November 4, 1997

The Cadre

The legacy of soc/anth

By Peter Gillis, Billy Zane and Melanie Ascot

In January of 1997, Jennifer Caseley wrote a news story for the then Pan- ther Prints, detailing a long history of problems in the Sociology/Anthropology de- partment.

The article related twenty years of reviews, in- fighting, violations of rights, and a general policy of ‘turn- ing a blind eye’ adopted by the administration. The fol- lowing two-part story will review many of the original points put forward by Caseley, will add to the chro- nology of events, and will examine the results of her piece. We will see the docu- mented actions of the Soc/ Anth department, and the fol- lowing reactions of the gov- ernors of this university.

An asterisk (*) denotes that name has been changed.

ensions first arose in the

| Soc/Anth department in

1978 duringthe proposed

joining of the two then-sepa- rate faculties.

At times, the conflicts were so great that there was talk ofcompletely eliminating one of the two departments as a solution. These tensions continued through fall of 1981, when the Senate adopted the recommendation of an Adjudicary Committee.

This recommendation required a joint major as the main programme for both fac- ulties. This joint major was to be instituted over a period of four semesters, with the project to be finalized by January of 1983.

Asecond report, released by the Senate Ad Hoc Review Committee that January, indi- cated that the experiment was a failure and that no joint major

was ever attempted in prac- tice.

The report suggested two

uick remedies for the con- tinuing Soc/Ann conflict. “(a) for the meaningless competi- tion: firm structures and ad- ministration. (b) for the per- sonal factors: surgery, if nec- essary.”

The review further rec- ommended, as a solution to administrative problems, that a single Chairperson be hired immediately, preferably from outside the department.

This final recommenda- tion was ignored and a Rotat- ing Chair policy was instituted instead.

According to this policy, each faculty member was re- quired to serve a one year term as Chair of the depart- ment. This rotation was de- signed to force professors to take responsibility of the af- fairs of the department, and to curb the temptation to abuse the power of the office.

In 1988, the Robb Re- port on the Rotating Chair policy was released.

The report described the previous five years as the ‘Golden Era’ of the Soc/Anth department. Cases of infight- ing were fewer, and there was an increased willingness to cooperate.

Though there were some problems with continuity and varying styles of leadership, the Rotating Chair policy was recommended for another six years, with a review to take place in 1994. Still, it was brought to the attention of the staff that there existed a seri- ous lack of women in the de-

ent. This was to remain for several years to come.

A new review was com- pleted in May 1991, written by Dr. John Crossley and Dr. Pieter de Vries.

De Vries, a former stu- dent and assistant professor of

the department, recommended the elimination of the Rotating Chair policy and a search for an external candidate for a three-year term. The review suggested that a semi-perma- nent Chair would facilitate the creation of an Honors pro- gram and add much needed continuity. The review further stated that: “Every effort should be made to fill the posi- tion with a suitable woman candidate.”

This recommendation was ignored and the Rotating Chair policy continued for an- other three years. At that time, there were still no women faculty members.

Fall of 1994 saw the re- turn of the underlying conflicts as the Rotating Chair policy was eliminated. Though the Robb Report had called for a Senate review of the Rotating Chair policy before changes were made, no such review took place.

Satadal Dasgupta was subsequently appointed to a

three-year term as Chair of the department.

Following this, the next conflict affected students in- tending to graduate in 1995. Dasgupta, in conjunction with the Dean of Arts, approved sabbaticals for half of the fac- ulty for Winter 1995. To this end, all graduating students were forced to readjust their schedules, and to take re- quired 400-level courses dur- ing the Fall semester.

Fall of 1994 also bore witness to a charge of human rights violations.

When Laurie LeClair attempted to show the movie Cannibal Women in the Avo- cado Jungle of Death in her Anthropology 100 course, some posters protesting the movie were put up around cam- pus.

A Soc/Anth professor caught removing the posters was charged under the Hu- man Rights Act. No fines were ever levied.

Complaints increased the

fall of 1995.

That October, *Rachel MacDonald, a student of An- thropology 201, soughthelp on one of her essay topics.

Confused by the ques- tion, she twice asked for ad- vice from her professor, Bruce Holbrook. Still unsatisfied, she turned to Dan Wolf, who lent her two books on the subject.

The next day, Wolf was confronted by Holbrook who was insulted by what he con- sidered Wolf s interference in one of his courses. He stated that Wolf’s “behavior consti- tuted an unwarranted intru- sion into hisclass, andas such, was both unprofessional and uncollegial.”

On the afternoon of Oc- tober 31, 1995, Rachel once again turned to Wolf for help. She had received a mark of 49

continued on page 4, See "The

Legacy..."