Dr. Ross Paul
President, University of Windsor
506 Chrysler Hall
Telephone: (519) 253-3000 ext. 2000
Fax: (519) 973-7070 |  | State of the University Address
Friday January 26, 2001
Dr. Ross H. Paul
President
University of Windsor
Click on the icon to access the printable version of this address. You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this document.
State of the University Address
Friday January 26, 2001
Check against delivery
Last January 27th, the first day of my third year as your President, we initiated a "state of the University" address that provided me with an opportunity to review our progress to date and you with the chance to hear and react to my perspectives on the opportunities and challenges facing the University of Windsor for the coming year. Today, on my last day of that year, I intend again to reflect on the past year’s developments and, in that light, to look ahead to 2001, my fourth year in this post.
I sincerely hope that you will find these comments of value and importance and I especially welcome your responses and questions. This is a period of major change for Ontario universities and, hence, it is critically important that we get our priorities right. The impact will be felt for many years to come.
I. The Past Year: How Have We Done?
In my address last year, I promised a series of "good news" announcements over the year and I believe that we have delivered well on that promise. 2000 was a very good year for the University of Windsor and let me remind you of some of its highlights, although you will each have your own.
Ironically, the first major piece of news, in late February, was extremely disappointing and certainly my low point so far here at Windsor. It was announced that we were unsuccessful in the first round of the Ontario Government’s SuperBuild competition for capital funding projects. Fortunately, however, we persisted and were ultimately successful in the May follow-up when both of our major project submissions were funded. As a result, we already have the new Centre for Automotive Research and Education (CARE) in the renovated Lucien Beaudoin School as part of our collaboration with St. Clair College, and architects have recently been approved by the Board of Governors for our two other major projects which will be ready for 2003 at the latest:
1. The state-of-the-art Learning Centre, to be located near the Education Building, which will house the best equipped classrooms on campus, a new Iona College wing and an area provisionally dedicated to support the emerging medical school initiative with the University of Western Ontario.
2. A new wing off the back of Essex Hall for Dramatic Art, which will give this showpiece programme badly needed classrooms, rehearsal and technical support facilities and office space and which will provide for a much more attractive entry onto the quadrangle framed by Essex Hall and some of the residences.
In addition, some $4 million of the funds have been allocated, $2 million to classroom upgrades and $ 2 million for laboratory improvements. These have made and will make an important difference to the quality of teaching and learning facilities on campus.
Our SuperBuild success is a product of tremendous community support. With generous pledges from the Mayor of the City of Windsor and the Jackman Foundation, and with million dollar plus donations from Essex County, the Ambassador Bridge Company and philanthropist extraordinaire Tony Toldo, we were able to more than match the Government’s contribution to these $28 million worth of projects.
This was not the only success on the resource front, however. DaimlerChrysler’s announcement in September of a $550 million further investment in our joint Automotive Research and Development Centre constituted the largest single research award for a Canadian university and will help firmly establish us as the country’s leading research institution in this field. This has already been recognized by our peers across Canada who named The University of Windsor the lead institution among the 27 universities involved in the only proposal approved for submission to the new Networks of Centres of Excellence competition for the Automobile of the 21st Century. Under Peter Frise’s leadership, we’re optimistic about the soon-to-be announced results of that competition.
Our long-time generous benefactors and patrons of the arts, Louis and Edmond Odette, made further generous contributions that allowed us to create a new $2 million Chair for Business Administration and led to the formal naming of the Odette School of Business under its new Dean, Roger Hussey. Roger was joined by two other key leadership appointments this year, Bruce Elman as Dean of Law, and Attahiru Sule Alfa as Associate Vice-President Research. All three appointees are already making a significant difference in their respective areas.
Even more importantly, following the Academic Programme Review which identified priority areas for development, we moved boldly to get the jump on many competing institutions for the best faculty in order to bring to campus an outstanding new generation of teachers and researchers. Indeed, we approved, in many cases with two years notice, an unprecedented number of academic positions for recruitment, the great majority tenure-track. I think this will prove to be one of the most important things we have done during this administration, especially when I hear of concerns on other campuses that are only now gearing up for massive hiring in a future when competition will be even fiercer.
We are particularly indebted to Neil Gold, Vice-President Academic, and the Programme Development Committee of Senate and its panels, and to Janice Drakich for spearheading one of the most original and effective faculty recruitment schemes in Canada.
