By: Christopher A. Bowles
Authors Note: This article started as a research project in May 2007 and took nearly a year and a half to complete. Until now I had no idea what I was going to do with it because it is a bit too controversial for most journals. As a result, I have decided to post it here so whoever wants to can read it for free. Also, unlike my first article, this one is actually complete and devoid of grammar errors and typos, I think. It’s also twice as long.
Introduction
The unprecedented growth of post-secondary education in Ontario in the 1950s and 60s fundamentally transformed the state of higher education. In Sudbury, the University of Sudbury, which had served the region in various forms since 1914, would form the cornerstone of Laurentian University in 1960. As a result, the make-up of the University of Sudbury would be significantly altered. Previously, it had been responsible for all post-secondary education in Sudbury. By 1960, however, it could only teach Religious Studies and Philosophy. As a consequence, the University of Sudbury protected these programs from any interference from Laurentian, a position that was reinforced by legal guarantees in its federation agreement with Laurentian.
This essay is focused specifically on the three Departments of Religious Studies of Laurentian’s federated colleges, the University of Sudbury, Huntington College and Thorneloe College. In order to understand fully the circumstances behind the functioning of Religious Studies within Laurentian University, it is first necessary to examine the causes of the growth of education after the Second World War, as they were the catalyst for events in Sudbury. The growth of higher education in Ontario has been well documented and there is a general consensus on the key factors. Firstly, there was a guarantee of university education for returning soldiers from World War II that stimulated growth in the 1940s and 50s. Secondly, an even larger influx of students was just on the horizon with the population explosion now known as the Baby Boom Generation, which was expected to flood the post-secondary system by the mid-1960s. In order to accommodate this tremendous growth, the post-secondary system began expanding at a tremendous rate. Established universities saw impressive expansion and new universities were created. The most significant expansion in Canada occurred in Ontario, where eleven new universities, including Laurentian, were founded during the 1950s and 60s. Several of these new universities grew out of existing denominational institutions. For example, Laurentian grew out of the University of Sudbury and the University of Windsor from Assumption College.
J. Donald Wilson, Robert M. Stamp and Louis Philippe Audet in Canadian Education: A History, published in 1970, further examined the causes of university expansion in the 1950s and 60s. The book emphasized the immediacy of a looming demand for education following the war. In 1955, it was estimated that post-secondary enrolment would double in the following ten years. Along with this population explosion, university education was becoming more popular among Ontario’s young and this added further ammunition to the argument for expanding the system of higher education. A primary cause for this was the belief that university education was also increasingly being considered a necessity in a rapidly modernizing society.
Paul Axelrod investigated some of the financial reasons for the growth of post-secondary education in Scholars and Dollars. A primary impetus for the creation of universities such as Laurentian and the University of Windsor was financial. Axelrod draws attention to the fact that denominational colleges were not eligible for government funding. They were thus handicapped, as they would never have been capable of handling the influx of students on their own.
While it was a combination of these factors that resulted in the University of Sudbury leading the movement for the creation of Laurentian University, this essay’s primary focus is not on the relationship between Laurentian and the University of Sudbury as a whole. Rather, it is on the Department of Religious Studies and how it evolved from being one component of the curriculum at the University of Sudbury to one of three members of a Joint Department of Religious Studies within Laurentian. This story will be examined from a variety of angles. First, the initial impact of the federation agreement on the department will be recounted, including changes in course content during the first decade. Second, the problems arising from Laurentian’s treatment of the Joint Department will be examined. Specific attention will also be given to the internal operation among the three departments of Religious Studies within Laurentian.
The Joint Department of Religious Studies, which emerged in the mid 1960s, was its own worst enemy. The reality was that Laurentian’s other two federated colleges, Huntington and Thorneloe, also offered programs in Religious Studies, and it made sense for the three departments to work together. The result was the creation of a Joint Department that would incorporate all three colleges. Attempting to co-ordinate a department among different denominational colleges was a complicated task, but not because of the different denominations. Instead, the central issue was the dysfunctional nature of the Joint Department itself, which was a highly prominent feature in its first two decades of existence.
Laurentian itself would also present significant problems for the Joint Department. Because the federation agreement left the denominational colleges with limited course offerings, they ardently defended Religious Studies from interference by Laurentian. As will be demonstrated, this was easier said than done. While Laurentian did, on a few occasions, contravene the spirit of the federation agreement, the troubling issues were most apparent with Laurentian’s affiliated colleges, with Nipissing College being the major problem. Nipissing deliberately hijacked Religious Studies courses with little regard for the Joint Department. Laurentian’s senate would also present a major challenge for the Joint Department when it attempted to control Religious Studies courses, power that it was not authorized to exercise.
Religious Studies was of fundamental importance to the University of Sudbury, which had lost most of its other courses to Laurentian University in the federation agreement of 1960. Religious Studies was exclusively under the control of Laurentian’s three denominational colleges. Some form of coordination was required between the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Sudbury and the Departments of Religious Studies at Thorneloe College and Huntington College. The implementation of the Joint Department, however, was flawed from the beginning. The denominational colleges were not even consulted with regard to its implementation. This decision was unilaterally made by Ronald J. Clouthier, Laurentian’s Dean of Arts and Sciences, during the 1965-66 academic year. This paper contends that the problems experienced in the Joint Department of Religious Studies at Laurentian University, which emerged out of the necessity of combining three departments, resulted from a lack of communication within the department, self-interest among the three denominational colleges, insufficient planning in the implementation of the Joint Department and poor treatment, in general, by Laurentian.
Chapter 1: A Marriage of Convenience
The University of Sudbury has the distinction of being the oldest post-secondary institution in Northern Ontario. Its origins date back to 1914 with the incorporation of Sacred Heart College under the Act respecting the Corporation of St. Mary’s College in Montreal. Sudbury MPP Charles McCrea was highly influential in the development of the college and was the primary sponsor of the University Charter. The Jesuit Fathers, who were greatly concerned with bringing quality education to Sudbury, were responsible for developing Sacre-Coeur. Despite the fact that the college was incorporated in 1914, classes actually began in September 1913. The college would exist in this form for the next four decades.
Significant growth of higher education in Canada following the Second World War had a profound effect on Sudbury, and 1957 in particular brought significant change to Sacre Coeur. On 3 September 1957 College Sacre Coeur officially became the University of Sudbury under The University of Sudbury Act, 1957. Sudbury now possessed a fully bilingual, degree-granting university. At this point in its history, the University of Sudbury provided all post-secondary training in the Sudbury area, including the arts and sciences. The university was intended to serve a substantial portion of Northeastern Ontario and was one of only ten degree-granting universities in Ontario at the time. The university had actually possessed degree granting powers since 1914 but it only began using them in 1957.
