Ever been in a meeting at Dal where it looked like you might get through the agenda in 1 hour instead of 2… until someone asks a tough question or raises a concern? Have you ever rolled your eyes, and groaned (inside at least), wishing you could get back to your ‘real’ work?

Yeah, we’ve all been there. We’d like the meeting to be shorter – or even better, cancelled – so we can get on with other work.

But asking critical questions and voicing concerns are essential for university governance. There’s a reason we have Department meetings, Faculty Councils, Senate committees etc. These are deliberate checks and balances, so decisions can be collegially discussed and not made solely based on financial considerations and administrative efficiencies.

University governance is not intended to be especially efficient. It requires multiple perspectives on important issues. It may be slow, sometimes unwieldy. But skipping over the academic perspective, sliding past academic concerns and critical questions, leaves us governed solely by bureaucratic priorities. Like any other corporation.

Discussion may feel tedious, perhaps due to excessive workloads more than inherent lack of value in the debate. But discussion is critical. It’s what we do. Now more than ever, we need more, not less discussion informing decision-making at Dal.