Student enrolments grew for the third straight year after many years of decline, although we lost a disturbing number of students between September and the November "count" date for Government funding and still have students who revert to part-time status because they cannot get the courses they need. Our recruitment of international students has been extremely successful and we will easily reach our goal of doubling these over a five-year period. We are working hard to integrate them better into our campus so that all students benefit from their presence. I am also very encouraged by the WUSC initiative to have a student referendum to support an annual refugee student on campus.
A few areas have borne the bulk of the expansion pressures. I would like to recognize the dedication of Richard Frost and his colleagues in Computer Science which has allowed us to absorb a rapid doubling of enrolments through the ATOP programme while Education under Ian Crawford is also expanding rapidly through a similar programme.
Although attendance was disappointing, a first-class Open House event was held in the Fall to showcase what we have and to develop more appreciation for what we do. This latter objective was also furthered by several important celebration events by individual faculties and a major President’s reception to recognize outstanding research achievements and the naming of another Windsor professor as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, capping an incredible year for Alistair MacLeod.
The frequency and variety of seminars, visiting speakers, plays, art displays, free concerts, moot courts and other events on campus is impressive, led by numerous academic departments and the Humanities Research Group. The revival of the writer-in-residence programme spurred by Di Brandt has led to the marvelous addition of Lillian Allen to campus, with immediately positive results.
Paramount to our community involvement is the Board of Governors, the body with primary responsibility for the University, and I don’t think we could have a better one. With new Chair Doug Lawson and Vice-Chairs Chuck Wills and Carol Derbyshire poised to provide strong leadership over the next six years, we are in excellent shape. Two alumni, former Minister of Colleges and Universities, Dave Cooke and automotive expert Dennis Desrosiers add further Toronto-based strength. I particularly appreciate the presence here today of several present and past Board members and of a large number of community representatives and friends of the University - your dedication and support are greatly appreciated.
We have also built on the great opportunities for partnership offered by the broader community. The hard work of many under the leadership of new Nursing Director Sheila Dreisen has led to proposed collaborative arrangements with St. Clair and Lambton Colleges for the delivery of degree-level Nursing programmes on four sites. We hope these will be finalized within the next two months.
Our pursuit of a University of Western Ontario medical school presence here to help address the severe physician shortage in Southwestern Ontario has made rapid progress, demonstrating the ability of this community to rally around a common cause, whether talking of mayors and county wardens, hospital and medical leaders, organized labour, the private sector or the Chamber of Commerce. Under the leadership of Todd Sands, we have had continuing success in building WEDnet and, more recently, ORION, Ontario’s high-speed networks which are vital to our future, whether speaking of electronic library access or support for research, community services or teaching and learning.
Even in the past couple of weeks we have had some great news. Senate unanimously approved the Ph.D. programme in Sociology, right on the heels of last year’s collaborative Ph.D. in Education and one that will greatly enhance our Social Justice pinnacle.
The Law School was ranked number one in Ontario and number five in Canada in the annual alumni survey of The Canadian Lawyer, 98% of our graduates saying they would recommend it to a friend. Doctoral graduates in Clinical Psychology scored 11th out of 154 institutions in North America on the prestigious Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology. Just this week, professors Ananvoranich and Pandey of our red-hot Chemistry and Biochemistry Department received more than $416,000 from the Canada Foundation for Innovation’s New Opportunities Fund.
On balance, then, 2000 was a great year! The budget allocations were driven by the priorities set out in The Best of Both Worlds, student enrolments continued to grow, we recruited superb faculty and new Deans to lead them, our research results improved significantly, and we made considerable progress both in recognizing faculty, staff and student achievement and in publicizing them beyond our campus. It was a year when we began to rekindle Windsor Pride!
II. The Challenges Before Us
These achievements notwithstanding, we have huge challenges for the years ahead. Some of these are generic to all Ontario universities while a number are specific to this institution. Let me deal with each in turn:
A. Environment Scan: Ontario
There were a number of significant changes affecting the University environment in Ontario over the past year and there is no indication that the pace of change will slow down. The combination of a five-year ceiling limiting tuition fee increases to 2% annually and minimal changes to base operating funds left this jurisdiction near last place out of 60 provinces and states in North America in per capita funding.
While SuperBuild, dedicated ATOP funds in such selected areas as Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Education and Nursing, and greatly increased support for research through the Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund and the Ontario Innovation Trust have been a tremendous boost to all Ontario universities, the core issue of base funding continues to be a major impediment to our ability to compete effectively with sister institutions in other provinces and in the U.S.A. While the tuition ceiling relieves some of the tremendous financial pressures on students, it makes government grants even more critical.