O.W. Saarinen, in Sudbury: Rail Town to Regional Capital, described the change from Sacre-Coeur to the University of Sudbury as the “most noteworthy educational event” for Sudbury in the 1950s. The university had begun expanding almost immediately. La Seminaire de Hearst became an affiliated college of the University of Sudbury on 3 April 1957, and two months later the first convocation for the University of Sudbury took place. In order to keep up with anticipated growth, the University explored possible site options for a proposed new permanent campus. While this was ongoing, the university moved its base of operations from its former home on Notre Dame Avenue in Sudbury into temporary headquarters in the Empire Building in downtown Sudbury. A Board of Regents, which included many individuals who would prove to be prominent figures during Laurentian University’s early development several years later, including Benjamin Avery, J.N. Desmarais, H.J. Fraser and R.D. Parker, was then formed. It was “established as an advisory board and composed of persons representing various religious denominations as well as the two linguistic groups.” One of the board’s primary aims was to secure provincial grants for the university.
For three years the University of Sudbury was the primary option for young people in Northeastern Ontario who were seeking post-secondary education. The university was also adept at responding to the distinctive needs of the Sudbury region. This was demonstrated in 1958 when the University of Sudbury introduced engineering courses. An agreement was even reached with the University of Toronto whereby students who completed the first two years of an engineering course in Sudbury were eligible to transfer to Toronto for the third year. This demonstrates that, before the existence of Laurentian, the University of Sudbury was involved in all aspects of university training. It would soon become evident, however, that significant strain was being put on the university.
By the end of the decade, enrolment at the University of Sudbury was increasing. In 1958 the student body had increased to 300 and this began placing financial pressure on the small facilities on Elgin Street. Classes were forced to split between the newer temporary facility and the old facility on Notre Dame Avenue where it had previously existed as Sacred Heart College. To compensate, the university had begun offering night courses, which also aided in providing working adults with post-secondary education and helped increase overall enrolment at the University of Sudbury. The beginning of the University of Sudbury’s final year as an independent institution in 1959 showed further growth as its total enrolment increased even more.
This rising enrolment resulted in a significant change in the landscape of post-secondary education in Northeastern Ontario. It was clear that the University of Sudbury could not handle this growing student body on its own, and that a larger institution was required. In September 1960 the University of Sudbury became a founding member of Laurentian University with the completion of a federation agreement, one that was modeled on the University of Toronto Act of Union of 1906. The creation of Laurentian was driven by the University of Sudbury along with the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Synod of Algoma, the two major religious groups in Northeastern Ontario. Huntington University (United Church of Canada) joined the federation as another founding member, at the same time as the University of Sudbury. Thorneloe College (Anglican) would also become a member of the federation on 18 January 1963.
The creation of Laurentian resulted in a greatly diminished position for the University of Sudbury. Between 1957 and 1960 the University of Sudbury had been responsible for a wide range of programs. This, however, would change. The federation agreement stated that the University of Sudbury would relinquish “all faculties, schools, institutes, departments and chairs now established” with the exception of Philosophy and Religious Studies. After the incorporation of Laurentian, the University of Sudbury would be forced to narrow its focus to these two remaining programs.
The next significant step in the evolution of The University of Sudbury involved a change of address that would significantly alter the dynamic of the relationship among the federated colleges. For the first several years of its life as a federated college of Laurentian University, The University of Sudbury was not actually located on the Laurentian campus. Rather, its home had been the Empire Theatre in downtown Sudbury. Plans had been in place since 1960 to relocate the university on the Laurentian campus, but it would take several years for this to be accomplished. Once it finally occurred, circumstances would begin to change very quickly at Laurentian, especially as they related to the three separate departments of Religious Studies at its federated campuses. The departments of Religious Studies and Philosophy were the first to move in 1964 and were located within existing buildings at Laurentian. The administration was the last to move to a brand new building for the University of Sudbury on the Laurentian campus in 1967.
While the University of Sudbury was physically moving, its Department of Religious Studies was still in the process of defining itself. The structure of the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Sudbury had been a work in progress since 1960. In 1964, there were three basic philosophies within the department, each of which was designed to maintain its integrity and ensure it a prominent position within Laurentian. The first was a general requirement that “the discipline of Religious Studies must be confidently put forward as a basic offering in the various programs.” In other words, the university preferred that religious studies be made a requirement for all disciplines. The second stated “[t]hat the field Religious Studies because of its content, must not be identified with other disciplines in academic matters.” Put more simply, along with being a requirement, it was also to be kept distinct. The third stressed a need for variety in the curriculum by stating “that flexibility of curricula be such that all students may take a number of courses in this field.” The department of Religious Studies also offered a clear mission statement: “to acquaint the student with a broad knowledge of the four fundamental realities namely Man, God, Society and Nature, as understood in the traditions and culture of our civilization.”
The over-riding focus was that the University of Sudbury wanted to ensure the autonomy of its Religious Studies program as well as its influence over Laurentian students in general. This naturally protective attitude would prove problematic. This was highlighted when the Senate of the University of Sudbury expressed its wish that Religious Studies “be identified as a separate category: for example: ‘A course in Religious Studies or Humanities or Social Science.” This was one instance in which the University of Sudbury would not be successful. It was, however, successful in mandating a religious requirement for all Laurentian students with regard to Religious Studies. Early in the 1960s all Laurentian students were required to complete a minimum of six credits in Religious Studies, although by the end of the decade a choice was offered between Religious Studies and Philosophy.
Another issue to be addressed was the department’s curriculum. Initially its structure was kept simple, which makes sense as the department was still relatively small. The requirement would be for 5 full courses at 60 hours per course, which was equivalent to one full academic year. There was also a question of what name would appear on the degrees, Laurentian University or the University of Sudbury, and two options were recommended. The first was a B.A. program with a major in Religious Studies granted by Laurentian University. The second option involved certificates given directly by the University of Sudbury extraneous to a B.A. program. In this case degree certificates would be granted by the Senate of the University of Sudbury. The basic requirements stated that the student must have passed the 5 required courses and completed his or her thesis and earned satisfactory standing.
The department was also concerned with modernizing its course offerings. This was reflected in an expansion of the course selection within the Department during its first ten years as a member of the Laurentian Federation. By 1964 the structure of the program consisted primarily of basic courses in Religious Studies. The three staple courses offered during the first few years were focused primarily on the Old Testament, the New Testament and the general functioning of the Church. After 1964 new courses emerged which were added to the curriculum. Religious Sociology was described as “[a] study of attitudes with regard to the Christian belief and of the various social patterns of behaviour which condition the belonging to the Church.” Religious Psychology was described as “[a] study of religious experience as found in the experience of values, of the sacred, and of Christian life; an analysis of psychological factors which condition an interpersonal relationship between God and the catechized.” Also notable were courses in Religious Anthropology, a general course in Religious Teaching, courses in The Religious Dimension of Man and Society, God and Contemporary Man, A Theological Interpretation of History, and Vatican Council II.
