CUPE3912 Statement of Solidarity with SUNSCAD

CUPE 3912 stands in solidarity with SUNSCAD in their fight to maintain 24-hour studio access for students. This is a struggle that directly impacts our TA and RA members, many of whom are students, with many having other commitments requiring that they commute from afar. 

As mentioned by SUNSCAD, “disabled students at NSCAD continuously face egregious harms stemming from the structural, attitudinal (how we think about and interact with disabled people), and architectural barriers to accessibility present at the university.” Having uninterrupted access is a critical part of a studio-based arts education, especially for upper-year and graduate students. Not only is 24-hour studio access a long-standing and critically important part of the student experience at NSCAD, it is a key selling point that draws in students internationally.

On behalf of all ICA instructors, TAs, and RAs at NSCAD I would like to applaud NSCAD University administration and interim president David B. Smith on their commitment to engage in reasonable discussion on this issue, and on their decision to pause the implementation of limited studio hours until a satisfactory solution can be found.

CUPE3912 unequivocally supports SUNSCAD in their demand that 24-hour studio access be preserved.

I urge our members to support SUNSCAD and the students in whatever way they can, including emailing University administrators to make yourself heard on this issue.

Please find SUNSCAD’s statement here

Media Release: Talks stalled at SMU as academic workers prepare for possible strike

For Immediate Release September 16, 2025

Talks stalled at SMU as academic workers prepare for possible strike 

Halifax, NS – After almost a year at the table, negotiations with part-time faculty at Saint Mary’s  University (SMU) hit an impasse Thursday afternoon. Workers took a strike vote last week, with  87% of votes in favour of job action. 

“We made every effort to identify the issues that are most pressing to our members and came to  Thursday’s conciliation meeting ready to get a deal,” said Lauren McKenzie, President of CUPE  3912. “Unfortunately, the employer was unwilling to engage on any ‘non-monetary’ proposals— that is, they wouldn’t discuss any issue except wages.” 

Key items still on the table include improved stipends, but also proposals on faculty  appointments and contract timelines.  

“We have absolutely zero job security,” says Erica Fischer, part-time instructor and Vice President with CUPE 3912. “We have separate contracts for every single class we teach, and  we apply and re-apply for those contracts, every single term, for every single class. No one has  any guarantee they’ll be employed a few months down the road. We have been working like this  for years.” 

Part-time faculty at SMU are asking for guaranteed work for instructors who have taught for at  least three consecutive years. This would mean part-time instructors who have taught one class  every term for three years would be guaranteed a contract for one class every term for the  following three years. If an instructor taught two classes every term for three years, you would  be guaranteed to teach two classes for the following three years.  

“All we’re asking for right now is that part-time faculty get some guarantee of income beyond the  current academic term,” continued Fischer. “And the employer is unwilling to even talk about  this.” 

Part-time faculty at SMU are also among the lowest paid university instructors across the  country, earning a stipend just over $6,000 per course, per term. Even at the highest  courseload, this amounts to no more than $28,000 from September to April.  

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3912 represents approximately 150  part-time instructors at SMU, with 30 more workers having lost their job in course cuts this past  May. CUPE estimates around 30% of SMU courses are taught by part-time faculty.  

“Liveable wages, long-term contracts, and a path to permanent employment would all have a  huge impact on our quality of life,” said Neil Balan, part-time instructor and CUPE 3912  member. “The university benefits so much from having experienced instructors, while pushing  postsecondary education towards a gig economy model. You can’t have it both ways.” 

For more information, please contact: 

Lauren McKenzie
President, CUPE 3912
president@cupe3912.ca 

Haseena Manek
CUPE Atlantic Communications  Representative
hmanek@cupe.ca 



SMU Part-Time Faculty Bargaining Update

Having received a strong strike mandate, we headed into conciliation on September 11 with the clear and unified support of our membership to protect and defend our collective interests, bargain for our priorities, and negotiate a fair deal.

Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we were not able to reach a tentative agreement and an impasse remains.

The employer’s bargaining team refused to entertain any of our non-monetary proposals and simply said no to all of them, stating yet again that they were not operationally feasible.

Again and again, we’ve been asked to accept that management rights and the desire for “flexibility” are sovereign and inviolable. In no uncertain terms, the employer’s position is clear: any proposals around job security are never going to happen.

