CLARE department closure planned under Arts Renewal; professors question consultation

By Danijela Marcinkovic, March 25 2026—

According to the Faculty of Arts website, the Department of Classics and Religion is projected to close on July 1, 2026. Both the Classics and Religious Studies faculties will be moving to different departments as a result of this closure. The Classics faculty will be moving to the Department of History, and the Religious Studies faculty will be moving to the Department of Philosophy. 

The University of Calgary announced in late 2024 that the Faculty of Arts would be undergoing a three-year renewal process. It is unclear why this process has been concluded as a closure only a year in, as it had been stated that the pause to renew does not equal a pause to closure.

“The pause to renew is very different from the pause to closure,” Dr. Sandra Davidson stated at the 2025 President’s Town Hall. 

The School of Languages, Linguistics, Literatures and Cultures (SLLLC), the Art and Art History department and the School of Creative and Performing Arts (SCPA) are also included in this renewal process.

Students who are currently enrolled in Ancient and Medieval History, Greek and Roman Studies and Religious Studies majors will keep the same degree titles, continue in the same programs and be taught by the same instructors.

According to the website, this transition was enacted to “modernize academic structures and better align programs with disciplinary strengths.” 

The website states that the Classics faculty had requested to move to the Department of History due to “long-standing scholarly connections and shared curricula.” The Religious Studies faculty is moving to Philosophy as it has been identified as the best disciplinary home. 

These updates raised various questions. The Gauntlet reached out to the Faculty of Arts for answers.

“Provide insights into the consultations that led to the decision of Religious Studies moving to Philosophy. What conversations and/or statistics led to this decision?,” asked the Gauntlet. 

“Faculty members in Religious Studies submitted a formal request to the Dean to move to Philosophy. Consultations occurred with faculty members in both Religious Studies and Philosophy,” the faculty responded. 

“Provide insights into the consultations that led to the decision of Classics moving to History. What conversations and/or statistics led to this decision?,” asked the Gauntlet. 

“Faculty members in Classics submitted a formal request to the Dean to move to History. Consultations occurred with faculty members in both Classics and History,” the faculty responded.

“How was the CLARE department not in academic alignment, as stated on the website, before this transition, and how have you determined that this transition will foster academic alignment?,” asked the Gauntlet. 

“The website outlines why faculty members in Religious Studies and Classics perceived that there was better academic alignment with Philosophy and History than their current department. This is discussed in more detail on the website in the ‘Why are these changes happening?’ section,” the faculty responded.

“Your website states that students weren’t consulted about the projected closure ‘because the changes are administrative, not academic.’ What did the previous consultations that the faculty held contribute towards? What was the purpose of the student engagement frameworks that the Faculty of Arts referred us to a few months ago?,” asked the Gauntlet. 

“The purpose of the student engagement framework is to outline the standard approach to student engagement in Arts for program proposals. Administrative changes fall outside the purview of the student engagement framework. The Faculty of Arts consulted undergraduate and graduate students in CLARE programs, as well as student leaders, in October and November 2025. These sessions provided updates on the administrative change and provided an opportunity for questions. No concerns were raised,” the faculty responded. 

In late 2025, the faculty stated differently.

“The Faculty of Arts is committed to student engagement. There is an extensive Student Engagement Framework that the Faculty of Arts collaboratively worked on with SU and FASA,” stated the faculty. “Consultation regarding the affected programs occurred throughout fall 2024 and will continue.”

Dr. Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot provided clarification on the difference between academic and administrative changes in an interview with the Gauntlet. 

“The curriculum renewal preceded the departmental reconfiguration,” Brunschot stated. 

She noted that the consultations that occurred in November and October, as well as the student engagement framework, were solely based on the curriculum renewal, not the administrative restructuring. 

“This was about a departmental move, so it was more of an administrative structure thing. That’s why…students may or may not have been involved in the departmental reconfiguration,” Brunschot stated. She stated she was not present in department meetings, so faculty representatives may or may not have been present.

Brunschot also said that despite the projected closure of the CLARE department, the curriculum renewals will still continue.

Professor comments

In an interview with Dr. Allen Habib, associate professor in the Department of Philosophy. It was revealed that the Department of Philosophy was not properly consulted in the merging of its department with Religious Studies.

