I feel like I should start this editorial with a disclaimer. I have been recently introduced to the politics of Trent in general, and the controversy regarding the DNA cluster project in particular, and there is a good chance I might be mistaken in what follows. But there are a number of disconcerting things about the debate that is taking place around the University and I would like to jot down my views from the perspective of a somewhat external observer. For anyone that is still wondering about the basic details of the project, this issue’s feature is where to start.

The most obvious problem with the project is one that its proponents accept as well: the project has an awfully short timeline. It needs to have two buildings ready by December 31, 2005, otherwise it will lose some of the funding it has received. Trent has actually a long way to go until the start of construction, never mind its completion: the project as a whole still requires approval from the Board of Governors (there’s only an approval for the site of construction but not the project itself, which is weird on its own account) as well as a building permit from the respective government, which in turn requires a number of tests and an actual plan of construction too. I cannot say it better than Prof. MacKay: “given Trent’s awful record of building buildings on time, does anyone really think this deadline is possible?”

“given Trent’s awful record of building buildings on time, does anyone really think this deadline is possible?”

So, if this deadline were to be missed, and the money lost, what would the proponents of the project do? As far as Trent is concerned, nothing. In fact, in the public forum, the answer to this question always changed into an attempt to convince the audience that the benefits of such a project were worth the risk. Everyone was left to believe that this will work. But beliefs do not create buildings, nor money. As anyone who followed the American elections last week would realize, blind belief leads only to huge mistakes.

The second problem: everyone is giving a different reason to different people on the question: How will this project benefit the University? Dr. Brad White’s answer at the forum was simple: he received funding for a research facility, therefore the benefit will mainly be in terms of research. Dennis Ferkany, speaking on behalf of the Peterborough Region DNA Cluster said that the main benefit would be jobs. Ferkany emphasized the project would turn “regional knowledge into new wealth.” Trent’s website last week said the same thing: 2000 direct jobs and 3000 indirect jobs will be created in the next 10 to 25 years. President Patterson emphasizes the commercial side of things: the goal of the “industrial park” is to fulfill Trent’s commercialization potential. Often this answer is given to prospective clients of the Cluster, which means that the whole project is closer to a business than a research facility.

Dear President Patterson: that is the most disrespectful act one could do to one’s community. Period.

VP Apostle-Clark on the other hand, rejected the “industrial park” label and said something more interesting: everyone will get what they want out of this. Trent will get research and funding for a variety of purposes, MNR will fulfill its needs, same thing with Fleming, and companies will eventually get their share too. Towards the end of the forum Ferkany claimed something else: the project, for him, is the only way Trent can survive in 15 years, with public funds decreasing and tuition fees increasing. That is, Ferkany predicted that the Cluster would provide enough wealth to spread around campus for whoever needed some: this would be the “magic mushroom” for all. It seems to me that everyone involved in the project is trying to find as many reasons as possible why this project is great. But, frankly, if everyone says that is good for everything and bad at nothing, I can’t stop thinking that even those who might have a point, don’t.

The third problem has two words: President Patterson. Let’s do a couple of simple tests: would you miss a meeting that you actually set the date for? The President decided on the date of the Public Forum, but failed to show up. Would you send someone else to the meeting without bothering to apologize for your absence? VP Apostle-Clarke showed up without any apologies (she did say Patterson couldn’t make it, but we could sort of see that as well). I don’t want to be cynical about this: President Patterson failed to show up in a public forum on a day she picked. No apologies whatsoever. Dear President Patterson: that is the most disrespectful act one could do to one’s community. Period.

But in contrast to many people, I think that the Trent community has some problems of its own. The forum was a great event, and I could not agree more with Paul Delaney’s letter. Sitting there listening to the questions of the audience though, I could not help feeling disturbed by the amount of cynicism directed towards the panel. I’m fairly cynical too (so I think, who knows!), but it’s not something I am proud of. And in occasions such as these what might appear to be witty comments become attempts to denigrate and literally humiliate the speakers. Is that the right way to demand change and offer valid critiques? The problem with cynicism is that it does not lead to the speaker and the listener coming together. It automatically leads to the opposite: separation, antagonism and irritation, which at the end of the day do not help anyone.

“the faculty is failing to play its collective role in making sure the University does not get out of track”

And finally, the faculty. Their input at the forum was an eye-opener. But that’s not enough. They can’t just sit in their offices, mind their own research and once in a while complain about how bad things are poised to get. If there is any distinctive interest group at Trent that has the power and the resources to implement some change in the way things are run, this is the faculty. Indeed, they are the ones risking the most in the case of a major failure at the University: it’s their jobs, it’s their careers and it’s their reputations that are at stake. Yet, they cannot escape from their specific individualisms. In my understanding of things, the faculty is failing to play its collective role in making sure the University does not get out of track.

This editorial is not exactly against everything and everyone. Its goal is to target specific acts by specific people at specific times. If you made it all the way here, my job is done.

Return to DNA Cluster Newsroom