In relation to our monetary proposals, the employer was only open to discuss wages, but their best offer was 1% for the first year, 1.5% for the second and third year, and 2% for the 4th year (6% total increase in 4 yrs). Notably, the employer’s proposal runs counter to its willingness to offer a 3% in 2024-2025 to all other unions on campus.

Further, the employer’s proposal in no way comes close to our monetary proposal in terms of stipend increases and our desire to decrease the required FCEs to move up the steps.

Simply, the Negotiating Committee could not accept this lone proposal performing as a deal. It is far from what the majority of members would accept as a fair deal, and it fails to address our priorities in meaningful ways.

We need to start preparing for job action, but we will send another update regarding next steps once we have time to debrief.

Day of Action in Support of DFA

Tomorrow, Friday September 5, we will be having a Day of Action to show solidarity with the DFA. CUPE 3912 members are invited to join DFA picket lines from 11 a.m. – 12 p.m., and then we will march to the rally being held in front of the Killam Library. Wear your union t-shirts and bring a noise maker. Looking forward to seeing you there!

For ongoing updates from the DFA

  • Follow their Facebook page: Keep Dal Strong
  • Follow their Instagram: dalfacultyassoc
  • Follow their Bluesky: dalfaculty.bsky.social
  • Contact them at 2025.strike.dfa@gmail.com

Dalhousie Strike Mandate Achieved and Reminders as Classes Resume

Strong strike mandate: In August, members voted 87.7% in favour of strike action if necessary. This “YES” vote sends a clear and united message to Dalhousie University:

  • FAIR PAY: Our members deserve wages that reflect the real cost of living in Halifax and the value of the work we do.
  • JOB SECURITY: The future of academic work must not be undercut by short-sighted cost-cutting measures.
  • HEALTHCARE: Access to basic health benefits is a right, not a luxury, and it’s time Dalhousie recognized this.

This overwhelming mandate gives us real leverage at the table. You can read local coverage of the vote here: CBC News.

Conciliation dates confirmed: CUPE has conciliation booked for October 2 and October 20. Our elected Strike Committee will be working hard this month to ensure we are prepared for a potential fall strike.

A few important reminders as classes resume:

  • Teaching obligations: CUPE members are expected to teach their classes. Where possible, we encourage you to teach online to avoid crossing DFA picket lines.
  • No extra work: Please do not take on any additional tasks or responsibilities previously associated with DFA members’ teaching.
  • Solidarity with DFA: We encourage members to join picket lines and rallies, and to take time to explain to your students the importance of labour action and the core issues at stake in this defensive strike/lockout.
  • Optional Brightspace Announcement for Students: Faculty who wish to post a short message to their students may use the following: Dalhousie’s full-time faculty (DFA) are currently in a defensive strike/lockout. CUPE members will continue teaching our assigned classes, but we stand in solidarity with DFA. Learn more about their fight for fair working conditions here.

Our goal, as always, is to use our strong strike mandate to secure a fair deal at the bargaining table. If conciliation fails, we will be ready to take job action. Thank you for your solidarity and commitment to protecting our rights and working conditions.

3912 SMU PT Faculty Bargaining Update: Unity and Solidarity for an Upcoming Strike Vote to Conciliation and Beyond

By Neil Balan, PhD, 3912 SMU PT Faculty Steward and Bargaining Team Member

As we move into the Fall 2025 semester in what is a challenging institutional and political economic set of conditions for our members and for academic workers across the sector, we want to reiterate our collective power and strength as a unified union local. When we talk about challenges, we mean the wider structural and systematic contexts of revenue-centred management methods, austerity measures, diminished provincial and public funding, reliance on tuition fees and “self-sourced revenues” for operating budgets, overreaching government legislation related to post-secondary education (Bill12), new bilateral agreements, revenue-centred institutional planning, and cuts to international student permits (i.e., cuts to a system of segmented and insourced revenue-generating user fees).

Given the substantial cuts to 3912 PTA positions in April 2025 mainly in Faculty of Arts and given what are substantially fewer 3912 PTA contracts issued for Fall 2025, our bargaining sessions in June gained even more importance as we sought to connect the bargaining process to the material condition our members were experiencing. It was a bizarre but also important backdrop to our preparations and planning. We were seeing in real-time how the very substance of our proposals and bargaining priorities were so important and crucial to protect the work and collective interests of our members. If the current situation at Dalhousie University is any indication, where an administration and board of governors opted to lockout DFA members while they were voting on tentative agreement, we have to be ready. Dal U is proposing binding arbitration, effectively refusing to bargain and working to derail a negotiated deal that cuts to heart of many of the challenges listed above.

