KFA Blog Post on Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

Please see the below calls to action and message the KFA Table Officers posted on the blog for Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards this morning.

Our calls to action are not an objection to title at KPU but rather centered around the need for any system of title to involve a consultation process driven by entirely by faculty, the need for any system of title to be for faculty and within the control of faculty,  and the need to bring any system of academic to the bargaining table.

Here is the message posted to the blog:

The KFA has now heard from several hundred faculty members on the subject of academic title. The overriding message we have heard is one of concern that academic title may lead to differential treatment and working conditions, that academic title is properly the subject of bargaining, and that proposed Policy AC 16 Academic Title Awards is problematic in many ways.

Outlined below are several calls to action followed by some historical context and critique of the Policy.

Calls to Action

• The KFA calls on KPU Administration and the KPU Policy developer/proponent to immediately withdraw the proposed Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards on the basis that the Policy affects the working conditions of KFA faculty members, and that it is properly the subject of bargaining.
• The KFA calls on all KFA faculty members to bring motions to their Departments and Faculty Councils advocating for the withdrawal of Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards on the basis that the Policy affects the working conditions of KFA faculty members, and that it is properly the subject of bargaining.
• We further call on KFA members to communicate these motions to the policy proponent for policy to be withdrawn so that the matter can be brought to the bargaining table.
• We call on KFA members to participate in the upcoming KFA survey on academic title. In consultation with faculty experts, the KFA is developing a survey to gather the views of faculty on this key issue (we will be requesting the assistance of key individuals to assist in question development).

Historical Context & Critique

What Position has KFA taken on Title? 

Simply put, the KFA has historically taken forward the faculty position on academic title. In particular, based on the recommendations of TFARA and Letter of Understanding #20: Joint Committee on Academic Title, the KFA has pursued the title of professor at the bargaining table since 2013. The Employer has declined to agree to KFA proposals despite the fact that these proposals were jointly agreed to by the LOU #20 Joint KPU-KFA Committee.

In the most recent round of bargaining, the KFA proposed

(h) Title

Post-probationary Regular instructional faculty may use the position title of “Professor.”

Non-Regular and probationary Regular instructional faculty may use the position title of “Instructor.”

Toward the end of the round, the Parties moved closer to agreement on a proposal for academic title, but the long 18-month duration of the bargaining round ended up curtailing discussions.

Whose Process is this Anyway? Policy AC 16 & the Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement (TFARA)

Fundamentally, Policy AC16 process represents an affront to many of the long-held values of faculty members. In particular, the proposed Policy runs counter to the primary role faculty ought to play in governance at KPU, and to the faculty-centered approach credible post-secondary institutions take in developing and implementing a system of title. Further, credible title-granting institutions in the post-secondary sector properly negotiate systems of title at the bargaining table.

Perhaps this sentiment is best summed up by the June 24th 2013 Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement (TFARA)—a sentiment that seems to continue to be of concern today: “Changes in senior administration have been marked by differing leadership visions” (10).

In 2010 a decision was made to create the Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement—a task force created by senate for a faculty-driven process. Indeed “Senate determined the Task Force would be exclusively composed of Kwantlen faculty – each of Kwantlen’s eight existing Faculty Councils was to designate two faculty representatives. In addition, two representatives from faculty without a Faculty were to be identified, resulting in a Task Force composed of 18 members” (4).

It is perhaps unsurprising that the current group of senior administrators have decided to launch an administratively-driven process with KPU administrators seemingly some of the direct beneficiaries of the Policy. Under the proposed Policy, administrators hold the power to bestow title including upon administrators. Would a Provost be tempted to override the AC 16 committee in order bestow title to their colleagues? Would administrators on the AC16 committee be willing to decline their fellow colleagues and supervisors the gift of title? Would faculty members on the AC 16 committee feel free to maintain rigorous standards in the face of administrative pressure to grant title to other administrators who have an employment relationship with faculty? Would faculty members remain willing to participate in university governance processes and critique university administrative processes at the risk of being declined a title?

The KFA advocates for a faculty driven process, and if a system of title is desired by faculty, then such a process should be controlled entirely by faculty.

