Mac Art History 1

Violation of McMaster Protocol and Policies

1) VIOLATION OF PROTOCOL FOR THE CLOSURE OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS (Principles)

[Available: http://www.mcmaster.ca/univsec/policy/UGProgramClosure.pdf]

Protocol for the Closure of Undergraduate Programs, p. 2, 2007

Underlying Principles: The criteria for assessing proposals for the closure of
undergraduate programs include
• the program is no longer consistent with McMaster’s academic objectives, priorities
and existing strengths of the University;
• the program is no longer of high academic quality;
• there is convincing evidence of the lack of student demand and/or societal need for the
program. This criteria could include any of the following:
• a decrease in the number of degrees awarded
• a decrease in the quality or amount of faculty scholarship within the program
• a continuing decrease in attracting the best qualified applicants to a program
•an inability to meet internal and/or external standards relative to that program;
•there are insufficient resources available to support the program.

1a) In which of the above categories does the McMaster Art History Program fall short?

1b) No reasons for closure have been specified. Dean Suzanne Crosta has alluded to low second year
enrolments and poor quality of the program in her statements to the Hamilton Spectator, published on
February 17th, 2010. Enrolment statistics comparing Art History to other disciplines in the Humanities
for this academic year and the favourable 2009 Art History External Review Report disprove her
unsubstantial claims to media.

1c) What is it about Art History that is not financially viable? How much revenue will be generated from
cutting this program?

2) VIOLATION OF PROTOCOL FOR THE CLOSURE OF UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS (Process)

[Available: http://www.mcmaster.ca/univsec/policy/UGProgramClosure.pdf]

Protocol for the Closure of Undergraduate Programs, p. 3, 2007 Process: No

recommendation from a Faculty Dean(s) or the Associate Vice-President
(Academic) to close an undergraduate program shall be forwarded to
Undergraduate Council until the Department (or academic unit) concerned has
been notified of the intention to make such a recommendation. The proposal
shall be discussed with members in the department or program, the
Department Chair (or Director), the Faculty Dean(s), the Associate Vice
President (Academic), and the Provost.

2a) Only two tenure-track Art History professors were notified of Dean Crosta’s plans. Dean failed to
communicate with the third tenure-track professor, who is on sick leave. The two-page proposal was
 Mac Art History 2

unseen by all faculty members until made public in the Undergraduate Council online agenda for the
February 23rd 2010 Council meeting.

2b) Faculty members in the School of the Arts and in Humanities did not discuss this proposal nor did
they vote on it. The meeting minutes of School of the Arts meetings and Faculty of Humanities meetings
contain no mention of this proposal to phase out the Art History program.

2c) Students were assured that this proposal would not proceed to Undergraduate Council until their
input was considered. The Dean’s statement to the Dundas Star, published February 18th 2010, reveal
that the proposal would not reach Undergraduate Council until March or April. However, she rushed her
proposal to Undergraduate Council on February 23rd 2010 without any input from students or faculty
members in the Art History Program.

3) VIOLATION OF POLICY FOR NEW AND REVISED UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

[Available: http://www.mcmaster.ca/policy/AdminAcad/AcadAdmin/New-RevUGPrograms.pdf]

Policy for New and Revised Undergraduate Programs, p. 4, 2009

Broad consultation among faculty members in the development of a draft proposal:
The Chair(s) of the department(s) involved, in consultation with the Dean(s), are
responsible for ensuring that there is broad consultation. Such consultation is
especially important when proposing interdisciplinary programs as those initiators of
the proposed plan may not know all the disciplines or individual faculty members who
might potentially be interested, or have expertise.

3a) The Dean states that Art History will be a “central component” of the proposed Bachelor of Fine Arts
(BFA) program in the Daily News article, published on February 3rd 2010. There has been no broad
consultation with Art History faculty members about their re-allocation to the new BFA program.

3b) There have been no follow-up statements about the Art History minor. How many courses will be
available and how many Art History faculty members will teach them? At the Undergraduate Council,
the Associate Dean claimed that there would be no minor. A minor in Art History is not an adequate
compromise and this lack of complete information is inexcusable.

4) VIOLATION OF STEPS FOR THE CREATION OF NEW GRADUATE PROGRAMS

[Available: http://www.mcmaster.ca/policy/AdminAcad/AcadAdmin/CreationNew
GraduatePrograms-Steps.pdf]

Steps for the Creation of New Graduate Programs, p.2, 2009

Procedure A-1: Broad consultation among faculty members in the development of a
draft proposal. Such consultation is especially important when proposing
interdisciplinary programs as those with the initial idea often do not know all the
disciplines or individual faculty members who might potentially be interested, or
have expertise.

4a) There has been no broad consultation with Art History faculty members about their role in the
proposed Master of Fine Arts (MFA) program.