Why We Should Care (a Lot!) About The Wording Of The Bu Respectful Environment Policy

WHY WE SHOULD CARE (A LOT!) ABOUT THE WORDING OF THE BU RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENT POLICY

October 15, 2008

During the past decade Canadian university research agendas have come increasingly under the control of behind-the-scenes corporate funders, and governments eager (or forced) to support them. It is clear that administrative appointments and decision-making are being increasingly inflected by such external corporate and government interests. We are deeply concerned about the erosion of academic freedom and basic collegial respect that has occurred in universities across the country in recent years in this context. However, we are also greatly heartened by the vindication and reinstatement of professors whose academic freedom and expectation of collegial respect was wrongfully violated by university administrations in recent years.

Here are a few examples that should alert us to current trends toward the over-regulation of thought and expression and governance in Canadian universities, and to the importance of maintaining vigilance in the defence of academic integrity and freedom for intellectual researchers in this country:

* Dr. Nancy Olivieri was wrongfully dismissed by the University of Toronto in 1996 for publishing research about the harmfulness of a new drug for children, after refusing to be pressured by the pharmaceutical company that funded the research to suppress her report. After 7 years of legal battle she was vindicated by an independent inquiry, and reinstated to her research position at UoT. The University of Winnipeg awarded Dr. Olivieri an honorary doctorate in 2006, praising her as "a defender of research integrity, academic freedom, and as a critic of the increasing corporatization of universities." The UW website feature about the award proclaims this warning about the current trends in Canadian universities: "Her story illustrates the need for strong policies regarding industry-sponsored research within universities and supporting a researcher's rights to autonomy."

* Dr. David Noble of York University distributed a political flyer on campus in 2004, criticizing the university for its "pro-Israeli stance." The university responded by issuing a press release which branded his flyer as "highly offensive" and illustrative of "bigotry" and "racism." York U Faculty Association filed a $10 million grievance on behalf of Dr. Noble. He was vindicated by a Labour arbitration ruling, which found that York U had violated Dr. Noble's academic freedom, and had breached its own Collective Agreement, and "failed to extend Professor Noble even the most basic of courtesies that might reasonably be expected to be enjoyed by a faculty member." York was ordered to remove the release from its website and pay Dr. Noble $2500. in damages. Dr. Noble has also filed a $25 million defamation suit against the York University Foundation, Hillel of Greater Toronto, the Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario region and the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto, which is still pending (CAUT Bulletin 55/8, Oct 08).

* Newfoundland Education Minister Joan Burke recently interfered in Memorial University's attempted hiring of a new president by due committee process. CAUT has expressed grave concern over the interference, and has asked for a meeting with the minister to discuss the matter. CAUT is considering censuring the university if the meeting does not happen in the near future. MU faculty association president Ross Klein states: "If government directly interferes in the selection process for a president, they may also interfere in other activities and processes in the university. The loss of autonomy poses a serious threat to academic freedom" ("Education Minister Interferes in Memorial University Hiring" CAUT Bulletin 55/7, Sept 08, A2).

* Sir David Watson of the University of London (UK) recently published a report about the growing trend in British universities to bypass normal governance of universities through "the significant outsourcing of essential university responsibilities," including the trend to use headhunters to hire university presidents. James Turk, Executive Director of CAUT, warns that we should be equally worried about the corporatization and external control of leadership in Canadian universities ("UK Report Raises Concerns about Use of Headhunters in University Recruitment," CAUT Bulletin 55/7, Sept 08, A5). How concerned should we be that Brandon University's search for a new President is being managed by a Vancouver headhunting group (The Geldart Group)?

As we move into a time of stressed resources and political upheaval, we should be working toward greater opportunities for independent research and open enquiry and freedom of expression in our universities and in the culture generally, so as to increase the dynamics of creativity and open communication and research integrity, that will be so sorely needed in the coming years, rather than capitulating to political demands for increased censorship, authoritarian rule, and hidden corporate agendas.

It is important to keep these larger contextual dynamics and alarming examples of university misgovernance in mind when scrutinizing the details of the new BU Respectful Environment policy. Does it make sense to give the BU President arbitrary and unlimited powers in disciplining faculty members for any kind of misconduct deemed inappropriate to the administration? Without ensuring the kinds of safeguards to due process being fought for by BUFA, the Policy as it stands seriously undermines the concept of academic tenure, and injects an aura of radical mistrust in the governance of the university. We are grateful for strong CAUT support in defending the integrity of our research programs and internal governance and review structures, and for ongoing strong support from BUSU and our own Faculty members. Go, BUFA!