Mac Art History 1

Response to Dr. Suzanne Crosta’s memorandum (p. 32–36) from the

Senate Agenda for April 14th 2010
(Previously submitted to UPC on March 17th 2010)
===============

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES’ PROPOSAL TO SENATE:

“Undergraduate Planning Committee Council accordingly recommends that the Senate approve
the closure of the Art History programs (B.A.,Combined Honours B.A. and Honours B.A.) with no
new admission into the program following the 2010 – 2011 academic session.” (Senate Agenda, p.
29)

We request that Senate review our document,

“The Case for the Preservation of Art History,”
presented to Undergraduate Council prior to its meeting on
February 23rd 2010, and reject the above recommendation in its current form
because of serious errors, irregularities, and defects which we outline below.

===============

1) ALIGNMENT WITH MCMASTER’S ACADEMIC PRIORITIES

Dr. Crosta: “The program has been under strain for several years. Consistently low and declining
enrolment has been a challenge. A limited faculty complement has been stretched to its limits
dealing with both its own work and increasing demands in new and emerging areas of the
Humanities.” (Senate Agenda, p. 32)

1a) Despite negative impressions from the administration, Art History enrolment is healthy. It does
not have “consistently low and declining enrolment.” Moreover, its current enrolment is comparable
to that of at least one other program in Humanities for the 2009–10 academic year. Please click for
Full Time and Part Time Humanities enrolment numbers.

“Stretched to its limits” describes every department in Humanities over many years.

1b) In her proposal and statements, Dr. Crosta consistently ignored one faculty member in Art
History and misstated its faculty complement as about 30% lower than it is. As Dean and
Associate Dean, she has consistently chosen not to provide Art History with resources other
programs have or to advocate for them.

1c) None of McMaster’s academic priorities are mentioned. Dr. Crosta merely describes her plan
as a McMaster priority without showing that it fits such. She engages in circular logic, assuming
what she wishes to prove, using her conclusion as “evidence.”

The university’s protocol for closing programs lists eight reasons for such action. All documentation
on this matter shows that none applies to Art History.

We request that Senate review the Art History enrolment and resources over the last
ten years and examine Dr. Crosta’s statements to determine whether there is
justification for not supporting an important program that a recent official university
report assessed favourably.
 Mac Art History 2

2) PROCESS

Dr. Crosta: “During these meetings, they were all informed of the intention to restructure part of
the School of Arts by introducing a new BFA (and MFA) and to phase out the Art History
programs.” (Senate Agenda, p. 33)

2a) Although Dr. Crosta has claimed that she consulted widely before her decision, her
consultation has consisted merely of informing a few persons or committees of it serially. The Art
History professor on long term disability leave was never notified.

Informing is not consulting. There is no suggestion that options for Art History were ever
considered or that Faculty members were allowed any input into the decision. The university
should be very concerned with Dr. Crosta’s lack of collegiality.

2b) Why was there no “broad consultation” with either Studio Art or Art History faculty members
during their single meeting with Dr. Crosta? The purpose of her meeting was merely to tell the
faculty what she had decided would happen to them.

2c) Gaining approval from the Faculty’s Academic Planning Committee is normally a formality. In
view of her claims about consulting,

We request that Senate have Dr. Crosta provide minutes from any meetings of the
Faculty of Humanities Academic Planning Committee or of the nearly identical
Dean’s Advisory Council where her proposal was “extensively discussed.”

We also request that Senate review our document

“The Violation of McMaster Protocol and Policies,”
circulated prior to the Faculty of Humanities meeting on February 28th 2010.

3) COMMUNICATION

Dr. Crosta: “Between February 3rd and February 8th, the Associate Dean met with classes of the
three full-time faculty members: Dr. McQueen’s Art History 4H03; Prof. Davies’ Art History 3S03;
and Dr. Sheng’s Art History 4X03. He informed the students of the Faculty’s recommendation.”
(Senate Agenda, p. 34)

3a) The Associate Dean has been an unacceptable substitute. He is not responsible for the Dean’s
decision and was unable to justify it. He also gave out questionable and irrelevant information.
Again, the above quotation demonstrates that there was no consultation, only a poor attempt at
informing students of the Dean’s directive.

3b) During last year’s Gerontology program restructuring, Dean Charlotte Yates of the Faculty of
Social Sciences met with approximately 50 students on March 24th 2009, according to an article
published on March 26th 2009 in The Silhouette. Dr. Suzanne Crosta has refused to meet with
students about Art History.

3c) Both Dr. Crosta and Dr. David Wright stated that this proposal would not proceed to UC
without a “debate.” Dr. Crosta also indicated that UC would discuss the proposal in March or April.
She then ensured there was no debate and continued to act in an uncollegial manner by getting
her proposal hurriedly voted on at a much earlier UC meeting. Her statement that it was brought to
“the next regularly scheduled Undergraduate Council” meeting thus omits pertinent facts.
 Mac Art History 3

“…with not a single vote against”: a vote of 7 out of 10 does not constitute a vote “overwhelmingly”
in favour; clearly, even in this rushed situation, there were significant misgivings about the
proposal.

3d) If a “friendly amendment to permit first-year (Humanities I) students” into the program this
spring was established at UC on February 23rd 2010, why was Art History not advertised as a
potential program at the Humanities Majors Fair on March 3rd 2010? Why has Dr. Suzanne Crosta
assumed the closure of the Art History program without obtaining proper approval for it?

We request that Senate acknowledge that Dr. Crosta has not followed university
procedures, has not consulted, has exhibited a lack of collegiality, and has stifled
meaningful discussion and helpful suggestions about the future
of McMaster’s Art History Program.

4) ART HISTORY AND THE PROPOSED BFA AND MFA

Dr. Crosta continually links closure of Art History to improving Studio Art, and she promises
students continuation of an Art History minor.

4a) She has provided no figures on the savings created by closing Art History.

4b) She has provided no evidence that improvement of one program is conditional on the closure
of the other and fails to recognize the importance of Art History to Studio Art, the School of the
Arts, and the rest of the university.

Dr. Crosta’s false linking of the two has served only to silence faculty members directly involved.

4c) She has occasionally offered two brief reasons for closing the Art History program. She has
provided no evidence for either one. Those reasons are contradicted by the 2009 External
Reviewers’ Report of Art History.

4d) She has not acknowledged to students that minors have no academic significance outside this
university and has not divulged the ease with which they may be cancelled, as evidenced by
p. 5 of the 2008–09 Faculty of Humanities Revised Budget Submission.

4e) The proposal to phase out Art History requires serious revision, broad consultation, and proper
discussion and debate with the relevant stakeholders at the faculty level. Other options for
McMaster’s long-standing Art History program must be explored, and a proposal presented once
again before Undergraduate Council.

We request that the Dean and her Advisory Council examine North American research institutions
and technical art schools and acknowledge the presence of both Studio Art and Art History
programs.

For the reasons stated in sections 1 to 4 above and in the documents we have
requested be reviewed, we (the McMaster Art History Team) repeat our request that
the recommendation before the Senate to phase out the Art History program be
rejected in its current form.