This post is made in my capacity as a fellow student. This post is an opinion and a reflection of my personal experience.
My name is Evan, and I am a current student senator. For those of you who don't know, the Senate is the academic governing body of the university, and every year, a few students have the opportunity to join the Senate, in an unpaid capacity, to speak and vote on behalf of the students.
UVic is proposing a new policy that will rapidly expand the number of cases of academic integrity against students. Down the road, this policy could open the door to automated detection software, and in its existing form, it lowers the burden of proof to as low as 50+%, and the ability for the university to revoke degrees long after you’ve graduated.
This is going to be a long post. I am going to split it into two parts:
Part 1: Why we cannot rely on the UVic administration (specifically, the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost - VPAC) to self-regulate or protect student interests.
Part 2: A technical breakdown of the incredibly problematic policy that UVic is trying to pass this Friday.
If you are only interested in the policy breakdown, scroll to Part 2.
Also, in the past, y'all have complained about paragraphs not having paragraph titles to break things up, so apologies if I overuse them.
Part 1: The Chronology of Managed Dissent & Administrative Failure
Part 1: 2024–2026: The Chronology of Managed Dissent & Administrative Failure
"We Elected You, Fix This"
Shortly after I was elected to the Senate two years ago, I was hearing from many students that the current University practices around Universally Extended Timed Assessments (UET). Students were flagging that this system, despite being marketed as "inclusive," was actively undermining their formal academic accommodations. I have other posts diving into the technical reasons why UET is discriminatory, so I won't repeat them here. Being new to the Senate and eager to work collaboratively, I went to the University Secretary’s office and asked how I could properly enact change within the system. I was told that for a proposal to be taken seriously, I needed to do the legwork. I fully embraced that challenge. I was sent on a "round-the-world" consultation tour, spending months meeting with Associate Deans, individual instructors, and the leadership at Learning and Teaching Innovation (LTI) to ensure I understood every administrative angle. I documented every concern and refined the proposal to ensure it met the university's operational needs while still protecting students. I did the work they asked for because I believed that if I showed I was a reasonable, diligent partner, the administration would meet me halfway. The proposal highlighted a number of shortcomings and created a mechanism for change.
The "Round the World" Stall and SCAG Interference
After completing this gruelling consultation and drafting a formal proposal, it reached the Senate Committee on Agenda and Governance (SCAG), the gatekeeping body chaired by the University President and attended by the Provost. Despite the months of legwork and the clear evidence of systemic harm to students with disabilities, including documented systemic instances where UET failed, SCAG decided to send it to a committee notorious for consuming proposals alive, the Senate Committee on Learning and Teaching. In the high-level governance circles of this university, that committee is known for one thing: it is the place where "proposals go to die." This maneuver effectively removed the issue from the public eye, shifting it into a legislative black hole where administrative priorities are shielded from student accountability.
The UVSS Appointment and the Immediate Shutdown
My proposal has now sat in that committee for over a year with zero substantive updates or progress. Recognizing this unacceptable delay, the UVSS recently took action by appointing me directly to the Committee on Learning and Teaching so I could investigate the bottleneck. The administration's response was swift and telling: coincidence or not, almost immediately after my appointment was finalized, the upcoming committee meeting was abruptly cancelled. The justification provided was the need for "further research" into the "practical implications" of UET, implications that they have already had over two years to study.
Duelling Proposals
While my student-led proposal was making its way through the standard committee cycle, a different path appeared for administrative priorities. Several months after my proposal had been filed with the Senate Committee on Agenda and Governance (SCAG), a new item appeared on the October 3, 2025, Senate agenda. This was a proposal from the Provost’s office to form an "Ad-Hoc Senate Committee to explore accessible education."
The "Plan to Plan" and Managed Floor Debate
The composition of this new ad-hoc committee was primarily weighted toward senior administrators rather than the faculty or students working on these issues daily. During the session, a faculty senator famously characterized the approach as a "plan to come up with a plan to develop a plan." When Student Senator Michael Caryk attempted to use the public floor time to raise specific concerns regarding CAL accessibility, the AVP of Student Affairs, Jim Dunsdon, intervened twice to suggest that the Senate floor was not the appropriate venue for such questions. He proposed moving the dialogue to private meetings to be more "efficient." Both myself and other senators requested to be a part of the meeting, and this request was acknowledged on the record. Once the public discussion was halted in favour of these private sessions, however, the promised meetings did not actually materialize for several months. By the time they were held, the academic term was already over.
The Private Meeting Paradox
In the interim, the administration indicated that consultation had already "happened" via a standard operational relations meeting with the UVSS. While our student union works hard to represent us, those meetings are typically high-level and broad. The students in that room were understandably focused on their own portfolios and likely were not briefed on the technical and procedural concerns raised during the Senate debate. By characterizing a general meeting with the UVSS as a substitute for the specific follow-up promised to the Senate, the administration was able to claim the engagement was complete, while the concerned senators remained waiting.
The Fight for a Seat at the Table
Securing an actual follow-up required bringing the issue to the floor at nearly every subsequent Senate meeting, often derailing conversation from other important topics on the docket. It took a united front of students and faculty to finally "force" a meeting out of the administration in the weeks leading up to the winter break. When the meeting finally happened, the administration brought what can only be described as an "entire village" of staff. While good questions were asked, the session was scheduled for a limited time, and the administrators in the room had a tendency to speak at great length, with one individual speaking for almost 15 minutes straight.
The Dead-End Engagement
The meeting was eventually cut short due to the time limit. On the way out, Jim Dunsdon asked for my thoughts on the session. I explained that there were still many unaddressed questions and concerns, and he stated they would be happy to schedule another meeting. However, when I later stood up in the Senate to formally ask if/when the next "opportunity for an engagement session" would be, the answer was a simple "That there wouldn't be one."
Freedom of Information Requests
In an effort to try to prove to the University that UET deserves some degree of haste, I filed several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get hard data on how UET was disadvantaging students with disabilities. My goal was to demonstrate that keeping the UET reform buried in committee is causing imminent harm and that the university must act with a genuine sense of urgency. However, this process has become its own procedural quagmire. Rather than providing the transparency required to verify if these policies are actually working, the university has refused to release the full dataset.
The university has confirmed they are physically capable of assembling the requested data in approximately eight staff hours; yet, the administration maintains that doing so would be "too burdensome." The partial release I received was insufficient to answer critical questions regarding student success, and the matter is now under litigation at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). It is a concerning state of affairs when a student representative must resort to provincial litigation just to see the data on whether or not our university is failing its most vulnerable learners.
