Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
The subject of academic freedom has come up at Queen’s lately, particularly following a controversial report from CAUT that has gained some attention in the media. Since academic freedom has been in the forefront of conversations of late, I thought I would share my thoughts on the subject.
Privacy rules prevent me from discussing the specific matter at issue in the CAUT report, save only to say that the report’s conclusions are both incorrect and based on incomplete information. We can, however, debate academic freedom itself. In fact, we should. While we would all agree that it is a core value of any university, there is not universal agreement as to its definition and scope, let alone how to apply it.
Let me be unequivocal: I believe in academic freedom, meaning the freedom to debate, discuss and argue (collegially and with sound evidence) difficult, controversial and, yes, sometimes uncomfortable topics. I do not believe that doing so is incompatible with inclusiveness and the principles of equity. I do believe that both faculty members and students (and for that matter, staff) can engage in difficult conversations and debate about complex matters, and that they can indeed use language that may not be “politically correct” (to use a phrase I do not find helpful) in our current climate.
That is what being at university is all about. It is about learning; learning about the past, the present, and the future. It is about learning about advances and new technologies and how our world is changing. It is about unraveling, deconstructing, testing and proving everything from a scientific theorem to a philosophical proposition. Academic freedom gives all of us the right to express our views in a safe environment without fear of sanction.
However, academic freedom does not occur in a vacuum. Our world has changed dramatically in recent decades, and our families, neighbourhoods and campuses reflect these changes. Queen’s strives to be an inclusive environment where everyone is welcome no matter their background. This is what makes us a destination for exceptional people. It is thus important that in having tough conversations about tough topics that they be appropriately contextualized.
The diversity of our classrooms and lecture halls does not mean that we cannot have those difficult discussions; it does not mean we should not discuss issues that make some members of our community uncomfortable because their views have been challenged. It does mean that we need to be aware of our surroundings and our audience, and ensure our comments, even when made for reasons of provoking discussion, are being made for sound academic, scholarly and pedagogical purposes.
Academic freedom and freedom of expression are enshrined in our way of thinking at Queen’s, and will continue to be. I encourage you to continue the debate.
This morning we wrapped up two days of meetings of the Matariki Network of Universities (MNU). The Board essentially consists of the principals (or presidents or vice-chancellors) of the seven members of the MNU, who routinely bring their Chief International Officers and sometimes their Provosts or equivalent to the meetings.
The MNU, for those who don’t know, is a now 3 year old initiative involving ‘7 Sisters’ (the word ‘Matariki’ is Maori for the constellation the Pleiades, or 7 sisters), one—and one only–from each country. Apart from Queen’s, the sole Canadian representative, the universities are Dartmouth (US), Durham (UK), Western Australia (AU), Otago (NZ), Tübingen (Germany) and Uppsala (Sweden). All are mid-sized, research-intensive schools with a strong reputation for teaching and residential experience; none is in a national capital. For more details you can visit some of my previous blogs, for instance on the MNU meetings 21 months ago in Perth, Australia.
This was the 3rd meeting of the Board since the MNU was formed and it was very good to see every member institution represented, even if Hurricane Sandy caused one or two people to have to cancel and occasioned some schedule reshuffling. It was especially useful to have delegates in Kingston and at Queen’s, many for the very first time. Among other things, they got a good sense of our geographic situation, size, architecture etc. Lots of student activity was evident (which hasn’t been true in a couple of our previous meetings which occurred outside academic term-time for the host university).
The Network has thus far been quite successful at putting like-minded researchers from member universities together. Several research workshops have been held, including one two years ago at Queen’s on sustainable energy. Joint research projects have ensued, and our respective Vice-Principals (Research) met a few months ago to advance this agenda. It is worth noting that a great undergraduate initiative, Inquiry@Queen’s is open to video-participation from Matariki-enrolled students, which takes some doing with the time zone differences involved!
Much of our time at the Board meeting just finished was spent on 3 related issues:
1) how we can collectively improve student mobility, taking advantage of the special relationships within the Network. A key follow-up item from the meeting will be greater connections between our own student affairs personnel at all schools, and international program offices;
2) Benchmarking (in essence, comparison of how all of us are performing on a variety of metrics both in research and teaching, including curriculum development, and how we can learn from ‘trusted international peers’ of similar character;
3) Reputational enhancement. This is a very important one for Queen’s as I have often noted that we are very well known in Canada but less so abroad, something I would very much like to change. It turns out that our sister Matariki schools face the same reputational challenge in other countries than their own, so we have agreed to mutually promote each other by various means. Our Alumni, Communications and Marketing Directors will be in touch with one another, and Queen’s own Director of Marketing, Kathleen Vollebregt, weighed into our discussions with some useful suggestions.
