Reinventing ECIAD: Part Two of a Series Talking Through to Constructive Solutions By HARALD GRAVELSINS What is the problem with the following set of questions and answers: Q. “Have you already decided on raising tuition rates?” A. “No.” Q. “Will tuition go up next year?” AsV eS: The foregoing exchange took place between Brad Campbell, Acting President of ECIAD, and one of the stu- dents in attendance at the open forum held on November 24th. Tuition was one of the topics listed on the invitation to the meeting sent by Brad to each full-time student. Brad answered a variety of questions put to him by stu- dents, doing so with a sense of openness and sincerity that has few recent precedents at the school. For all his candour, however, some of Brad’s replies gave rise to visible frustra- tion on the part of his student questioners. Specifically, there was annoyance with double-speak: how can someone say that tuition will go up for September 1996 just after saying that no decision has been made on the matter. Appearances are notoriously deceptive, however, and so how can we make sense of the Yes-No stance of ECIAD’s Acting President on whether tuition rates will go up in the near future? To answer this we need to recall how and when decisions on tuition rates are made. Tuition is decided upon in the following steps: 1. The ECIAD Vice-President of Finance formulates a recommendation on tuition rates in March or April. 2. The Vice-President's recommendation is passed on to the ECIAD Board of Governors. (This Board includes government-appointed members, administration, faculty, staff, and two student representatives.) 3. The Board holds on to the recommendation for one month, during which time it welcomes input from the ECIAD community, and then votes on whether to accept the tuition rates proposed by the Vice- President. Brad’s ambivalent Yes-No reply on tuition reflects the formal and informal dynamics of decision-making at ECIAD. Formally, the decision to raise tuition is not Brad’s to make: it is a Board decision. Informally, the Vice- President’s recommendation on tuition rates carries great weight with the Board, as it should, if the Vice-President is a competent executive. Behind the apparent double-speak at the open forum, Brad was indicating that he fully expects to write up a rec- ommendation to the board to raise tuition. (Brad, rather than the current Vice-President of Finance, will make the recommendation due to the transitional arrangements pending the appointment of a new President.) Therefore, the question in Brad’s mind is not “if’ but “how much” he will recommend in the way of an increase. Students can intervene in two ways: (1) Talk to Brad prior. to his recommendation on tuition; (2) Talk to the Board. Brad has shown his openness to students by holding monthly open meetings to listen to students’ concerns. The Board demonstrated openness to students’ views the last time it considered the issue of tuition rates; students persuaded the Board to moderate the Vice-President’s pro- posed tuition hike. The Vice-President at the time was none other than Brad Campbell, which seems to explain his deference to the authority of the Board. How can students argue their case to Brad and to the Board in terms that are clear and compelling? The following table lists different perspectives on allocat- ing tuition costs: Other perspectives exist, but even within this range of five choices, it is apparent how easily people can talk past one another. Knowing how the process works Is not enough. Students will succeed in moderating tuition hikes only if they gain prior acceptance for appropriate terms of discussion. At the November 24th open forum, Brad spoke of the ‘inevitability’ of decreased government funding for post-sec- ondary education as a result of two decades of accumulated federal deficits. Government finances do indeed require careful attention, but there is nothing neutral about them. At their core, they are policy-based, not money-based. They provide a definition of what is good in society and distrib- ute the burden of supporting this common good. Rather than sanctimoniously invoking the utopian dogma of the perfect world scenario, or the realist dogma of the free market scenario, it might be helpful if all parties kept the following points in mind: 1. Art-making is a significant, intrinsic social good. 2. An art school has a special purpose in society that relates to fostering art-making. 