The explanation for new course offerings reflects the progressive nature of the department. The position of the University of Sudbury Senate was that “[t]he religious awareness is in this department treated as a primary datum of human consciousness. The effort is made in the courses described below to examine the responses made to this awareness in the history of the human race, what knowledge has resulted and how this has contributed to the culture and civilization especially in the Western World. The expanding ecumenical and inter-faith concerns of our day appear throughout in the organization and content of the courses.” In other words, the department was now recognizing that it would have to expand its scope in order to provide a proper context of religious content in a rapidly modernizing world.
It was also in 1967 that Laurentian attained a degree of influence in the Department of Religious Studies that it had not possessed in the past. This was in the form of a new approval process. The new courses for the 1967-68 school year were not approved by the Senate of the University of Sudbury as they had been in the past. Rather, they were approved by the Laurentian senate. Father Simon Davis, chairman of the department, was not overly concerned with this change as he considered it only a minor formality (problems inherent with this new procedure will become evident later).
Bilingualism, which was a defining factor of Laurentian University, quickly became an irritant for the University of Sudbury. Under the Laurentian charter affairs were to be conducted in both French and English. At the same time, however, the University of Sudbury feared that a balance between the two languages would threaten the teaching of Religious Studies in French. The reason for this is because the department believed that, if francophone professors began offering courses in English, the French offerings would become secondary. The department dealt with this fear by discouraging professors within the department from teaching in more than one language. As a result, some francophone members of the department became hostile to the mere suggestion that they teach courses in English.
In addition to the abovementioned characteristics, one important aspect of the Department of Religious Studies was the creation of a Joint Department, which was mishandled from the beginning. Under the federation agreement only the three federated church-related colleges were authorized to give instruction in Religious Studies and it was logical, if not essential, that the three colleges begin working together. It was decided that the University of Sudbury, Huntington College and Thorneloe College would merge their three departments in 1965. A significant problem with this decision is that it was put in place by Roland Clouthier, Dean of Arts and Sciences at Laurentian, without any input from the denominational colleges. Clouthier was also adamant that the department was to be chaired by a co-ordinating chairman who would handle the interaction among the three colleges, but the specific responsibilities for this position were never made clear. The same was also true of the procedures for the operation of the Joint Department.
There were a number of reasons why combining the three departments was considered a good idea, at least in theory. The first was the belief that co-ordination among the three colleges would create a better teaching and learning environment by avoiding competition among the colleges (as shall be demonstrated later the opposite occurred). The second involved its relationship with Laurentian University, namely the belief that a Joint Department would “simplify administrative dealings” with Laurentian University. The most important reason was the fact that each of the colleges represented different religious denominations and believed that this arrangement would help maintain the autonomy of the denominational colleges in the area of Religious Studies. The Joint Department was to be part of Laurentian’s Faculty of Humanities and each college would contribute courses.
While the creation of a Joint Department might have appeared as a promising prospect, the defining characteristic of the new department proved to be in-fighting among the three colleges caused by the ineffectiveness in the operation of the Joint Department. The creation of the Joint Department clearly demonstrated the challenges inherent in uniting three colleges into one academic unit, and was also symptomatic of the problems which developed within Laurentian University during its early years existence.
Chapter 2: A Case Study in Frustration
The functioning of the Joint Department of Religious Studies was problematic from the beginning. While it might have seemed wise to co-ordinate the Religious Studies programs at Huntington College, Thorneloe College and the University of Sudbury, the implementation proved highly problematic. A series of issues became apparent and led each of the three colleges to question its place in the Joint Department. The ultimate result was a fractured Joint Department, a problem that dragged on for years. One of the reasons was confusion over the responsibilities and scope of power of the department chair, an issue that often lead to heated disputes. In addition, the colleges had significant difficulty in trusting each other, at least when it came to the functioning of the Joint Department. Generally, each was more interested in safeguarding its own programs, often at the expense of the Joint Department. Moreover, several individuals involved preferred to criticize the department without offering any possible resolutions to the ongoing series of disputes. When some members of the Joint Department did offer solutions, they fell on deaf ears.
*
Problems became apparent within the Joint Department of Religious Studies shortly after its creation. In August 1969 Simon Davis, a Religious Studies professor at the University of Sudbury, was appointed as the new Chairman of the Joint Department. He suddenly found himself thrust into the position of contending with a number of contentious issues among the three colleges. For example, the beginning of the 1969-70 school year was greeted with the departure of one of the colleges from the Joint Department due to a complete lack of cooperation between two of the member institutions. This situation was exacerbated because of unclear guidelines with regard to course administration within the Joint Department. A serious disagreement at the meeting of the Joint Department on 5 September 1969 was only one of several issues that were complicating and fracturing the relationship between the University of Sudbury and Huntington College. J.W.E. Newbery, who had been a staff member at Huntington College, had resigned and, in turn, had been hired by the University of Sudbury. The dispute in question concerned a specific Religious Studies course, RS-34, which had been taught by Professor Newberry for a number of years while on staff at Huntington. Upon being hired by the University of Sudbury, Newberry retained this course and had begun teaching it as a University of Sudbury course.
Both the University of Sudbury and Huntington College had strong views on the issues surrounding this course and neither was willing to budge. Huntington’s position was that “Prof. Newberry offered this course as a member of the teaching staff at Huntington College” and “upon Prof. Newberry’s resignation from the staff of Huntington College, it becomes the responsibility of that college to find some other qualified person, acting as a member of this same college, to teach RS-34.” The University of Sudbury’s position was that any course should go to the best qualified faculty member, regardless of with which college he or she was affiliated. This argument made a great deal of sense and would be in the best interest of students. The University of Sudbury took this even further by stating that “there is nothing that prevents Prof. Newberry from teaching any or all of the courses which he had previously been offering while a member of the staff of Huntington College, providing only that the Joint Department reappoint him to fulfill this task.” Unfortunately, the Joint Department had no guidelines for dealing with this type of situation.
By the time the dispute over Newberry’s course had reached the Laurentian Senate neither had managed to resolve the dispute and the Joint Department was reduced to two members. On 12 September, Huntington College informed S.G. Mullins, Chairman of Laurentian’s Senate, that it was the “intention of Huntington College to withdrawal from the Joint Department of Religious Studies and to offer on its own the courses which by mutual agreement have hitherto been allocated to Huntington and its teaching staff.” The reasons stated for the departure were that Huntington believed this would be beneficial to “students and professors” and would “set the college free from the present restrictions imposed upon it by the recent unilateral departure from the practice which has governed the relationship between the Colleges since the inception of the Joint Department of Religious Studies.”