I’m often asked why all this is important and whether resources should be devoted to it. I think the answer is an unqualified and loud ‘yes!’. Apart from the benefits our students will derive from access to programs and opportunities at 6 other extraordinary universities, the Network can provide a key plank in our overall internationalization strategy. As the reputation of the Network itself and its name recognition grows, the expectation is that this will translate into higher international profile for each member individually.
From my point of view the meetings, which I chaired as the Network Chair for the past 21 months (an honour and pleasure which has now passed to Prof Christopher Higgins, Vice-Chancellor and Warden of the University of Durham), were very productive. The trick now, as with most such exercises, is to ensure that we follow through on the best of the many good ideas that were floated in our discussions. Meanwhile, let me express my thanks for the outstanding work of staff in the Office of the Vice-Provost (International), the Office of the Vice-Principal (Research), the Principal’s Office, and Innovation Park, as well as the faculty and staff who joined particular meetings to lend their expertise. Conferences such as these are not put together without a lot of hard work and planning and the Queen’s team did a fabulous job.
Today we will have a campus community “sneak preview” of the public launch of Queen’s Initiative Campaign. This campaign, the most ambitious in Queen’s history, will bring much-needed resources to the University, and it will also allow us to tell our story, already familiar in a national context, to a wider, global audience. It is a campaign with some bold targets, and one which is built on the theme of “initiative”, the spirit of which has long been a Queen’s trademark and, in my view, remains a distinguishing feature of our University among a pool of very fine Canadian research-intensive institutions. I see evidence of Queen’s spirit of initiative everywhere I travel, in student-led activities, in the efforts of our faculty to improve teaching and pioneer new areas of research, and in the commitment of our staff to go above and beyond, both on campus and in the outside community, every day. I see it in our alumni, who have gone on to great success in their own careers because for decades we have attracted students committed to both thinking and doing, and because we nurture those qualities during their time with us.
The Campaign goals reflect Queen’s priorities, as worked out over the past 3 years in a series of rigorous planning exercises, during which our various campus constituencies, faculty, students and staff, were widely consulted. The Academic Plan and Strategic Research Plan, along with various Faculty-specific planning documents, have provided us with the general priorities for which we will raise funds, and with a clarity of mission that will be extremely helpful in telling past and potential new benefactors not only about where we have been but about where we are going.
Because the Initiative Campaign is all about supporting what it is we do, and do well, it is fitting that it be unveiled at home on the Queen’s campus. I do hope that you will all support the Campaign in whatever way and at whatever level you feel comfortable. Nothing speaks more loudly to our alumni and our potential supporters than the support we ourselves commit to our own initiatives.
As we proceed full steam ahead into the Initiative Campaign, I want to thank you for all you do for Queen’s and look forward to working with you as we press ahead to successful conclusion, in 2016, when Queen’s University will celebrate its 175th birthday.
Much as I love the summer (I’m a warm weather person, despite my fondness for my home town of Winnipeg and its 40 below winters), there is something special about its waning in August. The temperature slips a few notches after mid-month, the days start ending noticeably sooner (great for astronomy buffs), and most of all, the campus begins a slow buzz that within a couple of weeks will become a loud roar. The students are starting to come back (of course many, especially graduate students, have been here throughout), and I am starting to see upper years drift into town. The big shift of course will occur on Labour Day weekend, when over f0ur thousand frosh will arrive (along with some 2nd years who spent last year at the castle, and transfer students from other schools). As I’ve said before in this blog, January 1 may be the start of the calendar year, May 1 the fiscal year and income tax reporting deadline–but for us in the academic realm, like schoolteachers, the REAL start to the year is September.
