The CAUT has no quibble with policies to improve participation rates in post-secondary education. Nor does the CAUT oppose new ways of organizing teaching and research in any field. We would not be opposed on principle to TechBC had the British Columbia government provided the new institution with the instruments of collegial self-government, with guarantees of academic freedom and tenure, and with an academic senate or equivalent. Indeed, we offered, many times, to discuss ways of attaining these objectives that would help the British Columbia government to get its way, and still respect the basic requirements of modern academic life in the developed world. Our offers were never taken up.

We suggested, for example, a phase-in period for TechBC. We had in mind something of the kind that worked during the foundation years of the University of Northern British Columbia. A "phase-in" would have permitted TechBC to begin operation, but would have meant that TechBC would not become a fully functional university until it had met all three of the basic requirements common to universities across Canada, and across the developed world.

The government of British Columbia was unwilling even to consider this option. The administration of TechBC has shown little interest in joining us to persuade the government to rescind the worst features of the TechBC legislation. It's ironic that a 21st-century institution is to be managed according to 19th-century industrial practice.

We do not question, and have never questioned the integrity of the people at TechBC. But we know very well the present cadre of managers will not always be in office. Bad governance structures at TechBC will live on. Dr. Fee does not seem to understand that management, however good it may be, can never replace collegial governance.

How bad are TechBC's structures?

The legislation says (sec.8.2.a) the board will "approve strategic program and research directions and policies, including instructional program and research priorities, program objectives and desirable learning outcomes." The president will carry out the board's wishes (sec. 10.1), and establish "educational and research plans" (sec. 10.2). I cannot agree, therefore, with Dr. Fee when she suggests we are wrong to say that "faculty members will have to go cap-in hand to the board of governors to receive approval for research projects." She need only read the legislation governing her own institution.

Dr. Fee rightly says that there is to be a "council." At TechBC, the president may consult with the council (sec. 10.2), and may even delegate "a power" to that council (sec. 10.5). On the other hand, he may not.

What a contrast with a true academic senate! A true senate does not depend on presidential largesse for its powers. Its discussions are driven by educational considerations. Its proceedings are open, and its debates are expected to balance professorial, public, and student interests. At SFU or at Dalhousie, a senate might decide to open or to close an academic program for good educational reasons. At TechBC, where there is no senate, the board and president will open and close programs of teaching and research, depending whether those programs, in the opinion of the board, achieve the goals and mandate of TechBC (economic development of British Columbia (sec.2.a)).

When a professor-senator makes her arguments in a true senate, she needn't look over her shoulder at the board and president. She can speak without fear or favour, from her understanding of the educational requirements of students, and from her grasp of the long-term educational interests of the whole public. She is fearless because she has the protection of academic freedom and tenure.

A true senate's openness and transparency, and its responsibility to the requirements of the academic disciplines, together make it accountable. Through the senate, a true senate, the entire university thus becomes accountable. At TechBC, by contrast, accountability might well mean obedience in a hierarchical structure.

This last problem is worsened at TechBC by the fact that a majority of its board are to be government appointees. It is this feature of TechBC's structure that leads me to claim that TechBC will be subject to political interference. Dr. Fee's reference to Section 48 of the BC University Act (which promises the government will keep its hands off universities) is thus not very reassuring. For this, and all the reasons I have laid out, I see no good grounds in Dr. Fee's remarks for backing down or backing off the CAUT Executive Committee resolution of last June.

William Bruneau, President, Canadian Association of University Teachers