, was postponed. Further to item 6, Provost Masi announced that the review of faculty councils has started, and that the study will go on for the next month or so.

Principal Munroe-Blum opened her remarks from the Chair by paraphrasing Mark Twain to state that rumours of her resignation were greatly exaggerated; she will continue to serve until the end of her term. Concerning last week's occupation of the James Building, she stressed the need to discuss civility on campus and called for a broad commitment to civility and respect by members of the McGill community. The Principal stated that the occupation of private offices is not appropriate, not effective, and not the way in which differences of opinion on campus should be expressed. She referred to the Provisional Protocol Regarding Demonstrations, Protests, and Occupations on McGill University Campuses, which was distributed to the McGill community on February 12, and added that she wishes to see continued consultation and debate and exchange on the subject while still keeping the campus safe. Elements of the Protocol may be revised as a result of the Open Forum which Dean Manfredi will chair; the Principal encourages participation in this process.

Principal Munroe-Blum concluded her remarks by recapitulating the aims and methods of the Strategic Reframing Initiative, which is now in the implementation phase. It is expected that the SRI will generate a couple of millions of dollars in savings this year, and double-digit savings and revenue increases in later years.

In the discussion which followed, Senator Janda expressed the wish to see the Protocol Regarding Demonstrations come to Senate for discussion. Senator Clarke agreed that the events of last week showed the need for interim guidelines, but was worried that they might stifle debate. He was also concerned about the ambiguity of some of the provisions in the Protocol. The Principal responded that some parts of the Protocol are crystal clear, while other parts are open to interpretation and that their application will rely on the good judgment of smart people. Senator Barney commented that civility and respectful dialogue were laudable sentiments, but that we must bear the burden of their substance. He felt that it was a threat to constructive dialogue when such dialogue happens but does not lead to any results.

In the period for formal questions, Senator Leung posed a question concerning the recognition of student referenda ( Deputy Provost Mendelson prefaced his response by outlining how memoranda of understanding (MOAs) are renewed every few years, and how referenda fit into this process. He stated that CKUT and QPIRG had not cleared their referendum questions with his office prior to their release, as students groups are encouraged to do, and that the Administration considers these questions to be problematic. Regarding the first part of Senator Leung's question, Professor Mendelson indicated that it had been overtaken by events. Regarding the second part, he indicated that the Administration is not bound by the results of these referenda; this is not an indication of disrespect, but rather reflects the fact that referendum questions can be linguistically problematic, ambiguous, not implementable by the Administration, or that they might deal with issues over which the Administration has no jurisdiction. Commenting on the Deputy Provost's answer, Senator Barney characterized as a red herring the assertion that the referendum questions were problematic; the real issue in his view was the Administration's desire to maintain the online opt-out system.

Vice-Principals Eidelman and Goldstein next addressed the subject of recent statements concerning asbestos research at McGill ( V.-P. Eidelman described the nature of the allegations and summarized the status of the actions which are currently being taken at McGill regarding these allegations. V.-P. Goldstein then outlined McGill's policies on research conduct.

Senators Janda and Zorychta presented a written motion calling upon University officials to issue a public statement clarifying McGill’s position on asbestos research, with this statement indicating that none of the research on asbestos at McGill refutes the international scientific consensus that chrysotile can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, and that McGill research does not document that chrysotile use is safe in other countries. V.-P. Eidelman indicated his support for the intent of the motion but expressed two concerns: first, that he has not personally reviewed every existing paper on the subject, and thus is not absolutely certain that none of the research on asbestos at McGill refutes its damaging effects; and second, that he is uncomfortable at the idea of an institution being asked to take a position on a social issue.

Dean Jutras shared Dr. Eidelman's concerns; he added that the opening section of the motion implies that McGill has a position on asbestos research, but that such a position may not actually exist. Senator Richard remarked that it was problematic to ask the Administration to make either political or scientific statements on this topic, since scientific issues need to be addressed via scientific arguments rather than political ones and since it is not the Administration's role to make scientific pronouncements. He said that the scientific arguments on this topic need to be made by the members of the McGill community who have suitable credentials in the appropriate fields. Senator Roulet noted that he did not know what the international scientific consensus on the subject was, which made the motion difficult to assess.

Senator Pekeles stated that Senate should not try to micromanage McGill's communications on this topic. Senator Janda argued that Senate needed to send a signal on this issue because McGill's good name was being used by various parties to justify activities which pose a public health risk. Senator Zorychta remarked that "University officials" was phrased broadly, as were other elements of the motion. V.-P. Eidelman acknowledged that the media has been having a field day with this topic, but added that he did not know how the issue could best be addressed without potentially making matters even worse. Senator Grütter worried that any statement issued by University officials would be seen as a public relations exercise, and suggested that it would be preferable for a scientific heavyweight to address the subject.

Dean Todd moved that the motion be tabled pending the outcome of the initiatives outlined in V.-P. Eidelman's February 9 message to the McGill community. During debate of the motion to table, Principal Munroe-Blum expressed her appreciation to Senators Janda and Zorychta for their motion but added that she considered "University officials" to mean McGill's executive officers; she felt that a statement from these officers would undermine academic freedom and would open McGill up to attacks from various lobbyists. Instead, she urged McGill experts to speak up on the subject. The motion to table was adopted.

As the next two orders of business, University Registrar Kathleen Massey presented the annual enrolment report ( and Director of Athletics Drew Love presented a report from Athletics and Recreation ( Deputy Provost Mendelson then presented the annual report on Student Life and Learning ( Professor Mendelson followed up his report by asking Senate for suggestions on how a student-centered approach to mentoring could be promoted across the University. Senators Paterson and Bin Shahid both spoke in favour of providing first-year students with more experienced peer advising. Senator Kuzaitis noted that there is a misunderstanding of how advising works at the University; McGill should better distinguish between departmental-level and faculty-level advising and should make it clear who should be seen under what circumstances. Senator Knight concurred with this point and suggested that the information be integrated into student orientation activities. Senator Sinacore drew attention to the particular challenges faced by foreign-born students, who may not be familiar with the details of the Canadian educational system.

V.-P. Weinstein gave a PowerPoint presentation (not yet posted) on Campaign McGill ( and

Senate approved the 435th report of the Academic Policy Committee ( and discussed the section dealing with the Revised Thesis Review Procedures. Senator Ismail asked who controlled the choice of which person would contact the external examiners. Provost Masi responded that the decision resided at the departmental level. Senate also approved two reports (one regular and one special) from Nominating Committee ( comprising both documents).

Provost Masi gave a PowerPoint presentation (not yet posted) on budget planning for 2012-2013 ( ). Owing to the fact that the Senate meeting had extended beyond its normal ending time, discussion of this agenda item was for the most part deferred until the next meeting. Also due to lack of time, the annual report for the Policy on Safe Disclosure ( was likewise postponed until March.

As its final item of business, Senate moved into closed session to consider the report of the Honorary Degrees and Convocations Committee.

The next Senate meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012. If you have any questions, please get in touch with us.

Regards,

Your librarian Senate reps,

Daniel Boyer

Joan Hobbins

Marc Richard