With the impending double cohort and "Echo Boom" meaning huge increases in demand for university places, the Government is well aware of the need for large increases in operating funds. We have impressed upon the Minister that these must flow in 2001 if we are to have the faculty and staff we need in place by the Fall of 2003 and we shall see this April to what extent our strong message has been heeded. A lot of parents and potential students will also be watching with interest.
On another key issue, that of deferred maintenance, we are optimistic that there will be significant increases in these funds starting this year so that the Government reverses a recent trend of ignoring the declining quality of the physical plants in which it has previously invested so much.
Accountability is an important part of all Government funding these days and our sector is no exception. In this regard, we eagerly await the imminent report of the "Investing in Students" Task Force which, we believe, will demonstrate how well universities have collaborated to realize cost savings and efficiencies and hence better prepare our case for additional base funding. We also welcome the Government’s thorough scrutiny and reform of its two well-intentioned but unfortunately designed $16.5 million accountability funds, one for performance indicators and one for accessibility, neither of which has recognized the contributions of this institution in those areas thus far. In the meantime, we are preparing our own performance indicators document for public consumption.
B. Environment Scan: University of Windsor
Within this context, the issues are much more pointed for the University of Windsor. Despite our success in focusing resources on key priority areas, we may still be trying to do too much, propping up more than our share of expensive programmes in Science, Engineering and the Fine and Performing Arts, especially where enrolments are soft. This is to reaffirm the strategic directions set out in The Best of Both Worlds but also to recognize that we may have to go further if these measures do not help us to attract far more resources.
The key questions for any university today are:
1. Do we know what we are trying to be?
2. Do we know what we need to do to realize our aspirations?
3. Do we have the people who will ensure we achieve these directions and plans?
4. Do we have the organizational climate that will help them to do this?
5. Do we provide an environment most conducive to student learning and personal development?
Let me tackle each in turn:
1. Do we know what we are trying to be?
We have one of the clearest and most specific strategic planning documents among Canadian universities. Its integrity has been upheld by the annual budget process, which is driven by its priorities, and by many other decisions, including the soon-to-be-announced nominations for Canada Research Chairs. The plan, which was approved by Senate and the Board without dissenting vote, is reviewed and updated annually through the public Report on the Achievements of the Previous Year and the next year’s Action Plan, through which it guides everything we do as we attempt to build the best of both worlds:
a) Pinnacle programmes in the Automotive, Environmental and Social Justice areas and dedicated resources to areas of strength identified in the academic programme review and in the strategic plan for research; and
b) a strong undergraduate programme in the Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professions that ensures accessibility and excellence for our local clientele.
The basic premise behind this plan is that, as the University becomes better known for these areas of emphasis, following the examples of Waterloo, Guelph and others, its many other programme areas will benefit as well, attracting top faculty and students to a University that is much better known and universally respected for its scholarship.
This effort to focus, especially when coupled with the slogan "the degree that works", has led some to fear for the decline of the Arts, especially the Humanities, on campus. This concern is exacerbated by provincial and national attention to such issues as the commercialization of our universities, targeted funding to high tech fields, the rise of distance education, a new opening in Ontario for private universities and recent legislation facilitating degree-granting status for its colleges.
Over and against these fears are some encouraging signs. Two separate public statements were signed during 2000, one by our Chancellors and the other by many of Ontario’s top CEOs, extolling the virtues of a liberal arts education. While some may have been surprised by the latter, they should not have been - a disproportionate number of our top corporate leaders benefitted from a liberal arts education. Notwithstanding the intrinsic merits of an education for its own sake, the Humanities do very well even on job placement indicators where graduates do as well or better than those in Science, Engineering and most Professional programmes.
2. Do we know what we need to do to realize our aspirations?
Under Neil Gold’s capable stewardship, the process of implementing these strategies has focused on encouraging clear plans from each programme area. This process is almost complete, although in another sense, it is never-ending.
Last year, I pointed out that it was the integrity of academic plans and our ability to realize them that were of most concern. At that time, there were rumours that the University was out to abolish history, even though no one, to my knowledge, had ever suggested such a thing. In the end, after much discussion, history received a "maintain with slightly increased resource levels" judgment from Senate. Unfortunately, this year offers another such example in the case of Visual Arts, again rumoured to be subject to closure even though no one to my knowledge has advanced such an idea. There is an orchestrated letter-writing campaign which extols the virtues of the Visual Arts as if that was somehow in question at the University.