My wife and I are looking forward to our annual walkabout the residences on our two Kingston campuses when we chat to incoming first-years and their families. It’s truly an exciting time. For me, it reminds me of my own transition to Queen’s in the late summer of 1976, when I arrived here (having never set foot in Kingston in my life–one didn’t ‘check out’ schools then; one just applied, and there was no internet) as a 17 year old (coming from Manitoba and having a late birthday I was at least a year or two younger than most people on my floor). Frosh week is the week of the year that most allows me, like Proust with his madeleine wafer (check out that literary reference, frosh!) to revisit in my mind the magic of arriving in Kingston, and on Queen’s campus. It’s an odd combination of exhilaration, some anxiety, mixed emotions about leaving home, and that feeling that after months on the tarmac of life, your personal plane is finally airborne. I can remember my first day on campus and the first people I met in my residence and in my gael group, as if it were yesterday.
I hope that all our new students will have such experiences here during orientation (and that it will be fun, informative, and most important, SAFE). And I wish that you, like me, will be able to look back in 2, 3, 4 and 5 decades, at this next few weeks as a magical time of transition in your adult or soon-to-be-adult lives.
Best wishes on the packing and the moving, and see you in a couple of weeks!
I read with interest the editorial written by the outgoing AMS Executive in today’s Queen’s Journal. Let me begin by saying that I, along with other members of the Queen’s administration have worked collaboratively with the AMS executive on many initiatives over the past year. It has been a relationship based on respect and working towards shared goals.
I recognize the importance of dialogue and debate and the value of student voice on matters affecting our community. However, I find some assertions in the editorial misleading.
Last year the Coroner recommended we look at our alcohol and non-academic student discipline policies. Ignoring the Coroner’s recommendations that we examine those policies was, and is, not an option.
Two committees, both of which include students, are actively engaged in reviewing the policies, and all views are being considered in any recommendations for changes. While much work has been done, no final decisions have been made on either policy, nor will any decision be finalized over the summer, with students absent, as is suggested in the editorial.
This has been a year of change and growth for us as a community and I will continue to work cooperatively with student leaders to address the challenges, on these and other issues, that still lie ahead. I have a scheduled dinner with the executive on Monday and I look forward to further conversation.
I don’t usually use this blog to endorse any particular activities – there is so much going on at Queen’s, I could hardly do it all justice.
However, in light of Queen’s long tradition of public service and our close connections with the Canadian Public Service in particular, I wanted to bring a really neat opportunity to the attention of students.
The federal government is recruiting right now for its next Student Ambassador at Queen’s.
It’s a part-time job for a full-time student who will raise awareness among peers of the breadth of the employment opportunities available within the federal public service and help fellow students apply for these positions.
I recently met with this year’s Student Ambassador, Alexandra Petre, who is more than enthusiastic about the role. I had also met with her immediate predecessor, Xiren Wang, who shared Alex’s enthusiasm. Alex is one of only three students in the country who work on their campuses to spread the word about the value and role of public servants and the impact of their work on the lives of Canadians.
Alex runs workshops and information sessions about how to apply to federal summer job programs and what the government is looking for in new recruits. She holds weekly office hours (in the 3rd floor lounge of Career Services, Gordon Hall, every Wednesday from 1-3pm) and gives advice on job searches, resumes and cover letters. You can follow her on Twitter (@Queens2gov) and Facebook (GCAmbassador Queen’s).
Alex is graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Studies this spring and she will be working at the Canadian Embassy in Washington for the summer. She told me her role as Student Ambassador made her resume stand out among potential employers.
She says the position provides exciting opportunities for the student in the job to have regular interactions with senior public servants, including key members of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Chief Human Resources Officer, and gives the student a valuable perspective on how the federal government works.
Queen’s is lucky to have had this program in place for the past three years. I encourage interested students to check out this job opportunity. It has just been posted to Alex’s Facebook page and the deadline to apply is March 16th by midnight.
Tuesday, November 22 was a great day for Queen’s. First and most obviously, almost two years of discussion, documents, drafts, consultations, web-postings, petitions, town halls and hallway conversations culminated in the University Senate’s vote on the Academic Plan.
There was, once again, constructive debate . Specifically, a significant amendment to the Academic Planning Task Force’s motion was developed collaboratively by two Senators, introduced on the floor, debated, and then adopted. After its passage, the amended motion to adopt the Academic Plan was quickly passed, unanimously, and the APTF was discharged with the thanks of the chair and of Senate.
That the plan was not merely passed, but adopted by a vote of 52-0, speaks volumes about the ability of the community to work through differences, have debates, make compromises, and–even in very tough financial times–keep our collective eyes on the academic ball.