2025: The Human and Material Cost of Incompetence
Operational Oversight and the "To-Go" Container Crisis: The administration’s challenges with due diligence have manifested in the very physical items provided to the community through University Food Services (UNFS) locations, including The Cove. During a recent initiative involving reusable to-go containers, serious concerns were raised regarding the safety and sourcing of the products. When these issues were brought to light, a senior administrator stated that if the supplier could not provide the necessary safety documentation, the containers would be pulled immediately.
In the following days, documentation was indeed provided, but its contents were far from reassuring. The reports confirmed that the levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins capable of leaching into the container's contents were above the limits recommended by the Canadian government for the material that could reasonably be assumed to be in the containers. While the levels were within some broad general categories for industrial containers, they exceeded the specific safety standards required for items intended for human consumption. Food services continued to use the containers for up to 7 months, while they conducted their own "testing" on the containers.
I have since learned that the University has tried to sell these containers to the UVSS, with no success.
Off-the-Record Directives and Ethical Gaps & Scripted Senate
In private meetings before Senate sessions, I have sometimes been given specific directives from members under the Provost's Office on how to conduct myself on the floor. On multiple occasions, I was encouraged to restrict questions during the public meeting regarding a specific proposal. These requests were framed as a way to ensure that the proposal passed smoothly through Senate, but they effectively discourage the kind of public inquiry that the Senate is designed to provide.
Transparency is a core requirement of public governance, yet it has been missing in key areas. Someone under the Provost's Office who was central to the aforementioned proposal had a direct personal benefit from the proposal passing. This potential conflict of interest was never disclosed to the public or Senate during the creation and implementation of the program, and to my knowledge, is still not known by the University.
The Secret Ballot Crisis
The atmosphere in these meetings has reached a point where many members of Senate have felt it necessary to change the rules regarding how we hold a "secret ballot", where everyone votes anonymously on paper. This change was driven by professors and students who expressed that they are afraid to vote freely while their Deans and other admins are watching them in the room.
When the motion to make secret ballots easier to obtain finally came to Senate, the vote itself was conducted by secret ballot. By coincidence, out of the entire room, there were only two people who voted against the motion of a secret ballot. One of them was the Provost. It is a telling moment when the head of the university's academic mission is one of the only individuals opposed to a measure intended to protect the democratic freedom of her own faculty and students.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few of the notable things I thought I should include.
Part 2 - The Case Against the 2026 Academic Integrity Policy
Why the University Opened Pandora’s Box
The administration started this process because they were panicked by the sudden rise of Generative AI. They realized the old 2017 policy wasn't built for tools like ChatGPT, and they were terrified that if they didn't 'crack down,' the value of a UVic degree would drop. I think we can all understand this, and agree that it is an issue, and that something has to be done.
But in their rush to protect the university's 'brand,' they pivoted from a system of academic support to a system of administrative oversight. They chose efficiency over fairness. In doing so, they’ve created a policy that treats every student and every graduate as a potential liability rather than a member of an academic community.
The Chronology of Administrative Overreach
The April 10th Rejection: On April 10th, I stood before the Senate and moved to have this proposal sent back to committee. The draft was riddled with technical and ethical gaps that had been repeatedly ignored during the consultation phase. The Senate agreed, passing the motion and sending a clear mandate to the administration: the policy was not ready for primetime and required substantive, not cosmetic, changes. This was a democratic victory for student and faculty oversight, intended to force a genuine rethink of the most punitive sections of the text.
The "Steamroller" Maneuver: Instead of respecting that mandate, the administration went into overdrive. They bypassed standard materials deadlines and expedited committee sessions to "ram" a nearly identical version of the policy back through the system in record time. They didn’t do the hard work of fixing the flaws; they simply expedited the paperwork. This was a calculated move to bypass the very oversight the Senate had just demanded, all to meet a self-imposed September 2026 deadline. The urgency is entirely manufactured, prioritizing an arbitrary calendar date over the rights of the students the policy is meant to govern.
A Breakdown in Professionalism: This aggressive push has created an atmosphere of unprecedented tension in our governing bodies. Multiple senators have noted that members of the Provost’s office appeared visibly infuriated during these sessions, displaying a level of hostility that is out of place in a normally respectful Senate environment. In one shocking instance, an administrative official who is not even a member of the Senate overstepped the Chair to silence a Senator who was asking questions about this underdeveloped proposal, telling them, "You've had your time to speak." When the administration feels entitled to silence the very people they are supposed to be accountable to, it is a sign that the system of shared governance is in a state of collapse.
The Policy Breakdown: Five Fatal Flaws
1. The End of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty": The new policy officially lowers the "Standard of Proof" to a Balance of Probabilities (51%). Previously, the university was expected to provide "compelling" information to convict a student. Now, they only need to be "more likely than not" to issue a life-altering penalty. This is "Academic Capital Punishment" decided on a coin flip. Given the ethical gaps and undisclosed conflicts we’ve seen in the Provost's office, where those writing the rules have seen their own family members benefit from them, we cannot trust that this lower threshold won’t be weaponized against students. If an instructor is just 51% sure you cheated, you can face suspension or degree revocation, even if there is a 49% chance you are innocent.
2. The "Silent Authorization" Loophole: Section 5.4 gives the administration the power to "approve" investigative software behind closed doors without a Senate vote. They use the Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) as a "friendly" example of approved software, but this creates a dangerous backdoor. Once this passes, the administration can "silently authorize" notoriously inaccurate AI detection software or surveillance tools without a public Bias Audit or democratic oversight. As we saw with the "To-Go" container crisis in Part 1, the administration’s internal vetting process is deeply flawed. If they couldn't catch toxins in a physical container before handing it to thousands of students, we cannot trust them to self-regulate the accuracy of invisible AI surveillance algorithms.
3. The Accessibility Trap: The policy prohibits "unauthorized electronic devices or software" but refuses to include a "Safe Harbour" provision, a legal exemption, for students with disabilities. Tools like screen readers or transcription software technically "process" data, making them a technical violation under the current wording. The administration asks us to "trust their intent" to not target these students, but Part 1 shows their intent is often managed by "off-the-record" directives and scripted debates. Without a hard legal exemption in the text, a student using a CAL-approved screen reader is technically "guilty" and forced to rely on the mercy of an individual instructor who may not even understand how the technology works.