We acknowledge that it can feel difficult to organize and mobilize our efforts to defend our collective labour rights when our access to work is always precarious but seemingly more so in the current moment. We may think that now is not a good time to push on demanding a better deal for our members, our unit, and our local. Yet we are also of the view that no time is a good time—which is to say also that anytime is a good time—to push for better workplace protections and conditions, better jobs, and fair wages that are just and that align at a minimum with median wages across the sector. We need a collective agreement that reflects and respects the work we do as contract faculty members and teachers. We might feel vulnerable, but we also have to remain committed in relation to our demands and our core priorities. As we said at the outset of this current round of bargaining: a union local that is not ready to strike is not ready to bargain, and this is an important premise to guide us going forward.

Our collective agreement expired in August 2024, and we gave notice in April 2024 to start bargaining a new collective agreement. After nine months of bargaining with the employer that began in October 2024 and focused entirely on our non-monetary proposals, we tabled our monetary proposals in early June 2025. Throughout the process, we bargained in good faith and modified our proposals, withdrawing some proposals where warranted, making concessions, and creating counter-proposals to try and reach an agreement with the employer. In some instances, we took multiple runs through our proposals to come up with a solution acceptable to both parties. By and large, we bargained on our proposals from the start, with the employer having only two proposals—one of which was a proposed 10-FTE carve out for equity-seeking and representative working groups that fundamentally undermined our seniority and precedence, which is the only real form of job security we have as contract instructors.

Over the course of bargaining, we focused on the substantive priorities that we established as a unit: jobs security for members with precedence; permanent part-time appointments; reducing the number of FTEs to move up the steps on our wage structure; and updating the process of obtaining letters of appointment. We continually made the case for more consistent timelines around job postings, appointments to teach, and the issuing of contracts, citing existing and well-defined timelines and procedures at other universities. We also focused on securing worker-friendly language on discipline, performance improvement, and termination. And while we were able to come to some small agreements with some concessions from the employer, the process was frustrating. 

While not wanting overdetermine or overdraw the disposition of the employer, the general tone we encountered was not so much acrimonious and adversarial but more of a generalized indifference premised on the presumed prerogative and power of an employer invested in a zero-sum conception of management rights. This is the structural antagonism built into labour negotiations and collective bargaining. As such, and despite some positive conversations, we remained well aware of what continue to be significant gaps between what we want and value versus the needs and interests of the employer. 

During our three bargaining sessions in June 2025, the employer’s responses were remarkably consistent with the responses and reasons we received continually: recourse to management rights; not able to “operationalize” proposals or measures; and proposals being unrealistic in financial or institutional terms (i.e., “not in a position to do this at this time”). Regarding our momentary proposals on course stipends and wage increases, our wage structure (3% increases per year plus a $1000 wage increase at the outset) was rejected outright and countered with 1% and pittance-like increase in holiday pay contingent on agreeing with this 1% proposal. We found this to be insulting, a response that further cheapens our labour with an employer that continues to stall on issuing contracts and seems more interested in relying on just-in-time labour to teach just-in-time university courses according to the logic of “revenue-positive course offerings.” We don’t deny the economic and financial pressures that shape SMU and the sector, but we refuse to play the role of proportional “acceptable losses” as cost-cutting measures on some pathway to financial recovery. As workers who drive enrollments and sustain program development, we create value for the university on its own terms.

Our proposals on access to an extended health benefits plan, access to a pension plan, on compensation for work on committees, on compensation for course cancellations, and on increases to professional development funds: all were rejected. Notably, even as we crafted many of our new proposals with language from other existing collective agreements at SMU (with SMUFU, CUP 4491, and NSGEU 179) and with an emphasis on existing agreements with other workers on campus, we ran into walls.

After what became our final bargaining session on 20 June where SMU responded to our monetary proposals, we caucused and agreed that this was unacceptable and that we were at an impasse and so decided to file for conciliation. Our CUPE National Rep communicated this to the employer, and we formally filed for conciliation with the province on 23 June. On 11 July, we received notice that we’d been assigned a mediator and conciliation officer and that conciliation was scheduled for Thursday 11 September. 

