Governing your university
U of M president Emoke Szathmary tells the manitoban what a university is
TESSA VANDERHART STAFF
IN PAST YEARS, AS QUOTED IN THE MANITOBAN, YOU SAID THAT THE UNIVERSITY “IS NOT GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET” — AND IT SEEMS THAT THERE’S NOW MORE OF A CRISIS MODE
AT THE UNIVERSITY. WHAT CHANGED?
What changed is that all the demographic projections about the domestic students in Manitoba say that [the number of universityaged students] is going to decline, and decline very sharply. And, so, we were beginning to see the beginnings of that last year, because even though there was a large number of students — our biggest-ever number — the total number of credit hours, we’d predicted a one per cent credit hour increase, it was only 0.3 per cent. And as you know students pay by credit hour. So what that means for us essentially is that as the student base shrinks, we have less revenue. But our costs are not shrinking.
Okay? So yes, there’s a crisis, in the sense of “how on earth are we going to be able to manage financially?’ — because we have to, we have to come in on a balanced budget. And that’s a real concern, and that’s why — you heard me talk yesterday [at the U of M’s Annual General Meeting] — and I have this view that we have some really serious issues ahead of us, because that student number is going to get smaller unless we can either improve international recruitment, or out-ofprovince recruitment. Now, the international recruitment, there’s a limit to what we can do, because you know, there’s a cost involved with educating international students even if they do pay the extra revenue. And the cost has to do with, depending on what part of the world they come from. In some cultures, for example, an international student will never challenge a professor, will never disagree. They have to be taught, literally, on how to ask questions, how to participate in group discussions, how to do group work.
[…]
So that’s why, if you sense there’s a crisis — I wouldn’t call it crisis — but there’s a real concern now about how we can balance the budget, without starting to do things essentially that amount to cutting off your nose to spite your face. In other words, if we cut sections, cutting instructors, then we can accommodate fewer students — and accommodating fewer students means that, well, I mean, there’ll be fewer students, but I mean the point is that there has to be a balance that you can maintain so that you can still deliver what you have to deliver.
BACK TO INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, A LOT OF . . . WELL, UMSU . . . ARE PORTRAYING DIFFERENTIAL FEES AS A “CASH GRAB.” IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE?
Well, I mean, you can characterize anything in anyway that you want, right? The answer was that we had to balance the budget. All right? And I found myself in this horrible situation, because to me, I don’t differentiate between international students or domestic students; they’re our students, you know? Because I’m the one who, under our rules, has to recommend the budget . . . we looked at what to do in terms of the budget shortfall every which way, including grandfathering current students who are already here — to save them from increases — but just the new ones coming in. We couldn’t raise enough revenue that way.
We even approached the province to say, well, you know, Quebec charges a different fee for out-of-province Canadian students — cause they’re intermediate between international students and the Quebecois — it’s only the Quebecois who get that really low tuition fee, and the message we got back was that our province didn’t want us to do that. So that left us with very little choice on where to raise revenue. Now, the good thing about it all, for me, personally: I had to do something that I didn’t agree with, and I did it, because my first responsibility is to the university as a whole, and I have to come in on a balanced budget. I wasn’t happy about it, I think it was disgusting that we had to do it, and I really have to wonder — I mean, UMSU can say whatever it wants, but is it really true that our domestic students can afford to pay no more than what works out to, essentially, 92 cents a week? Cause that’s what, divide $100 by 52 weeks and that’s what you get.
And I mean if we could have raised that a little bit more, maybe then we could have saved the international students — your fellow students — from having to pay extra. And I know the arguments, you know, that people will make: that their parents don’t pay taxes in Canada, and so on and so forth. And that’s true, that’s why we already have a differential fee. We are trying to attract international students to Manitoba, after graduation, to live here; what kind of message does that send?
Whether I like it or not, I take the responsibility for it: that this occurred under my watch, and the best we could do is put away more money for international students. We put away $260,000, which, based on our estimate of the likely fraction that will require need, we think it will be enough. Last I heard, this morning, from the student affairs people is that we will have enough, that there haven’t been as many people making claims as they thought would be coming. But whether I should say that or not is open to some concern — the winter is still to come, God only knows what will happen then.
I DON’T LIKE THIS ONE EITHER, BUT I HAVE TO ASK: DO YOU SEE ANCILLARY FEE INCREASES IN THE SAME LIGHT AS A TUITION FEE INCREASE? ARE THEY THE SAME THING?
