When the University of Saskatchewan fired dean Robert Buckingham, a tenured professor, after he publicly criticized its budget plans, a firestorm erupted. Readers, print and digital, explore the limits of academic freedom
....................................................................................................................................................................
The controversy over the dismissal of dean Robert Buckingham at the University of Saskatchewan – the fallout from which has now resulted in the resignation of the university's provost and the dismissal of its president – is symptomatic of a new model of corporate governance in higher education in Canada and elsewhere. Many universities have unfortunately emulated some of the worst corporate practices, such as strong top-down central control, vacuous mission statements, enforcing the party line under threat of dismissal, and extravagant salaries and bonuses for senior administrators.
The irony is that the shift toward this model has occurred at the same time as a new generation of smart, innovative corporations – for example, in the technology sector – has flattened hierarchies, devolved central control and empowered their front-line workers, encouraging them to speak up and speak out: a more effective deliberative and democratic model, reminiscent of what higher education used to look like.
Pablo Policzer, associate professor, University of Calgary
.........
Re University Of Saskatchewan Terminates President After Fired Professor Controversy (May 22): The university needed to act fast but it sounds more like the president was a scapegoat for the initial firing. In any case, the university needed to work quickly to repair damage to the free speech issue. Let this be a lesson to management: Faculty do need to respond, as well as students, to such heavy-handed administrative behaviours.
Dave Korotkov, St. Thomas, N.B.
.........
The central issue in Robert Buckingham's case was not academic freedom but freedom of speech. In his letter, "Silence of the Deans," he voiced his concerns publicly regarding the future of his School of Public Health and the process of TransformUS at the University of Saskatchewan. For that he was fired and consequently lost his academic freedom as a tenured professor.
Vipen Sawhney, professor, University of Saskatchewan
.........
Does anyone else find it amusing that at a time when universities have become the bastions of shutting down free speech if it doesn't adhere to their view of what is politically correct – a trend supported by students, faculty and administration alike – those same groups suddenly are united in anger that one of their own had his voice stilled because his message offended someone?
Tom Curran, Ottawa
.........
Your editorial – Freedom? It's An Academic Argument (May 21) – is half right when it states that as dean, Robert Buckingham was a member of the "university managerial team" and should not have criticized that team's decision. This restructuring meant the academic unit he was hired to promote was being "eliminated" by being "submerged" under a different academic unit to save money. As a former department chair, department head and dean at four different universities (Western, Michigan, Illinois and Yale), I can truly identify with this type of situation. Prof. Buckingham was selected by a faculty committee composed of professors in the School of Public Health to lead and promote that unit. Then "university administration" decided to submerge the unit he was hired to promote.
What should he do? Was that decision arrived at democratically? What would his faculty members think and do if he did not speak up? Finally, what did he have to lose, being only weeks from retirement? Loyal to whom?
A hopeless dilemma!
Earle F. Zeigler, Richmond, B.C.
.........
I am very disturbed about the deans' being gagged. TransformUS was supposed to be a transparent process and if the deans were prohibited from airing their concerns, exactly what was the transparent part? This entire situation strikes me of strong-arming and bullying. What else is coming down the pipe that is hidden in those reports?
Antonia McKinnon, Saskatoon
.........
Having taught management and leadership skills for several years, one point I always tried to make is that when an employee is asked to follow directions from someone with the authority to give them, unless it is illegal, unsafe or unethical, it is his/her duty as an employee to follow those directions or be considered insubordinate.
Times have changed and although theories of leadership and management come and go, I believe this tenet still holds true.
It's obvious why Robert Buckingham is being lauded by other academics: It is their world that is being threatened and they have a vested interested in keeping the status quo.
Management had the right to expect Dr. Buckingham to follow directions, and the forever smiling, bow-tie wearing Dr. Buckingham should be dealt with as any other employee who chose to disregard their instructions.
J.L.K. Murray, Fredericton
.........
Freedom of speech – and damn the torpedoes – as exercised by individuals speaking out in good conscience about what they perceive as inappropriate is one of the great attributes of our society, one to which we should offer our continued support. Just ask Robert Buckingham, Edward Snowden – or even Prince Charles (Moscow Scolds Prince Charles For Hitler Comparison – May 23).
Gwyn Williams, Winnipeg
.........
Postsecondary institutions are powers unto themselves and they often lose sight of who is supplying their money (taxpayers largely) and that they owe a duty to the people supplying the money to spend it well and to be open about their actions.
Dave Cunningham, Calgary
.........
It is reassuring to see the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers trumpet the merits of academic freedom as he sees it: "No duty of loyalty, only a duty to speak openly, honestly, fearlessly and thoughtfully" (Courage To Speak – letter, May 22). Would he grant the same freedom to members of his union executive? Doubt it.
Ron Freedman, Toronto
................................................................................................................................................................................
ON REFLECTION Letters to the editor
GM Canada's responsibility
Re Defects Were A Surprise, GM Canada Says (May 23): If GM Canada is allowed to get off the hook with Transport Canada because the company says it didn't know of ignition switch failures in its automobiles, then any future business producing a dangerous product will certainly use the same defence.
Dammit, it's GM's responsibility to know of and repair product faults.
Alistair Thomson, Oshawa, Ont.
.........
About that parcel …
"If CSEC were opening letter mail, or tapping phones without a warrant, there would be hell to pay" (Web Of Deceit – letters, May 22).
The Canadian and American electronic intelligence agencies may not like to dirty their e-hands with actual paper, but there was no outcry when the U.S. Post Office confirmed it photographs every letter and package mailed in the U.S. – about 160 billion pieces in 2012.
Is the same happening here? Canada Post can't find my missing package; maybe CSEC can tell them where it is.
Tony Harminc, Toronto
.........
Election ghosts abound
There's no shortage of ghosts haunting Ontario voters as they search for a premier (The Two Ghosts Haunting Ontario Voters – May 22).
Ontario seems to have had a difficult time getting the leaders it deserves; alas there is not much coming over the horizon in yet another costly election. No leader has the courage to challenge the outmoded and unjustifiable folly of favouring one religion with its own publicly funded school system.
When Bill Davis granted full funding to Catholic schools, he did most Ontarians no favours.
Douglas MacLeod, London, Ont.
.........
Kids? It depends
Re Me, Be A Dad? No Thanks (Facts & Arguments, May 22): I don't know what my husband and I would do without our three lovely children and six grandchildren.
But we know several childless couples who could not or would not have children and they are blissfully happy. The fact they don't have children brings them together and they lead wonderful lives. Most have nephews and nieces and they treat them like their own children. Plus, there are few divorces among older childless couples we know.
Gloria Boyd, Toronto