In effect, conciliation is a mediated opportunity to reach a tentative agreement. If conciliation fails to produce an agreement, the pathway to job action and a strike is open. If no agreement is reached, a conciliator files a report that triggers a 13-day “cooling off” period and an opportunity for one final meeting on Day 14 after the report. If no agreement is reached, 3912 SMU PTA workers would be in a legal strike position. Sometimes, there is a possibility of a second conciliation date, but this would be contingent on the conciliator’s decisions and assessments. 

What do our members need to know? The 3912 SMU PTA unit will be holding a strike mandate vote (a “strike authorization vote” or “strike vote”) on 9 and 10 September, just before conciliation. All 3912 SMU PTA members with a teaching contract in the Fall 2025 semester can vote. A strong strike vote—that is, a high percentage of members with contracts vote to authorize a strike and provide a mandate to strike if and when warranted and necessary—is a normal part of the bargaining process. It provides the bargaining team with leverage going into conciliation, and it sends a clear message to the employer that our membership is committed to labour action. While a strike is disruptive for workers who rely on their wages, withdrawing our labour can ultimately force a tentative agreement if we cannot reach one in advance that is fair, just, and sustainable for our membership. We remain committed to bargaining, but we are mobilizing and preparing our membership for what could be a possible strike. This is essential, and to do otherwise would be irresponsible and a surrender.

Because of the cuts to SMU courses that are typically taught by 3912 contract faculty, we know that we have fewer active 3912 SMU PTA members teaching this fall. To some, this may suggest that a strike may have less of an impact or effect in terms of the SMU’s academic offerings in the Fall 2025. Yet, our comrades in the 3912 SMU TA unit are also heading into conciliation, and our CUPE 4491 (facilities management) colleagues are also waiting to receive a date for conciliation. Some of our other 3912 PTA units at Dal U and MSVU are also heading into conciliation, too. So, again, while we may feel vulnerable, we have support across the campus, the local, and the sector. The everyday work of the unit and local doesn’t change: we continue to move grievances on the behalf of members and in the interests of the local, and we continue to push the employer to respect and apply the current CA in all labour management contexts. 

As we move into the new semester, we encourage our members to stay informed, to prepare, to be ready, and to be clear about possible developments over the next month. We expect to send out consistent communications in the next week about meeting to hold the strike vote, and we’ll begin to ramp up a strike mobilization campaign, too. We are stronger as a unified and collective group of workers, and we will continue to represent the wider needs and interests of the membership. Stay tuned.

CUPE 3912 Solidarity with the Dalhousie Faculty Association (DFA)

CUPE local 3912 stands with the Dalhousie Faculty Association as Dalhousie University has locked them out starting Wednesday, August 20. It is abhorrent this has happened as DFA members were in the process of voting to ratify the proposed Collective Agreement! This is a first for a U15 University in Canada and we recognize this sets a dangerous precedence. We know just how vital the work of professors, instructors, librarians and professional counsellors is for ensuring Dalhousie runs. 

We emphatically support the DFA strike action and joined their rally on Friday, August 22. We commend the bravery and unity of DFA members and executives who have chosen to join your picket lines. We stand with the DFA and will join their picket lines. See this document here for locations. 

For ongoing updates from the DFA

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: A PRIMER

Originally posted as COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 101 by Jeff McKeil (Canadian Association of University Teachers) in 2016

2025 Additions by Aiden Farrant

Edited by Sophie J. Boardman

Navigating the different stages of the bargaining process can be challenging, especially for precarious workers like those in Local 3912 who may be used to legislation and procedures from other provincial or international districts. This article is to serve as a primer, highlighting key tasks for the Local’s Negotiating Committee, its volunteer support, and the Employer at crucial stages. We hope it will help you, our Members, engage constructively when you come out to support the Local.

What is Collective Bargaining?

Collective bargaining is a process for identifying and resolving conflicts over the terms and conditions of employment. It is a structured conversation about what academic staff really do, and about how their work should be recognized and compensated.

The process by which the Employer and the Union come to an agreement over terms relating to the workplace, and can include but is not limited to:

  • pay rates 
  • seniority and hiring 
  • duties of work
  • working conditions and safety concerns
  • workspaces and job materials
  • benefits and pensions
  • academic freedoms
  • training opportunities
  • relationships between Supervisors and Employees

The Bargaining process is prescribed by the Trade Union Act in Nova Scotia, and has been intentionally designed so that what is finally agreed to through the process of good faith bargaining is what the parties themselves agreed to, based on the particular working environment and employment relationship.