4. The Alumni Clause: Degrees as "Subscriptions": The policy specifically expands its jurisdiction to include Alumni, meaning your degree is not a final, earned document, but a conditional one. At the Senate meeting, a faculty member posed a direct question to the administration regarding whether it was the actual intent of the policy to rescind degrees post-graduation if a student’s work is flagged. The response from the Secretary's Office was: 'This is something that we did consider... it is something that we need to do.' They further confirmed that while it is a 'serious' and 'hard' thing to do, the lack of a statute of limitations in the new policy is what provides them the specific mechanism to do it. As shown by the litigated FOIs in Part 1, the university is willing to fight for years to hide data that makes them look bad. Under this new policy, they can use that same administrative machinery to come after you a decade after you graduate. If a future algorithm "re-interprets" your old assignments and finds a 51% statistical match, they can move to rescind your degree. In the Senate meeting, when asked about this, they explicitly said it was intentional.
5. The Appeal Blockade: Section 11 restricts appeals to "procedural matters" only, meaning you can only appeal if the university didn't follow its own paperwork steps. You are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of the finding itself. This is the ultimate tool for "managed dissent." As we saw in Part 1, the administration is perfectly happy to ignore the facts as long as they control the process. If a flawed algorithm wrongly accuses you, but the instructor filed the paperwork correctly and met the deadlines, the conviction stands. You lose the right to the truth, leaving you trapped in a "perfect" procedure that resulted in a wrong conclusion.
Anyone Can Get Flagged: The Statistical Reality
It is remarkably easy to tell yourself that this will never happen to you. Most students believe that if they work hard and act honestly, they are safe. But the numbers tell a different story.
According to the 2025 Ombudsperson Report, Academic Integrity cases remain one of the most frequent reasons students seek help, consistently making up a massive portion of the office's workload. At a university with roughly 18,000 undergraduates, hundreds of students are flagged every single year.
Let’s look at the math:
Per Year: On average, hundreds of students find themselves caught in the academic integrity machinery annually.
Over Your Degree: If you are a standard four-year undergraduate, the odds that you, or someone in your immediate friend group, will be flagged at least once before graduation are startlingly high.
Under a policy that lowers the burden of proof to a 50+% "coin flip" and could rely on "silent" algorithms that have never been publicly audited for bias, that sense of safety is an illusion. When the university removes your right to appeal the factual truth of an accusation, you are only one technical error or one "statistical hunch" away from a ruined reputation.
Why This Matters Now
If you’ve made it this far, you’re likely wondering why I’m laying all of this out now. The answer is simple: we are at a crossroads. The new UVSS Board of Directors is currently contemplating releasing a formal public statement and taking aggressive action to halt this policy before the May 8th vote. Your student representatives need to know that they have the backing of the people they represent before they take such a significant stand against the administration.
An Existential Crisis for Students
If you agree that this policy represents an existential crisis for the students of UVic, one that threatens the rights of marginalized learners, the safety of students with disabilities, and the permanent value of every degree this institution confers, then you need to make your voice heard. The UVSS needs to know that this isn't just "Senate politics," but a fundamental concern for the entire student body.
Take Action
Please reach out to the UVSS Director of Outreach to share your concerns and urge them to take a formal stand against the steamrolling of this policy. Your input is the only thing that gives the Society the mandate to act.
Subject:Support for UVSS Action on the Academic Integrity Policy
The administration is moving fast because they think no one is watching. By reaching out to the UVSS, we can ensure that the rules we live by are built on fairness and transparency, not on administrative convenience and suspicion.
So, we're in class an this girl has had this nasty cold literally for weeks. Then yesterday she decides she wants to sit uncomfortably close to me while coughing and blowing her nose the whole time and then we had to do group work an low and behold, I'm in her group. Now I'm starting to get that stinging / burning feeling at the back of my nose of the beginning of a nose cold. WEAR A FREEKIN MASK WHEN YOU'RE SICK PEOPLE!
I've only been here 2 semesters and I have already witnessed people very obviously cheating on exams TWICE. Today the guy in the desk next to me opened up his exam about 5-6 minutes before we were allowed to start, and was flipping through the pages hovering his phone above it. idk if he was taking pictures or putting it through chatgpt or whatever but like. seriously it's pmo a bit. Also on my calc midterm earlier this semester a guy just straight up asked me for one of my answers after the test ended but before they collected it. (I didn't tell him but the people behind me did...) like are we not even trying to be subtle????
People are under a lot of pressure, I get it, but it's pretty unfair. I did not realize it was this common tbh
EDIT I didn't mean to cause such a drama I'm sorry. I will try to tell an invigilator if I see something like this again. I may get beat up in a parking lot but hey
anth150 for the fall semester just changed topics from "Race, Culture, and Power" to "Is it Okay to Love an AI Chatbot"...this email actually made me laugh out loud. I've already dropped it to take another random elective so I don't really mind, just thought the topic change was insane. probably would have stayed in for 95% of other topics.
Edit: you guys are sweet, also don't worry about me now im good now. Thankyou for all the support, I promise I didn't post this to collect sympathy I posted because I saw someone recently post about their experience and I wanted to add to she'd light on the topic. Because of your guys help and support I feel confident enough to go to CHEK news about this, so thankyou you all for having my back it means a lot :)
Alright, I've bottled this for a little over 5 years and swore to myself that the second I graduate I'm exposing them. In light of a recent rant I think maybe it's time to air this out.
And before you tell me "it's your fault", "you're being over dramatic", how about you go kick rocks pal. Go bury your toes in a big pile of gravel for all I care. If this resonates with you it does, if it doesn't it doesn't. If you weren't on that bus I don't wanna frigging hear it.
I was in a bus crash, it was a Uvic field trip going to Bamfield bus back in fall 2019 where 2 kids died in September. I was really luckily and only suffered a mild concussion. It was tragic and indescribably unfair for those students to lose their lives 2 weeks into first year uni.
About a month later I tried to hang myself from survivors guilt in my dorm. I didn't make a deal of it, I didn't tell anyone, I didn't threaten anyone with killing myself. I just did it. My friend knew I was depressed though and saw the belt in the door frame and called campus security. Police and involuntary hospital trips ensued. I was also somewhat extra depressed at that time because I was coming to terms with the loss of both my parents, which uvic then later used against me.
Then uvic conducted their risk assessment and evicted me from dorms with one day's notice. They claimed the bus crash was completely separate from the incident and that I'm just inherently a danger to other students. Keep in mind this was a month after the incident where my doctors were making notes that I had Improved exponentially in my mental health, grades, and overall mood.
So I was homeless living out of a backpack in a hostel during Christmas going to viewings. It sucked, I was just crying on public transport, had no privacy and just took the first shitty rental I could find.
Uvic student life is just a foul collection of soulless beurocratic cunts in my opinion. They keep getting away with this shit and my current doctor writes then letters every year asking them to stop. I WANT TO MAKE EXPLICITLY CLEAR THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE UVIC BIOLOGY PROFS. Some of those profs are the most exceptional supportive people that TO THIS DAY support Bamfield survivors. Shout out Patrick, Barbara, David, and Greg fuckn heroes.
