5 The Cadre November, 11 1997

The legacy of soc/anth; part two

continued from page 3

1997 immediately petition the Dean of Arts, Dr. Philip Smith, to remove both Dr. Nagarajan and Dr. Horwich from the re- view committee by Thursday, March 13, 1997 and replace them with impartial appoint-

ees. Be it also resolved that if

the review is allowed to pro- ceed with such improprieties as are obvious to the Student Union, and the reviewers are not removed, the Student Un- ion will not recognize the find- ings presented to Senate.” NO reacton to the motion was ever recieved by the UPEI Student Union.

In an effort to get a re- sponse to the motion, a request was made by student senators tohavethe SU motion included in the agenda for the March 14, 1997 Senate meeting. The item was not included, and when Dr. Epperly was ap- proached for a reason for the exclusion, her response was that the issue would be better dealt with in a President’s Report (Note: no copy of this report can be found). Student senators tried to reintroduce the item at the Senate meeting, during the approval of the agenda, but were blocked by other senators. No formal motion was made to introduce the concerns of the Student Union, and the Senate never officially recognized the pre- vailing problems with the Soc/ Anth Department.

The reason for the ad- ministration’s backing of the reviewers became apparent this past summer. In hindsight, the ignoring of the SU motion

by the Senate, by the adminis- tration, and by Dean Smith is quite understandable. It is now known that the reviews were actually part of a mandatory five-year curriculum evalua- tion of the department. The reviewers were approved in the Spring of 1996, six months before any investigation into the problems of Soc/Anth. Their only mandates were to decide if the courses offered in the calendar were reason- able — no authority was given to investigate student com- plaints regarding professors or marks. Complaints could be heard, but would not be re- flected in the official report.

Since the review was merely an investigation into curriculum, there seems to be no conflict of interest on be- halfofthe reviewers. As Dean Smith stated, Horwich’s tie to the department “does not hinder his ability to offer a fair assessment of the Depatment’s curriculum and scholarly efforts.” But the im- pression students received re- garding the mandate of the reviews was entirely false. Neither the Student Union Ombudsman nor the soc/anth students were informed that the review was nota forum for their particular complaints.

To date, there has still been no formal, public review of the problems that occurred over the last three years and no recognition from the ad- ministration of any problem in the department of Sociology and Anthropology.

: pees, =e i Be Election and — Referendum Results — All right. Kristen Patterson finally found out who is what, and what is who: Vice President External: ma x \ grits es Adam Kenny — es Senate Representatives: ; ‘ 4 Michael Drake 4 Stephen Patrick Hann Board of Governors Representative: a FidelMurphy earl ab Arts Representative: isha ea oA8 ; : Melissa Doucette _ et ie: 3 she Business Representatives: Hoa sc gee eae Kyle Hanns sighs) ¢ Seah | Dale Proude=:st98,0. Give) 9s W. Darcy MacDougall First Year Representative: Brae sae iit eae RG E he Duncan Quinn Crawford Nei, Senior Class President: suerte. entre sr ' Bernadette Mary Lynch meee:

Congratulations everyone. Itseemsthat approximately 5% of the ers vst a A

which is one of the best turn-outs in a while.

concerned, the majority voted in support ofa student radio service so here’s hoping the station

has a long life.

5s. See . x phe Le Ee at aad ot oe

Ss eae Sagan Sige

9}

y to go apathetics! As far as CIMN is

Seats. be a 4 ‘ :

oy BES Sn 7