1

York University-CIGI Initiative: Presentation to SenatePatrick Monahan, Provost

March 22, 2012

2

Outline of Presentation

• Provide overview of agreement

• Identify major areas of concern that have been raised

• Discuss attempts to respond to concerns

• Propose development of an academic governance framework by APPRC to be voted on in Senate in April

• Hear from Senators

3

Overview

• A total of $60 million in funding to be provided over 10 years to fund 10 Chairs and 20 graduate students

• Ambition is to establish York University as world leader in international law

• Aligns with White Paper/UAP goals

• Funding to be provided by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo and the Government of Ontario

4

Overview

• CIGI is non-partisan, non-profit, independent centre of excellence in field of international governance

• From the outset CIGI has confirmed a commitment to the highest standards of academic excellence, respect for academic freedom, and a recognition that the university has final authority with respect to appointment of chairs and academic matters generally

5

Background

• Original CIGI agreement entered into in August 2011 envisaged all chairs being appointed as Osgoode faculty

• Initiative approved by Osgoode Faculty Council in November 2011 subject to finalizing an academic freedom protocol by January 2012 deadline

• Terms of the protocol were not finalized by deadline and approval lapsed

• University decided to proceed with a model that will permit other faculties to participate in the initiative, in addition to Osgoode

6

Overview

• University has attempted to respond to major concerns identified during Osgoode discussions

• negotiated and signed two Protocols (February 10 and March 9), intended to protect academic freedom and set out a process for allocating and recruiting chairs

• APPRC has reviewed these documents, discussed the initiative, and endorsed it unanimously

7

Major Areas of concern

• Influence over identification of research areas for chairs

• Role of CIGI in reviewing shortlists of candidates

• Academic freedom of Chairs following their appointment

• Control over curriculum, students, other academic matters

8

Identifying Research Areas for Chairs

• York Faculties will develop proposals for Chairs, including the title of the Chair, and the research area(s) for the Chairs

• Those proposals will be reviewed by a University committee on the basis of criteria set out by the Provost

• Proposals for chairs approved by a Steering Committee

• It is standard procedure for a donor to agree to the general research areas for a chair

9

Recruiting Chairs

• Chairs will be recruited by Faculties using normal collegial processes

• CIGI has no decision-making role regarding Chair recruitment

• Collegial University process will generate a shortlist of candidates

• No names can be added to a shortlist by anyone outside the Faculty

10

Recruiting Chairs

• The shortlist will be reviewed by the Steering Committee

• In the event that there is any difference of opinion within Steering Committee, shortlist will be referred to an independent committee of scholars at arms-length from CIGI & University

• View of independent committee of scholars will be binding on Steering Committee

• Independent peer review is standard within CRC, CERC and NSERC Industrial Research Chair program

11

Recruiting Chairs

• Once shortlist is settled, the University will recruit the Chair using normal collegial processes – CIGI has no involvement of any kind

12

Chairs’ Academic Freedom

• Chairs will hold a tenure-stream/tenured faculty appointment at the University, in addition to holding a CIGI Chair

• Will enjoy all academic freedoms and rights enjoyed by full-time faculty members at York

• The chair will be expected to undertake research in the area identified by the Faculty in original proposal

• This is the normal expectation for all Chairs at York, during the term they hold the Chair

13

Other academic matters

• Proposal does not involve any curriculum or program change

• Any proposals for curriculum change would follow normal Senate process

• Students will be enrolled in existing degree programs at York and subject to existing university policies applicable to graduate students

14

APPRC/Senate’s role

• Want to work with APPRC and Senate to clarify the basis upon which the initiative could proceed

• APPRC has agreed to develop an academic governance framework to clarify these academic freedom protections & provide for ongoing monitoring and oversight• Clarify expectations/understandings regarding research

areas, recruiting of chairs, academic freedom, & other academic matters

• Provide ongoing oversight by APPRC/Senate over implementation

15

Next steps

• Time is of the essence

• I will ask that the APPRC academic governance framework be submitted to Senate for endorsement in April

• Want to hear from Senators as to what form this academic governance framework should take and work collaboratively with colleagues

• Will not proceed without Senate endorsement of academic governance framework