By: Niveja Assalaarachchi, News Writer
On October 6, the SFU Senate reviewed the final version of the 2025–30 academic plan and discussed the new School of Medicine. Reports from the chair and committees were also heard. The Peak attended the open meeting for more information.
Searching for funding
SFU president Joy Johnson informed the Senate of her interactions with senior levels of government since the Senate last met in September. She had gone to Ottawa along with members of the federal government to propose funding for the university. Johnson said that the university was hopeful the government would allocate more funds for higher education through revisions in the federal defence budget.
Johnson also said she would meet with the Provincial Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, Jessie Sunner, in a separate visit to Victoria mid-October. The provincial government had informed Johnson of an upcoming provincial review of post-secondary education to find more sustainable options for the sector.
Reports from committees
A motion to amend guidelines “for students and instructors in the event of a labour dispute” was discussed, facing some controversy. The proposal addresses the responsibilities placed on both students and educators in the event of a strike, recognizing the rights of students and faculty who would not cross a picket line.
Students must complete course requirements or notify a professor of an academic concession if they cannot complete their work. Instructors, on the other hand, must notify the dean of their respective departments of their decision not to cross the picket line.
Senator Colin Percival stated that the motion was introduced to the Senate with outdated documents, which was acknowledged by president Johnson. Regardless, the motion was passed by the Senate.
Review of the final 2025–30 academic plan
The revised 2025–30 academic plan was also discussed. Johnson highlighted this would be the final iteration presented to the Senate. Since the last Senate meeting in September, several changes have been made to the academic plan. Revenue projections were increased as the university received its provincial money allocation. However, the plan now indicates that faculty growth would slow during the 2025–30 academic period, from an expected 5% growth to 2–5%.
The focus area of the academic plan relating to decolonization was also revised following feedback, now defining the practice as an “agenda that seeks to redress historical and current practices that have had deleterious effects on Indigenous Peoples.” This includes a push for scholarly work with Indigenous Peoples.
Many senators expressed their concerns. Some said the plan did not focus enough on academic excellence and support for faculty members. These senators pointed out that the faculty members were facing new challenges in the education sector, such as artificial intelligence and increasing job insecurity, especially for TAs. Thus, questions arose about whether the plan had adequately planned for new challenges.
Following further discussions on other subjects, the academic plan was put to a vote and passed.
Updates on the School of Medicine
David Price, the dean of the School of Medicine, informed the Senate that the School of Medicine had received accreditation from the Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools. This allowed the faculty to open a website for students to apply, which started on October 14.
Price said that the medical school’s proposed facility plan and curriculum were rigorously tested during the application process. Regarding the curriculum itself, Price stated that it was developed with local and international experts in the field.
The report drew criticism from senators throughout the meeting. One area of contention was the school’s faculty plan. The plan would see 30–40 full-time faculty members appointed via the executive committee of the Board of Governors. Some senators were opposed to the executive committee being able to appoint faculty, stating it was the traditional realm of the Senate.
Senators expressed feeling sidelined about the progress of the Senate, especially regarding how admissions were handled at the new medical school. Senator Lucas Herrenbrueck denounced the university’s “utter lack of transparency.”
The dean responded to the criticisms with concern, saying the senators’ line of questioning was “going down a bit of a slippery slope.” He pointed out that much of the information surrounding the medical school was confidential to prevent prospective students from “gaming the system.” Other members of the panel presenting the progress of the medical school questioned the degree of freedom that SFU senators had in asking questions about a project like the new medical school.
Senator Colin Percival proposed a closed, moderated meeting to discuss more of the sensitive specifics of the medical school; however, the motion was not carried after a vot