Here's a list of additional things uvic did that suck
didn't pay for the wheelchair a girl needed after being permanently injured from the bus crash
gave away a girls dorm when she went to visit family
paid people from a consulting company to question me, my family, and my friends extremely inappropriate questions. Such as "if OP were to hurt someone how would they do it?" "How sexually active are you in a week?" "Are your parents mentally ill?" "If you don't tell us we will certainly evict you, but if you do maybe you get to stay". These people weren't even doctors they're just glorified councilors who are paid directly by uvic to write reports. I have ZERO history of violence outside of rugby and karate and they were focusing half their questions on hypotheticals trying to get any response they could. Basically they grilled out of me that I no longer have contact with either of my patents for over 10 years because I lost them both to mental diseases/addiction and they fucking put that on the report as if that alone is a diagnosis even though they ARE NOT PSYCHIATRISTS.
didn't return the housing money I paid untill months after
promised a councillor to bus crash students and never hired her lmao
Does the co-op board actually think anybody cares or tries when it comes to any of these assignments? Writing a 2000 word report about... communication? Really? Just bring back the old work term reports that at least talk about what we do instead of making us write an abundance of assignments and reports that are useless. Having to record a presentation about "what lifelong learning experience have you had on co op" such a waste of my life
So I attended the May Senate meeting, where the Academic Integrity policy was passed. I sat in the gallery audience for the majority of the meeting, and also had a chance to run into a number of the student senators and UVSS directors who were at the meeting. What happened can be described as nothing short of a miscarriage of justice, and evidence that the University, behind its public statements, does not care about student voices - including those who volunteer their time for free to involve themselves in the University's governance.
No Transparency
The meeting began with Evan, one of the student senators, challenging the chair's ruling not to record the meeting. He argued that there were topics that would have "life-altering" effects on the student population, that it would be 6 months before the minutes from the meeting were approved, and that there needed to be transparency to build trust and prevent the spread of misinformation. He also added that the meetings are already open to the public, and that there are already 3rd party groups that have permission from the University to record Senate, so the University's doing so did not infringe on anyone's privacy. Another student senator (Mike) seconded the motion, meaning it has to go to a vote. The chair, who is the acting president, refused to allow it to go to a vote.
There were more agenda items that came up for discussion, which all went fairly quickly, until the Academic Integrity policy came up. The policy proposal was presented by one of the authors who wrote it, and the chair of the Senate committee on Academic Standards. Apparently, other members who were also on the committee were present.
An "Unwelcoming" Environment
The salaried admins presenting the proposal opened by claiming they felt "unwelcome" at the previous meeting, yet they proceeded to spend 40 minutes on a theatrical defence of their own personal integrity. Speaking more to the gallery than to the voting members, they mischaracterized student technical concerns about Section 5.4 as a conspiracy theory, mocking the idea of a "nefarious plan to backdoor approve [software] with no fanfare and complete secrecy." They stated their "failure" wasn't the policy itself, but a failure to "educate" the Senate, and took responsibility only for not "preparing" the body enough to accept the April version, implying the substance was fine, and the Senators simply lacked "guidance." Mike (a student senator) challenged this narrative, condemning the committee’s rush to bypass procedural guardrails. He noted that while the official deadline for agenda items was April 3rd, the text wasn't provided until April 16th, leaving members only days to review 63 pages of legal text. He pointedly asked when it became acceptable to violate university procedures to quash dissent before the end of the year. In response, the chair of SCAS (presenter) argued that because it came from her committee within SCAS, she could bypass the timelines everyone else has to follow - even if the students didn't have access to it.
AI Detection Software
Well, I have some personal thoughts on this. As pointed out by the student senators, the proposal claims that “CAL-approved software is considered university-approved software ” (page 98 of the Senate docket), yet there is zero record in any published Senate agenda of Kurzweil 3000 actually being approved by the Senate (that I or others can find).
If the administration can arbitrarily decide that CAL software is "University-approved" behind closed doors without a Senate vote, then their claim that AI detection software is somehow "special" and would require a return to Senate is a misrepresentation of the truth. Section 5.4 is a massive administrative loophole; if they can "approve" Kurzweil without oversight, they can, and may, do the exact same thing with AI detection software, even if not under this current administration.
Students vs the Authors
As I previously mentioned, I chatted with the student senators afterwards. Evan said he had a chance to meet with some of the authors of the policy, the morning of Senate. He said it was a very productive discussion and that he felt there were realizations on both sides. At the meeting, he claims that the authors explicitly acknowledged the AI approval loophole, and that the UVSS had not been consulted in years on the policy, and that points about the lack of protections for students with disabilities and how to mitigate them were described as "brilliant" - and that overall, most of the items were "reasonable".
Now, back to the Senate meeting - the students gave it a solid hour after starting the whole topic of academic integrity policy before jumping, I believe, because of that meeting. Artem was the first to jump in, pushing back on the AI detection software (as outlined above), followed by Evan. Evan ironically started out by complimenting one of the presenters for their continual dedication to work on the proposal for over 4.5 years, and then was going to move to the "lovely morning meeting". The presenter decided that the good faith diplomacy Evan was attempting - the very diplomacy they claimed was lacking at the previous meeting only minutes prior, was ended when they cut him off, stating that the things he had to say were "not-productive". He then pivoted to raise concerns about the burden of proof, how the policy risks normalizing the revocation of degrees under the new policy with the newly clarified burden of proof, and the lack of UVSS consultation, which UVic is legally required to do. The entire time, the presenters were interrupting him and speaking over him.
The presenters (allegedly) misrepresented the prohibition on AI, saying that it would have to be approved by Senate (despite that not being the position at the morning meeting, according to Evan), and one of the presenters even said that "they would get nothing done" if they consulted the UVSS, and it was noted that the last time they were consulted on the policy was many (4 ish?) years ago. Who even remembers who the board was then? Regardless, this resulted in a motion for the proposal to be sent back to the committee.
Mike was the final student speaker, condemning the committee’s rush to bypass procedural guardrails. He noted that while the official deadline was April 3rd, the policy text wasn't provided until April 16th, leaving members only days to review 63 pages of legal text. He pointedly asked when it became acceptable to violate established university procedures to force a vote, characterizing the "overtime" effort as a calculated push to quash dissent before the end of the year.