3. An art school must mediate between its special purpose and social realities in which the intrinsic value of art-making is often disregarded. Anyone who takes the foregoing points seriously cannot embrace either utopian dogma or realist dogma, at least not consistently. Post-secondary students will have to bear a significant portion of the cost of their education until the economy goes into a perpetual boom, which is not about to happen. If eliminating tuition at ECIAD is a ludicrous suggestion in the context of tough economic times, it is at least as ludicrous to trample the intrinsic worth of an art school by reconfiguring it into just another economic player. The realism is highly skewed in any evaluation of an art school done in terms of financial costs and benefits, since such evaluations cannot account for “externalities” such as social self-under- standing, cultural affirmation, and collective dignity. The starting point for a discussion on tuition rates, there- fore, should be recognizing the distinctive nature of ECIAD. This distinctiveness manifests itself in the particular ways that ECIAD organizes and delivers its curriculum. But it goes deeper than this to nurturing the societal purpose of the school. The statement made by Brad at the open forum that tuition has to go up because the federal government’s debt is too big might end up seeming to be vindicated when the Board reviews tuition rates next spring. The mistake in emphasizing Ottawa’s debt in any analysis of tuition is that this fails to acknowledge the non-monetary features of ECIAD that comprise the true justification for the school’s continued existence. The problem of tuition rates and government funding cutbacks is more fully expressed by the following pair of questions: 1. What strategies can ECIAD pursue to maintain its fundamental purpose in fostering art-making within a social and political context that is increasingly less generous and less understanding of art schools and the cultural significance of art education? 2. By how much can ECIAD tuition rates be increased as one of many strategies of adjustment without © causing irremediable distress to current students © narrowing the socio-economic mix of the student population © contravening the generosity that is implicit in the mandate of transmitting culture from one generation to the next? - The point of the open forum seemed to be to allow Brad to tell us that many strategies are under consideration as possible solutions to reduced government funding. The emphasis Brad placed on the inevitability of tuition increas- es puts in doubt how vigorously he will pursue other strate- gies. A constructive dialogue between the administration and students has started to develop from Brad’s open forums, but this dialogue is in its early stages and can be derailed DECEMBER 1995 / Emity 3 Reinventing ECIAD: Part Two of a Series Talking Through to Constructive Solutions By Hata Geaveisns ‘What isthe problem with the following set of questions and Q. “Have you already decided on raising tuition rates?” ANo” Q. “Will tuition go up next year?” AYes" ‘The foregoing exchange took place between Brad Campbell, Acting President of ECIAD, and one of the stu- dents in attendance at the open forum held on November 24th. Tuition was one ofthe topics listed on the invitation to the meeting sent by Brad to each full-time student Brad answered a variety of questions put to him by stu~ dents, doing so with a sense of openness and sincerity that has few recent precedents at the school. For all his candour, however, some of Bra’s replies gave rise to visible frustra- tion on the part of his student questioner. ‘Specifically, there was annoyance with double-speak: hhow can someone say that tuition will go up for September 1996 just after saying that no decision has been made on the matter. ‘Appearances are notoriously deceptive, however, and so hhow can we make sense of the Yes-No stance of ECIAD's ‘Acting President on whether tuition rates will go up in the near future? “To answer this we need to recall how and when decisions ution is decided upon inthe following steps: 1, The ECIAD Vice-President of Finance formulates @ recommendation on tition rates in March or Apri 2. The Vice-President’s recommendation is passed on to the ECIAD Board of Governors. (This Board includes government-appointed members, administration, faculty, staf, and two student representatives) ‘3. The Board holds on tothe recommendation for one ‘month during which time it welcomes input from the ECIAD community, and then votes on whether to accept the tuition rates proposed bythe Vice- President. Brad's ambivalent Yes-No reply on tuition reflects the formal and informal dynamics of decision-making at ECIAD. Formally, the decision to raise tuition is not Brad's to make: itis a Board decision. Informally, the Vice- President's recommendation on tuition rates carries great weight with the Board, as it should, if the Vice-President is a competent executive Behind the apparent double-speak at the open forum, Brad was indicating that he fully expects to write up a rec- ‘ommendation tothe board to raise tuition, (Brad, rather than the current Vice-President of Finance, will make the recommendation due to the transitional arrangements pending the appointment of a new President.) Therefore the ‘question in Brad's mind is not “if but “how much" he will recommend in