Oiling up the education machine
Cody Lecoy/The Runner
What else is behind Kinder Morgan’s $300,000 memorandum with KPU?
At the end of June, Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Trans Mountain (under Kinder Morgan) signed a memorandum of understanding that would see KPU in receipt of $300,000. Despite criticisms of bribery, according to Lizette Parsons Bell, stakeholder management lead for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, the goal of the funding is “to leave a positive legacy” in pipeline communities like Langley.
Surely, it could be that innocuous. Post-secondary institution funding in the province is a little slim, after all. Last year, former KPU vice president of finance Gordon Lee told The Runner that KPU was at a deficit. Some critical programs had their IVs cut. When considering the disparity of full-time equivalent seats at KPU compared to other post-secondary institutions, a little money wouldn’t hurt. But it’s obviously not that simple.
When the story broke, people were incredulous, astounded that the university would go ahead on the June 23 agreement, especially without any consultation. Anti-pipeline group PIPE UP organized a meeting the day after the deal signing, a first effort to organize those against the memorandum and brainstorm any action they could take against the university.
The Public Forum
“I was frustrated, as an alumni with my degree coming from Kwantlen,” says Justine Nelson, of PIPE UP. “I was disappointed that my school would take money from Trans Mountain.”
Out of the meeting, the group decided to hold a forum on July 6. There, a panel of critics formally blasted the agreement, and KPU president Alan Davis was prompted to respond. The Surrey conference centre was packed to the doors with people. By question period, where the askers stepped up to a mic, a majority of those presentKPU students, alumni, faculty and community members seemed vehemently opposed to the decision. And Davis, despite the earful he got, remains steadfast in that the agreement with Kinder Morgan would remain signed.
“Instead of venting steam at a public meeting we need it to drive the piston of opposition,” says Bill Burgess, of KPU’s geography department. “For example, we should have called for a straw vote at the end of the meeting so it could register its opinion that the MOU is contrary to the interest of KPU, that we repudiate it and that we urge other KPU bodies to do the same.”
He’s calling for the creation of a coalition amongst KPU groups to stand in opposition to the MOU, building on the work that has already begun with KPIRG, the KSA and Kwantlen First Nation.
The memorandum of understanding will result in $300,000 of scholarship money to KPU, over 20 years, if the pipeline is approved. It also gives Kinder Morgan naming rights to the environmental protection research lab for 10 years, on KPU’s Langley campus.
The critics are still trying to find a way to, in their best case scenario, nullify the memorandum. Currently a petition is making the rounds and has already reached over 200 signatures.
“KPU should have consulted with students and the community before entering into this agreement,” said KSA president Allison Gonzalez in a press release.
KPU is one of Canada’s greenest employers. They’ve managed to reduce carbon emissions year after year. It’s seen in efforts like the energy monitoring systems of the Langley campus greenhouses or boiler room upgrades to reduce natural gas use. They have an entire committee devoted to environmental sustainability, and clean technology is a tenant of their applied research. So why doesn’t this philosophy extend to this decision to partner with a controversial oil company?
“For us to have a position on the pipeline would be hypocritical if we didn’t have a position on many, many other things that we are all involved in, and I’m talking about this entire community,” says Salvador Ferreras, KPU’s vice-president academic.
KPU philosophy department professor Colin Ruloff had a question at the July 6 forum, which he didn’t complete. But at the request of KSA staffer Kari Michaels, it was published in the Facebook group organizing against the agreement. After a preamble about the wrong direction on energy resources, he wrote, “I fully understand that KPU is legally entitled to accept funds from any entity it wishes; but why, I ask, would KPU at all desire to form partnerships with carbon-intensive entities such as KM, let alone accept funds from such entities? This, it seems, is intellectually irresponsible and makes the university look very bad – retrograde, in fact.”
The practice of industry university partnerships isn’t novel. Possibly even older than such partnerships are instances when universities were influenced by religious authorities or conventional, social thought.
Maintaining Academic Integrity
The difficulties a university faces in attempting to maintain academic integrity because of external pressures are amongst the qualms of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, who in a 2013 report on industryuniversity partnerships explained how often postsecondary institutions violate the principles of academia. They made an example of 12 agreements on research collaborations—of which some were couplings with oil projects—and of those 12, only two were public documents, meaning no consultation with academic staff or students occurred. A lack of consultation is a similar complaint being voiced by those against the MOU between KPU and Kinder Morgan.
CAUT’s philosophy for the need of public, academic consultation is that when government or industry try to lead scientific inquiry, “Scientific horizons shrink.” CAUT suggests that industry often has the need to cut costs for research—so a university is “employed”—and that shortterm government agendas aim to please industry without a decent grasp of the proper way to forward knowledge. Combine that with the university senior administration’s awareness of their institution’s own underfunding and that oil pie recipe starts to look really good. And so does every other recipe that industry chefs can pipe up.
