UBC mandate letter documentation

Unless you want to pass on the cost of a live-error audit of BC’s public sector to a complainant because if a University tells us it’s legal to institutionally harass a student, we believe them:

“Equity” is more than just an HR buzzword. “Full participation” means full participation, even if they question their instruction. Equity means more than just anti-discrimination:

It is hypocritical to ask institutions to worry about their governance when their governance doesn’t care about their governance:

After two years, I still don’t know which institution is responsible for institutions violating the University Act:

Career-building jobs require career-building programs. “You have nothing to learn but some polishing techniques” harms learners who need to learn more than that. Focusing on what the learner can already do well will lock most of them into a path of diminishing returns that can never equal 2:

The program’s cost was staggering, considering a learner with the right mindset could have learned more by going to a local critique circle with an annual membership:

“All who needs it” means the program must be useful for writers who needed to do more than just polish their prose:

The public sector keeps using that “equity” word:

It feels hypocritical to me that the Ministry tells institutions to follow its policies:

When the Ministry believes only the last section is the duty they wish to be responsible for:

I don’t have the 2021/2022 reporting requirements, but the 2023 file states this is a reportable field:

“We demonstrate a pattern of ignoring student complaints, so there is nothing to be accountable for” violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal right to have a Senate appeal on any matter dealing with academic discipline. There was a very nice lady at the EQA — definitely not the Lady I Thought Listened — who seemed genuinely distraught that the Ministry would not help me.

But with the wisdom of the staircase, I think I should have stressed how not administrating their own policy would harm the Ministry. I didn’t have to know not holding an institution to the standards listed in the EQA policy seems to violate the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:

But that’s how policy works. You either follow them because they demand the highest ethical standards the public deserves from their public institutions or — eventually — it gets the institution into legal trouble. Organizational lawyers didn’t know that and wouldn’t believe a former institutional trainer trying to explain that to them. It showed an astonishing lack of awareness of their duties.

But the Ombuds Office believed if it was likely that if the institution’s Decision Makers weren’t involved in the complaint itself, their job was done. If they’d asked the Ministry, they could have also advised the impartial and independent Ombudsperson that “these things happen all the time.”

But it was far easier to trust a university lawyer would know if it was legal to have no way for students to report their own harassment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s