Is the Plan perfect? Of course not. Ten more years of debate would not make it so. Does it provide answers or guideposts to every question that will come up, or every new circumstance in which we will find ourselves? Also no.
What it does do is to identify, at a critical juncture in our history, some important principles that we share institutionally and externally. It does not bind deans, faculties or departments to particular courses of action, or to particular budgetary decisions. It will provide guidance to the alignment of scarce resources, but it is emphatically not, and never has been, a ‘cost-cutting measure’. It will certainly help me in articulating to our external stakeholders (alumni, government, industry and donors) what Queen’s is about, and the unanimity of the vote (accepting that there is still much that needs to be worked through) is already a powerful signal in that regard, and one that I happily relayed to our Campaign Cabinet (the distinguished volunteers who will lead our fundraising efforts) yesterday at a meeting in Toronto.
The Plan will be of enormous use to Provost Harrison, the Vice-Principals and the Deans as they work with faculties and departments to implement some of the values articulated in the Plan. But at the end of the day, the Plan should not be made into more than it is. It is a map or, as I said in Senate, a set of stars, by which we can sail the ship called Queen’s. There will be rocks, reefs winds, islands and unanticipated obstacles along the way, and doubtless some tempting harbours that we may wish to pass by. We will continually need to tack and adjust course to deal with these as they emerge.
In its final deliberations, Senate expressed the clear view that a single plan could not do everything, and that the process of the past year has worked sufficiently well to be replicated in some way to deal with other issues. We have yet to see how that will unfold, but it is encouraging to see that there is still, after two years, appetite for such discussions.
This leads me to the second reason why Nov. 22 was a great day for Queen’s. Again, it has to do with things that happened in Senate.
There were other features of Tuesday’s meeting that have caused me to reflect on the excellence of this institution and its people. First is the civil debate over the Plan and several other important issues. I must admit that when I arrived at Queen’s 2009 I was told repeatedly that Senate had been rather quiet for many years, and hadn’t tackled very many substantive issues. I cannot comment on the accuracy of that statement, but even if it were true at some point in the past, it certainly isn’t now. We have had a series of animated Senate meetings, including a couple which have gone into ‘extra innings’. And, yes, there have been some times in which things did not go exactly the way in which I, as chair, or the proponents of particular measures, had anticipated or hoped. There will be again. Such is the power of a functional university Senate over academic matters in a healthy model of shared governance.
The second feature of Tuesday’s Senate that I found quite remarkable was the presence of many guests, not least a number of students in the BFA program. These students obviously care very deeply about the future of their program, and their respectful presence in the meeting, within the rules of Senate, was impressive (as indeed was some of the art which they brought with them). I offer no comment on the decisions made about that program, which properly rest with the Faculty of Arts and Science in the first instance; rather, my comment is intended to draw attention to the fact that it is possible to engage politically within the conventions of governance and without disruption of the conduct of Senate’s business. That the business of the meeting was also being widely live-reported via twitter, and many guests applied for the limited number of guest slots, indicates a strong interest on the part of students, staff and faculty in the future of the university.
It was milestone day for Queen’s, and an important day for academic governance. I left the meeting very proud of our university.
On Thursday morning Nov. 3 I visited St Lawrence College, where I was joined by several of the vice-principals, some of the deans, and other colleagues. We were generously hosted by SLC president Chris Whittaker (Queen’s Artsci ’82) and his administrative colleagues. Media were on hand. The occasion was the signing of a memorandum of understanding between our two institutions.
Why is this a big deal? It’s not as if we have not had relations with St Lawrence before. In fact, there have been collaborations between our two schools for a long time, between specific programs and individual faculty members. And, of course, we have a well established and productive relationship with Kingston’s other university, the Royal Military College, including most recently the initiative in Military and Veterans’ Health Research. Our collaborations with local and regional hospitals, in which a great deal of teaching and research takes place, are equally well-established and mutually beneficial.