Seven days later Huntington College left the Joint Department, a move the University of Sudbury decided that it would not dispute. Dr. Jean D’auteuil Richard, President of the University of Sudbury, stated at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Board of Federation Relationships that the college had every right to leave the department if it so desired. He did, however, express his disappointment in the decision. Attempting to be diplomatic he stated his belief that, although the University of Sudbury did not “agree generally with the reasons put forward to do so; it expresses regret for the termination of an association which has proved helpful and worked reasonably well for the four or five years of its existence.” With that said, the board carried the motion to allow Huntington College to separate from the department.
The actions of the Joint Department in responding to the departure of Huntington demonstrate that it was in a state of denial. The only method used to deal with the Huntington situation was simply to ignore it and continue as if everything was fine. This was aptly demonstrated at a meeting on 2 October 1969, several weeks after Huntington’s departure was approved by the Federation Relationships Committee. L.J. Winkel, President of Huntington, was not at the meeting as originally scheduled. This made sense because, by this point, Huntington was no longer a member of the department. Interestingly, however, Winkel is still listed as having been present. The explanation given in the minutes is that he was “not ‘absent’ since he had not yet arrived in Sudbury.” When the matter of the departure of Huntington arose, the explanation was that there had been no official notification given to the Joint Department.
Huntington’s departure from the department was nothing more than an exercise in futility because, within a year, it was considering rejoining the department without any explanation. The irony is palpable. Apparently, the college had either forgotten why it had left in the first place or its attempt to offer Religious Studies with its own limited resources had been a disaster. It was likely a combination of the two. On 11 December 1970, Winckel informed Gilles Garand, the Coordinator of the Joint Department, that Huntington was now interested in setting up a meeting for the purpose of discussing the “possibility of re-uniting the two departments into one.” The only additional comment given is that the college wanted to have this completed before the 1971-72 course calendar was published. Garand was also unwilling to question the motives behind this move and simply went ahead with preparing the terms for rejoining the two departments. Nothing had changed and everything continued as if the past year had never happened.
While the Joint Department and Huntington were busy not working through their problems, issues arose with another member of the Joint Department, namely Thorneloe College. In fact, in late 1969, Thorneloe had actually contemplated leaving the Laurentian Federation, but fortunately the idea did not progress beyond the contemplation stage. If there was one positive aspect to this it was that the approach taken by Thorneloe was much more diplomatic than Huntington’s. The college was fully aware that the Joint Department was in a state of administrative chaos and attempted to identify some of the reasons. Dr. F.A. Peake, a Professor at Thorneloe, had presented a number of concerns regarding the functionality of the Joint Department at a meeting of the Federation Relationships Committee on 17 February 1971. He began his presentation by stating that “Thorneloe College does not recognize the ‘Joint Department of Religious Studies’ as having any authority to make decisions by which it is bound.” Of course, no one actually knew what its authority entailed in the first place. The problem, as Peake saw it, was the position of Chairman. From Peake’s perspective, it was only intended to co-ordinate the department and not make policy. Instead, policy was to be implemented by the chair of the departments in each of the three colleges, not the Joint Department. He emphasized the fact that the responsibilities of the chair of the Joint Department had to be delineated clearly. Other problems within the department were soon to become apparent.
In addition to the bickering among the three colleges, self-interest was also becoming a prominent theme. The three individual departments were more interested in the financial benefits accruing to their own colleges than the Joint Department and, in some cases, even their own students. That was the conclusion of Emlyn Davis, a Professor of Religious Studies at Huntington University. Davis believed that each of the three colleges would be “inclined to pursue a course which is profitable for them and then present it as a fait accompli to the other colleges.” This approach undoubtedly caused friction within the department. Davis was adamant that if a solution to this problem was not arrived at it would be detrimental not only to the department but also the students. Many agreed with David that something had to change.
Every new co-ordinator of the Joint Department offered solutions to its ongoing flow of issues with little actually being resolved. In light of the problems with the department in 1971 Gilles Garrand, co-ordinator of the Joint Department by the early 1970s, offered several suggestions. The first was to set up a committee of six members, two from each college, which would act under the chairmanship of the Academic Council. Second, he emphasized that different denominations should not come into question when administering the department (this was the only aspect of the department that had never been a problem). Garrand finished his recommendations by saying that “[a]nything less than academic excellence and anything other than academic integrity could rightly be described as ‘the unforgivable sin.” If this is to be taken literally then the department was in serious trouble with the almighty.
It soon became obvious that clear guidelines for the operation of the Joint Department were required as the events of 1969 began to repeat themselves in 1972. While Thorneloe and other members were still failing to find solutions to the conundrum that was the Joint Department, Huntington, once again, decided to leave. This time there was no explanation given other than sheer frustration. At another meeting of the Federation Relationships Committee, Huntington, little more than a year after requesting to rejoin the department, inflicted yet another blow. This time the decision came directly from the Huntington University Board of Regents. The direction was that Huntington would “henceforth exercise its charter rights of announcing its own program of courses in Religious Studies,” and all that was required was approval from the Laurentian University Senate, but this request went nowhere, as the following year Huntington was still listed in the Laurentian calendar as a member of the Joint Department. Nothing was done to address the reasons for Huntington’s attempted departure.
If there was one area where the Joint Department excelled it was identifying and suggesting solutions to problems, but that fact that it did not do anything about them exacerbated the frustration of its members. Father R. Tremblay, Chairman of the department by 1972, attempted to take a proactive stance by identifying some of the flaws within the department. Tremblay’s appraisal of the state of the Joint Department was depressing, to say the least. He summarized the feeling of both faculty who supported the Joint Department and those who saw it as completely dysfunctional. Three reasons were offered as to why the department was doomed to failure. The first was based upon financial considerations, an analysis that was much harsher than Davis’s previous assessment. The belief, according to Tremblay, was that “[i]t is impossible to trust the other colleges: each one is out to get as much of the hog as it can.” The second was a feeling of mistrust towards Laurentian. Some members felt that “[i]t is impossible to trust Laurentian University: these people are only waiting to get their hands on Religious Studies, some out of hostility, some out of greed” (this subject is discussed in detail in Chapter 3). The third reason was that each of the three colleges was seen as a “separate living entity” and should be permitted to operate in such a fashion.