No, they’re not the same thing as tuition fee increases. Because they’re for other kinds of services than your tuition. Your tuition is supposed to pay for instruction, and nothing else, and even lab feees are different — lab fees, I mean, for perishable equipment, and equipment that has to be maintained, etc. That’s not tuition; tuition is really the cost of instruction.
INSTRUCTION IS ONE OF THE UNIVERSITY’S BIGGEST COSTS; ARE YOU LOOKING AT WAYS TO LESSEN THAT COST?
Have you got any ideas on how we could do that?
I mean, the professors are highly educated — they deferred earning any money for at least twelve years, because it usually takes that long to get a PhD [ . . . ] and they deserve to get proper wages. By no definition are they overpaid; they’re not the worst in the lot, either. But in general, in the prairie provinces or at least here in Manitoba, I think they can make an argument for greater pay.
OTHER UNIVERSITIES GET MONEY FROM RESEARCH AND RESEARCH PARKS — WHY NOT THE U OF M?
I don’t know where your information is coming from about other university parks, but the only one that really makes any money is Innovation Place in Saskatchewan — but Innovation Place also got started a much longer time ago than we had, and the province of Saskatchewan, I don’t know, 20 years ago or whenever it started — but in $15 million at the onset, which is a huge amount of money even then. What we got was $5.9 million, from two levels of government, each putting in half, just so that we could put in the water main. So, right now, Smartpark is entirely self-supporting, and I mean, basically, the rents that are charged essentially allow for the payoff of the mortgages on those buildings [. . . ]
YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY — WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
If you’re going to admit students, you’d better deliver on it, too. [ . . . ]
With University 1, the introduction of option four — with students admitted with marks below 70 per cent but above 63 — because of the tracking, we know what trouble students get into if they really don’t meet with counsellors. And the experience was that the students who were the ones coming in with the marks coming in below 70 per cent were the ones who needed the most help, but they were not seeking help. In any case, option four required the hiring of additional counselors, because now, for students who come in under option four, counseling is mandatory.
Well, there was a view — why are we directing all of our money at that end, money scarce enough as it is? What about students who come in at the upper end? Well, just because you’re smart and do real well at your studies, doesn’t mean that you may not have an emotional problem that ought to be looked at, because ultimately that can interfere with your performance.
Well, I agree with them. But you direct your revenue where the greatest need is, and we felt that if we’re going to maintain this mandate of educating broadly, then we had to first direct the resources there. And that’s what we did. Well, that’s a form of accountability — don’t admit unless you’re really prepared to help.
I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON YOU BEFORE I CAME, AND I FOUND OUT THAT YOU’RE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE POWER CORPORATION — AND APPARENTLY IT HAS VERY STRONG TIES TO THE LIBERAL PARTY, AND I WAS WONDERING WHY YOU THINK IT IS THAT NO ONE EVER TALKS ABOUT THAT?
Well, I don’t know if it has strong ties to the Liberal party — Andre Desmarais is married to Jean Chretien’s daughter — but one of the longtime members of the Power Corporation Board is Mr. Mazankowski, (laughs) who I think has ties in the other direction . . . and there are members also who, have NDP affiliations, within the organization itself.
So I wouldn’t . . . I think the Desmarais family is kind of interesting, in that they choose their directors very carefully, to cut across the spectrum — obviously I’m just a director, and they don’t talk about these sorts of things with me — but it’s interesting to look at who they have chosen to join their board. And certainly Mazankowski is an example of somebody who really was a very high-profile minister in Brian Mulroney’s government.
DO YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF INTERNAL POLITICKING AT YOUR JOB — IF YOU FIND THAT ENDS UP BEING A LARGE PART OF YOUR JOB, AS THE PERSON WHO HAS TO LIAISE BETWEEN ALL OF THESE THINGS?
Well, that is the job: certainly, the big challenges external to the university and then internal to the university . . . and sometimes when I get depressed about them, I remember a statement that an aboriginal woman once said to me (this is back when I was still in Ontario) — we were having a discussion, and you know, her grandmother said to her that if you are going to be a bridge between two cultures, be prepared to get walked on.’ Which I thought was a very wise comment, and which is essentially the role the president serves.
