Students demand an explanation in the face of Queen’s proposed cuts to academic programming.
During town hall on Dec. 11, Provost Mathew Evans and Arts and Science Dean Barbara Crow announced Queen’s University expects to exhaust its reserve funds by 2025-26. The Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) could run out as early as next year if cuts aren’t implemented.
If the University faces impending financial risk without making cuts, it’s difficult to argue against them, yet Queen’s faculty, staff, and students have expressed frustration at Queen’s lack of transparency.
Many wonder how the University got into this position—pandemic-related financial stressors have been foreseeable for nearly four years and inflation has been a steadily present threat. The Queen’s community has questioned why the University is making cuts to academic programming before turning to its $600 million accumulated surplus or cutting the salaries of senior s.
The University has seemed to be in good financial standing. An external audit conducted by Morningstar $100 million donation to Queen’s engineering faculty, not to mention the resources dedicated to its celebration, gave the impression of the University’s strong financial standing.
Yet the University’s financial position is evidently not what it seemed.
Evans’ claim six other universities received similarly strong financial evaluations implies the positives in the Morningstar report were exaggerated or inaccurate.
Contrary to what some may think, VIP alumni Stephen Smith didn’t drop $100 million dollars directly into Queen’s pockets. His donation will likely trickle in slowly over years. Strict limitations regulate how money from donations can be spent, so even if departments in engineering continue to accrue donations, the money likely can’t be redistributed to FAS departments.
Ontario’s tuition freeze is another financial stressor for Queen’s.
Queen’s reputation has seemingly fallen in recent years. It’s possible this declining prestige has resulted in decreased alumni donations and international student enrolment.
Now, cutting resources in departments and increasing class sizes may even further discourage past or potential students of Queen’s from engaging with the University.
Current students are likely to be just as disenchanted with Queen’s.
Evans explained the future of many FAS departments will depend upon financial from other faculties. FAS is the University’s biggest faculty and will be the most impacted by budgetary cuts, meaning the majority of Queen’s students may be facing a severe deterioration in the course options available to them and, subsequently, in the quality of their education.
Other faculties like Commerce and Engineering already boast much greater budgets and access to far more opportunities, like connection to alumni networks and QUIP positions, than FAS students. The University’s proposed cuts to FAS departments will only magnify the sense of neglect felt by many of its students.
Though the University undoubtedly has its reasons for implementing budget cuts, the Queen’s community is entitled to the reasoning behind them, as well as the University’s plan to recover from this deficit. Students, staff, and faculty deserve transparency.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].
Tim Scott
Thanks for bringing this to light. Sadly, a lack of transparency is nothing new from Queen’s istration. Keep asking questions; the contradiction between the recent audit and the fact they are now crying poor is impossible to square without more information coming out.
John Branch
Well duh! It was obvious to anyone in an unregulated discipline that redistributing funds from one group of students in a well-sought after professional program to another group of students in a ‘niche arts program’ was bound to be unsustainable. Of course these issues take a 10-20 years to become apparent, but by then the damage is done. Of course deregulated tuition is no panacea, due to academics and staff demanding pay increases, thereby trickling down to large tuition increases, however at least it provides a sort of sustainable outcome, with students able to make choices about whether or not they choose to attend. Graduated from a deregulated program and will never donate a cent to Queen’s due to the diversion of my tuition funds to those who attend bird courses and other mind-expanding, career limiting disciplines.