Tremblay countered the negative feeling with reasons why he and some of the more optimistic members of the department felt that it could, in fact, be a success. One of the main reasons he cited was the intrinsic value of the department because the “academic study and teaching of Religion can only be achieved as a cooperative venture, not only of individuals of different denominations but also of members of different denominational groups.” As previously noted, this is one of the only areas where the department was really considered a success. Tremblay also believed that the existence of a Joint Department was a necessity for functionality within the Laurentian federation.
In response to Tremblay’s analysis of events, Thorneloe College again suggested its own resolution to the problems affecting the Joint Department. The first issue raised was the fact that the autonomy of each of the denominational colleges had to be respected and reinforced Tremblay’s assertion that a joint department was essential. According to Thorneloe, the reason for this was that the three colleges were, by the terms of the Laurentian federation agreement, the only colleges that were permitted to teach Religious Studies. It was believed “some form of joint program is desirable if not essential.” The problem was not the Joint Department itself, but rather the way in which it was managed. The main cause of the majority of the grievances within the department was the informal relationship. The department was run by the teaching staff and not ultimately responsible to anyone else. This, in turn, led to an unfair advantage for the school with the largest teaching staff (which had always been the University of Sudbury).
Thorneloe’s solution was based upon a joint department system that had been proposed for Religious Studies at the University of Toronto. A solution of this nature would provide for “recognition of the fact that each college is autonomous and had its own department of religious studies.” This would also allow members of the departments from each of the three colleges to set up a council for the joint program. Also recommended was the appointment of an executive committee which would include equal representation from each college.
To further this agenda, Simon Davis, a professor at the University of Sudbury and former chair, set about writing a draft constitution for a Joint Department of Religious Studies which aimed to solve its problems. Davis’s draft for the constitution once again emphasized the fact that teaching Religious Studies was the sole responsibility of the denominational colleges, a common theme in almost everything the Joint Department published or proposed to publish. He also offered a specific definition and explanation of what exactly the Joint Department should be. As he put it, “[b]y ‘Joint-Department of Religious Studies’ is meant that the three departments of the respective colleges shall constitute one administration and academic unit staffed by duly qualified professors of the respective colleges who will assume the responsibility of teaching religious studies and of developing the academic study of religion.”
As part of the draft constitution, Davis also made several recommendations concerning the position of Chairman, one of the most contentious issues surrounding the department. His solution was to introduce a “rotating chairman,” a position that would rotate among the three colleges. Under this system the chairman would be limited to a term of two years and was to be “invested with executive powers only.” The chairman would deal directly with the federated universities as well as Laurentian’s Faculty of Arts and Science. Like other potential solutions, the constitution was never implemented. The position of the rotating chairman, however, was put into practice. The initial term was two years, which was later lengthened to three.
Furthermore, the members of the Joint Department were more interested in protecting their own turf than contributing to the overall success of the department. F.A. Peake, President and Vice-Chancellor of Thorneloe College, expressed his concern to the new President of the University of Sudbury, Father Laurent Larouche, about the manner in which his school was handling course scheduling. Peake was less than happy because the University of Sudbury was offering Religious Studies 1110 on Thursday evenings at the same time as Thorneloe. While he was willing to excuse the situation as an inadvertent error, he antagonized the University of Sudbury by demanding “immediate withdrawal of this course.” Peake’s frustration was largely unjustified as Larouche quickly diffused the matter, one of many he would be forced to resolve in his long tenure as President of the University of Sudbury. Larouche informed Peake that, while it may have appeared that the two courses were in direct competition, they were not. The University of Sudbury had been aiming the course at school teachers in the area who had actually requested the course. With that, the problem, which could easily have spiralled into yet another major controversy for the joint-department, was resolved.
In addition, the Joint Department continually emphasized its “higher calling” rather than resolving its own problems. This was demonstrated when Raymond Tremblay, Chair of the Department, offered yet another thorough analysis of the state of the department in 1972. Tremblay, who was in the middle of a two-year term as chair, took a different approach. Rather than simply focusing on the department’s weaknesses, he concentrated on its strengths. While his arguments made sense, they did little to resolve anything. He emphasized that the Joint Department must “be recognized as being both a moral and an institutional entity.” He believed the department was a moral entity because “it groups together the three College Departments of Religious Studies on the sole basis of the goodwill of the persons involved.” The problem was that the status of the department as a moral entity was in question as it could have ceased to exist at any moment. He stated that the challenge which faced the department as an institutional entity was that “the legal framework of such an institution has never been given.” Tremblay also offered his own hypothesis as to why the department had never been successful in drafting a universally accepted constitution. The primary reason, in his own words, was “the proposals which were made went beyond the measure of moral unity which the different parties were willing to recognize.” His solution was that a constitution between the three colleges should be only operational in nature and “remain totally non-committal on matters of principle and policy.” Unfortunately, this would not have solved anything as the lack of powers in terms of policy was one of the main problems with the Joint Department.
Tremblay then proceeded to offer a detailed analysis of the current nature and role of the Joint Department as it existed at the time, one that clearly indicated why it was often ineffective. In reality the Joint Department was nothing more than a bureau which comprised three primary elements. The first was an “office room” located in the arts building at Laurentian where the files of the joint-department were stored. The second component was a secretary, and the third the Chairman. Tremblay also noted that this position was now being referred to as “Coordinator,” which had been an attempt to “soft-pedal” the view of the position of chairman. The problem was that the title was inappropriate because the position, as Tremblay saw it, did not have the authority to coordinate the three departments.
Tremblay also attempted to identify exactly what the office did, which, in the eyes of many, was something of a mystery. The actual function of the bureau was rather simple. Its primarily function was to act as a medium of communication which helped explain why it did not work. The problem was that the first channel of communication was one way between it and Laurentian. The second was among the three departments. This actually inhibited contact between the denominational colleges because they could avoid actually talking to each other by simply sending everything through the bureau. In terms of actual face to face meetings, each college would send a representative. The problem with this, according to Tremblay, was “[t]hese meetings are to be considered only as a medium of communication and discussion. They have no legal authority whatsoever.”
The fundamental problem with the bureau was that, in reality, there was very little it could actually do. It had no control over important matters including the introduction of new courses, course descriptions, timetables, hiring of new instructors, and new centres of instruction. In other words, the bureau had no power over course content. Furthermore, the bureau did not possess any control with regard to student marks or evaluation of teachers and instruction, and there was no control over work loads for either students or teachers. With a set up like this it is no wonder why the Joint Department was problematic and would continue in that state for years. Almost none of the suggestions had been implemented and none of the problems’ causes had been acknowledged by Laurentian.
