Process issues were big on the list - the reconstitution of the task team, and the suspected ulterior motives behind that; the rush to get something through by year end without proper debate and sufficient consensus; the prominence of Certain DVCs and the lower visibility of others...
But issues of principle were also heatedly argued. Should the Admissions Policy seek to redress past inequity - using "race" as a proxy; or should it seek to address current disadvantage - which would foreground class?
Which all seemed to fall back on understandings of The Role Of The University. And, what sort of University we should strive to be. And whether our response should be based on compliance with legislation, or some moral position of our own - whether or not that happened to be consistent with the legislation of the day.
Few people seemed to agree on everything, though all argued strongly for the need for proper debate - however unlikely the prospect of consensus, or even sufficient consensus, being reached. The debate for its own sake needed to be had - most of those voicing opinions had a fairly cynical view that The Executive was going to (re)present Senate's view in a particular way, in any event, and Council would make the call informed, for the most part, by their own particular views, prejudices and opinions and not those of the Senate.
And then of course there was the whole issue of gender....