The Pro Vice Chancellor, Professor Tony Ballantyne, has proposed a restructuring of the humanities division. This restructure would result in building shuffles (word on the street is that the Richardson Building is being considered), and the downsizing of humanities from 16 units to 7. These units consist of the existing Faculty of Law, College of Education and Te Tumu: School of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies, and the brand new School of Social Sciences (a mash-up of eight departments/programmes), School of Arts (a mash-up of nine departments/programmes), then (weirdly) the School of Geography, and finally the School of Performing Arts. Being such a significant change to the division, of course this proposal was then appropriately communicated and discussed with the thousands of students it would affect…
Jk lol. I would love to meet a student not on the OUSA executive that knew about any of these proposed changes over a week ago. So if it’s not a secret, why weren’t students being told about this? Why weren’t they included in the conversation?
When asked about the accessibility of the proposal, Professor Ballantyne said that copies of it were sent to all professional and academic staff in the humanities division in February, as well as “relevant” members of the OUSA executive. Whoever these relevant OUSA exec members were (presumably our current education and campaigns officers), they clearly didn’t see the need to communicate it with the rest of the student body.
But maybe this is nothing to actually panic about. According to our OUSA Post-Grad Rep, Kirio Birks, it’s not something “students necessarily need to weigh in on,”. He “trusts the university on this one,” so why shouldn’t we?
Because this isn’t a matter of trust. Anyone who reads the proposal and doesn’t see how students will be affected is kidding themselves. Not just because the lines for the lifts in the Richardson Building will be literal hell, but because of the potential loss of distinctiveness between programmes, the potential for postgraduates to lose their spaces and facilities in the name of cost-effectiveness, and the fact that the proposal prides itself on being in line with the “core values promoted by the [Student Services Review]” that axed so many of our support staff. Yikes. This restructure would be a huge financial decision that at the very least, as the people who fund most of the damn thing, it would be nice to have had an adequate heads up.
This whole institution is built on, for, and by students. We need to be a part of the conversation. Right now, the proposal is being portrayed as nothing more than a cheeky room change. But what comes next? When exactly is student input actually considered valuable? Or considered at all?
I’m not saying that any and all changes to humanities are inherently negative. Ballantyne is right, making better use of the space available is a good idea. But there are questions that need to be asked. From the potential disruption to staff and students to whether all these cost-saving measures will be reflected in our course fees?
Our input is valuable. Remember to talk to us next time. We are sick of being kept in the dark.