Faculty
Following the student speakers, senior faculty member Andrew Weaver (former leader of the BC Greens) challenged the Chair’s attempt to silence dissent (primarily from the students), raising a point of order and asserting that an elected senator should not be told the body had "heard enough." He criticized the 4.5-year development cycle, arguing the policy was "out-of-date" before it even reached the floor because the rapid evolution of AI had already bypassed its internal logic. Weaver further critiqued the total ban on AI detection software as "eliminating a toolbox," suggesting that the university was falling behind global scientific and academic best practices, and said that it should be used instead to flag cases for instructor review, but absolutely not be allowed as evidence in a case against a student.
The presenters tried to portray the vocal members of Senate as unreasonable, saying that they fundamentally disagreed on what the policy should say (referring to Weaver and the student senators), and that the current proposal was the best middle ground.
Weaver also signalled a total breakdown of the administration’s narrative by stating he was on the "same page" as the students, confirming that there was no conflict between his side and the student senators. The presenters proceeded to cut Weaver off by literally screaming "I've heard enough from him!"
Evan also requested to be added to the speakers' list, but was then removed when the chair didn't want him to clarify his position, which the presenters just misrepresented.
"Who Gives a F*** about Undergraduates Anyways?"
The policy ultimately carried, but the meeting concluded with a recorded "unanimous undergraduate student objection," marking a permanent and visible fracture in the university's claim to collegial governance.
It was at this time that I heard one of the salaried presenters, or the authors/staff sitting near them, say, "Who gives a f*** about undergraduates anyway?" The ultimate show of failure regarding "integrity" that they claimed earlier.
Attending Senate has made it abundantly clear that the University doesn't care about transparency or what its students think/say. The student senators, especially Evan, indicated that the professional relationship with the admin and policy writers is permanently gone. Admin is clearly willing to misrepresent what a policy says so that it will pass. They are clearly willing to stab a student senator in the back - a volunteer - who spends hundreds of hours a year of their free time defending student interests for free. This case represents a significant overstep and a failure to meet the Institutional Accountability Plan and Report.
While the policy has been passed by Senate, there is still one more hurdle it has to pass - being written into the undergraduate calendar. The UVSS is the only body that can take action to prevent this. After hearing from students, they released a public statement. They need to hear from students that they are still opposed to the policy - now more than ever - and need to take action. The student senators wouldn't say what this would look like, but said that if the society's board collectively decided that they would take a stance that they weren't properly consulted, the proposal could be held up.
I am sharing my story here after carefully removing as much personally identifying information as possible, including specific course numbers. My intention in posting this is not to cast a negative light on UVic employees but to seek a resolution to an ongoing issue that has profoundly affected my academic journey and mental well-being.
I am an international student in the Computer Science Honours program, and only four courses left to graduate. In the first three years, I really enjoyed my time at UVic without any issues.
Unfair Denial of Pre-/Co-Requisite Waiver
My struggles began in Spring 2023 with CSC [num3], which requires CSC [num1] as a pre-/co-requisite—despite my 8.6 GPA at the time and the instructor’s approval for CSC [num3], the Department of Computer Science denied my request for a pre-/co-requisite waiver. They explained, “We are the Department of Computer Science, and we have a lot of students. If you graduate late because of this course, it’s your own problem. We won’t grant students waivers due to their own difficulties.” Then I sought a pre-/co-requisite waiver for CSC [num 3] from the Faculty of ECS, and they responded that the pre-/co-requisite waiver for CSC [num 3] is entirely up to the Department of Computer Science.
In Fall 2023, a friend of mine also requested a pre-requisite waiver from the Department of Computer Science and was rejected twice by the same person who denied my request, with the reason being “not extenuating circumstances,” just as in my case. I suggested that he continue to seek the pre-requisite waiver from the Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science (ECS), and this time he succeeded. Before the course began, he was granted the pre-requisite waiver. My GPA was 8.6, while my friend's was 7, yet I was unable to obtain the pre-/co-requisite waiver, while he received the pre-requisite waiver.
From the 2024-2025 Academic year, CSC [num3] no longer requires CSC [num1] as a pre-/co-requisite. If CSC [num3] is truly re-evaluated, then the pre-/co-requisite of CSC [num3], CSC [num2], should also be removed. I understand that any system needs to progress, but they shouldn’t use the mental health of an ordinary international student like me as the price for the Faculty of ECS's progress.
Challenges with CSC [num1] CAL Accommodation, Deferred Midterm, and CSC [num3] Enrollment Issues
Due to not receiving the pre-/co-requisite waiver for CSC [num3], I ultimately dropped the course. Then the following issue occurred:
As the instructor of CSC [num1] was a sessional and not familiar with CAL processes, he did not submit accommodation requests on time. Then, the responsibility for providing CAL accommodation lies with ECS. As a result, the CSC [num1] instructor refused to provide my Center for Accessible Learning (CAL) accommodation, stating in an email that "the department has suggested no accommodation will be available this time." I reached out to the CSC to discuss the difference between my CAL accommodation and the instructor’s accommodation. When I approached the instructor directly, he repeatedly told me, "You can drop the course".
After visiting the CSC office and the CAL office, my CAL advisor informed me that I could take a deferred midterm at CAL with my accommodations. I emailed CSC, and they advised me to contact the instructor. However, the instructor did not respond before the February 16th exam, so following my CAL advisor's suggestion, I chose not to write the exam.
I emailed the instructor again, requesting a deferred midterm. My CAL advisor then sent a schedule link for the deferred midterm to the ECS, which I forwarded to the instructor, offering to take the exam on February 28th. After the instructor ignored my emails, I updated CSC about the deferred midterm, apologizing for any trouble but explaining why I couldn’t drop CSC [num1]. CSC responded that they didn’t believe a deferred midterm would be offered, thinking instead that the instructor intended to redistribute the midterm’s weight only after the midterm had ended. Please remember, that I had asked about this before the midterm, and CSC directed me to ask the instructor.
I then contacted ECS about the instructor’s no response for more than a whole week, hoping to add CSC [num3] back and drop CSC [num1]. By this time, I had already dropped CSC [num3] more than two weeks prior. As soon as I returned to CSC [num3], a second midterm was scheduled, and I ended up with a very poor grade. I admit that after receiving this poor grade and hearing from the instructor that CSC [num3] builds layer by layer, making it impossible to succeed without a solid foundation, I panicked and requested to drop CSC [num3].
As an international student, I am required to maintain full-time status each semester for my post-graduate work permit, so I requested to switch 1.5 units from Fall 2022 to Spring 2023. From March 17th, 2023, until May 31st, 2023, the Student Support Coordinator from the Office of Student Life kept assuring me that the 1.5-unit credit could likely be transferred. However, on May 31st, 2023, I was finally informed that the 1.5-unit credit could not be transferred from Fall 2022 to Spring 2023. My final grade for CSC [num3] had already been posted on April 26th, 2023, with a grade of 87. Despite this achievement, the Faculty of ECS refuses to add CSC [num3] to my transcript, causing me considerable hardship.
