The university is currently defending itself in a lawsuit on the issue of an honours science degree with a specialty in "software engineering." This degree was approved by the Senate on Oct. 8, 1996. Because the issue has escalated in recent months, readers may be interested in
how it came about.

Several years ago the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) wrote about 40 universities, warning that they should not undertake academic programs labelled as software engineering outside their faculties of engineering. Memorial University did not receive this letter; whether by design or oversight we do not know.

At the time, our Senate was discussing the offering of a software engineering option within Computer Science, a department within the Faculty of Science. Our Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science argued against this proposal. After a long and sometimes acrimonious debate within Senate and Senate committees, including two special committees struck for the purpose of attempting to reconcile the issue, Senate voted to approve a software engineering option within the Computer Science Department within the Faculty of Science.

The degree is a bachelor of science degree. The degree certificate would not contain
the words "software engineering." We have offered that both the university Calendar
and the student transcript would contain the words "Completion of the Honours in Computer Science (Software Engineering) Program does not qualify persons to hold the designation Professional Engineer as defined by various provincial Acts governing the engineering profession."

You will appreciate therefore that this is not an engineering degree and that no accreditation is sought, and further that graduates are specifically told that they are not professional engineers as a consequence of graduating from this program.

We were in communication with CCPE during the many months of debate and discussion within the university Senate, and we have done our best to make it clear to CCPE that academic programs, admissions, grading of courses, and the awarding of diplomas, certificates, and degrees are all matters that are entirely within the purview of the Senate. The authority of Senate
seems to be widely misunderstood within the engineering community outside the university.

At an early stage, we suggested to CCPE that this was a matter for national attention, given our growing awareness of the number of universities that were offering such courses and degrees outside Faculties of Engineering (including some which didn't have Faculties of Engineering) and the fact that some universities had already produced graduates. We received no response to this suggestion, and shortly after we were sued in federal court for infringement of a trademark allegedly owned by CCPE and/or the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland (APEGN).

Given the fact that we had tried very hard over a long period to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion within the university, given the fact that we were unable to do so, and given the fact that a number of other universities were already offering similar programs, we really had no choice but to defend ourselves. The issue had by then evolved into a challenge of the right
of universities to develop their own academic offerings, and would be seen by many as a direct challenge to the longstanding principle of academic freedom. Given that the matter was and is one of national rather than local proportions, we approached the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada for support, both moral and financial, and we have received both in full measure.

Meanwhile, subsequent to the lawsuit being filed, we met with CCPE, APEGN and the Association of Universities and Colleges (AUCC) in Ottawa to once again attempt
to convince the engineering community that this matter had to be taken up at a national level with a view to creating a code of best practice, or recommended protocols, or whatever. We suggested that the legal manoeuvrings be put on hold while such a discussion took place. This was refused
by CCPE/APEGN.

We had thus resigned ourselves to awaiting the outcome of the court proceedings scheduled for September 1999. We remain convinced that this issue is being dealt with in the wrong place and by the wrong process, but we are not in court by choice.

Meanwhile, APEGN and CCPE recently combined to stop the process of accreditation for Memorial's engineering programs for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the structure and content of those programs. Some have described this as unprofessional and unethical; indeed an abuse of the public trust conferred upon APEGN by provincial legislation. Whatever prospect we had of bringing this issue together within the university — and given enough time I believe there was at least a prospect of doing so — has become immeasurably more complicated by the combination of a lawsuit and the subsequent escalation, even before
the lawsuit was heard.

The university's attempts to deal with this issue internally and nationally have been persistent and genuine. Regrettably, the approach by APEGN/CCPE has been confrontational from the start, with the confrontation now having escalated to the point where the room for manoeuvre on our part has just about disappeared, so that we are left with little choice except to defend our interests. On the matter of accreditation, these are our students' interests, so the decision is automatic.

We and AUCC, mainly AUCC, will spend at least $400,000 on legal costs in defending ourselves in one lawsuit and seeking injunctive relief in another court application on the accreditation issue. We are not the only university in Canada offering software engineering outside faculties of engineering. We were not the first. We still don't know why we were singled out.

A.W. May, OC
President and Vice - Chancellor