By Isabel Fearon, Erica Fischer and Karen Harper
On Friday February 14th, we attended as guests the SMU Senate meeting. After two hours of observing the Senate discuss several motions from committees and sometimes revise them to get things passed in a timely manner, we were invited to sit at the table so that we could respond to general questions from Senators when the bylaws committee introduced a motion to allow part-time instructors to vote and run for Senate, subject to some seniority qualifications.
It’s important to note that while a petition on this matter was recently circulated and signed by more than 100 members of the university community, the discussion at Senate was prompted by a motion from the Senate’s own Bylaws Committee and not from the motion we had sent. Their motion included not only an amendment to the definition of Academic Staff to include Part-Time Faculty, as ours did, but also several amendments to include language about the eligibility requirements for PT Faculty to be included in the electorate list.
Under the Saint Mary’s University Act (1970), part-time faculty should be eligible to run for Senate. “Academic staff” means “the persons employed by the University to carry out teaching or research responsibilities or both” other than students. The current bylaws wrongfully exclude part-time faculty from running for Senate. While the proposed qualifications on part-time faculty Senate participation are not consistent with the Act, the amendment would have been a big step forward. We commend all the work the Bylaws Committee put into preparing this motion. If it had been carried, these amendments would have allowed PT Faculty to participate in Senate elections this coming March.
Unfortunately, even though some Senators appeared open to discussion, most spoke about being in favour of including PT Faculty on Senate but then proceeded to explain how they were not. They expressed their concerns without going through the proposed amendments to see if their concerns were addressed or without indicating specifically how the wording didn’t address their concerns. The apparent desire of a few Senators to shut the discussion down as quickly as possible stating that this is a matter for bargaining when in fact is simply a matter of abiding by the St. Mary’s University Act, combined with the short amount of time allotted for consideration of the motion (which it should be said was extended for an additional 15 minutes), resulted in the motion being relegated back to committee without benefit of feedback or timeline.
Dr. Kocum, who was a vocal advocate, resigned her seat in protest. The reason of her resignation in her own words and with her authorization to publish it follows:
“It was frustrating to witness the deeply patronizing and exclusionary treatment of part-timers. What was most disheartening was the unwillingness of most senators to bend even slightly—refusing to postpone elections by one month, which is entirely in our purview—to allow for a real discussion about inclusion of part-timers this year. Inclusion requires those in power to make space, not just to say the words “I support part-timers being part of Senate” while actively kicking the issue down the road; those on the losing end of power dynamics are all too accustomed to this pattern. Interesting that several senators mentioned being concerned for the unpaid time of part-timers who would serve on Senate, yet they were perfectly willing to have them waste another year advocating. The math just doesn’t math.
Instead of engaging thoughtfully and addressing specific concerns collaboratively, several senators maintained the appearance of inclusion while actively deferring action. This was my final straw, and the reason I resigned. The issue here isn’t about my personal reaction, however—it’s about the broader problem of exclusion where logic, ingenuity, and part-timers’ voices were immaterial against toxic attitudes and the need to maintain the status quo. This toxicity is not unique to part-timers; it generalizes to many areas of progress where those with less power advocate for change. We do have an inclusion policy at SMU, as inclusion is essential for change. It means valuing diverse voices and integrating them into decision-making. The opposite is marginalization, where people look out for their own concerns while sidelining those of others with less power. My emotions signalled the toxicity of this fundamentally exclusionary context. Unlike a canary, though, I had the freedom to bust out to venture where my voice may actually have traction, and I am free to keep on singing.
It’s been 5 years collectively on the Board and Senate and honestly, that display Friday was it.”
This is another step on a long path for us. Bringing this issue to the Senate floor is a win in itself. Already we are trying to determine next steps. The fight is not over, it’s just unfortunate that it is a fight.