Editor,
The Equity Policy for Employees at the University of Victoria has been widely discussed on campus, appears to have broad support, and, quite properly, was sent by the Vice-President Academic and Provost in December, 1995 for information to the Human Rights Council of B.C. Attached to that Policy, however, was an appendix seeking the approval of the Council for an exemption under the Human Rights Act for limited or preference hiring; a copy of this latter document may be obtained from the Faculty Association office. There are several reasons for concern about this document, related to both internal and external processes, the content of the document itself, and the role of the Vice-President.
With respect to internal processes, the document on limited or preference hiring was sent without consultation with the Faculty Association, the Professional Staff Association, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, academic departments, faculties, Senate or the Board of Governors. The document emerged for the first time and was placed on the Faculty Association agenda only after the Human Rights Council sent it back for comment. With respect to external processes, sending the document without consultation flies in the face of the Human Rights Council Guidelines on union-management cooperation, consultation with designated groups, and communications and education.
With respect to content, the document is poorly written, uses terms without definition, and really amounts to a general license to discriminate in hiring on grounds other than merit as and when departments (or, presumably, senior administrators) see fit, without any clear justification, objectives, rules of evidence, procedures for implementation, or methodology of monitoring and evaluation. Again this flies in the face of the Council Guidelines on objective assessment and appropriate program design.
Faculty Association members had only a few days to consider the document before the February 7 meeting. Of those remaining at the end of the meeting, about two-thirds voted to approve the document in the face of strong concerns from the other third, and, further, voted down two other motions: to table the document for further consultation; and to mail the document for secret ballot by all members. In the light of these concerns, a petition is being circulated asking faculty to support broader consultation.
Faculty members must surely ask themselves how something like this could happen. It should be very clear that accountability for the contents of the document and for sending it without consultation lies squarely on the Vice-President Academic and Provost. To prepare and submit a document with such far-reaching consequences in a clandestine manner, without consultation, is the act of a knave or a fool. An honorable administrator, exposed in knavery or folly, would make his resignation effective immediately.
James Cutt
Professor
School of Public Administration
The Ring
University of Victoria
Public Relations and Information Services
or Return to UVICINFO