Re: certification

[Sean Zwagerman <sean_zwagerman@sfu.ca>]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the dialogue. I’ll be brief, as I have a commitment to help build snowmen.

As for #1, point taken. I remove “from the outset” from my statement.

2. We may be operating from different definitions of leadership, mine perhaps overly idealistic. To me it’s not a matter of making available a platform for opposing views, but actively ensuring that those views are presented.

3. Well, it was indeed one of the main arguments presented to me recently in the card-signing initiative. As for the claim that “it is a clear indication that the majority of faculty in Canada who are legally able to certify have found doing so to be to their advantage,” I see it not as a clear indication at all, but as one possible reading among many. Further, I tend to be skeptical of the premise of this argument, that what’s good for the majority must be good for everyone.

As for #4, I think we all know that bureaucracies tend to metastasize, and I think it’s either disingenuous or idealistic to suggest that a union bureaucracy will not be any larger or more bureaucratic than SFUFA. But you’re absolutely right, it is just an assumption on my part. If certification passes, let’s revisit this one in a few years, when we both will be very happy if I’m wrong.
As for the freedom part, look no further than the language in this morning’s previous email exchange:
from CUPE: “If the accused is found guilty, the Trial Committee will decide any penalty and what, if anything, the accused must do or not do.”
The euphemistic characterization of this as “political mechanisms that are designed to encourage people to take particular actions” makes me laugh in that same brittle way that I might find myself laughing on occasion while reading Kafka.

5. It’s for our own good.
I was using this as an idiomatic expression, not a literal one, and as a caution against assuming that one knows what is in everyone else’s best interest. And overall, my comparison to learning outcomes was, though serious in a way, also a little stand-up routine about how zeal tends to be blind to its own absurdities.

seriously absurd and absurdly serious,
Sean

----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>
To: Sean Zwagerman <sean_zwagerman@sfu.ca>
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Sent: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:42:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: re certification

Dear Sean—

I think you are mischaracterizing this process rather unfairly.

> 1. Pitched, from the outset, by leaders who seem already to have their minds made up.

Actually, this process has involved quite a bit of debate amongst the SFUFA executive over the past 8 to 10 months or so. Though I am not a member of that group, I do know that there has not been total agreement on the matter. Furthermore, the president of SFUFA, as he has noted a number of times in emails to the membership, was not pro-certification at the beginning of this process and only came to support certification over the course of the fall semester.

It can hardly be said to have been pitched by leaders who had their minds made up from the outset.

>> 

> 2. In fact, faculty had to ask for a presentation on the possible negative impacts.

Actually, this is also a gross mischaracterization of the process. In fact, I participated in what was I believe the first event in a series of events about certification back in May of last year. There were two of us who participated in a debate of sorts: me, who was pro-certification, and a professor from Business, who was very opposed to say the least.

Also, there have been repeated offers by the SFUFA leadership — in particular by Neil Abramson — to support people who step forward to present opposed views. This offer has been made repeatedly. It took until this past month for people to do so. 

> 3. One of the main arguments in favor is that lots of other schools are doing it.

This is hardly a main argument for doing so, but it is a clear indication that the majority of faculty in Canada who are legally able to certify have found doing so to be to their advantage.

> 4. We’re assured that it won’t bring lots of extra work and bureaucracy, and won’t curtail individual freedom.

It’s not apparent why certification would bring lots of extra work and bureaucracy. Our functioning — our constitution, our committees, etc. — would all remain the same. There would be no added bureaucracy in the form of membership in a larger national union. It’s not clear to me why one would assume that certification would bring this extra work.

> 5. It’s for our own good.

I’m not quite sure how to respond to this. I guess one could characterize the argument that certification will bring benefits to us as being “for our own good,” in which case I can plead guilty, as an advocate of certification, to believing that this is for our own good. I sure would not advocate if I thought it were not for our own good. 

Sincerely,

Chris