In two decades the department had accomplished very little with regard to halting the ongoing conflicts and complaints. While the Joint Department would never collapse entirely, problems would continue to plague it through the 1970s and 1980s. For example, when the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Sudbury released its annual report for 1977, it described the Joint Department as an “exercise in frustration.” The report also continued the tradition of members of the department blaming the problems on the other two colleges. The University of Sudbury’s summary of the problems in 1977 blamed Huntington and Thorneloe, which “have very limited activity and significance” and “feel continuously menaced and have nothing but religious studies to draw from and justify their existence.” The University of Sudbury believed that both colleges were only interested in offering as many courses as possible to attract the largest number of students without any regard for academic standards. The other colleges were also accused of copying courses that were already available at the University of Sudbury.
Even by the late 1980s, most of the problems that had plagued the department two decades before were still present. In 1987 the joint-department commissioned an internal study to investigate where the department had succeeded and where it had failed. The main area of success cited was the diversity of having three colleges representing three different faiths. This, however, was not an improvement, as the diverse nature of the department had never been considered a problem. It was claimed that this unity had helped strengthen the academic component of the department.
The remainder of the report was a rehashing of the unending cycle of complaints, demonstrating that, in twenty years, the Joint Department had resolved very little. The report blamed the woes on the department’s structure because “it is more complicated than any other department [within Laurentian].” Specifically cited was the number of bodies any decision would be required to pass through before approval was given, namely the colleges’ own academic committees, the joint-department and then, finally, the Faculty of Humanities. The problem of effective authority within the department had also not yet been solved. The very functioning of the department still depended on “the good will of each participating college” to recognize any authority within the department. The final difficulty raised was the most significant problem which had been affecting the department for the previous two decades. This was the idea that because “faculty members are accountable to their own college their loyalty is necessarily divided between their college interests and the interests of their academic unit.” This hit the nail on the head, although it was not exactly a new revelation.
Despite the general problematic nature of the Joint Department, it would be unfair to ignore one area where cooperation between the colleges had benefitted the department. From the time of its creation, the need for a four-year honours programs in Religious Studies had been repeatedly stressed. The Joint Department, under the chairmanship of Dr. John Sahadat, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sudbury, established the honours program during the 1979-80 academic year. In this case the three chairs of the separate departments, Jean Gobeil of the University of Sudbury, Brain Aitken of Huntington and Ted Heaven of Thorneloe, cooperated with Dr. Sahadat in creating the program. While there were a number of “different opinions” expressed with regard to the course structure, a compromise was eventually reached and the program was created.
This triumph aside, problems persisted within the Joint Department. This situation was complicated by the actions of each individual college. It is not possible to track the evolution within the Joint Department with regard to its dysfunctional nature because there was so little measurable development. The only positive aspect is that the hostility did decrease in magnitude as the decades progressed. The establishment of the four-year bachelor’s program demonstrated that, when the colleges worked together, positive results could occur. Regardless, conflict had become the Joint Department’s defining characteristic. For years, individuals from the University of Sudbury, Huntington and Thorneloe had repeatedly identified the issues and many had offered possible solutions, each of which went unimplemented. In other words, the Joint Department was well aware of the source of hostility but was simply unwilling to do anything about it. By the 1990s there were positive steps toward resolving these issues. In 2008 most of the problems that plagued the Joint Department of Religious Studies have been resolved and the relationship is now harmonious. It is, however, unfortunate that it took decades before the problems were adequately addressed.
Chapter 3: The Joint Department at War with Laurentian
Problems within the Joint Department were not the only difficulties the denominational colleges had to contend with in the late 60s and early 70s with regard to Religious Studies. There were also instances where, out of necessity, they had to defend their program against Laurentian University itself. While Laurentian was generally respectful of the terms of the federation agreement, this was not always the case. As has already been demonstrated, the Joint Department was created without any consultation with the denominational colleges. This was not the only problem. There were also instances where the university Senate directly undermined the legal rights of the Joint Department. Other bodies within Laurentian also demonstrated little respect for the rights of the denominational colleges when it came to Religious Studies. This was particularly true with regard to some of Laurentian’s associated colleges, namely Nipissing College and Algoma College. Nipissing, however, posed a more significant challenge as it largely ignored the terms of the federation agreement and caused significant discord for the federated colleges.
*
Not even Laurentian and its affiliated colleges could escape the wrath of the Joint Department. In some instances, however, the frustration of the Joint Department was justified. At times, it appeared that Laurentian had significant difficulty in adhering to the terms of its own federation agreement. The most prominent example of this is the way Religious Studies was treated, especially in the 1970s. One of the most important aspects of the agreement was the guarantee that Religious Studies was exclusively the responsibility of the denominational colleges. All other member institutions of Laurentian were prohibited from offering any religious content. While courses were technically under the supervision of the University Senate, the implication was that the Senate would not interfere with Religious Studies.
By the 1970s the problems between Laurentian and the Federated Colleges involving Religious Studies were largely centred around Laurentian’s affiliated colleges, specifically Algoma College in Sault Ste Marie and Nipissing College in North Bay. And, in this instance, it was Laurentian that came to the defence of the Joint Department. In 1971 the Joint Department had begun investigating the possibility of offering courses outside Sudbury, specifically at Algoma and Nipissing. The response from them, however, was hostile. Almost immediately, both colleges denied the federated colleges the right to teach their courses within their jurisdictions “unless they received fees for such courses.” This was a direct violation of the federation agreement. Before the federated colleges had a chance to respond, Roland Cloutier, now acting president of Laurentian, addressed the situation directly. Cloutier understood the ramifications of the affiliated colleges’ actions and attempted to gain control of the matter before it led to problems that Laurentian would prefer to avoid.
Cloutier was implicit in informing both colleges that by taking this course they were directly contravening the federation agreement. This was evident in a letter he sent to G. Zytaruk, President of Nipissing College, one of the primary antagonists in the affair. Zytaruk had made it clear that accommodating religious courses from the Joint Department was at the low end of his priorities. Clouthier informed Zytaruk that the 1960 act “grants to the federated colleges the exclusive right to teach courses in Religious Studies.” He further reinforced the fact that the affiliation agreement “stipulates that you are not to teach any course in this discipline.” Clouthier was explicit in his directions that, after consultation with the Board of Regents, Zytaruk’s response should be a letter “rescinding your decision.” It was clear that the affiliated colleges had little choice but to comply with Clouthier’s instructions.
Nipissing eventually acted on Clouthier’s directions, but only partially. Zytaruk searched for any loophole that would allow Nipissing to delay the introduction of courses in Religious Studies at Nipissing. In June 1971. J.D. Richard, president of the University of Sudbury, approached Zytaruk directly about offering a Religious Studies course in North Bay. Father Raymond Tremblay, a Religious Studies professor at the University of Sudbury, informed Richard that he was free to teach a course in North Bay if there was sufficient registration to warrant it. Richard exercised the utmost in diplomacy in approaching Zytaruk. He wanted to make clear that he was not trying to force courses on Nipissing. Initially, he simply wanted to see how they would be received. He was also curious to determine what kind of arrangement could be made for classroom space, advertising and registration. This was the loophole Nipissing had been looking for.
