November 11,

ew

The Cadre

The Legacy of soc/anth

Part two of two

Peter Gillis, Billy Zane and Melanie Ascot

n January 21, 1997,

Jennifer Caseley wrote

herexpose on the prob- lems of the department of So- ciologyand Anthropology. The reaction toher article was quick and very powerful.

Even before the article was published, Caseley began to receive threats and com- plaints by students from the Soc/Anth Society itself. Ex- ecutive members of the soci- ety suggested to her that she noteven write the article at all, or that she contact a lawyer, because of possible lawsuits. Caseley proceeded with her research, and soon saw its publication in the Panther Prints.

Immediately following the release of the Panther Prints, a — cam- paign was organized by stu- dents in the soc/anth depart- ment. In their retaliation, a Canadian University Press record of 12 letters to the edi- tor were written in total for the following news issue. Few of the letters offered new evidence in the case; rather, most chug Caseley with character defamation and li- bel. In fact, some even went so far as to say that she was, plain and simple, a bad journal- ist, that she didn’t know how to do research, and that she was unjustly performing a ‘witch hunt’. —

explained Jennifer Caseley in an interview on the subject. “However, | had all the docu- ments to back up what I said.”

Aside from written com- plaints, Caseley, along with staff of the Panther Prints who were not even involved with the article, received verbal abuse from soc/anth students.

“It was close to a dozen different times that they came down to the office, threatening

and complaining,” said Caseley. “They even com- plained in our office to the photographer at one time, who obviously had nothing to do with it. I justcan’t see how my article could have caused that much trouble.”

While this did not cause trouble with student programs, controversy was definitely starting up in other areas of the university.

The story was even brought to the attention of Phillip Smith, Dean of Arts, by Michael Klenavic, last year’s Student Union Ombudsman, months before the article even came out. The Dean had also previously received several complaints from students in Soc/Anth, so was already aware of many of the con- cerns expressed by Caseley.

Dean Smith first ap- proached President Epperly to determine the best solution to resolve the complaints. The President recommended an external review of the depart- ment, one that would cover both curriculum and the accu- sations against several profes- sors. In addition to this, Dr. Smith decided to start his own decanal review, launched January 21, 1997.

The mandate for the decanal review was extensive. First, it was to determine if there were departmental ten- sions that were having an im- pact on students. If tensions were found to exist, the Dean had full authority, in conjunc- tion with the President’s of- fice, to resolve the situation. This review was a private, in- ternal review, and was there- fore not open for publication or distribution. To get around the fear many students had of voic- ing their concerns, students were assured that any com- plaint they made beheld in confidence. Comments made were only open to the Dean’s personal interpretation.

Letters were sent out to

faculty, student representa- tives, and the executive of the Soc/Anth Society to be distrib- uted to all students of the de- partment. Several students and staff were interviewed, and over 45 inter-faculty memos were reviewed. How- ever, inarecent interview with Dean Smith, he recognized that not all students came forward with their concerns.

"The main com- plaint was that it was too slanderous," [says Caseley]..."However I had all the docu- ments to back up what Isaid"

During his review, he found that the marks of stu- dents were not suffering due to any challenges made to pro- fessors or their ideologies and that there seemed to exist a great deal of academic free- dom within the department. However, this of course does not hold true when there were students being penalized for choosing sides in the conflicts between professors (Students who su one professor would find their marks suffer- ing in the class of an opposing faculty member.).

Smith’s decanal review was completed last semester. In a letter to faculty and staff, Dean Smith stated, “I do not find evidence that tensions between Department mem- bers are interfering with the teaching and learning carried out in Sociology and Anthro- po classes. And in par- ticular, I find that the rights of students to consult with other

fessors are respected.”

While the Dean was co ducting his decanal review, a self-study of the de; ent was also underway. This study

was comprised of both an in- ternal review, conducted by Dr. Nagarajan, and an exter- nal review, led by Dr. Herbert Horwich and Dr. Max Hedley.

Students were under the impression that the reviews were created to deal with stu- dent complaints and that each reviewer would be available to hear their concerns. Unfortu- nately, this was not the case.

Dr. Horwich arrived Thursday, March 20 and stayed for only three days. During his stay, there was one meeting, held publically in the Soc/Anth lounge, on Friday, March 21. It lasted two hours and offered very few chances for students to express their concerns. Also, students were not informed of where Dr. Horwich was staying or how tocontact him. Similar events occurred with the arrival of Dr. Hedley.

In an effort to help Dr. Horwich’s review, Michael Klenavic e-mailed him with details of current problems and a request for the specifics of his mandate. Horwich’s reply was ‘to look it up’ in university manuals. Klenavic received a later message from Horwich, via Dean Smith, requesting that

UPEI’s Student Union Om- budsman refrain from sending the reviewer further informa- tion.

Klenavicalsocalled into question the objectivity of two of the reviewers. Both Dr. Horwich and Dr. Nagarajan had strong ties to the Sociol- ogy/Anthropology Depart- ment, and to Dr. Dasgupta in whe an Dr. Horwich had

a summer session instruc- torat the university in the past, yet was still expected to pro- vide an “external” perspective into the workings of the de- partment. Dr. Nagarajan had actually allied for joint research grants with Chair Dasgupta.

In light of these ties, Klenavic encouraged the UPEI Student Council to pass a mo- tion of protest against the re- viewers. On March 2 of this year, the Council passed the following motion:

“Be it resolved that the Student Union of UPEI 1996- 1997 immediately petition the Dean of Arts, Dr. Philip Smith,

continued on page 4, See, "The Legacy...

File photo of Soc/Anth Chair Dasgupta

TE