Notwithstanding these links, Queen’s historically has not, as an institution, done as much as some of our sister universities to collaborate openly with community colleges and indeed we have something of a reputation–not really a reflection of reality–for having resisted such overtures. In fairness, one major reason we have not has to do with historical differences in programming and mission: not every college program is mappable on to the first two years of university, any more than our courses map on to college offerings. (Though these differences are shrinking, a point to which I return below). Another has to do with simple space constraints. While the government has signified that it wishes to move toward a seamless transfer from two year colleges (some of which already offer applied degrees in certain areas) into universities, such an across-the-board block transfer arrangement would be deeply problematic for Queen’s as we simply do not have the room to accommodate a large additional intake of students into the large majority of our programs in their 3rd and 4th years. 94% of Queen’s students who start degrees with us also finish them. (In contrast, as a dean of faculties at two other institutions from 1999 to 2009, I often counted on college intake to make up enrolment numbers as retention figures there were not as robust, and first year intakes sometimes fell short of target).
The MOU commits us to work with St Lawrence on a strategic level, to find areas where we can mutually assist each other (which may, ultimately, include intakes of their graduates into the upper years of our programs, where space permits and where the students are academically qualified). But the relations of colleges and universities are no longer defined solely by college-to-university transfer. Quite the contrary, there has been an increasing trend in recent years of our graduates (and those of other universities) to seek an additional one- or two-year qualification at a college. At least two Queen’s alumni whom I follow on twitter have been, for instance, enrolled in media and marketing programs at Humber College. Given this trend, are there opportunities for us to engage more systematically with colleges, and in particular with SLC. I believe that there are, and in the coming months a working committee will be exploring a number of these. I hope that within a year we will have some concrete proposals for programmatic collaboration to bring through the governance processes of both institutions.
The MOU itself, while of symbolic importance in signifying that we are open for business with other parts of the Ontario PSE system, is just a beginning, a framework. The real test of it will be whether we can realize some concrete collaborations in the next few years that will help both institutions, and our students, and which will provide Kingston and eastern Ontario with a more powerful collective higher education environment. That, in turn, can benefit the community and the region in the medium to long term by making it an education destination of choice, which in turn will help attract industry, create jobs, and keep more of our graduates working here.
As with our older relationship with RMC, the end goal of our discussions in the coming months should be ‘win-win’ for both St Lawrence College and Queen’s.
I was chatting yesterday to a professor emeritus and we got on to the subject of rankings. “You know”, he said, “they really represent a kind of A grade for the whole community”. He was right. We recently have seen several different positive results in a number of rankings exercises. In Maclean’s rankings we moved up a notch overall to 4th spot, behind McGill, Toronto and UBC, all 3 much larger institutions. In the recent Globe and Mail, student-driven rankings, we scored more A grades than any other school and finished number 1. Yesterday’s Research Infosource rankings, which measure research activity and intensity, showed us moving up a position into sixth spot (see story on this and related links at http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/queens-moves-research-ranking). And in the international exercise of the Times Higher Education Rankings (an exercise we sat out last year because of concerns with the methodology which have since been addressed), we continue to place in the top 200 schools in the world.
My well-known scepticism about rankings exercises aside (they are too often subject to impressionistic ‘reputational’ data, and a small change in one or two inputs can have a disproportionate effect on overall standing), the collective picture is very clear. We are doing well by most indicators; the good results reflect tremendous effort by faculty, staff and students; and most students remain highly satisfied with their experience. This is occurring in circumstances that are scarcely ideal as the university continues to face funding shortfalls, class sizes have expanded in most faculties, and some of our indicators (for instance student to faculty ratio) have climbed. We had a difficult time of it last year with several student deaths and some very complicated labour negotiations.
We should therefore take some collective pride in the results of all of these exercises combined, while making sure that we pay due attention to any warning signals that the data contain. Our institutional analysis unit, which now reports to the Provost via Vice-Provost (Planning) Jo-Ann Brady (till Oct 31, our Registrar), will assist in analyzing the results of these rankings (and other indicators, for instance those in the National Survey of Student Engagement, on which our own Chris Conway is a recognized expert). These sorts of data can help us make evidence-based decision-making. They are, of course, not the only factors driving decisions–qualitative evidence such as student comments and feedback from faculty and staff count also. They will assist in integrated planning across all portfolios of the university.
Another thing that some rankings exercises do is help us see what other universities are up to and where we can learn from them. We are all part of a provincial PSE structure, and relate also to other institutions outside Ontario. But it is helpful to read about the pedagogical and research innovations that are going on elsewhere, some of which (though not all) may be suitable for experiment at Queen’s (other schools will probably be imitating some of our activities).
