The plan puts forth several actions to be taken by the university to improve its academic profile and reputation including hiring ten new faculty members, increasing the library’s budget to expand its collection, and adding more internships and co-ops into the curriculum. Extra revenue from raised tuition will be used to fund the multi-million dollar plan.
“Students are not entirely happy with the plan,” said graduate student representative Holly Nazar to senate. According to Nazar, graduate students had a number of important points they submitted to the working committee but “none of them have found their way into the document.”
“Students were always front and center in everything we did,” said Olivier Dyen, a member of the academic planning committee. “It’s not that we created a plan and ignored the students.” He cited several aspects of the academic plan that would benefit students such as attracting better professors and ensuring that Concordia’s top researchers teach undergraduate students.
Responding to Dyen, CSU President Lex Gill said “The process was closer to lobbying which made people uncomfortable. Students were front and center but not at the table.”
Provost and VP of academic Affairs David Graham formally presented the plan at the Oct 26 CSU Council meeting. According to him, immediately after he left the meeting he was “aghast” to discover that CSU council had unanimously rejected it. He accused the CSU of pre-drafting their rejection before he presented at council. He blamed the CSU for "not acting in good faith." "It left me with a feeling that I had walked into an ambush," said Graham.
CSU VP Academic Hasan Cheikhzen refuted Graham’s accusation. He said that councilors had received the documents about the plan, but were not told how to vote before the meeting.
Heightening the stakes, Graham said: “If this academic plan passes today that would be the greatest day of my life."
He told CSU President Lex Gill that students have a right to be upset about not being directly involved in the working committee. “Your predecessors failed you, we reached out to them and got no response,” said Graham referring to the lack of involvement from last year’s CSU. Yet, he said it is too late now for students to be directly involved, as the plan is drafted and ready for implementation.
Undergraduate senator Chuck Wilson said he spent a great deal of time looking over the plan. According to him, it was not just the lack of student input in the academic plan, but that the plan’s “vague language” would lead to the university using the document to justify any of its actions and not only the ones outlined in the document.
Gill admitted that there were parts of the academic plan that she liked, but if given a few more months with student input it could be even better. “What’s the difference between an academic plan now and one in January?” asked Gill. “Waiting will only make it better.”
“John Lennon said that ‘Life is what happens when you are busy making plans,’” said Noel Burke, Dean of the School of Extended Learning and senate member. Delaying the implementation of the academic plan only delays having something to work with, he said. “There are unpredictable factors and it will change as we go whether we like it or not. If we delay [the plan] we will miss the window for the next academic year,” said Burke.
Due to impassioned statements in support of the plan from the working committee, GSA rep. Nazar proposed a secret ballot for the vote. In the end despite being closer than expected, the motion to implement the 2011-2016 academic plan passed with 26 in favour and 19 opposed.
Senate also decided to reject recommendations from the registrar and voted to move the start date of the winter semester from January 3rd to 4th to give students and faculty more time to return from holidays.