Zytaruk did not want the Joint Department or the federated colleges to have any control over the courses being offered at Nipissing and now he saw a way out. He pounced on the issue of space provision. Zytaruk and the Board of Governors now had the excuse they needed to prevent the Joint Department from introducing Religious Studies courses. When responding to Richard’s request, Nipissing used Richard’s own diplomacy to quash his hopes for offering any courses that year. Zytaruk stated “[u]nder the present circumstances, at this time when Nipissing College is expanding its program, it is the decision of the Board that courses in Religious Studies would be unwarranted.” Zytaruk claimed (without any evidence) that Nipissing did not have adequate facilities to support the program in the first place. Zytaruk also claimed that Religious Studies courses would actually hinder additional extension courses that were already being offered by decreasing enrolment in these courses, a claim for which there was no evidence. It is questionable whether one course in Religious Studies would have had any impact on enrolment in the thirty-eight extension courses that were being offered at Nipissing at the time. Zytaruk cleverly attempted to remove any suspicion concerning the possible motives for this by saying that he was “certain that as Nipissing College develops there will be a place for Religious Studies in the future, and we would then be pleased to co-operate with your university in making the necessary provisions for offering such courses.” This explanation was hardly convincing and the Joint Department did not buy it.
The federated colleges were not the only problem with which the Joint Department had to contend; this time it was Laurentian University itself that would further complicate matters by directly contravening the spirit and letter of the federation agreement. During the 1971-72 academic year the Joint Department was continuing its strategy for expanding its offering in areas outside of Sudbury by planning to offer seven courses for the following summer. The controversy erupted when the university Senate started enforcing its right for course approval for the first time with regard to Religious Studies. Heretofore, this had been little more than a formality and had never been a problem. This time, however, the Senate stood as a significant obstacle to the implementation of these outside courses. The major issue arose when the Senate decided to remove four of the seven courses from the list of what was to be offered in outside centres for the summer semester. There was no consultation with the Joint Department or any of the denominational colleges on this matter. Dr. J.D. Richard, President of the University of Sudbury, informed Pierre Chalifoux, Chairman of the Federation Relationships Committee, that the Senate “failed to fully recognize that it was not dealing with a department only but with a Federated institution, and chose to ignore, even after representations, the prerogatives of the Federated Institution.” Richard was adamant in his view that these actions ran counter to the “letter and spirit” of the federation agreement. He also wanted to ensure that the Board of Governors were aware of this “atrocity”. Richard was fully aware that the Board could not interfere in the daily operations of the university. He was, however, hopeful that the Board would instruct the President to ensure that the federation agreement was “adhered to in its entirety” by all entities within Laurentian. Technicalities, once again, been exploited against the denominational colleges by undermining a program over which they were supposed to have complete control.
The response of the university senate demonstrated that it had no interest in appeasing the Joint Department in its grievances over the issue of summer courses, which required immediate action on the part of the denominational colleges. The predicament soon became a legal matter when it was brought forth at a meeting of the Federation Relationships Committee on 19 January 1972. At the meeting, it was moved that both Laurentian and the Joint Department (primarily the University of Sudbury) should “seek legal advice to determine the full extent of the rights and privileges of the federated universities as regards their teaching function.” The university Senate was less than amused that its decision was being questioned. It released a statement that declared that it “deplored the alleged recourse to legal proceedings to resolve a conflict within the University community” and that it decried “the apparent lack of adequate procedures for resolving such conflicts.” The Senate also requested that the local news media be made aware of what was transpiring in an attempt to reinforce its position.
In order to resolve both the problem with the Senate and the lack of co-operation from Nipissing, legal proof was required to reinforce the position of the Joint Department and the federated colleges. Of primary importance was determining conclusively the legal rights of the University of Sudbury, Huntington and Thorneloe when it came to control of Religious Studies at Laurentian. To resolve this issue, the University of Sudbury turned to the law firm of Cassels and Brock, which dealt with the majority of the college’s legal issues, including the original federation agreement. In the meantime, President Richard put the matter of external courses aside until the legal position of the denominational colleges was clear. His only immediate response to Nipissing’s treatment was a simple statement; “I must say we were not very pleased.” Regardless, he believed it was prudent to wait for a firm legal position before taking any further action on the issues with the Senate and the federated colleges.
It was not long before the legal rights of the denominational colleges with regard to Religious Studies were identified. For clarity, Cassels and Brock applied their findings to both the departments of Religious Studies and Philosophy as they were administered under identical regulations of the federation agreement. The basic question was whether or not the University of Sudbury (and Huntington and Thorneloe) could legally give instruction in these disciplines without approval from Laurentian’s Faculty of Arts and Science. The exact procedure for this was not clearly stated in the federation agreement and this was the direct cause of the legal confusion. Thus, clarifying this confusion was of paramount importance. After analyzing the language in the agreement, Cassels and Brock were able to demonstrate that the University of Sudbury and the other federated colleges did, indeed, have the legal right to control their own programs without interference from Laurentian. It was argued that autonomy over Philosophy and Religious Studies was one of the driving factors behind the federation agreement in the first place. There were several factors that formed the basis for this position. The first was that “the federated universities have the right to give instruction in philosophy and religious knowledge and the University is obligated to accept such courses in partial fulfilment for a degree under the same academic terms and conditions as would obtain if the instruction were given in University College.” A requirement for approval from the Board and the Senate was not valid and, legally, it had never been. It was clear the Senate had overstepped its bounds in this matter. In addition, the Senate was also legally required to ensure that all Religious Studies and Philosophy courses were kept on a par with all other courses at Laurentian. Approval for courses was strictly the responsibility of the federated colleges. The Laurentian Senate could only dictate policy and approval with regard to programs over which it had direct control. Cassels and Brock also made clear that, if Laurentian was proposing to control Religious Studies programs, even outside the city limits of Sudbury, it would “make meaningless the right given to the federated colleges.”
By late 1972 problems concerning Religious Studies had received a temporary solution. The legal opinion had resulted in the affiliated colleges changing their position with regard to Religious Studies courses, largely because they had no choice. Additionally, a course was finally offered by the University of Sudbury at Nipissing during the winter 1973 semester, and the financial arrangements arrived at mirrored those between Laurentian and the University of Sudbury. With this cleared up the Joint Department decided to approach Laurentian’s other major affiliate, Algoma College. Laurent Larouche, the new president of the University of Sudbury, approached Ian Brown, President of Algoma. Larouche was hopeful that a similar accommodation could be reached and Joint Department might begin as early as the following summer. In this case, the problems that surrounded the implementation of Religious Studies at Nipissing did not repeat themselves with Algoma. This reprieve, however, would not last long.
