1
York University-CIGI Initiative: Presentation to SenatePatrick Monahan, Provost
March 22, 2012
2
Outline of Presentation
• Provide overview of agreement
• Identify major areas of concern that have been raised
• Discuss attempts to respond to concerns
• Propose development of an academic governance framework by APPRC to be voted on in Senate in April
• Hear from Senators
3
Overview
• A total of $60 million in funding to be provided over 10 years to fund 10 Chairs and 20 graduate students
• Ambition is to establish York University as world leader in international law
• Aligns with White Paper/UAP goals
• Funding to be provided by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo and the Government of Ontario
4
Overview
• CIGI is non-partisan, non-profit, independent centre of excellence in field of international governance
• From the outset CIGI has confirmed a commitment to the highest standards of academic excellence, respect for academic freedom, and a recognition that the university has final authority with respect to appointment of chairs and academic matters generally
5
Background
• Original CIGI agreement entered into in August 2011 envisaged all chairs being appointed as Osgoode faculty
• Initiative approved by Osgoode Faculty Council in November 2011 subject to finalizing an academic freedom protocol by January 2012 deadline
• Terms of the protocol were not finalized by deadline and approval lapsed
• University decided to proceed with a model that will permit other faculties to participate in the initiative, in addition to Osgoode
6
Overview
• University has attempted to respond to major concerns identified during Osgoode discussions
• negotiated and signed two Protocols (February 10 and March 9), intended to protect academic freedom and set out a process for allocating and recruiting chairs
• APPRC has reviewed these documents, discussed the initiative, and endorsed it unanimously
7
Major Areas of concern
• Influence over identification of research areas for chairs
• Role of CIGI in reviewing shortlists of candidates
• Academic freedom of Chairs following their appointment
• Control over curriculum, students, other academic matters
8
Identifying Research Areas for Chairs
• York Faculties will develop proposals for Chairs, including the title of the Chair, and the research area(s) for the Chairs
• Those proposals will be reviewed by a University committee on the basis of criteria set out by the Provost
• Proposals for chairs approved by a Steering Committee
• It is standard procedure for a donor to agree to the general research areas for a chair
9
Recruiting Chairs
• Chairs will be recruited by Faculties using normal collegial processes
• CIGI has no decision-making role regarding Chair recruitment
• Collegial University process will generate a shortlist of candidates
• No names can be added to a shortlist by anyone outside the Faculty
10
Recruiting Chairs
• The shortlist will be reviewed by the Steering Committee
• In the event that there is any difference of opinion within Steering Committee, shortlist will be referred to an independent committee of scholars at arms-length from CIGI & University
• View of independent committee of scholars will be binding on Steering Committee
• Independent peer review is standard within CRC, CERC and NSERC Industrial Research Chair program
11
Recruiting Chairs
• Once shortlist is settled, the University will recruit the Chair using normal collegial processes – CIGI has no involvement of any kind
12
Chairs’ Academic Freedom
• Chairs will hold a tenure-stream/tenured faculty appointment at the University, in addition to holding a CIGI Chair
• Will enjoy all academic freedoms and rights enjoyed by full-time faculty members at York
• The chair will be expected to undertake research in the area identified by the Faculty in original proposal
• This is the normal expectation for all Chairs at York, during the term they hold the Chair
13
Other academic matters
• Proposal does not involve any curriculum or program change
• Any proposals for curriculum change would follow normal Senate process
• Students will be enrolled in existing degree programs at York and subject to existing university policies applicable to graduate students
14
APPRC/Senate’s role
• Want to work with APPRC and Senate to clarify the basis upon which the initiative could proceed
• APPRC has agreed to develop an academic governance framework to clarify these academic freedom protections & provide for ongoing monitoring and oversight• Clarify expectations/understandings regarding research
areas, recruiting of chairs, academic freedom, & other academic matters
• Provide ongoing oversight by APPRC/Senate over implementation
15
Next steps
• Time is of the essence
• I will ask that the APPRC academic governance framework be submitted to Senate for endorsement in April
• Want to hear from Senators as to what form this academic governance framework should take and work collaboratively with colleagues
• Will not proceed without Senate endorsement of academic governance framework