As the new academic year begins, staff at Queen’s are increasingly burdened by austerity measures—including widespread layoffs and persistent budget cuts—embedded within the University’s revised fiscal strategy.
Grassroots efforts by organizations such as the Queen’s Coalition Against Austerity and Queen’s Students Versus Cuts aim to mitigate the impact on affected staff, but the University’s response remains centred on resilience programs. These initiatives are condescendingly crafted to instruct workers on “how to thrive under pressure,” encouraging disenfranchised employees to “turn lemons into lemonade” and to “smile more” in the face of job-threatening austerity.
The underlying causes of Queen’s University’s financial difficulties remain enigmatic, particularly in light of the institution’s substantial tuition revenue and sizeable student population. While tuition represents the largest source of income, including investment income and government grants—have seen pronounced declines.
Provincial grants, though nominally stable, have depreciated in real due to inflationary pressures, and investment yields have sharply contracted. Furthermore, federal transfers to provinces for post-secondary education funding have steadily diminished over the past decade.
Nevertheless, the question persists as to why Queen’s University appears to bear a disproportionate burden of these financial stressors compared to its peers.
In an alarming statement from early January, Provost Matthew Evans expressed concern over the University’s future, warning, “Unless we sort this out, we will go under.” The istration’s opacity, combined with an apparent reluctance to provide clear financial disclosures, only deepens the uncertainty surrounding the University’s fiscal trajectory and its effects on students and faculty alike.
Furthering this mystery, Queen’s University recently received a “AA+”credit rating by S&P Global Ratings, positioning it above its publicly rated regional counterparts. For instance, McMaster University was rated “AA”, McGill University received a “AA-“, and the University of Guelph holds an “AA” rating. The “AA+” credit rating conferred upon Queen’s University signals a high-level investment-grade status, reflecting a solid financial footing, stable revenue streams, and ample liquidity to meet debt obligations.
It’s reasonable to infer that institutions who withhold their credit ratings likely do so due to less favourable outcomes, as there’s little incentive to conceal a positive rating. This suggests Queen’s enjoys a relatively strong financial position compared to other similarly sized, regionally significant institutions. Further, it’s worth noting that despite Queen’s seemingly stringent financial measures, 10 of the province’s 23 publicly funded universities are contending with fiscal deficits.
ittedly, S&P has been the subject of substantial criticism for conflicts of interest inherent in its “issuer-pays” model, which may incentivize overinflated ratings to attract further business from bond issuers. Its role in the 2008 financial crisis—particularly through inflated ratings on mortgage-backed securities—has exposed methodological flaws and a lack of regulatory oversight, casting doubt on its reliability during financial uncertainty.
Nevertheless, while such critiques suggest the possibility of inflated ratings across the board, the robustness of Queen’s notably high rating, especially when compared to similarly sized universities that have chosen to disclose their ratings, remains notable. In this context, Queen’s rating raises critical questions, especially given the istration’s austerity measures, opaque communication regarding job losses, and the potential damage to academic reputation.
Faculty are increasingly resorting to collective action in response to the University’s ongoing austerity measures. Unions such as USW Local 2010 and PSAC 901 are entering collective bargaining negotiations, rallying their to demand redress for wage inequities, inflation-adjusted compensation, and unsustainable workloads.
USW Local 2010, representing academic assistants and staff, is already preparing for potential strike action should their demands go unmet, while PSAC 901 is seeking increased financial for graduate students, particularly in light of the elimination of the International Queen’s Graduate Student Tuition Award—a critical source of funding that provided international PhD students with a $4,000 minimum as part of their base stipend.
The negotiations will undoubtedly be shadowed by the stark contradictions within the University’s fiscal management. The dissonance between Queen’s disproportionately high credit rating and the draconian austerity measures imposed on staff is striking.
For instance, just days after widespread layoffs in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), the university granted salary increases of 4.25 to 4.75 per cent to of the Queen’s Management and Professional Group (grades ten to fourteen), while staff in grades two to nine continue to be constrained by the wage restrictions imposed under Bill 124, which limits salary increases to one per cent annually.
Additionally, istrative spending has significantly outpaced teaching expenditures since 1996, with s now consuming 18 per cent of the University’s shared services budget despite constituting only one per cent of academic staff. These incongruities will take centre stage in the forthcoming bargaining process, and it’s imperative students and staff alike demand transparency and ability from the istration, as the financial narrative presented simply does not align with reality.
Queen’s University’s austerity measures reveal a stark contradiction between its financial reality and the istration’s public narrative. Despite receiving an “AA+” credit rating, the University continues to impose severe budget cuts and layoffs, disproportionately burdening staff while providing raises to upper management.
As collective bargaining negotiations loom, it’s imperative for students and faculty to demand transparency and ability to address the dissonance between the University’s financial strength and its treatment of workers.
Elliot Goodell Ugalde is a Political Studies PhD student.
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].