The primary question in this exercise is not the intrinsic worth of a given field of study but its formal status at the University of Windsor, the strength of its planning and implementation and its capacity to attract and graduate excellent students. The debate is welcome and important but not if it is directed at straw men and especially if it distributes misleading public information which may discourage potential future students from applying to the University.
Of course, resource allocation is the central issue in our ability to realize our ambitious plans and all Ontario universities are wrestling right now with the apparent contradictions between contemplating budget cuts while supposedly accommodating burgeoning enrolments, not to mention the sudden escalation in energy costs which, at Windsor for example, will require an increased allocation of at least $1.2 million from this year to next. Whatever our expectations for government grant increases, we cannot rely on them for everything. For this reason, External Vice-President Paul Cassano and Director of Development Mark Crozet are preparing for a major new fund-raising campaign which will be launched formally during 2001 and which will address such crucial issues as support for our pinnacle programmes, student financial support, bursaries and scholarships, improved athletic facilities, and better academic facilities and residences.
In the process of determining the Canada Research Chair nominations to be announced at the end of this presentation, a major concern was flagged which may be seen as another example of too little attention to the Humanities. In considering CRC candidates, the Selection Committee recognized that there were a number of excellent scholars, the nature of whose academic work did not lend itself to Tri-Council Funding. Even SSHRC may be seen to have a Social Science bias, leading to the concern that there is insufficient national support for scholarship and creativity in the Humanities, in Law and in other branches of study at the University. Notwithstanding the need to lobby the Federal Government to close this gap, we decided to do something in the meantime to redress the imbalance.
Accordingly, we will be presenting to Senate, at its February 8th meeting, a proposal for University of Windsor Chairs. These will be limited to consideration of those who do not fit the normal Tri-Council criteria and will be subject to a rigourous external review process similar to that devised for the CRCs. Without prejudging Senate’s advice, I very much hope that this programme will do much to encourage research in the Humanities, Law and related fields.
3. Do we have the people who will ensure we achieve these directions and plans?
This is one of the most critical questions we face, as every Canadian university struggles to attract and keep the best faculty in an increasingly competitive market. AUCC has estimated that Canada alone will require 32,000 more faculty over the next decade while its graduate schools will produce less than half that number. Not only that, there is unprecedented raiding from other provinces and from the USA and, in an increasing number of fields, from a private sector that is offering much more attractive packages to potential recruits.
We have recently faced what I believe has been a harbinger of things to come in the form of a serious raid on our Electrical Engineering department from the University of Calgary. In the middle of the academic year, the chair of its top research group was offered double his salary and hundreds of thousands of dollars in other support. This posed a number of challenges for us in a field where faculty recruitment is extremely difficult, given the huge demand for its graduates in industry and a world-wide shortage of qualified people in an area that is, not incidentally, central to the evolution of the automobile.
We successfully fought off the worst possibilities here, albeit losing one of our top researchers, but at least we kept some other key faculty and almost all of our graduate students. We are not the only university to face this kind of problem and, in fact, have raided others. It points out, however, the irony that, as our faculty establish stronger reputations in their fields, the more open we are to raiding from richer institutions. That’s why we have to make Windsor a very special place to live and work and why everyone of us has a responsibility to help bring this about. We must negotiate terms and conditions that allow us to be more responsive to market demands and to quality so that we are not disadvantaged in competing for the very best faculty.
One other comment -- there has been justifiable pride at the University of Windsor for the recognition received for our equity programmes in the form of several national awards. Unfortunately, we are better at winning awards for process than we are at achieving results. We have no aboriginal faculty members, for example, and have a long way to go to achieve the sorts of results envisioned by those who designed the processes in the first place.
This area can be controversial but what is not always recognized is that the institutions which reach out most effectively to under-represented groups are the ones most apt to benefit from the talent pool that others ignore or under-rate. For example, the huge success of MIT is attributed by many to its openness after World War II to hiring Jewish faculty ignored by other universities, many of whom went on to win Nobel prizes and to establish the high reputation of the institution that gave them the opportunity. We have got to find ways to open our processes more to the selection of those from diverse backgrounds and perspectives who will enrich our institution and all of us in the process.
4. Do we have the organizational climate that will help them to do this?
This, too, is a critical challenge. We want the University of Windsor to be one of the very best places to work in Canada because individuals are respected, supported and encouraged; because the under-rated surrounding community exceeds their expectations; and because the University attracts excellent and dedicated students. Given that success breeds success, I am very optimistic that we can continue to improve every year on these indicators, the ones that really count for you and me.