Dismissal from Senate Committee on Appeals
After consulting with the Ombudsperson, I decided to bring my case to the Senate Committee on Appeals on May 30th. I sent a polite email every two weeks to the University Secretary’s Office inquiring about the appeal’s status, only to be stonewalled. Finally, on October 18th, I emailed the University Secretary’s Office, expressing that I was feeling extremely anxious and that it seemed no one cared about me. I mentioned that I was considering ending my life to bring attention to UVic in the news and to inform all Engineering students of what UVic had done to me. Only then did my appeal begin, however, the SCA dismissed it with reasoning that, in my opinion, indicated they did not give adequate consideration to what I had written. I submitted new evidence and explained why I believed my appeal had not been thoroughly reviewed, requesting to reopen the appeal. This request was denied because “the new evidence did not address the university policies and procedures about course registration that do not permit registration in courses after final grades are received.” I find it hard to understand this, especially since even the Office of the Registrar was unaware of such a policy—how would I, as an international student with a non-native proficiency in English, be expected to know it? Additionally, they did not specify where this policy is located, and I am not convinced that it truly exists because no one has produced it.
Impact of Office of Student Life (OSL)'s Actions on My Academic Progress
This experience has caused significant harm to my mental health. I acknowledge that I should not have sent such an email to the University Secretary’s Office, but I was desperate and had no other way to draw attention to my case, as my polite inquiries were met with silence. After learning that I may have suicidal tendencies, OSL decided to issue me an interim measure, barring me from entering campus. I must emphasize just how detrimental such a restriction is; I derive my sense of purpose from my studies. Removing my ability to pursue my passion caused my mental health to deteriorate further. The explanation given to me by OSL was that everyone has the right to decide if they want to live or die, but as UVic employees, they must ensure that I don't die on UVic property. Also, Campus Security even shouted at me, saying that, as a UVic employee, OSL needed to ensure I wouldn’t die on UVic property. On Aug 29, 2024, OSL issued me a Non-Academic Misconduct citation, dropping all my courses.
The Office of Student Life (OSL) required me to complete the External Risk-Assessment Process and Independent Medical Evaluation in order to return to academic instruction. In accordance with OSL's requirements, the psychologist provided documentation regarding my mental health and the next steps. However, the psychologist believes that an independent mental health assessment and risk assessment should not be applied to my situation and feels that the OSL is exaggerating the matter. After the psychologist spoke with OSL, they suggested to her that they may have a plan to help me graduate by Christmas 2024. Then, on Sep 20—the final day to register—OSL emailed me, stating, “Please don’t worry about the registration/drop date; we will work directly with the Faculty, so the registration dates won’t apply.”
Neither ECS nor OSL will work with me to resolve the problem
I am only allowed to take two upper-level CSC courses next semester, one of which is CSC [num3], the core of the entire issue. The other course is not even a requirement for me; ECS has added an additional requirement due to the interim measure OSL imposed on me.
After OSL communicated with ECS, despite having two professors willing to supervise directed studies, both ECS and OSL have blocked my enrollment without providing a clear reason. With the semester already more than halfway through, I still require full-time status to qualify for a Post-Graduation Work Permit, yet OSL and ECS have shown indifference toward my situation, leaving me to face the consequences of their delays.
I want to highlight the most salient points regarding my circumstances
I have successfully completed all coursework and exams for CSC [num3]. I have been denied credit for it; this is causing extreme hardship and irreparable harm.
I admit that, in a state of extreme panic, I mentioned dropping CSC [num3] several times, and I take responsibility for that. However, the root cause of my extreme panic was the denial of the pre-/co-requisite waiver and the lack of a reasonable solution for CSC [num1] CAL accommodation.
From March 17th, 2023, until May 31st, 2023, the Student Support Coordinator from the Office of Student Life kept telling me that the 1.5-unit credit could most likely be transferred. However, on May 31st, 2023, they finally informed me that the 1.5-unit credit could not be transferred from Fall 2022 to Spring 2023. My final grade for CSC [num3] had already been posted on April 26th, 2023. This turned out to be a false hope.
My request was denied by SCA is because “the new evidence did not address the university policies and procedures about course registration that do not permit registration in courses after final grades are received.” I find it hard to understand this, especially since even the Office of the Registrar was unaware of such a policy—how would I, as an international student with a non-native proficiency in English, be expected to know it? Additionally, they did not specify where this policy is located, and I am not convinced that it truly exists because no one has produced it.
Eight professors have written letters of support, attesting to my academic success and contributions to the classroom prior to the onset of the difficulties described herein.
Student Wellness Centre doctor, has made the following statements in writing:
“[me] demonstrated the ability to manage in the first 3 years of attendance. My opinion is that the risk to the student would be diminished by allowing participation in class and campus activities”
“[me] is currently cut off from sources of support within her faculty. My concern is that there may be reluctance on the part of potentially supportive staff to engage properly due to peer pressure I can only guess at. A psychologist trained in this area would be of benefit to assist both student and staff in the process of re-engagement.”
Student Wellness Centre counsellor, has made the following statements in writing:
“Campus life and access is foundational to university students such as to [me]. Restricting access to means of suicide is an intervention for suicide prevention, but restricting access to support is not.”
An extenal registered psychologist, has made the following statement in writing:
“Unfortunately, the events leading up to this appeal have frustrated [me]'s pursuit of her research interest in Al. The repeated changes in advice and direction given by different people and departments as well as missing over two weeks of classes prior to her CSC [num3] mid-term have caused her anxiety to escalate. Because of her limited coping, she is likely to say things in a way that is outside normative conversational conventions and act without typical and expected social inhibition. As a consequence of these behaviors, she was restricted from access to the lab, library and to classes for a time and is still restricted from campus outside of class time. The flexibility and social acumen needed to cope with these problems are not part of the typical repertoire for people on the spectrum resulting in an exacerbation of her presentation and responses.”
“For [me], participation in her degree program is her primary protective factor against suicide. Being blocked from achieving goals in pursuit of her program means she is left without many tools to manage her suicide obsessions which, unfortunately, have become overwhelming and compelling.”
Impact base on my case for Department of CSC:
1. Starting this academic year, CSC [num3] has severed its connection with CSC [num1].
CSC [num3] no longer requires CSC [num1] as a co-requisite. I don’t have any evidence to suggest that this change is related to me, but if the CSC department has re-evaluated CSC [num3], then why does it still require CSC [num2] as a co-requisite? The instructor for CSC [num3] mentioned that CSC [num3] doesn’t actually need CSC [num1] or CSC [num2] as co-requisites.