So, let’s be pleased by the rankings results, as we should be, and glean from them what we can, especially in areas where we can improve, in teaching, research, and administration. At the same time, let’s also acknowledge that we have some significant challenges ahead of us if we want to keep those overall results positive. Let’s be willing to experiment and try new ideas. And let’s admit that just as our students learn from each other as much as they do from their professors and TAs, so institutionally we can improve by keeping a close eye on what goes on elsewhere in higher education. But for now, congratulations to all members of the community for a strong performance in often difficult circumstances.
I recently returned from 3 days in Montreal, during which I attended the fall meeting of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Normally this is held in Ottawa, where AUCC is based, but we were in Montreal for a reason: that was where 15 university presidents and principals assembled in 1911, the first such gathering in Canada. It would evolve into AUCC, the national organization of universities and affiliated university colleges (it does not include community colleges, which have a separate organization, ACCC). AUCC lobbies on behalf of universities in Ottawa, acts as a repository for key data on higher education, and plays a significant role in international initiatives–for instance organizing last year’s successful expedition, in which I participated, to India of 15 “executive heads” (the generic admin-speak term for principals, presidents and recteurs [not the same as our Rector] of Quebec universities). A Board of Directors governs AUCC and it is run by a permanent staff headed by President and CEO Paul Davidson (who holds an MA from Queen’s in history). Apart from its Board, the Associaton has a number of Standing Advisory Committees (including one on International Relations to which I belong).
As a centenary celebration, this was a rather special meeting, graced by some distinguished guests at the dinner on Tuesday night, including former Minister of Industry and of Environment Jim Prentice, federal Liberal Leader Bob Rae and (by video from Rideau Hall), His Excellency Governor General David Johnston, who of course is no stranger to the group he was addressing, as a former president of the University of Waterloo and, prior to that, Principal of McGill. He gave a wonderful address (personally, I’ve never heard him give a bad one), and issued a charge to us, his former colleagues, to continue to push to make universities relevant to the next century and a major contributor to his vision of a ‘smart and caring society’. We also saw a very good retrospective video of AUCC and its members over the past century.
Much of day two of the meetings was spent in small group discussions. I was particularly pleased by the significant presence of student delegates, who actively participated in these deliberations. Undergraduate student Lauren Long (Com Sci ’13) ably represented Queen’s. We also had a very informative plenary session on the political landscape after the most recent spate of federal and provincial elections. This was given by Nik Nanos, a Queen’s grad in Commerce and MBA, whose firm, Nanos Research has become one of the most prominent Canadian public opinion research services over the past several years.
Apart from the more routine business meetings that occurred during the conference, a highlight for me was my colleague UBC president Stephen Toope’s rousing inaugural address (as Chair of the AUCC Board) on the “new narrative” that AUCC has been developing for the past year. Prof Toope’s speech is readable at http://president.ubc.ca/files/2011/10/aucc_toope_speech_bilingual_20111026.pdf
It set out five commitments that universities ought to make:
1. A commitment to broadening the view of education;
2. A commitment to innovation in learning;
3. A reaffirmation of our collective commitment to excellence;
4. A commitment to pursue solutions to the greatest problems of our age;
5. And a commitment to pursue engagements and partnerships beyond our campuses, while being careful to remain true to the core missions of the academy, in particular unfettered and free inquiry.
These certainly struck me, as others in the audience, as both lofty and achievable goals: even if financial and other constraints can sometimes stand in our way, these should still stand as commitments. Indeed, I would maintain that during such times of limited resources (and what time in universities’ recent history has not been?) and enormous complexity in university life, it is even more important that we keep our ‘eyes on the prize’, and maintain clarity about our raison d’être. That does not mean doing things the same way we have always done them (note the commitment to innovation, no. 2 above), nor does it mean that we can operate in isolation. Rather, it is a challenge to us, to remain adaptable and relevant, constant yet flexible.
As I remarked in my own installation address two years ago this week, “Tradition is about growth and cumulative development, not about stagnation and complacency. Our history illustrates countless innovations that now make up our traditions.
Let us keeping adding to the old with the new.” Queen’s is a unique university, but it is also part of provincial and national systems of public postsecondary education, and it lives in a world of real problems which will require our attention, from, and across, all the disciplinary corners of campus.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Uncategorized category.