[ . . . ]
The president’s job is to use language that the outside world can understand, and at the same time, to make the outside world understandable internally. We get very . . . even you heard me [earlier] get antsy about ‘they can’t tell us what to teach’ — well, there are areas where, in fact, we are told — well, we’re not told explicitly, but we’ll not pay attention only if we’re extremely stupid, and such a dean wouldn’t be around very long. So, for example, we have a very direct relationship with the ministry of education — where, because it’s the minister of education who decides what subjects can be taught at the K through 12 level. If the minister of education changes what is a “teachable” as a major and as a minor and so on, we’re really — I mean, we want our students, our graduated teachers, to get jobs. So we better, then, alter our curriculum in a way that they can, in fact, be licensed to teach on graduation. So that’s an example of direct impact on the university.
But lots of times we have people in business, or in sociology — they’re investigating, say, corporate interrelationships, or even Monsanto, that’s an excellent example. You know, maybe the corporate world would prefer that we didn’t teach this, or that the professor take its slant on things; well, if we’re going to offer proper instruction, we have to be able to question — and we do, all right? In that sense, then, we’re not paying attention to the external world because, well, you’re off in your ivory tower. It’s the president’s job, then, to go and try and articulate why we take the particular positions that we do.
[ . . . ]
One great example I can give you of where I bite my tongue — because I do believe in the privilege of informed discussion (I mean, I’d prefer it to be informed discussion rather than speaking in ignorance) — but the Manitoban carried an article about some speaker here who’s challenging evolution. Well, I’m an evolutionary biologist, all right? To me, this is as much sense as inviting a speaker about the flat Earth — but, this is something that does go on in a university environment. And you hope that there are enough people in the audience who will, in fact, ask questions, and will provide the arguments — that can really test you, because sometimes some of the things that are said are contrary, absolutely contrary, to every bit of evidence that you know, and not just your own opinion. But, that is a university.
BACK TO MITIGATING DIFFERENCES — HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH THINGS LIKE COMMUNICATING TUITION POLICY? DO YOU FIND YOURSELF HAVING TO SIDE WITH THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY MAKE A DECISION?
Oh, they don’t — I’ve even made suggestions to the province of how they could remain true to the pledge of keeping tuition frozen at 1999 levels, and yet help the universities. The easiest way of doing it is to eliminate the 10 per cent rebate. They could go into an election and say, rightly, that the students are still paying 1999 fees — because right now they’re only paying 90 per cent. But can you imagine what an $8 million infusion would mean to us? It would mean a lot.
I don’t think it’s going to happen, certainly not with this government. Out of fairness to them, they have given more money — but certainly not enough. And all I can tell you is that — I’m not saying this because I think Saskatchewan is the be-all and the end-all of everything — but it’s a pretty comparable province. If we could charge the tuition that Saskatchewan charges its students, all right, we would have 28 million more dollars in the budget annually. That’s a huge sum of money, and with that we [would] be able to make a big difference in what we do.
I know you wrote last year, I mean, actually you’re one of the people who got me really depressed, last year, because of your articles about the lack of pride in the university [ . . . ]
It’s a fair point of view, I’m not saying it’s not fair, but it’s not a particularly informed one, because you don’t really understand the revenue restrictions, all right? What else can I say? We don’t have the revenue that we need.
I NOTICED IN YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THE YEAR THAT YOU’RE PLANNING TO MEET WITH FACULTY STUDENT COUNCILS, AS OPPOSED TO JUST UMSU. WHY IS THAT, AND ARE YOU WORRIED IT MIGHT FURTHER DAMAGE RELATIONS WITH UMSU?
I don’t think so.
The difficulty with UMSU is that ever since they went over to CFS, I don’t hear the voices of our students anymore — I hear the voices of Ottawa. I don’t think for a second — I shouldn’t say this, because you’re going to be writing an article, so I’ll leave it alone. But, that’s really how I feel.
[ . . . ]
After all, I’m a trained anthropologist, so [ . . . ] I like to use my own observations. Does it mesh with what people are telling me? That’s really what I’m talking about. Okay?
So it really depends on whether the faculty councils are willing to meet with me. I think the first try is always to meet with the faculty council and senior stick, and see where we go; if they hate me on sight, well then we’re not going to get anywhere.
I feel that I’m losing touch with our students, and what matters to our students. Office hours are an attempt — I’ve had those from the very beginning — I used to have a lot of students, and staff, come, but the numbers dropped off after awhile [ . . . ]
You can’t be a very effective president if you’re barred, if you don’t have an open door, so I try to provide that open door for those who might want to come and see me. If they’re satisfied with that or dissatisfied, I don’t know — but I’ve got to try.
[ . . . ] what I hear from UMSU is the voice from Ottawa, and I’d like to hear our students. For all I know they’d be saying the exact same thing, but until I talk with them, I won’t know that.
