Return to home page
Questioning
Principal Heather Munroe-Blum’s paradoxical policies
…at the following Town Hall meetings:
1. This is a transcript of
Mr.Poplawski’s elaborate question addressed to the Principal in front of about 100
students, faculty and staff members –
I think that my question will add a little humor to this
Town Hall meeting today, which I can see going to be serious judged by the
questions submitted by our students.
So, my
question concerns the recent hiring of many new Vice-Principals at McGill.
This situation mobilized me to plot a diagram showing a
total number of such nominations over time from 2003 until present with 3
months time steps.
The
curve plotted reveals a rapid increase in the number of nominations.
I used a
special statistical computer program to predict the future growth. The results are incredible.
The predicted parabolic growth of the nominations means
that in a few years, everybody at McGill will have a chance to become your
Vice-Principal.
At first it sounds unrealistic, but after some reflections,
now I can visualize your revolutionary plan for McGill. It is about creating one big family of equal
VPs under your supervision where everybody will have their own unique place and
will closely cooperate with the others.
In this light, I also see a chance for
myself, and my question is: Which individual characteristics are you looking
for first when screening candidates for VP positions? And what do the hired VPs have to avoid if they
don’t want to be fired, as I also plotted a curve for these developments and I
got similar results?
Debate?
It seems that the Principal humbly agreed with my “calculations” and
the conclusions that were warmly received by the audience. She didn’t question this part. Her attention was focused on my last remark
concerning a large number VPs who have already been fired. She used an argument that the two infinitely
growing curves (for the hiring and the firing of VPs) cancel each other
out. I agreed with her immediately as I
wanted her to address my main points placed behind this "calculation"
or rather a humorous platform for elaborating many absurd aspects of her
policies – draining our budgets and diluting responsibilities at the top levels
with chaotically recruited executives who cause never ending turbulence. She only said that in the times of Principal
Johnson (15 years ago) there was a similar number of senior managers as now
while the McGill community became larger, and consist of roughly 40 000
individuals. I remember that there were
only three Vice Principals at that time, but she didn’t appreciate my immediate
reply. Instead of providing
clarification for the above subject the next speaker was quickly addressed.
General remarks
There is an intensifying impression that some people at the top are
mainly interested securing their hefty salaries and hiring substitutes in order
to work less and to travel more. Their expenses are continually growing which includes
financing their corporate expenses. So
far, we only see costly cosmetic surgeries, instead of treating the whole
organism. It is paid by the recently
increased governmental budgets for McGill that contrasts with the lean years of
drastic cuts a decade ago. The problem
is that not much extra money is saved to solve problems
of rapidly overcrowding classes, deteriorating services and aging
infrastructures.
The milking of the institution by some managers cultivating a
“corporative culture” from the start is relatively new to McGill. Of course, this parasitic approach cannot go
unnoticed in a school facing many troubles.
At certain points some problems become unbearable and cause open
protests from students and academics (eg. food
service crisis, classroom size, libraries terror etc), but it still doesn’t
change the administrative approach of securing firstly better work conditions
for themselves. The numbers of newly
hired VPs are increasing similarly as do their appetites for fully staffed fancy
offices. Consistently, almost no money
is left for the real priorities.
These developments are quite classical in politics and the most common
strategy is creating special commissions or announcing wide consultations to
solve created problems. In this way the
administration pulls away attention from its own inability or unwillingness to
identify the source of problems and to present reasonable strategies of
improvements. So, instead of our debating about the real situation exposing
their shortcomings we hear constantly repeated mantra about McGill’s severe under-funding accompanied with happy
news about a creation of the Principal’s Task force on Student Life, the
Provost’s Whitepaper on Strengths and Aspirations, and the Campus Master
Plan. In fact all of them are truly
representing a facade for covering their very own “old sins” and for future
excuses. Arranging such campaigns costs
almost nothing, and it allows postponing much needed costly projects for
another couple of years. It also dilutes
responsibility for the damages already caused.
In this situation the Principal’s public requests for “a
New Quiet Revolution” meaning
cuts to Quebec’s social programs and taxes, and lifting the tuition freeze
don’t sound convincing when a “SILENCED ERROSION” of many important elements
and values is ignored.
Shall we keep on
allowing the captains to pump more hot air into some questionably maintained
balloons carrying us all?
-Slawomir Poplawski
This
is a brief transcript of Mr.Poplawski’s question addressed to the Principal in
front of about 200 students, faculty and staff members – Town Hall
meeting on
At this meeting, we discuss small
details that conceal the overall big picture of McGill. According to the official invitation for this meeting, our community has now
engaged “in an exchange of ideas and concerns about funding of the
University as meeting the needs of students within a research-intensive
university”. What worries me is the
fact that the administration labels McGill as a “research-intensive
university (RIU)”. This abbreviation
sounds great, but without a clear definition, many manipulative interpretations
and policies can be introduced. We have to recognize all the circumstances that
allow or push for this rather unusual transformation. This includes the identification
of the main driving forces for these changes in different faculties. Presently, it is silently assumed that
academics and students involved in, for example, art programs are similarly
enthusiastic about performing research work for Disney/
Can you [addressing the Principal] tell when this “baptism” took
place? In this unusual structure, it is
difficult to balance values. For
example, what is becoming more important for people inside it: securing funds
for research, environmental concerns or maintaining the top levels of teaching
students? What is your opinion?
Another debate?
Mrs. Blum didn’t provide any direct answers to my
questions. She only mentioned the
importance of such issues. This is
another example of her typical approach to “dangerous” questions. One student
magazine even labeled her as being plastic: “I find her cold, plastic, completely inaccessible and uninterested in
undergraduate students.” (Read the whole article at: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5721
).
I asked two people of what they thought about the meeting. According to
them, it was a waste of time.
Return to home page