SFUFA Response to Draft 2024-25 Academic Plan
SFUFA has now had the opportunity to review the draft 2025-30 Academic Plan, and has a number of thoughts and concerns with draft as written and the approach it takes. In the broadest terms, these concerns relate to:
– Implications for academic freedom
– Lack of focus on research and the predominance of non-academic issues in what is to be an “academic plan”
– The fact that the Plan appears more to be a branding document than a plan at all
We will note here a few of the ways we see these problems in the current draft, noting that our general concerns reflect the overall text and so the comments below are by no means exhaustive.
The plan’s section on Alignment is deeply concerning, as it seems to articulate SFU’s intention to assess research by political criteria, and specifically by how well that research aligns with what the Administration determines to be its academic mission. Academic freedom is a critical foundation of the university, as well as a right clearly articulated in the Collective Agreement, and so we can see no reason why any language at all promoting “alignment” should appear. The fact that the text in fact outlines three distinct standards of expectation for alignment suggests to us that SFU is actively encroaching on academic freedom by stating an intention to assess and value academic activities on the basis of their compatibility with administrative priorities. Academic activities are not spelled out, but clearly by any interpretation would presumably include teaching, research, curriculum development and other areas of work protected by academic freedom.
The section on Research that Matters raises further concerns. While we understand that research clusters emerge through the work of faculty members, and that institutions do become known for particular areas of strength, it seems deeply problematic for the administration to identify that some areas of research matter more than others, and will be provided particular institutional support. All faculty members have the right to have their work assessed – not only for performance evaluation but also for access to grants and other supports – on the basis of the quality of the work rather than the area of focus or its alignment with administrative preferences.
Beyond the concerns about academic freedom, another glaring issue with the draft report is the underwhelming role research plays in the document. What should be the very core of an academic plan is largely not mentioned outside of the section (noted above) that mostly focused on identifying what kinds of research will have particular administrative support; otherwise the plan devotes extensive time to issues such as student experience. Discussions of EDI and Indigenization, and internationalization speak about broad administrative mandates, make comment on supports for students, but are silent on concrete research supports and faculty recruitment even in those areas SFU says are its top priorities. One wonders, reading the document overall, to what extent the research mission was even considered when drafting the Academic Plan.
Much is made of the teaching mission and plans to promote excellence in education. Aside from a suggestion that more faculty assessment is necessary, there is nothing representing any institutional commitment in this area. Issues of class size, faculty workload, and TA support are critical considerations in any attempt to build greater excellence in teaching, but the plan gives no indication that such issues are even to be considered. We note, too, that while the document recognizes the importance of linking research and teaching, it limits this to the teaching performed by research faculty, failing to comment on the importance of ensuring teaching faculty are able to engage with the research mission.
SFUFA is and has always been committed to greater equity; indeed, equity is foundational to trade unions and faculty associations and is at the core of collective bargaining. As we have noted time and again, however, in the areas of EDI and Indigenization and decolonization, the University is long on words and short on action. Equity is built by not by statements of institutional values but by providing concrete resources; this document entirely fails to indicate how SFU will become materially more equitable nor how equity and the academic mission are linked. It reads, then, not as an Academic Plan – which implies commitments for investment and growth – but rather as a general Vision Statement.
An Academic Plan needs to be just that. It needs to assess current areas of strength and weakness, identify priorities, and indicate concretely how the institution plans to maintain its strengths and address its weaknesses so as to further the academic mission – a mission that is centred upon both research and teaching. It needs to start with faculty and students and considering what they need so that the university can become academically stronger. What has been presented is an administrative vision statement designed to develop the SFU “brand”; what is needed is a true reflection on the state of the academic mission and a series of steps and commitments intended to address the barriers to advancing that mission.