York University-CIGI Initiative: Presentation to Senate

1. York University-CIGI Initiative: Presentation to Senate Patrick Monahan, Provost March 22, 2012

2. Outline of Presentation • Provide overview of agreement • Identify major areas of concern that have been raised • Discuss attempts to respond to concerns • Propose development of an academic governance framework by APPRC to be voted on in Senate in April • Hear from Senators

3. Overview • A total of $60 million in funding to be provided over 10 years to fund 10 Chairs and 20 graduate students • Ambition is to establish York University as world leader in international law • Aligns with White Paper/UAP goals • Funding to be provided by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo and the Government of Ontario

4. Overview • CIGI is non-partisan, non-profit, independent centre of excellence in field of international governance • From the outset CIGI has confirmed a commitment to the highest standards of academic excellence, respect for academic freedom, and a recognition that the university has final authority with respect to appointment of chairs and academic matters generally

5. Background • Original CIGI agreement entered into in August 2011 envisaged all chairs being appointed as Osgoode faculty • Initiative approved by Osgoode Faculty Council in November 2011 subject to finalizing an academic freedom protocol by January 2012 deadline • Terms of the protocol were not finalized by deadline and approval lapsed • University decided to proceed with a model that will permit other faculties to participate in the initiative, in addition to Osgoode

6. Overview • University has attempted to respond to major concerns identified during Osgoode discussions • negotiated and signed two Protocols (February 10 and March 9), intended to protect academic freedom and set out a process for allocating and recruiting chairs • APPRC has reviewed these documents, discussed the initiative, and endorsed it unanimously

7. Major Areas of concern • Influence over identification of research areas for chairs • Role of CIGI in reviewing shortlists of candidates • Academic freedom of Chairs following their appointment • Control over curriculum, students, other academic matters

8. Identifying Research Areas for Chairs • York Faculties will develop proposals for Chairs, including the title of the Chair, and the research area(s) for the Chairs • Those proposals will be reviewed by a University committee on the basis of criteria set out by the Provost • Proposals for chairs approved by a Steering Committee • It is standard procedure for a donor to agree to the general research areas for a chair

9. Recruiting Chairs • Chairs will be recruited by Faculties using normal collegial processes • CIGI has no decision-making role regarding Chair recruitment • Collegial University process will generate a shortlist of candidates • No names can be added to a shortlist by anyone outside the Faculty

10. Recruiting Chairs • The shortlist will be reviewed by the Steering Committee • In the event that there is any difference of opinion within Steering Committee, shortlist will be referred to an independent committee of scholars at arms-length from CIGI & University • View of independent committee of scholars will be binding on Steering Committee • Independent peer review is standard within CRC, CERC and NSERC Industrial Research Chair program

11. Recruiting Chairs • Once shortlist is settled, the University will recruit the Chair using normal collegial processes – CIGI has no involvement of any kind

12. Chairs’ Academic Freedom • Chairs will hold a tenure-stream/tenured faculty appointment at the University, in addition to holding a CIGI Chair • Will enjoy all academic freedoms and rights enjoyed by full-time faculty members at York • The chair will be expected to undertake research in the area identified by the Faculty in original proposal • This is the normal expectation for all Chairs at York, during the term they hold the Chair

13. Other academic matters • Proposal does not involve any curriculum or program change • Any proposals for curriculum change would follow normal Senate process • Students will be enrolled in existing degree programs at York and subject to existing university policies applicable to graduate students

14. APPRC/Senate’s role • Want to work with APPRC and Senate to clarify the basis upon which the initiative could proceed • APPRC has agreed to develop an academic governance framework to clarify these academic freedom protections & provide for ongoing monitoring and oversight • Clarify expectations/understandings regarding research areas, recruiting of chairs, academic freedom, & other academic matters • Provide ongoing oversight by APPRC/Senate over implementation

15. Next steps • Time is of the essence • I will ask that the APPRC academic governance framework be submitted to Senate for endorsement in April • Want to hear from Senators as to what form this academic governance framework should take and work collaboratively with colleagues • Will not proceed without Senate endorsement of academic governance framework