In the race for the rectorship of UQAM, the consultation of the university community revealed a significant degree of mistrust towards the two candidates proposed by the selection committee. The committee claims to have submitted two good applications to the community and says it is surprised by the fact that no application received consensus. A divided community? What if there was another explanation? What if this non-consensus was more wisdom than whim?
Several groups in the community knew the candidates, their management style and their background much better than the selection committee. This knowledge could be at the origin of movements of resistance towards these candidacies. This resistance was not rooted in nothingness. Candidates may have been associated with management styles that are less inclusive, such as micromanagement or the absence of consultation, or even with management styles that are more rigid, with a lot of communication, but few results.
The Uqamian community is made up of many people well trained to read between the lines, to doubt and to prefer multiple sources of information to official versions. It is possible that many could have detected the absence of major plans to get the establishment out of its glaring problems, such as funding. Is it possible that the selection committee erred by eliminating good candidates and presenting to the community candidates who had some difficulty in reaching a consensus? Finally, why was the community forced to go online just days before voting began, so much so that several meetings with candidates took place after many people had already voted? This lack of respect may have encouraged protest votes and increased grassroots cynicism toward management and its “independent” selection committee. You reap what you sow.
To see in video