Apparently, Nipissing had learned very little from its experiences in the early 1970s, and by 1976 the issue of autonomy over Religious Studies would re-emerge. This time the controversy centred around Laurentian’s School of Education, which was located at Nipissing. In 1974 an agreement had been made in accordance with the terms of the federation agreement with Jacques Martineau, director of the School of Education, and the Department of Religious Studies about incorporating courses in Religious Studies into the curriculum at Nipissing. Three professors approved by the Joint Department were asked to teach the courses. The School of Education had also agreed to changes in its standard course structure to accommodate Religious Studies courses. A structure was planned which deviated from that primarily used by the School of Education, which was “20 hours of teaching, 48 hours of consultation and 16 hours of consultation and observation.” Nipissing also agreed to supply one third of the salary for Religious Studies professors teaching within the School of Education and teaching supplies. Within two years the School of Education would set this agreement aside, resulting in yet another ongoing drama.
Nipissing demonstrated that it still had no interest in following the terms of the federation agreement and was becoming even more aggressive in undermining the position of the Joint Department and the denominational colleges. In 1976, the School of Education unilaterally removed the responsibility for courses in Catechetical Psychopedagogy from the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Sudbury and transferred it to the School of Education. Gilles Pion, who had just become interim president of the University of Sudbury, took this matter directly to Edward J. Monahan, president of Laurentian. Pion stressed to Monahan that the University of Sudbury considered this “a very serious matter because it is directly related to the essence of the federation.”
Nipissing was so brazen in its actions that it did not even bother informing the Joint Department or the denominational colleges that it was hijacking their courses within the School of Education. The only reason Pion had even been made aware of what was transpiring was through an article that appeared in Le Voyageur with regard to Nipissing’s choice of professor to teach the Catechetical Pedagogy courses. The professor in question, Marcel Latulippe, was not a faculty member of the University of Sudbury or any of the denominational colleges. This understandably drew the ire of the University of Sudbury and the Joint Department. Pion then went on to repeat the now familiar recitation of the rights of the denominational colleges as they pertained to the teaching of Religious Studies. Knowing that outwardly taking over Religious Studies courses from the denominational colleges would not work and would only create problems for Laurentian and Nipissing (there was no mention of any concern with regard to the denominational colleges), the School of Education attempted to re-define exactly what these courses were. Without providing details of its rationale, The School of Education contended that courses in Catechetical Pedagogy were not actually courses in Religious Studies and therefore were not bound by the federation agreement. Needless to say, Pion was not convinced by this and relations between Laurentian and the denominational colleges, specifically the University of Sudbury, were strained once again.
It was clear that, in addition to significant problems with the functioning of the Joint Department, there was sufficient reason to be concerned by the treatment it had received from Laurentian. Generally, however, it was not Laurentian as a whole that was the source of these problems. The relationship with the Senate was poor and there was almost no respect for the autonomy of the denominational colleges or the terms of the federation agreement, at least when it came to Religious Studies. While this may have been a symptom of a much greater disease, the focus here is how these problems affected the Joint Department.
Laurentian’s affiliate colleges were another problem altogether. They held very little respect for the denominational colleges and committed deliberate infractions against the federation agreement. Neither Algoma nor Nipissing had planned to remain a member of Laurentian in the long-term, and this is the most likely explanation for their views and actions towards the denominational colleges. Nipissing was granted a university charter in 1992 and is no longer bound to the terms of the federation agreement. The same is likely to happen with Algoma in the near future with the announcement by the Ontario Government to grant Algoma a university charter, something it has been after for decades. Because both colleges had always aimed for realizing their independence, neither was overly concerned with the long-term ramifications of ignoring a department with which they had little involvement in the first place.
Conclusion
The Joint Department of Religious Studies at Laurentian University faced a series of challenges which began immediately after its establishment. The University of Sudbury had sacrificed its autonomy by leading the movement that resulted in the federation agreement which created Laurentian. As a result, the college was left with nothing to draw from with the exception of Philosophy and Religious Studies. A problem was created because of the existence of Religious Studies programs at Laurentian’s other two denominational colleges, Huntington and Thorneloe. As denominational colleges, they also had a legal right to provide Religious Studies courses. Laurentian was not a large university and supporting three departments of Religious Studies did not make any sense. The only logical solution was to combine the three departments. The methods undertaken to combine the departments, however, were fundamentally flawed. There was no consultation with the denominational colleges with regard to the creation of the Joint Department nor a clear mandate regarding how it would operate.
Poor treatment from Laurentian was another problem altogether. While the issues were not centred on Laurentian as a whole, there were segments of the university that ignored the terms of the federation agreement. The Laurentian Senate had final say with regard to approval for Religious Studies courses. In the beginning this was little more than a formality, or at least this was how the Senate perceived its power. This changed when the Senate cancelled summer courses in Religious Studies without consulting the denominational colleges. A legal opinion reinforced the position of the denominational colleges and diminished the power of the Senate with regard to Religious Studies. The fact that the situation was allowed to degenerate to this level reflects the low view some bodies of Laurentian held towards the rights of the denominational colleges.
Problems with Laurentian with regard to Religious Studies were also evident with Laurentian’s affiliate colleges and Nipissing was the primary antagonist. Nipissing did not even try to hide its negative feelings regarding the introduction of Religious Studies courses on its campus. It blatantly emphasized that it did not want any courses taught on its campus that were not under its control. Nipissing utilized every means at its disposal to halt, or at least delay, the introduction of these courses, and most of its actions directly conflicted with the federation agreement. In this case, Laurentian did come to the defence of the denominational colleges.
This essay has provided a micro-study of problems inherent after a specific department’s prolonged period of growth. Increased demand for higher education in the years following the Second World War required the creation of new universities. The University of Sudbury recognized that it was impossible for it to handle higher education in the Sudbury region on its own because as a denominational university, it was not eligible for government funding. The result was the creation of Laurentian University and a greatly diminished position for the University of Sudbury. This event was the catalyst for the events covered in this essay. It should be noted that, while the Joint Department of Religious Studies is now an important part of Laurentian with most past grievances resolved, decades of mismanagement cannot be easily forgotten.
Ibid. It appears that little was actually done with this draft. All that exists in the archives of the University of Sudbury are multiple versions of the draft. This was another example of nothing being done after a possible solution was proposed.