“It’s as if…they had decided on a plan of action and they brought it to us fully formed, and not only…did we not get a hand in shaping what the plan would be…but it felt as if they were going to force us to accept the plan regardless of what we thought about it,” stated Habib. “It’s as if the plan was decided in advance and then forced on us, or at least we weren’t given the opportunity to meaningfully change the plan and weren’t given the opportunity to resist it.”

Habib stated that the issue does not lie with the religious studies staff itself, but the fact that they were not chosen by the department.

“We have no problems with them. They’re good colleagues,” Habib stated. “But if a department is going to govern itself, one of the ways in which it should govern itself is by selecting who will join the department.” 

Habib briefly explained how the hiring process works within a department.

“Of course, there is a right of refusal on the part of the administration…but the actual decision-making process is largely in the hands of the department,” Habib stated. “The normal run of things is you hire someone by putting an ad in whatever trade journal your discipline uses, getting a bunch of applications, choosing people — this is purely the department, the department strikes a committee that does this — …and then interviewing those people.”

Habib also mentioned that the Dean’s office has no role in the hiring process within departments, they only have a right of refusal.

“The selection committees have one non-departmental member…but the rest is the department. It’s really the will of the department,” he said. “These decisions are made individually and slowly, maybe one a year, and…they’re made almost exclusively by the department.”

“Not only did we not have a choice in selecting them, we had no choice in deciding to admit or add to the department…that is very unlike normal departmental procedure,” he said.

Habib concluded with a summary of his views.

“The worries that I have…were worries about process,” he said. “The process seemed determined in advance without proper consultation…[it’s] not the worries about outcome, it’s not the worry about our colleagues, it’s not a worry about how the new department will function — these aren’t the worries.”

“What I would have liked…is a chance to help shape the plan going forward — a hand in deciding what the solution will be,” he said. 

Dr. Ann Levey, an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy, revealed similar concerns.

Levey stated that one meeting was held with the philosophy department and the Vice Dean, Dr. Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot. Yet, she said that this meeting was not one of proper consultation. 

“The Vice Dean, Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot, did come and meet with the philosophy department and talked about the reasons that the faculty had for doing this. At that meeting, we expressed some reservations about the fit. We said there was a fit with some people in Religious Studies but not with everybody,” Levey said. “She encouraged us to go meet with people [from Religious Studies]…I don’t know [whether it] had been reported to the dean. What I do know is the next thing we got was an email telling us it was happening.”

“Our email said that this was done at the request of the members of Religious Studies, and it thanked philosophy for their support…and my response was, at no time did we say we support this measure,” she said. 

Levey then expressed an issue with the philosophy department’s lack of autonomy over who gets to be hired in the department.

“One of our concerns is that we will now be seen as not needing to get new hires because of the people who have come in from Religious Studies,” she said. “That’s a concern because it takes away from us a capacity [to] plan our own future.”

“We’re also worried about what happens to the people in Religious Studies if the program isn’t renewed. So if the program isn’t renewed, then we have senior people in our department and no senior Religious Studies courses for them to teach,” Levey said. “How can they be productive researchers if the program is taken away from them?” 

The Gauntlet asked Levey what she would have liked to see in terms of proper consultation.

“I would have liked philosophy to have had veto power, or acceptance power. To be able to say yes or no after having had an opportunity to look at [the] people in Religious Studies and make decisions about who was a good fit in this department and who wasn’t,” she stated. “I would’ve liked it to have been done properly from the start.” 

Levey noted that Religious Studies has a large support community, seemingly neglected by the university.

“I went to the Chair of Christian thought…lecture in February, and I was shocked that there was no department head or no decanal representative there to introduce Carolyn Muessig,” she said. “This was a university event…and I was completely appalled by that.”

“It’s a university branded chair and every other event that I’ve been to at the [Calgary Central Library] for a university branded [event] has had a department head or a dean there to introduce,” she said. “To me, that is a huge sign of not caring about the arts.”

Office of the Dean responds

Dr. Brunschot stated that meetings were held with both the history and philosophy departments. 

“[We had] meetings [that] were similar to what we did with history, and asked [philosophy] if they were in favour. They could…talk about some of the concerns they had, and then I left that meeting, and they also discussed it amongst themselves,” she said. “The place we arrived at with both departments is that they were happy to receive the incoming groups to their respective departments.”

The Gauntlet asked if consultation is required with regard to administrative restructuring. 

“I think it has to do with various definitions of consultation. Consultation is supposed to happen,” Brunschot stated. “We consult, but it doesn’t mean that people necessarily always agree…they get to voice their opinion.”