By Peter Ewart

Should James Moore, former Conservative Party cabinet minister, be appointed Chancellor of UNBC?

For several weeks now, a controversy has been boiling over on this issue in Central and Northern British Columbia.

It is generally agreed that the Chancellor position at a university has symbolic and ceremonial importance.  But it is also true that, as others have noted, the Chancellor also has “a lot of influence” and carries “significant weight” in the governance of a university in that he or she chairs the convocation, and sits as a voting member of the Board of Governors and the Senate (1).

According to the official description for UNBC’s chancellor, he or she “is a distinguished person … whose reputation, relationships and experience help advance the University,” who “exemplifies and symbolizes the University by his/her conduct and the standards he/she sets,” and who has a “commitment to equity, excellence and diversity” (2).

Given the symbolism and influence of the position, it follows that members of the university community, as well as the community at large, are fully justified in weighing in about who does become chancellor, and whether or not the views of an appointee such as Moore are consistent with the core values and principles of the university as expressed in its mission statement and official description of the chancellor position.

Opponents of Moore’s appointment are quite right to argue that he does not meet the requirements.  An online petition notes that Moore, as a federal government cabinet minister, took positions that muzzled Federal scientists, refused to take meaningful action on climate change, stifled democratic dissent, discounted the need for a Federal inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women, and “sought to exploit anti-Muslim sentiment amongst Canadians in order to bolster its electoral fortunes” (3).  How can any of these policies fit into the vision of “Canada’s green university” and its commitment to equity, excellence and diversity?  It’s a square peg in a round hole.

In that regard, the argument cannot simply be that James Moore is conservative in his views or even that he is a member of the Conservative Party.  What is relevant is that, while a cabinet minister, he actively advocated for and promoted specific policies that collide with the core values and principles of the university as expressed in the mission statement and official chancellor description.  If Moore happened to be a member of the Liberal, NDP, Green or any other party and promoted such policies, he should also be rejected.

Furthermore, the argument cannot also be that Moore’s appointment will clash with the new Trudeau government and, as a result, should be rejected in favour of a nominee more in line with the Liberal Party.  Governments come and go, the issue remains that the key factor in choosing a chancellor must be whether he or she is consistent with the values and principles of the university.

This especially holds true in an era where various governments at the federal and provincial levels, whether Liberal, Conservative or NDP, have attempted to further erode the autonomy of universities and independence of its research and teaching.

And herein lies the larger context of the controversy.  One of the reasons why this issue has erupted with such ferocity is that, in 2008, the appointment process in BC universities was tampered with in what seems to have been a power play by the provincial government against university communities.

In British Columbia, the tradition of the university convocation (which includes members of senate, all faculty members, and all graduates of the university) electing chancellors goes back over 100 years.  However, this tradition ended in 2008 when the provincial government, with no consultation, changed the University Act and handed over sole voting power to the Board of Governors at BC universities and thus disenfranchised the rest of the convocation (4).

Various professors, senators, and alumni at BC universities vehemently objected to this anti-democratic measure.  For example, in 2008, the University of British Columbia Senate noted that the “general practice throughout Canada is for the Chancellor to be elected – either from their convocations or by their senates, joint senates and board or by a joint council of various sorts.”  The UBC Senate further passed a resolution calling upon the provincial government to respect the autonomy of the University and to re-establish the traditional manner of electing the Chancellor (4).

However, the provincial government refused to consider the request.  Indeed, the government seems to have brought about this change by stealth over a number of years by passing specific legislation for new universities (e.g., Quest / Sea To Sky University in 2002 and Thompson Rivers University in 2005) that vested future Chancellor appointment power in the Board of Governors.

And it was not just the provincial Liberal government that rammed through this change.  In 1997, the NDP government put forward Bill 30, the Technical University of British Columbia Act.  In that Act, among other anti-democratic measures, the NDP government stripped the convocation of the right to vote in the Chancellor in future years.   At that time, the Canadian Association of University Teachers charged that the new legislation allowed for the government to exert “political control and interference in the operation of the new university unlike other universities in the province” (5).

Fast forward to 2015.  Now the situation has gone viral.  The Liberal government has dictated that, at all universities in the province, only the Boards of Governors have the power to decide who will be Chancellor.  The president of the UBC Alma Mater Society commented in 2008 that these new rules further disconnect the university community from the work of the administration and, in particular, deprive students of a voice (6).

It is certainly not hard to see how the changes put more power into the hands of the provincial government.  After all, at UNBC, the provincial government gets to appoint 8 of the 15 members of the Board of Governors.  And it is this small body, not the broader university community, which now makes the final decision about who will be Chancellor.

As Stefanie Ratjen of the UBC Alma Mater Society noted back in 2008, “our universities are increasingly run by appointed officials in whom the public has absolutely zero say” (6).  This, of course, makes it easier for a provincial government to bend universities to its own partisan purposes and rule by decree.

At a time when globalization is increasingly disenfranchising local communities and even nation states,  this problem is a matter of concern for all British Columbians, whether we vote Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green or any other party.

In today’s world, we need more democracy not less.  The James Moore appointment should be withdrawn.  Furthermore, the University Act should be changed back to what it was before.  Let the university community decide who should be Chancellor of UNBC.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

• Taylor-Vaisey, Nick. “B.C. students reject chancellor appointments.” Macleans.ca. August 15, 2008. http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/bc-students-reject-chancellor-appointments/

• “Position description of Chancellor at UNBC.” University of Northern British Columbia. December 6, 2015. http://www.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/governance/senate/positiondescription-chancellor.pdf

• Anonymous senator from UNBC. “UNBC must reverse its decision to appoint James Moore as Chancellor.” change.org. December 6, 2015. https://www.change.org/p/unbc-board-of-governors-unbc-must-reverse-its-decision-to-appoint-james-moore-as-chancellor?recruiter=436694526&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

• “Minutes of May 14, 2008. University of British Columbia Senate. University of British Columbia. Accessed on December 5, 2015. http://senate.ubc.ca/sites/senate.ubc.ca/files/downloads/va_minutes_may2008.pdf

• Savage, Dr. Donald (CAUT) & Robert Clift (CUFA). “Analysis of Bill 30 – 1997 Technical University of British Columbia Act.” CUFA BC. June 18, 1997. http://www.cufabc.ca/tubc/Bill30-Analysis.html

• Jackson, Sarah-Nelle. “New chancellor election process ignores students.” Ubyssey. August 13, 2008. http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2008_08_13.pdf