Not Enough Time
Many people expressed their desire that KPU had consulted with them before inking the deal with Trans Mountain. Because so many donors offer the school money and only a smaller proportion of those offers follow through, Ferreras says it’s unrealistic to hold preemptive forums at such a frequency. In this case he says the time wasn’t there.
“If it was a matter of unbelievable dissonance with our values or our—I can’t think of a good example right now; some sort of ridiculous example that we would know the entire community would be opposed—well we wouldn’t even talk about the MOU in the first place.”
“It could’ve been a special circumstance, which is why it was suggested,” says Ferreras. “You have to also understand the context of what was happening at the time for me to suggest trying to put together a forum, and the timing that we had before this announcement. I can’t tell you the number of board meetings, senate meetings, some very major major things… The time just wasn’t there.”
Even if this was defined as a special circumstance that warranted a forum that ended up happening, he doesn’t know that, “The decision would have been any different.”
In the end, Ferreras says this one isn’t a circumstance where KPU felt compelled to have a forum before making a decision.
The Kwantlen First Nation, for one, are shaking their heads at this entire agreement. Their opposition to pipeline expansion is wellknown. Perhaps it seems intuitive that a university with the KFN as their namesake might operate morethanparallel with the First Nations band.
Ferreras says they indeed “live in parallel” with KFN, that KPU welcomes them and their input into activities that would benefit aboriginal student participation. But, according to Ferreras, there’s no obligation to hash things out at all with KFN when it comes to things like this agreement with Trans Mountain.
“There’s no question that we’re committed to working with the Kwantlen First Nation and all our neighbouring nations,” says Ferreras. “But just because it’s part of our name, we don’t actually go out and sort of add a level of governance oversight with them in order to conduct our business. That would be unusual.”
“My grandfather Grand Chief Joe Gabriel allowed the university to use our Nation’s namesake over 32 years ago,” said Brandon Gabriel of KFN, in a statement. “It is an honour bestowed on the university that has never been forgotten by the Kwantlen Nation.”
Up to 12 letters of support for the Trans Mountain pipeline have been signed by First Nations bands, according to an aboriginal consultation update from Trans Mountain. KFN was among those who didn’t sign. Surprise, followed by roadside protest, was the KFN community’s response to Kinder Morgan began geotechnical testing in Langley in February. The Township of Langley says it has concerns with Kinder Morgan’s intentions, according to their website.
“There have been many great working relationships between the school’s past presidents, chancellors, provosts and administrators in the past,” added Gabriel. “I don’t know what to say about the current sitting president and his senior administration, I find these folks to be quite tokenistic, shortsighted, disingenuous and lacking any authentic desire to work with the KFN or any First Nations groups in a good way.”
Another part of the memorandum receiving criticism explains Trans Mountain’s “education recognition program.” Besides stating a required “announcement event” and national press release, the memorandum would give Trans Mountain naming rights to Langley campus’s environmental protection research lab for 10 years, and also to:
“… engage with program areas as subject matter experts, program advisory committee members where appropriate and both field trip sites and invitations to guest speaking opportunities.”
MOU critics, including the BC Government and Service Employees Union, the provincial union for KPU staff, and the KSA interpret this as a disturbing infringement on academic freedom, what’s being called the privatization of postsecondary education.
“Absolutely not,” says Ferreras. “Absolutely not.”
He says that under the University Act it would be impossible, that the university is “the sovereign owner of the educational delivery.” Instead, Ferreras says it means that Trans Mountain would “engage” by presenting a problem to the institution so the specific faculties could help with that said problem; it’s just the way that any company engages, he adds.
A spokesperson from Trans Mountain says that what Ferreras suggests would be, “Something we’d consider, for sure.”
“What our perspective on that was, in terms of recognition, is that we would be able to share real industry experience and examples,” they add. “For example, if someone in the trades department, if they were talking about welding in their specific program, it would be perhaps an opportunity for one of our welders from our team to go in and give real industry experience or knowledge.”
The idea of partnering with educational institutions, particularly those that have applied studies is, “To really bring that knowledge and experience of people who are actually in the industry to the students,” according to Trans Mountain. But Ferreras says that, “They would never engage directly with the students. That’s a relationship that we own.”
No matter their footing in this currently ambiguous but controversial relationship, as far as CAUT and the KPU community are concerned, a situation like this suggests major academic toe-crushing.
And as far as president Davis is concerned, he’s a man of his word. This agreement won’t go uninked.
“Dr. Davis can claim he entered the MOU in good faith, and so can’t back off, so he needs to be corrected,” says Burgess. “Overruled.”
