With Arts enrolment shrinking, University Senators push for early input at Senate and analysis to guide future seat reallocations.
Following a motion approved in April’s Senate, Queen’s University is shifting 300 enrolment seats from the Bachelor of Arts (BA) program into other degree plans for the 2026–27 academic year—a move that has sparked debate within the Senate.
The reallocation, discussed again at the May 15 Senate when Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Planning, Dan Cohen, brought forward two motions in response, reflecting broader concerns about the future of the BA program and the University’s enrolment priorities.
The change was first introduced at the March Senate meeting, where Provost Matthew Evans explained that the programs receiving more students charge higher tuition than the BA, resulting in a projected $1.4 million increase in tuition revenue for 2026–27 and $2.9 million for 2027–28.
READ MORE: Senators clash over how to best grade students during graduate student strike
His first motion requested that, given the enrolment changes will lead to a roughly 20 per cent reduction of students in the BA and BA Honours student cohorts, Senate should be “presented with an analysis for discussion in Fall 2025 of the effects of the reallocation of student enrolments for 2026-27 and beyond.”
The motion was later amended to specify that the Senate Committee on Academic Development and Procedures (SCADP)—which is responsible for formulating and recommending policy changes to the Senate—will be the group presented with an analysis. The motion was also amended for the discussion to take place in the 2025-26 school year rather than Fall 2025.
“Rather than wait to see what the effects will be of this four years from now, me and my colleagues, faculty Senators on Senate, thought, ‘Okay, let’s do some analysis up front, see what the effects might be, and then have a discussion at Senate’, which is the body charged with stewarding the academic mission, [discuss] what these effects might be,” Cohen said in an interview with The Journal.
Cohen points out the possibility of programs being cut as a consequence of this motion. explaining how oftentimes when programs are being suspended and brought to the Senate for final approval, it’s at a time where nothing can be done to prevent it. However, he hopes this motion will be able to prevent this issue by outlining concerns in advance.
“Are we going to have programs where that drop of 20 per cent of enrollment might put the ability to offer fourth-year courses at risk, and if so, let’s have a discussion now, before it comes to Senate as a program suspension because they can’t be offered,” Cohen added.
While the suspension of programs is one of Cohen’s concerns, he also explained how the increase of students in other programs could also be problematic, and something worth discussing. He explained that after speaking with other faculty Senators who will be receiving more students, they have concerns about rising class sizes, which could affect the ability to deliver education.
This motion ultimately passed, leading to commitments from the University in order to meet these goals.
“With respect to motion 1, the Provost’s Office will collect analysis reports from the Deans as requested by Senate, and this information will be collated into a report for SCADP within the 2025-26 academic year. Regarding motion 2, the Provost committed to Senate to hold an earlier meeting of SEMG to consider trends and issues for 2027-28 enrolment. SEMG will present a report to SCADP in fall 2025,” the University wrote in a statement to The Journal.
The second motion was similarly aimed at facilitating discussion, requesting that “when a significant reallocation of student enrolments is being considered, Senate is provided an opportunity to give feedback during the planning phase.” Cohen explained that this motion passed and was relatively uncontroversial, while also highlighting that the fault with the timeline for enrolment targets doesn’t lie with Evans.
“I acknowledge this isn’t about the Provost, because he’s improving the system from what it was before. This was an accepted practice, that the Senate wasn’t being involved [in setting enrolment targets], and it only became an issue when we’re having these large-scale changes because of the budget crisis,” Cohen said.
In their statement to The Journal, the University largely echoed this sentiment.
“The enrolment planning process through the Strategic Enrolment Management Group (SEMG), which includes Deans, has been in place for many years and is the university’s body for examining the information presented from the faculties and recommending enrolment targets. Due to this, in large part, the University hadn’t previously considered the requests made in the motions.”
Cohen affirmed that the key message behind both of these motions is the same.
“We should be able to talk about these things and make decisions collectively through the people who have been appointed to the Senate, rather than the Senate being a rubber stamp.”
Tags
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.