The ConU Powder Keg
Concordia’s Governance Crisis Continues
Concordia’s top decision-making body, the Board of Governors, claims to have reformed itself by passing a set of bylaw changes. But does this mean Concordia University’s governance crisis is over?
Don’t bet on it.
The bylaw changes, put forward at the Sept. 28 BoG meeting, are a reaction to the widespread outrage from the Concordia community over the mysterious behind-the-scenes decisions taken by the corporate-dominated board that led to the premature departure of two university presidents and other high-ranking administrative personnel.
They are a reaction to popularly expressed outrage, but far from a response to it.
In a highly defensive reaction, Board Chair Peter Kruyt, a vice president of Power Corporation of Canada, is not only doggedly holding on to power, but also blocking access to voices of dissent, drastically reducing the proportion of undergraduate student representation in their new “streamlined” board.
Concordia’s governors seem to have taken a page from the Joseph Stalin School of Governance: when your hold on power appears endangered, tighten your grip and purge any threatening elements. Such reforms may make the Governors feel more secure, but they actually create an even bigger powder keg that is bound to explode sooner or later. If the BoG really wanted a happy ending, more substantial reforms would have been the order of the day.
This first set of bylaw changes has not bestowed the Senate with full authority over academic matters, as was recommended in the review process. For the moment, the BoG keeps its near-absolute power. How much power will ultimately be divested to the Senate if and when the BoG comes through on the next set of bylaw changes it has promised? Its actions to date do not provide much ground for optimism.
Giving Senate a real share of power could save the university much embarrassment.
If the Senate had had such authority in the wake of the 2002 Netanyahu protests, the Board of Governors could not have contemptuously overruled the Senate on its decision to revoke President Frederick Lowy’s academically-inappropriate decree banning all discussion about the Middle East on the university campus.
Similarly, the BoG could have worked to address the issue of Concordia’s “culture of contempt” by opting to retain the proportional representation of undergraduate students (or, better yet, increasing their proportional representation) on the new 25-member BoG with two or three representatives instead of one.
Ultimately, the generally very-well-to-do Governors do themselves no favours by further insulating themselves from the struggles faced by generally poor-and-debt-ridden students.
Students are one of the few constituents likely to inform Emperor Kruyt that he is naked. Other internal representatives—full-time and part-time faculty, for instance—have understandably been reluctant to speak against the corporate leadership that rules Concordia, since they depend on the university for their livelihoods.
Students, on the other hand, only depend on the university to provide them with an education. If access to that education is blocked, they are likely to make some noise.
With accessibility under threat and power firmly held in the iron grip of the privileged corporate class at the top, the BoG’s recent actions have struck a match and lit the fuse on the ConU powder keg, so don’t be surprised when things blow up again.
David Bernans studied translation at Concordia University and from 2005 to 2006 was the president of Concordia’s Graduate Students’ Association. He is currently a translator and writer based in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli.
