Graduate Student Questions UBC's Integrity
By Lucio Munoz
The university environment can be defined as one made up of a set of explicit and implicit promises interacting conjuncturally toward a common goal of instruction and pursuit of knowledge. Explicit promises can be defined as those that are not legally binding(oral statements) and implicit promises can be defined as those that are legally binding(UBC Policies and Regulations). In other words, explicit promises can not be enforced legally as they are not contractually based on I do this, you do that. Implicit promises are legally binding. The ingredient maintaining the unbiased working of the university environment is honor. Honor can be defined as the expectation that those within the system, students and faculty, will respect the explicit and implicit promises made without hesitation all the time. When there is no honor or honor is going through a deteriorating process, the university environment start working biasedly in favor of some elements of the system as these elements will honor explicit and implicit promises only when it is convenient for them to do so or when they are legally forced to do so. In other words, when there is honor there is no need to use legal force to get the previously stated explicit and implicit promises fulfilled, and therefore, the system is unbiased. On the other hand, when there is no honor, the system is biased and anything can happen, especially to the weak, to minorities, out of province students, and so on as under biased conditions the promises relevant to them are more likely to be violated.
Should we expect UBC to honor its explicit and implicit promises to UBC students? This question can be answered by looking at two specific examples where violations have occurred, one related to violations of explicit policies and one related to violations of implicit polices.
One case of broken explicit promises relates to the explicit promise made by the past president of UBC, Mr. David Strangway that "almost all of the revenue to be received from Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. over the life of the sponsorship will be spent on improving access for disable people to the premises and programs of UBC", but very little of the value of the sponsorship received has been spent in improving disability access as reported by Stanley Tromp in his article ""Coke Money Not Allocated to Accessibility"" published in the Ubyssey of August 15, 2001 page 3. Mr. Tromp reports in general terms that UBC does not feel oblige to fulfill explicit promises made to achieve an objective, in this case to get the Coke Money, and that justification provided by the Vice-President Legal and External Affairs, Mr. Dennis Pavlich is that UBC need not fulfill promises made by UBC officials as "a promise is not a contract", and therefore, it can not be enforced legally. This clearly implies that in this case, and when it is convenient for the university, UBC does feel any moral obligation to comply with explicit promises made, which indicates a lack of honor. Will UBC display the same attitude when any explicit promise made by the current president, Dr. Martha Piper, or any other UBC official is violated or left unfulfilled in the future?
The case of broken implicit promises related to the UBC Senate dismissal of my academic appeal in 1998 to avoid granting me my PhD degree. The academic appeal rules and regulations indicate in general terms that when an academic appeal is allowed to proceed and there is no longer a fair and workable institutional solution available to cure UBC wrong doing, then the UBC Senate must grant the academic standing that fits the circumstances, in my case, the PhD degree. However, when the UBC Senate found itself in this situation with my case, it broke the implicit promise to all students facing these types of situations inserted in the academic appeal rules and regulations and dismissed my appeal instead. The UBC Senate knows that these implicit promises are binding legally, yet when UBC is at fault, it does not want to comply with implicit promises without legal force as they should do under good faith conditions, which is another sign of lack of honor. If the UBC Senate is not prepared to grant the academic standing that fits the circumstances as appropriate remedy when there is no longer a fair and workable institutional solution without legal force as implicitly promised in the academic appeal rules and regulations, why it does not say so openly and clearly in its appeal rules so that students do not have to waste more time and money(tuition, rent, food, daycare….) when bringing appeals to them?
If UBC does not feel oblige to honor its explicit and implicit promises it has previously made without legal pressure, then it has a very biased university environment and its promises to students are worthless as they can be violated or broken at will. A university governed under good faith should not need legal force to operate properly, fairly, and justly.
In conclusion, the two cases above show that even when UBC knows that promises are legally binding, it does not have the commitment or intention to honor them without legal force, specially when honoring them would expose aspects affecting its reputation or best interest. Therefore, UBC promises to students, if they are not honored without legal force or widespread student and community pressure, are not worth it. THINK ABOUT IT.
------------------
Lucio Munoz is a PhD Student in Forestry Economics