I probably don’t need to remind you that this is a negotiating year for all of our bargaining units, and I hope that both sides in each set of negotiations are driven by these objectives. Wherever possible, we need to take a problem-solving approach to areas of conflict and make the most effective use of all resources to provide the optimum set of working conditions for our faculty and staff. Unions and associations want to be assured of fairness, competitiveness and open process while the administration wants to ensure performance and accountability. These need not be incompatible objectives. One only need look at disruptive situations elsewhere to know how damaging a failure to negotiate effectively can be on an institution and its people. We owe our present and future students a climate of stability and support.
I would like, briefly, to address an aspect of this issue that particularly interests me and many others these days - the perception that we are all overworked, over-stressed and out-of-control. In this connection, I wrote a recent piece for the Windsor Star on technology’s impact on our lives and our need to become much better and wiser users of it. A very similar article by Heather Menzies and Janice Newson appeared in the January CAUT Bulletin, which demonstrates that this is a generic, not just a University of Windsor phenomenon.
I believe that the best response to these pressures is to delegate more authority and responsibility to faculty and staff and to Faculties and administrative units. It is to reduce the time and effort spent on structures and processes, bylaws and regulations, and to do everything possible to help people to focus on their core responsibilities. I don’t think that means working any less hard but perhaps working more concertedly on the tasks and challenges for which each of us was hired and which we most enjoy. It will certainly be aided by the huge influx of new talent, energy and ideas that comes with so many recently hired faculty.
One of the greatest challenges for anyone working in today’s fast-paced world is to make and find the time to think, to plan, to imagine and to dream. Nowhere should this be more important than in a university and yet, how much time do we really spend on such crucial issues as the design and impact of our curricula, considering the learning styles and cultures of individual students, and ensuring an academic climate that not only tolerates but encourages dissent, debate and questioning in the eternal search for truth?!
Faculty time is our most important resource and we must find ways to use it more wisely. Technology is a double-edged sword that can free up people from menial tasks or involve them in endless hours sorting through e-mail. Each of us has to learn to establish a balance here, to control our own lives and, by example, to help our students to do the same. As I suggested in my article, one of the healthiest things we can do with new technology is to know when to turn it off and go for a walk, read a book or converse with a friend.
5. Do we provide an environment most conducive to student learning and personal development?
A recent article by William Massey suggested that there are three types of university in North America these days:
a) Platinum Cards - highly prestigious universities, the visibility and reputation of which are usually based on faculty research and traditional educational values;
b) "Wannabe’s" - prestige-seeking universities that lack the market power to achieve that status; and
c) Enterpreneurs - those that build a market niche by catering to student needs and whose market potential depends on delivering quality as defined by the "customer" rather than by more traditional academic values.
The implication of the article is that you had better be in categories "a" or "c" if you are to survive and thrive in the new environment. It also suggests that the great majority of universities are probably "wannabe’s" which will quickly lose out to the other two if they don’t change dramatically.
While I accept the analysis, at least to some degree, I have a different solution. I believe that every university, at least in the Canadian context, can reasonably aspire to Platinum Card status in a few areas but that we also have to pay a lot more attention to student requirements than we have in the past.
Conditions have changed dramatically since I first went to University in 1960 when attendance was a privilege reserved mainly for those who could afford it. Universal recognition of higher education as a prerequisite to success in the knowledge society and the proliferation of new kinds of institutions and technologies means that the increased demand for a university education is matched by greatly enhanced competition among institutions for students.
In this regard, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the quality and impact of new competitors. As comfortable as we may be with the traditional university approach of offering what the faculty want to teach when they want to teach it, prevailing practices will be severely tested on many campuses over the next few years. We will ignore these threats at our peril. It follows that we will have to be more introspective and somehow find more time to focus on our core activities of teaching and learning. May I suggest that one time saver will be to put the last pieces of the restructuring issue behind us at the March Senate meeting!
We participate annually in a survey of student opinions conducted by the University of Manitoba which provides useful comparators with those in sister institutions across the country. While the overall results are encouraging, in that the great majority of respondents here and elsewhere are very satisfied with their Canadian university experience, we lag behind some of our competitors on scales measuring the extent to which the campus environment is seen as supportive, responsive and caring, all variables directly under our control. While recent student feedback suggests that we have improved in many areas, we will not stand up well to external competition without giving such issues the highest priority.