The effectiveness of the Local at ensuring the Employer is compelled to offer ‘concessions’, or agree to what the Negotiating Committee proposes, is proportional to its collective organization, which amplifies Members’ voices. Collective Bargaining is fundamentally a power relationship in which each side’s relative power is leveraged at the table to achieve their goals.

How does Collective Bargaining work?

The process generally follows these steps:

  • Preparation:

In this stage, the Local and the Employer appoint their respective Negotiating Committees. In the Local’s case, this happens at a Unit Meeting (either special or regular annual) where one or two members at large are elected to committee seats, along with the Unit Vice-President. The Local’s President and National Servicing Representative are also included on Negotiating Committees, the latter serving as Chief Negotiator.

The Negotiating Committees then solicit feedback from the Membership about what key bargaining issues are. To ensure and enhance the Union’s collective strength, Negotiating Committees work hard to fairly represent the interests of all its membership and ensure that improved working conditions are being sought for all. Employers will often pit working classifications against each other (for example, Part-Time Faculty against Teaching Assistants), therefore Negotiating Committees must strive to identify unifying issues that can unite these classifications for more effective negotiations.

Member feedback is then crafted into a proposed Collective Agreement (also called “proposals” when described as specific articles of a proposed Collective Agreement). Depending on bargaining timelines, these proposals may be presented to the membership for approval. Often member feedback is received relatively recently before proposals are crafted, so Negotiating Committees proceed directly to exchanging them with the Employer.

  • At the Table:

Once proposals are drafted, it is time for the Negotiating Committee to meet its counterparts from the Employer and exchange proposed Collective Agreements. However, each team must first come to an agreement on ground rules they will use when bargaining (e.g., meeting location, cost sharing, identification of each chief spokesperson, etc.). Occasionally, one side will refuse to provide meeting dates or reply to correspondence in a timely manner. In these situations, a request to the Labour Board generally compels the belligerent side to cooperate.

Once procedure is established, each side now takes a turn making an opening statement outlining overall goals and their respective written proposals, which can include supporting verbal explanations and documentation. Generally, financial proposals (those relating to wages, pensions, and benefits) are held for last, as they often cause the most disagreement between the Union and Employers. The Negotiating Committees move through proposals systematically, looking for areas of agreement and compromise. The Negotiating Committees might withdraw from the bargaining table for brief breaks, called “caucuses”, to discuss where compromises can be made without the other team hearing. 

  • Conciliation:

If the Employer and the Union cannot reach an agreement that the Union believes its members will support, such as when the Union is asked to give up a proposal deemed non-negotiable by its Membership, then the negotiations are at an impasse. In this case, both parties can agree to move into conciliation, where a neutral third party called a “Conciliator” is appointed by the Labour Board. 

The Conciliator meets with both parties and reviews the outstanding proposals before drafting a report. The report contains suggestions for updated proposals that the Conciliator deems fair for both parties. However, the Conciliator’s report may still not support proposals deemed non-negotiable by the membership, prompting further action.

  • Job Action:

Although not formally a component of bargaining, labour stoppages and other forms of organized striking give increased leverage to Negotiating Committees helping them ensure favourable tentative Collective Agreements for their members. Once conciliation has been attempted, a Unit can call on its membership to deliver a Strike Mandate by holding a Strike Vote. According to the Trade Union Act, those who will be affected by a strike are eligible to cast a ballot in a Strike Vote. CUPE 3912 has interpreted this in the past and present to mean those who have active contracts at the time of the strike vote. More than half of those with current contracts have to vote YES to support a strike for the Local to achieve a Strike Mandate. If a member chooses not to vote, this is counted as a NO vote. . 

If the vote is successful, showing that the Membership is ready to support the Negotiating Committee with job action, then final bargaining attempts can occur. In these final sessions, the Negotiating Committee can flaunt the strike mandate and promise the Employer a major headache if a strike is called.

If these final sessions aren’t fruitful, then the Local can call a strike, provided certain timelines in the Trade Union Act are respected. During a strike, the Negotiating Committee continues to meet with the Employer. Once both a satisfactory tentative Collective Agreement, as well as a Return To Work Agreement (which covers issues of lost wages during the strike, outstanding work, and other conditions relating to restarting regular duties), the strike can be called off. 