the way of an increase. Students can intervene in two ways: (1) Talk to Brad prior to his recommendation on tuition; (2) Talk to the Board Brad has shown his openness to students by holding ‘monthly open meetings to listen to students’ concerns. The Board demonstrated openness to students’ views the last time it considered the issue of tuition rates; students persuaded the Board to moderate the Vice-President’s pro- ‘posed tuition hike, The Vice-President at the time was none other than Brad Campbell, which seems to explain his deference to the authority of the Board. How can students argue their case to Brad and to the Board in terms that are clear and compelling? The following table lists diferent perspectives on allocat- {ng tution costs: Alecaton of he cart $10.00 anual costa uline ECIAD education ‘ ber Porpecio ‘Sudet Taayer Sponsors 1. Pat Wold 0 wR oo 2 Mirous Socal Supporto nets §% 75% 2 ‘2, Sus Quo (no derence between 2% BHO ‘boats and kts tang) 4 Goverment Funding CbBacts 5% TORS Cee 01, we Other perspectives exist, Dut even wit range of five choices, itis apparent how easily people can talk past one another. Knowing how the process works Is not enough. Students will succeed in moderating tuition hikes only if they gain prior acceptance for appropriate terms of discussion. ‘At the November 24th open forum, Brad spoke of the inevitability’ of decreased government funding for post-sec- ondary education as a result of two decades of accumulated federal deficits. Government finances do indeed require careful attention, but there is nothing neutral about them. At their core, they are policy-based, not money-based. They provide a definition of what is good in society and distrib lute the burden of supporting this common good. Rather than sanctimoniously invoking the utopian dogma ofthe perfect world scenario, or the realist dogma of the free market scenario, it might be helpful if all parties, kept the following points in mind: 4. Art-making i significant, intrinsic social good 2. An art school has a special purpose in society that relates to fostering art-making, 3. Anat school must mediate between its special purpose and social realities in which the intrinsic value of art-making is often disregarded. ‘Anyone who takes the foregoing points seriously cannot embrace either utopian dogma or realist dogma, atleast not consistently. Post-secondary students will have to beara significant portion of the cost of their education until the ‘economy goes into perpetual boom, which is not about to happen. If eliminating tuition at ECIAD is a ludicrous suggestion in the context of tough economic times, is at least as ludicrous to trample the intrinsic worth of an art school by reconfiguring it into just another ‘economic player. ‘The realism is highly skewed in any evaluation of an art school done in terms of financial costs and benefits, since such evaluations cannot account for “externalities” such as socal sel-under- ‘standing, cultural affirmation, and collective dignity. The starting point for a discussion on tuition rates, ther fore, should be recognizing the distinctive nature of ECIAD. This distinctiveness manifests itself in the particular ways that ECIAD organizes and delivers its curriculum. But it ‘Goes deeper than this to nurturing the societal purpose of the school. ‘The statement made by Brad at the open forum that tuition has to go up because the federal government's debt fs too big might end up seeming to be vindicated when the Board reviews tuition rates next spring. The mistake in ‘emphasizing Ottawa's debt in any analysis of tition is that this falls to acknowledge the non-monetary features of ECIAD that comprise the true justification forthe schoot's continued existence. ‘The problem of tution rates and government funding ‘eubacks is more fully expressed by the following pair of questions: 1. What strategies can ECIAD pursue to maintain its fundamental purpose in fostering art-making within a social and politcal context that is increasingly less ‘generous and less understanding of art schools and ‘the cultural significance of art education? 2. By how much can ECIAD tuition rates be increased as ‘one of many strategies of adjustment without + causing iremediable distress to curent students, ‘+ narrowing the socio-economic mix of the student population ‘+ contravening the generosity that is implicit inthe mandate of transmitting culture from one ‘generation to the next? The point ofthe open forum seemed to be to allow Brad to tell us that many strategies are under consideration as possible solutions to reduced government funding. The ‘emphasis Brad placed on the inevitability of tuition inereas- «5 puts in doubt how vigorously he will pursue other strate- sles. ‘A constructive dialogue between the administration and students has started to develop from Brad's open forums, Dut this dialogue is in its early stages and can be derailed vecoser 1995 | say 3