In this connection, I am really encouraged by the innovative programmes of Student Developmental Services under John Corlett, the activities of our students’ associations and the benefits of the Frank L. Smith student information system which is enabling us to be much faster and more responsive to students in many ways. I appreciate the focus on the first-year experience in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences led by Bruce Tucker and Bob Orr. There is no question that we need better academic advising and institutional research which help us improve student retention and better inform the critical debate about entrance standards and requirements. We need to consider seriously the impact of the new high school curricula on our own and to prepare for the imminent arrival of new students who are a full-year younger than those coming in at present.
Financial concerns continue to plague our students and may be another important component of the drop-out rates. The success of our plans to double graduate studies over the decade hinges on our ability to raise significantly greater financial support and we would like to find ways to help ensure that you don’t have to be personally wealthy to come here as an international student.
One part of the solution will come from more effective use of learning technologies on and off campus. Last week, I participated as a member of a panel advising the Deputy-Minister on potential government support in this area for Ontario universities. We may soon see a significant allocation of new funds for this but only for those institutions with clear strategic plans and resources dedicated to the integration of new technologies into teaching and learning on their campuses.
I have been very encouraged by the Deputy’s understanding that the primary goal is to enhance the environment for learning and that progress should be measured by student achievement rather than merely counting the number of on-line courses which result. In this connection, I believe that the slow but steady establishment of the Centre for Flexible Learning on our campus will help position Windsor well for this opportunity and look forward to the recruitment of a Dean to lead us in this endeavour.
Finally, a crucial concern is what the University of Windsor is doing about the double cohort pressures which will be most evident in the Fall of 2003 when two graduating classes simultaneously apply for university admission. We are planning a major meeting with local school officials to address this issue and I believe that the resulting information about entrance requirements and local accessibility will be reassuring to anxious parents and future students. We already have the SuperBuild projects to support teaching and learning on campus, we are planning additional residence spaces and we look forward to the base operating support from the Provincial Government which will enable us to hire the faculty in time for the Fall of 2003.
In summary, we take this issue very seriously indeed and will do everything we can to ensure that students unlucky enough to be in this cohort have every opportunity for success at university. There will also be an ongoing discussion of this issue at Senate, starting with the February 8th meeting.
III. Canada Research Chairs
Last year, the Federal Government announced its intention to establish 2000 Canada Research Chairs over the next five years. At the present time, the University of Windsor has been awarded 15 such slots, based on its past research performance. Notwithstanding the inherent danger of pitting university against university and exacerbating the research gap between "haves" and "have-nots", the CRC programme does have the merit of recognizing and encouraging our best people and of attracting and keeping top researchers in Canada.
After considerable discussion, I have accepted the recommendations of the CRC Selection Committee for the first two years of the competition. Committee members found the internal competition for these to be intense and the down side is at least having to postpone or deny the nomination of some of our best people (but this has been a difficulty on almost every Canadian campus). As you will see, the selections have been directly influenced by the priorities set out in the Senate-approved Strategic Plan for Research.
Here, then, is a list of some of our very best emerging researchers. It is our hope that they will become the leaders and the backbone of research in their respective areas at Windsor for many years to come, attracting top colleagues and graduate students through the excellence of their focused scholarship. I must caution that these are nominations, subject to external peer review and Tri-Council approval, but I am confident that they will all be successful - you can expect announcements at different times because of varying submission dates and processes by discipline.
Hence, it gives me great pride to conclude this presentation by announcing the following CRC nominations:
For Social Justice (SSHRC):
2000-2001 Tier One Eleanore Maticka-Tyndale (Sociology/Anthropology)
2001-2002 Tier Two Suzan Ilcan (Sociology/Anthropology)
For the Environmental, GLIER (NSERC):
2000-2001 Tier Two Dan Heath (Biological Sciences)
2000-2001 Tier Two Stan Reitsma (Civil and Environmental Engineering)
2001-2002 Tier One Doug Haffner (Biological Sciences)
For Established Areas (NSERC):
2000-2001 Tier One Steve Loeb (Chemistry/Biochemistry)
For the Automotive (One NSERC, One Special):
2001-2002 Tier Two New hire
2001-2002 Tier Two New hire
Thank you for your attention. Now it’s your turn. I look forward to questions, comments, suggestions and ideas. I hope that you share my excitement for the future of the University of Windsor and I very much look forward to working with you to make our dreams a reality. It is a privilege to be your President at this time.
Ross Paul |