  • Ratification:

Once both the Negotiating Committee and the Employer are satisfied with a tentative Collective Agreement, it is brought to the membership for approval in a process known as “ratification”. Here, if a majority of those who vote (not those eligible to vote like in the Strike Vote) support the tentative Collective Agreement, it is ratified. If the ratification vote fails, then the Negotiating Committee returns to the table. Along with job action (i.e. striking), presenting a tentative Collective Agreement to the membership and having it be voted down resoundingly is a strategy that Negotiating Committees can use to coerce more favourable outcomes from the Employer.

How can the Membership support bargaining efforts?

Throughout the bargaining process, Members’ voices are given opportunities to be heard. In fact, what drives negotiations are the needs and wants of the Membership, as the Negotiating Committee is only empowered to ask for what the Membership wants when crafting proposals, and can only commit to staying at the table so long as they have Membership support (through having a mobilized membership, having a strike mandate, having ratification vote fail strategically, etc.). 

So what is the Union actually asking of Members? Well, during the preparation phase, the Negotiating Committee needs to hear any and all perspectives on the workplace. That means answering surveys, attending town halls, corresponding with your VP and Steward, and letting the Union know where they can advocate for improvement in your working conditions. Often in Local 3912’s case, specific improvements are already covered by the previous Collective Agreement, which is simply not being followed. In that case the VP and/or Steward can help solve issues with a formal grievance, but that’s another article.

While the Negotiating Committee is at the table, it still needs Members’ attention. The Committee will periodically update the membership with what compromises it might have to make, and ask the membership to narrow in on what its non-negotiables will be (i.e. what the Membership will go on strike to ensure it gains). New proposals can’t be added at this time, that’s a sign of bargaining in bad faith, but member testimonials can help ensure the Employer understands the need for specific proposals. 

The time for major support from members comes during Job Action. Participation in a strike vote is a must to ensure a Strike Mandate is gained. Once it is, escalation to work stoppages and refusal to be “replacement workers” (formerly known as “scabs”) who continue to perform their workplace duties is crucial to ensuring the Employer understands the importance of its unionized workers. Here, participating however you can in picketing, mobilization and outreach, or simply refusing to work until the Employer agrees to negotiate constructively and agree to the Union’s proposals is essential to ensuring a Collective Agreement with improved protections for all members.

We need your support to ensure that the exploitation of precarious workers ceases. Your Local advocates hard for fair wages, job security, reasonable duties, and a safe environment. With your help, we can ensure that this vision becomes a reality. Please contact your VP and/or Steward for how you can help with your Unit’s current bargaining stage and direction. 

If you have more questions about Strike votes and Striking, head to these FAQ pages on our website: 

Solidarity with CUPE Air Canada workers – Rallies Cancelled

CANCELLED

Because a tentative agreement was reached, these rallies are cancelled. 

 

Join CUPE tomorrow for demonstrations and info pickets at the following Liberal MP offices:

  • 10:00 AM – Jessica Fancy-Landry’s Office, Liberal MP, Bridgewater, 517 King Street, Bridgewater, NS.
  • 12:00 PM – Sean Fraser’s Office, Liberal MP, Central Nova, 2A-115 MacLean Street, New Glasgow, NS.
  • 5:30 PM – Braedon Clark’s Office, Liberal MP, 201-2900 Highway 2, Fall River, NS.
  • 5:30 PM – Mike Kelloway’s Office, Liberal MP, Sydney-Glace Bay, 7-850 Grand Lake Road, Sydney, NS.

 

Welcome Day Event for SMU Faculty

This event is organized by The Studio for Teaching and Learning. For more information contact Julian L’Enfant (He/Him).

The event will provide new faculty with the opportunity to meet our new President & Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Michael Khan, and Provost & Vice-President, Academic and Research, Dr. Shannon Dea, and learn about the Saint Mary’s community, its institutional values, and the many supports available to you as you begin your journey at SMU. Faculty will also meet the Deans, representatives from the Studio for Teaching and Learning, and engage with a faculty panel and student panel who will share their experiences of their life at SMU.

If you are planning to attend, please indicate any dietary requirements by Tuesday, August 19 by filling out this form.