DAN LEBLANC

Is the U of S due for a student protest like this one in Montreal?

Student opinions are integral to the changes in structure, budgetary issues and to the future of the University of Saskatchewan. However, it seems student voices often fall on the deaf ears of university administrators. This is particularly true for the continual changes occurring as a result of TransformUS.

The purpose of TransformUS is to prioritize programming in line with the university’s mission, which states: “The University of Saskatchewan belongs to the people of Saskatchewan.”

TransformUS and other operating budget adjustment initiatives are reallocating resources towards resource-generating priorities without facilitating an inclusive discussion on our collective priorities as an institution and as people of this province.

When the 2012 provincial budget was released, the U of S received a 2.1 percent increase in its operating grant. This was about three percent lower than the expected increase in the provincial grant, the university’s largest funding source. The U of S was told to expect similar funding increases in each of the next four provincial budgets.

In the 2013-14 budget, the government kept their promise to maintain an operating grant increase of 2.1 per cent for the U of S. As a result of this less-than-expected allocation trend, coupled with increasing operating budget expenditure projections, the U of S will allegedly have a $44.5 million operating deficit by 2016 — unless something changes.

The TransformUS initiative is made up of two task forces mandated to rank all academic and support service programs supported by the operating budget. Through this ranking process, programs will be placed into one of five quintiles that will largely determine whether the university administration will increase, maintain or reduce investment into these programs in future budgets. The TransformUS process began a January 2013 timeline with less than one year for completion.

Since the beginning of the operating budget adjustment initiative, students have raised critiques and concerns to university administration. The first battle was for student representation on the TransformUS task forces.

After the issue was brought forth at a packed university council meeting, the university administration consented to only one undergraduate and one graduate student on each task force. This under representation of a critical stakeholder in the TransformUS process — the numerically dominant group at this institution — is a major flaw within this initiative.

Many students are concerned with the model chosen as the template for TransformUS. The model forces the university to become a place of vocational training, focussed on profit.

Under this corporate educational model, programs not immediately and directly related to job preparation — most notably the humanities and arts disciplines — are devalued and de-funded. The task forces have argued that they have adapted the program prioritization model to meet the specific needs of the U of S.

Students are also concerned about the framing of this operating budget adjustment initiative as inevitable, while there is a lack of resolve in university leadership to tackle the root of the problem: too little government funding for post-secondary education.

University President Ilene Busch-Vishniac has traditionally responded to questions about the university’s efforts to secure sustainable government funding by stating that the U of S’s funding situation is quite good relative to our ‘comparator institutions’ across the country (other U15 schools such as the University of Alberta and the University of Manitoba).

However, the U of S has no true comparator institution for the purposes of funding allocation; the U of S is situated inside the only province with a ‘balanced budget’. This is a notable dissimilarity from the other U15 schools.

The U of S must be sustained with adequate public funds if it is to maintain independence and excellence, while creating an educated, engaged, democratic citizenry. Operating budget adjustment initiatives such as workforce planning (read: job and service cuts) and revenue generation and diversification (read: increasing corporate influence at the university) undoubtedly affect the quality of education, content of courses, direction of research, and overall freedom of this institution.

President Bush-Vishniac has thus far failed to advocate strongly for students and the people of Saskatchewan, she will have many more opportunities to deal with the provincial government on behalf of students and other stakeholders at the U of S. This situation can change if the powers that be change as well.

University administrators must provide more time for public inquiry and debate upstream of large decisions over priorities and process. There was little effort for alternative program prioritization methods, which is an indicator that due time was not given for a thorough exploration of options.

In future initiatives, we need to apply our local knowledge and develop our own organically and democratically created methodologies for critical prioritization processes.

When the U of S engages in strategic planning and priority setting, administrators must ensure a diversity of people and voices at the table. Those tasked with making these decisions need to reflect the diversity of the province if the University is to truly fulfill its mission to “belong to the people of Saskatchewan.”

Furthermore, it is unacceptable that the U of S is subject to  allegations of ‘perp walks’ for laid off employees.

It is understood that laid off employees have been walked to their cars without being able to return to their offices; the only way for former employees of the university to clean up their offices is by appointment.

Students at the U of S require assurance that inhumane practices are not occurring at our institution. Students do not support this treatment of committed staff at the U of S.

Lastly, Busch-Vishniac must be more bold and public with challenges to provincial funding allocations. She should trust the support behind her and use the power she has as the president of the U of S to advocate for increased government funding. This must be done publicly in order to cause the provincial government to pay a political cost for underfunding its dominant research institution and one of its greatest engines of economic growth.

When polite negotiations happen behind closed doors, the government does not have to worry about political fallout from its post-secondary funding decisions. Make it costly, madame president. Critique the approach to lobbying for funding of this institution and step up the pressure.

All healthy relationships are about respect, collaboration and compromise. Students at the U of S need to feel their education and their campus are being respected to the utmost extent. If administrators do not include students in important decisions, a mutual respect cannot be maintained.

This university belongs to the people of Saskatchewan. Let’s keep it that way.

Editor’s Note: This piece was written and signed by 30 students from 8 different colleges at the U of S.