IS THE QUEEN’S GAZETTE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION?
THIS RETIRED PROF DOES NOT THINK SO……
RECENTLY I RECEIVED A QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE QUEEN’S GAZETTE: “HOW ARE WE DOING?” IT INQUIRED. NOW, THOSE OF YOU WHO PAY ATTENTION TO SUCH MATTERS KNOW THAT THESE ARE PROFORMA ACTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE NEW (SMALL) CORPORATE EMPIRE THAT STILL POSES AS A UNIVERSITY. SO I CALLED CELIA RUSSELL ON IT, BET THAT SHE WOULD NOT RUN MY RESPONSE QUESTIONING THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE UNDERTAKING, AND WAITED THROUGH TWO REVISIONS AND A FINAL “WE HAVE RUN OUT OF SPACE, ALAS AND YOU ARE ON THE CUTTING-ROOM FLOOR.” WELL, I HAVE BEEN ON CUTTING-ROOM FLOORS MANY TIMES, AND CAN LIVE WITH THE VENUE.
BUT HERE IS THE LETTER, SHORN OF SPLEEN. I’D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU ON YOUR VIEWS WHETHER AT THIS JUNCTURE “HOW ARE WE DOING?” IS A QUESTION BETTER PUT ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY AS A WHOLE…..
——————————–
12 JUNE 2009
“HOW ARE WE DOING?” A MODEST REJOINDER TO THE QUEEN’S GAZETTE SURVEY……
GEOFF SMITH, EMERITUS
Recently I received a request from the Gazette to complete a questionnaire that asked, in essence, “How Are We Doing?” My response, tongue-in-cheek, is “not badly, given that Queen’s news organ now seems to have more writers than the Kingston Whig-Standard.” Indeed many Gazetteers are former Whigs. And, yes, collectively you do a fine job keeping the university community in the know about all the good things transpiring on campus. I could embrace sarcasm, oh, so easily, and underline the point that I LIVE for the Gazette, thrill to the same expert faces week after week, learn of new VP and other corporate appointments adding to Queen’s top-heaviness, and in all those puff pieces see how well Queen’s is doing in the Queen’s firmament. Oh yes, colour photography is a great thing.
But, of course, these kudos comprise only part of the story. The other part is a bit darker, and it is this darker side that needs illumination. Why not inquire into the growth of the administrative bureaucracy, in all areas of the university. How much money, for example, now goes to apparatchiks and other fund-raisers, rather than new professors? Might the Gazette mine the status of different faculties and departments and find out what is good, and what is not so good? Might there be room for the examination of big decisions that are being made amidst financial crisis, such as the “demoting” of faithful, non-unionized staff members, many of whom have been on site for many years? What is staff morale these days? What can be done to improve it?
So the question “How Are We Doing?” becomes a different sort of question, and that is, logically, “how is the university doing?” The latter is oh, so important as Queen’s moves forward into a difficult future. The Gazette has good people–let them loose, and let administration agree to let them loose. The health of a corporate unit–an apt description of Queen’s these days–is only as strong as its weakest links. Yes, there is much that is good taking place here. But if these things need airing, which they do, so too does critical commentary. In my view, Queen’s has lost sight of its prime mission, which is to educate undergraduates well and to equip them to be skeptics of our global society. A good place to begin would be moving faculties and departments to do some serious thinking about their curricula an d especially the way first-year courses are conducted. Interdisciplinary courses, with the BEST research/teaching profs in the university should be a feature of first-year courses. At present, we find very little creativity, passion, and conviction in these courses. And that is just a starting point.
I realize that like Pravda in its heyday, the Gazette must serve as a mouthpiece for power. I challenge you to become more than that. Perhaps this will mean the necessity of your finding new jobs. If so, we should know that too. Yes, we need to know more about the crevices, nooks, and crannies of power and its application. As a journal in an environment of higher learning, you need to revisit and revise your mandate, if that is possible.
Sincerely,
Geoff Smith
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
My experience in media is modest at best. I was a member of the Golden Words masthead a few years ago. As well, I had a housemate who was a staff writer at the Queen’s Journal. I used to read copy for her as a way of ofsetting ‘too much equations’ syndrome. To get an accurate picture of what’s really going on on-campus, one has to read all of the campus media while wearing the appropriate eyeglasses.
Put on your opaque blinders. I too used to gripe about the Gazette until I really put into perspective. Essentially, the Queen’s Gazette is the Fox News of the Queen’s media. Everything that appears in the Gazette is for the purpose of the “Queen’s Machine.” Queen’s, like any other money-making entity, is concerned with these little green pieces of paper that make the world go ’round. There’s an entire office for this very purpose, the Office of Advancement. I sure wouldn’t want to tell donating alumni that once again, Queen’s chose the construction company that under-bid and now its massively over-budget. I would spin a story about how the first phase is ready to open and how excited everyone is.
While reading Golden Words, put on your giant silly sunglasses. When it comes to the fearlessness, Golden Words takes the take (at least it used to). GW will tell you how campus politics work with a satirical tone. My favourite is the “AMS Report Card” feature at the end of the AMS term. This is one of the best examples investigative journalism on campus. Its unfortunate that this rag isn’t read as mostly truth.
Put on your AMS “I’m really awake, seriously” glasses when reading the Queen’s Journal. For bare-bones facts, the journal is actually pretty good. If I’m going to pick up one paper these days, its going to be the Journal. I do filter what I read through my AMS filter, however. I consider Golden Words to be the outlet for the Engineering Society and the Journal for being the outlet for the AMS. Both barely legitimate groups use their respective papers for different purposes. EngSoc uses it for factual information (dates and times of events). The AMS tends to feed their agendas through it. Fortunately, moslty this isn’t the case.
Consider that Queen’s is still an institution. If you want something done, it had better not be any of: the summer months, Friday afternoon, or a Monday. I’ve actually taken time off work to deal with faculty-related clerical errors and been met with, “you do realize that it’s Friday afternoon, right?” Efficiency and work-ethic have no place in an educational institution. It pains me to say this, but in my experience, its the truth. Its the world of governmental entities and the land of red tape. You can’t actually do anything unless 300 executives approve it and you’ve filled out the appropriate 10 forms.
Where is the accountability for any of these administrative units? Any of the faculty societies? The student government? There is none. They should be answering to the students, but there is no body, remunerative or otherwise, to take this on. How would this even be implemented? By more bureaucrats? I think not.