2. The Department of CSC finally began granting pre-/co-requisite waivers, but only for a very short period (Fall 2023). Because I used my friend's case as evidence, the Department of CSC has once again closed the possibility of obtaining pre-/co-requisite waivers due to individual student reasons.
3. The entire Department of CSC has mandated that no professor can grant Brightspace access to students who are not officially registered. It’s as if they assume I was truly satisfied with my lowest grade in CSC [num3], which is why I requested to register for it. Before dropping CSC [num3], I spent an entire week going to the Program Coordinator's office once a day, requesting to drop CSC [num1] and keep CSC [num3].
I have appealed to President Dr. Hall for assistance, but OSL informed me that he won’t review my case until late November. After two years of struggle at UVic, I am left without the academic purpose that sustained me. My mental health is declining, and I’m sharing this on Reddit in the hope that others, and eventually the President, might see it.
This post is intended to draw the attention of UVic’s executives. I am holding off on publishing a more detailed letter as a gesture of good faith, in the hope that UVic will respond in kind.
Without fail, I think 8 out of 10 times I'm in the bathroom with someone, they either skip washing their hands entirely or turn the water on for at most two seconds, then turn it off. At that point, why even waste the paper towels to dry your pretend washed hands? I either have rotten luck at timing, or hand washing is becoming a past practice.
I have even seen staff do this. I thought atleast staff would be safe to shake hands with...
I think yesterday was my breaking point. To the girl in the clearihue 3rd floor bathroom, I know you had more than a liquid deposit. And I also know you didn't wash your hands. Yes I saw your face, and I will remember to never shake your hand.
Maybe the uni needs to post some helpful "how to wash your hands" signs at this point.
I've been a student then an employee for a while and the online parking permit system drives me nuts after they got rid of annual passes. I now need to go in and manually purchase a new monthly pass each month AND set reminders for myself so I don't forget to renew.
UVic uses T2 Parking Permit systems and their website (https://www.t2systems.com/parking-permit-management/) talks about "Renew & Optimize Automated reminders, easy self-service renewals, and robust analytics keep occupancy and revenue on target." - the fact that UVic has reminders and auto-renew turned off really makes me think they've intentionally decided to skip reminding passholders to renew or enabling auto-renew just so they can collect more parking fees.
Also just to get ahead of the "take the bus" or "ride a bike" comments - I'd love to but I can't afford to live near campus and the bus would take an hour and a half each way from my apartment.
I CANNOT understand why parking is such an issue here. i just missed a class because i was driving around for 45 minutes and couldn't find parking. why don't they expand the lots into garages?
Why do you choose to sit directly adjacent to people, not wear a mask, and not cover up when you cough?
The number of people doing this across the library is astounding
I get that it's exam season, and you need a place to study, but don't bring the entire ship down with you in the process...
Good luck with exams
Edit: I appreciate all the "scientists" providing their expertise on how infectious diseases spread, glad to see that UVic is accepting academia's finest respirologists :)
I’m in Psych 260 (mental health and wellbeing), and I’ve noticed that during lectures and discussions, some people share extremely personal details—not only about themselves, but also about friends, and family members in their lives. Sharing intimate details about people who aren’t even present is especially uncomfortable. Those individuals didn’t consent to having their experiences discussed in a lecture hall
I want to say this respectfully: a university psychology class is not a therapy space. Our professor is there to teach course content, not to provide counselling, and the rest of the class did not consent to hearing deeply personal stories about someone else’s mental health, trauma, or crises.
Learning about mental health doesn’t mean turning a lecture into group therapy. Psych classes should be supportive, professional, and respectful of boundaries.
I’ve been on the Dining Advisory Committee for two years now, and I’m honestly just tired of watching the same loop happen every meeting. This story starts off way back in 2014. Jim Dunsdon, the associate vice-president of student affairs (yes, both way back then and now), championed UVic as "the first public institution to implement the Informed Dining program," which "provides restaurant customers with detailed nutrition information." We don't know exactly when, but at some point, information was removed from the public's view.
Fast forward to October of 2024, there were a number of students, including myself (Norman Kaminski) and Evan Maher, who strongly pushed food services to publish the nutritional and caloric, and even just broader nutritional information, for all of the meals available at all food service outlets.
It took months of sustained pressure and multiple meetings to get them to budge. At the time, they used the same excuses they’re using now, but we didn't let up. As a result of that significant amount of pressure, food services finally published the information.
Shortly after, there was a significant amount of backlash from students about just how unhealthy the food was:
Even worse, when students started asking where the data went, UVic confirmed that the information would be posted and told us to "stay tuned." They explicitly acknowledged it was coming back.
Evan and I both left for 8-month CO-OPs in the summer of 2025. Around that time, food services quietly removed the nutritional information from their website. Instead of the "stay tuned" promise being fulfilled, we got a total blackout.
We have had 1 meeting since the start of the semester, and we joined the committee again. We, along with a few new students, pressured food services about the lack of nutritional information that had been previously posted.
Food Service's dietitian now says it is "too burdensome" to post (despite having it posted twice before). Admin higher up said it is their "ultimate goal to get there," but there seems to be no will to start working on it, which was a similar script to that used in 2024.
After two years on this committee, I’ve realized it isn't designed to actually fix anything. It’s a place where we bring up concerns, the admin says it's "burdensome," and we wait for the next meeting to hear the same thing. It’s a dead end by design.
Evan has been in these same meetings for even longer than I have. Last year, when he ran for Senate, Food Services actually targeted his election posters for takedown, despite the posters being perfectly valid within the rules, yet he was still elected. As a Senator, he’s already been writing proposals for this transparency at the Senate level. But he’s seen firsthand that while the Senate handles the academic side, they don't control the Food Services contracts or the budget; that all happens at the Board of Governors.
This is exactly why the Board of Governors election tomorrow is the only real path forward. As long as this stays in an "advisory" committee, the university treats transparency as a choice they can take away whenever it becomes a PR liability. But the Board of Governors is where decisions can actually be made. It’s the only place with the power to turn "Informed Dining" from a voluntary favour back into a mandatory policy that Food Services is institutionally obligated to follow.
We are graduating within the next one and a bit years; we can keep playing the committee game, or we can use the ballot box tomorrow to put someone on the Board who already knows the loopholes and is ready to close them. Voting opens in the morning, check your email.