Should the Employer fail to respond to requests to withdraw the Policy and bring the issue to bargaining, the KFA may have no alternative but to file a grievance in order to meet our obligations under the BC Labour Relations Code. Such a grievance, if necessary, is not a stance taken against the concept of title at KPU, but rather an objection to the imposition of title via Policy AC16. 

What has Changed?

It is important to recall that the TFARA did not “uncover[] evidence linking differences in ARA systems with differences in the capacities of institutions to achieve mission, mandate and vision. Individual Task Force members have expressed differing opinions on the pros and cons of ARA alternatives; however, all feel that the determination of what is best for Kwantlen – be it the present system or an alternative – would need to be determined using appropriate processes” (3)

Has evidence since been produced linking the current KPU system to the inability of KPU to achieve mission, mandate and vision? Is there evidence from the time when KPU faculty could freely use the title “professor,” that this system was detrimental to faculty members or KPU’s mission, mandate, and vision in any way?

In other words, what is the purpose of Policy AC16? We are being asked to recognize that the lack of an academic title is linked to barriers to grant applications, research opportunities, conference opportunities, and student supervision opportunities. If this were the case, the objective would be to create a single title, based on merit, to address these challenges that are faced by faculty. The KFA presented such a proposal at the bargaining table. Rather than such a straight-forward system, we have been presented with a vertical hierarchy of title—one which is administratively driven and controlled—with no articulated purpose attached to the hierarchy.

Another key element of the TFARA quotation above is the concern over appropriateness of process. The TFARA was primarily concerned that any system of title be developed with the involvement of the Kwantlen Faculty Association in bargaining:

“The Task Force believes that any ARA framework recommendations – be it the present system or an alternative – must arise from discussions involving the Kwantlen Faculty Association [KFA] and representatives from University administration” (3)

“Many Task Force members are concerned that recommendations brought forward within a Senate-based process could result in alternative working conditions being determined outside of collective bargaining” (3)

“Should conditions at some point warrant further investigation of ARA alternatives, we affirm that such investigation should occur within a collective bargaining framework” (10)

Given that eleven years have passed since the TFARA, that KPU faculty members were previously free to use the title “professor,” and that both Parties have tabled proposals in bargaining but have not yet reached agreement, why is there a sudden rush to impose title through Policy AC16. Instead of a front-loaded consultation process leading to the bargaining table, why was the AC16 Policy launched in the last weeks of August with the second three-week consultation phase running into both the busiest teaching time of the year as well as the lead in to the holiday break?

What did TFARA Recommend

It is interesting to recall the overall TFARA comment about their recommendations

The Task Force believes that any ARA framework recommendations – be it the present system or an alternative – must arise from discussions involving the Kwantlen Faculty Association [KFA] and representatives from University administration. The timing of these discussions should be consistent with [a] a period of tenure stability in senior administrative leadership combined with clear articulation of leadership vision, and [b] faculty-led interest in ARA discussions independent of University management. To be fruitful, such discussions must be founded on commitment to common objectives and the existence of trust. (3)

Again, values have changed. Rather than build upon “common objectives” and the “existence of trust,” KPU senior administrators seem to have bypassed faculty-led interest, bypassed a clear articulation of leadership vision, ignored the lack of administrative stability in relation to the pending arrival of a new KPU President, and embarked upon an administrative-driven process, a process designed to benefit administrators, a flawed consultation, and a bypassing of KFA members’ bargaining rights.

In order to address the above concerns, we return to our calls to action:

• The KFA calls on KPU Administration and the KPU Policy developer/proponent to immediately withdraw the proposed Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards on the basis that the Policy affects the working conditions of KFA faculty members, and that it is properly the subject of bargaining.
• The KFA calls on all KFA faculty members to bring motions to their Departments and Faculty Councils advocating for the withdrawal of Policy AC16 Academic Title Awards on the basis that the Policy affects the working conditions of KFA faculty members, and that it is properly the subject of bargaining.
• We further call on KFA members to communicate these motions to the policy proponent for policy to be withdrawn so that the matter can be brought to the bargaining table.

We call on KFA members to participate in the upcoming KFA survey on academic title. In consultation with faculty experts, the KFA is developing a survey to gather the views of faculty on this key issue (we will be requesting the assistance of key individuals to assist in question development).

In solidarity,

Mark Diotte