Budget cuts
Dear Editors,
Re: “What Queen’s will have lost” (Sept. 11, 2009)
I’m writing to clarify some of the information in Professor Mark Jones’s article in the Sept 11. issue of the Journal. First, the decrease in courses offered by the English Department since the first round of budget cuts (implemented in 2008-09) is 5.5 rather than the 16.5 implied by Professor Jones’s figures. The larger drop from the average number of courses we offered between 2000 and 2007 (the figure cited in the article is 51) was caused primarily by the decrease in faculty teaching load (from 2.5 full year courses per year to 2.0), a change that was unanimously ratified by the department and took effect in 2007-08. This change in our workload standard corrected a long-standing disparity between Queen’s English and research-intensive, Ph.D-granting English departments across Canada and was approved, both by the department and the Faculty of Arts and Science, with complete assurance it wouldn’t compromise curricular integrity. It hasn’t done so. Although the number of courses we offered in the first year of the new workload standard declined from 52.5 (2006-07) to 40 (2007-08), students continued to have the full range of courses necessary to complete program requirements. In 2008-09, as a result of the five per cent budget cut in the Faculty of Arts and Science, the number of courses we offered dropped from 40 to 35.5. In the current year, we are offering 34.5 courses, a decrease that is also attributable to budget cuts. The roster of courses in both years has been designed with scrupulous attention to maintaining curricular integrity. Although students don’t always get their first choice, none have been unable to complete their program requirements.
Second, the change in content to English 110, is revenue neutral and will have no budgetary implications: We plan to offer the same number of sections with the same enrolment caps and number of teaching assistants as we have in the past two years.
Professor Marta Straznicky
English Department Head
Political Accountability
Dear Editors,
On Tuesday, Jack Layton visited Queen’s University for the second time in six months—but where are the Liberals and Conservatives? I’d really like to see Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff answer some of the questions Layton answered last night and be as accountable for their plans.
The people of this country cry out for basic things—affordable and quality daycare, a means to fill their prescriptions, better access to health services, changes in environmental laws—so that we all can breath easier.
Layton said it took 17 years for Tommy Douglas, NDP leader from Saskatchewan, to achieve health care reform in this country because leaders couldn’t get together and agree that such a plan was necessary.
The NDPs’ idea of a coalition between parties seems the most logical to me. I wonder why they haven’t been doing this all along. Does each government party seriously just toil amongst themselves to find their stances on the issues and let the chips fall where they may? Does that seem logical? Why not reach a consensus between parties that can help Canadians faster?
It’s called teamwork, and I wish Parliament Hill would embrace this strategy. More importantly, we as Canadians should be a part of that team, have our voices actually heard and considered.
Come to the universities, Liberals and Conservatives. Take questions from the future of this country, and have a real listen to our concerns. If you can’t do this, I will have a hard time voting for those who can’t even demonstrate their accountability to citizens like me on a public stage.
Niki Heymans, Nurs ’10
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.