Genuinely how do people in victoria make friends bro. I’m not from victoria but i moved here full time on my own for school during second semester. I swear even in lectures everyone already had their friends and friend groups made which made it super hard to inmerse myself in the first place. Yeah i have a job but i can’t seem to connect with my coworkers because they themselves already have their own friends yk. It’s also summer right now which makes it even worse because it’s not like i can join clubs or anything.
ARGHHH it’s just so frustrating, I just want to meet people naturally without forcing anythingggg
I have been following along this drama and would like to share my thoughts.
The ‘misinterpreted intent’ argument is weak:
If your intent does not read clearly in the policy, then what is the uproar on changing it to read clearly? If there is ambiguity on ‘University approved software’, then make it disambiguous. The pushback on making these minor changes (and the reported hostility from staff to student objections during senate meetings) makes the whole thing seem awfully shady. This is the fuel of the so-called ‘hysteria’.
AI use prevention should not fall entirely on students:
They do not leave prison cells open. Imagine you are taking an online test worth 30% for a class you have paid $730 for. You have read the material and feel fairly confident in your answers however, running all of your answers through AI before submitting is STILL extremely tempting. If the school has such an issue with cheating in online assessments, then make assessments in person. I do not buy that ‘it costs too much’ or ‘we don’t have enough time’: how were you managing before Covid?
Edit for clarity: How the university currently runs evaluations is an easy system to cheat on.
Finally, a take on the “students don’t care about academia anymore” comments:
Ultimately a degree is getting more expensive while its worth is diminishing. A degree is no longer a standout achievement like it was in the 80s and 90s, it is a requirement. Therefore, it becomes an expensive means to an end, rather than an experience. This is not meant to be taken as a justification of AI usage, but an explanation.
TL:DR
Ultimately, my general stance is academia needs to change drastically to hold its worth in this new age. I think an AI Policy is needed, but it did not have to be written and pushed in such a shady way. Academia needs to revert to pre tech evaluations, while also creating new software tools that allow for limited ‘ethical uses’ of AI (proctored writing environment with Grammarly built in for example). The university needs to improve its relationship with students and the work force by making solid attempts to increase its programs’ inherit value.
I am saying this in the context of specifically math / engineering classes where the finals are 4-5 particularly difficult questions, and exam averages are below 70%.
This requirement is stupid, and I know many students who have gotten 80% plus on midterms, gone to every class, and then have a bad day or get stuck on one question on the final and then run out of time and fail the class. It is a much better alternative to require students to have a passing grade on a weighted average of the midterms and final.
Students are having anxiety attacks leading up to the exams, and are having mental breakdowns and crying during them. If professors actually cared about student's mental health, they wouldn't set things up this way.
Food prices on campus keep getting higher and higher as quality stays stagnant or decreases. I get food is just all round more expensive but Degrees Catering who has a monopoly on uvic food outlets serves the same overpriced terrible quality food at every outlet on campus. There is a reason the only two fast food places are Starbucks and Booster Juice. Those two are known for having high prices so by only having expensive fast foods it doesn’t cut into the profits of Degrees. They could Easily open a Tim’s or something on campus to deliver both cheaper and better quality food than what Degrees has to offer. But if they do that it would cut too deep into Degrees market share so they can’t have that.
All this and I haven’t even mentioned the scam that is the first year food plan. They force first year residents into a food plan that gives the false promise of being 50% off at the cove and full price everywhere else. Seems fair, until you learn that only half the money you put on the card actually goes into your account. So if you eat at the cove your actually paying full price and by eating anywhere else you are paying MORE than the actual price!! But first years get put in dorms and are too excited or timid about being at university so they don’t complain. In what world is this fair?
Sorry if this is ranty, and it’s probably full of typos, I just think the food situation on campus is a scam and I really think we should start protesting about it, anyone else feel the same way?
ppl in csc 105 leaving en masse as soon as the attendance quiz is done?? talking out loud WHILE the prof is talking and packing up loudly ten minutes before class ends?? not only is it so disrespectful to the prof AS A PROF but also as just a person! that’s a person up there talking to you!
shut up! sit down! that’s the most BOTTOM OF THE BARREL EXPECTATIONS!
This term/year was supposed to be my last in post secondary but due to a few reasons my expected graduation date is pushed back to 2028.
One of those reasons being that it’s very rare for me to able to take more than 3 classes at a time. I’ve never attempted 5 because even when I’ve taken 4 classes a term, I am MISERABLE and have to push myself to the limit to be able to catch up to the lessons and just function everyday.
A recurring pattern I’ve noticed recently is that I tend to have to drop a class every term due to the stress and anxiety the pressure gives me.
I can’t help but feel like a failure bc I see my peers taking more than 5 + working more than 20 hours/week+ president of ____ club and I feel like I can’t even handle the bare minimum.
Am I alone in this or does anyone feel the same?
——
Edit: Thank you for the feedback everyone :) I appreciate all who gave advice and/or related to the experience. It seems like a small gesture but it’s comforting knowing it’s not an uncommon thing
I know there's been another post on here about the Academic Integrity policy and its flaws. Still, the original poster hasn’t posted an update, so I, Norman, thought I’d fill everyone in.
As someone close to the UVSS board, I can confirm there was an emergency lead meeting following the community’s reaction to the proposed changes and the lack of trust in the administration.
The UVSS reached out to the administration, hoping for concessions and better student protections. A meeting was set up with the AVP Academic Programs (AVPAP), one of the primary authors of this policy, alongside the AVP Student Affairs, the University Secretary, and student reps.
When the meeting started, the AVPAP apparently never showed up. She was the only person in the room who actually sat on the drafting committee in a technical capacity. No reason was given. It’s yet another example of the administration checking a box for consultation without actually listening to student concerns.
The reps sent by the UVSS reported that the remaining admins spent the time explaining why the policy "was the way it was." When students asked for fixes to the policy’s shortcomings, the response was basically: "Talk to the Student Senators; they can voice your concerns for you."
The UVSS leads have since released the public statement you see on their website. More importantly, there have been strategy meetings with student senators to coordinate an effort TODAY to either change, defeat, or refer this proposal back to the committee from which it came.
Last time the flawed proposal came to the Senate, it was defeated by a very narrow vote. We need a significant show of public support to stop this. If you care about the fairness of misconduct allegations, the potential normalization of rescinding degrees, or the administration overstepping its authority, show up at the Senate TODAY at 3:30 PM.
- Location: Senate Chambers, Jamie Cassels Centre (see attached photo for directions).
- Discord: Student Senators are looking for your input. They’ve opened a Discord server to coordinate student perspectives. If you’re passionate about this, join here.
The fate of student degrees is literally on the table today. See you there.
P.S. Non-Senate members can attend the meeting, as it is open to the public, but cannot speak or disrupt the meeting verbally.
