(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "CAUT-Report-Israel-lobby-York-University-2008"

regime of public law" (Goucige, Sharpe and LaForme, JJ.A,, 2006}. The Court ruled that with 
respect to academic [reedom, jniversities are at arm's length from government, but otherwise 
operate as public institutions. 

Academic Freedom and "The Tail that Wags the Dog" 

On 18 November 2004. after a film presentation sponsored by SPHR and the Arab Law 
Students' Association, Professor David Noble distributed a few copies of a leaflet called The 
York University Foundation: The Tail That Wags the Dog (Suggestions for further researvfi). He 
had prepared this material as part of his efforts lo understand why one of his studenis, Daniel 
Freeman-Maloy, was being subjected to on-going disciplinary efforts by the administration of 
York University. Using research expertise he hiad developed when exploring linkages between 
universities and private foundations in North America, Noble had been investigating ttie 
controversial sale of lands by York University to Tribute Homes when ho noticed links between 
some members of the boards of York University Foundation (YUF) and York University itself 
and various pro-Israeli lobby and fund-raising groups (personal communication, 13 May 2005). 
Noble set out these linkages in a leaflet composed of six numbered paragraphs and brief 
biographical notes and proposed that there appeared to be a pro-Israeli bias in the YUF and 
that such a bias might be responsible for the treatment of Daniel Freeman-Maloy. 

The response from the University administration lo the leaflet was swift. A media release, with 
tho headline Yorii University, IHillel, SPHR Denounce Material Targeting Jewish Community 
Members, was issued on Friday, 19 November 2004. In it President Lorna Marsden condemned 
the leaflet as "highly offensive material" that "must not be permitted to diminish a culture of 
mutual respect on our campus which unites [sic] as a community." Included in the release were 
Statements from the President of SPHR, Furat Al Yassin, and the Presiriont of hliilel @York, Dori 
Borshtov, expressing their concern at the presence of bigoted and racist material on the York 
campus. Neither Noble nor YUFA were contacted prior to the issuance of the media release 
and Noble first learned of the accusations levelled against hirn from a reporter for the Globe and 
Mail who received the release and phoned him for a comment. 

On 24 November 2004 SPHR issued a press release of its own in which it recanted its 
statement published in the York University media release of 19 November 2004, explaining that, 
"The administration asked SPHR to condemn allegedly 'anti-Semitic' material that was neither 
provided to the spokespersons nor distributed by SPHR or its members." The release also 
noted that "The administration's attempt to bully individuals that stand in support of Palestinian 
human rights was made clear in its dealings with two of SPHR's spokespersons." SPHR also 
stated its unequivocal commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and its support of 
Professor Noble in his efforts to raise the issues contained in his leaflet. !n the same period, 
CUPE 3903 organized a demonstration in the Van Hall Rotunda to protest not only the 
treatment of Prof. Noble but also the treatment of Freeman-Maloy and changes to the University 
uftft of space policy, all of which were seen as efforts to silonce dissent at York. In an open letter 
to President Marsden the organisers of the demonstration reminded Marsden of what makes 
York different: 

Campus activism is a vital component of what makes York a unique and 
progressive University that, to quote from York's mission statement, is 
"committed to academic freedom [and] social justice." This clamp-down on basic 
political dissent will not be tolerated. This is our university and we will defend our 

13 



right to free speech and political assembly here. (CURE 3903 to Marsden, 25 
November 2004). 

In addition to this public protest, the York University Faculty Association (YUFA) filed a 
grievance on behalf of Professor Noble alleging that the media release issued by the 
administration on 19 November 2004 v;as libellous, discriminatory and violated Noble's 
academic freedom. This n^alter was referred to arbitration and in November 2007 labour 
arbitrator Russell Goodfellovw ruled that York University had contravened the collective 
agreement and violated the academic freedom of Professor David Noble. 



Impact on Students and Faculty Members 

We would be remiss if we did not comment on what students individually and independently told 
us about the impact on them of the Van Hall incident, the Freeman-Maloy case and related 
events at York University. For the students arrested during the Vari Hall affair and for Freeman- 
Maloy who was singled out for expulsion, the effects were often traumatic. Freeman-Maloy 
received death threats and threats of other kinds because of his activities as a pro-Palestinian 
Jew. He also experienced a great deal of anxiety about his situation and his future because he 
was an undergraduate student challenging the senior administration of the University at which 
he was enrolled. His financial situation has been affected since be was unable to take up his 
summer jobs in 2004 and he has both legal bills and personal debt. He will need six years to 
complete a baccalaureate and his academic work has suffered {D. Freeman-Maloy, personal 
communication, 13 May 2005). 

We have already noted that one student arrested in the Vari Hall incident had to be hospitalized 
as a result of the beating he received. Other students spoke of the negative effects on them of 
the verbal intimidation, particularly the sexist, racist and homophobic slurs directed at thetn, and 
of the physical violence they experienced. Students arrested during the Vari Hall incident were 
handcuffed and made to kneel along the wall of a classroom which must have been prc-bookcd 
for use as a containment facility. It is claimed that one student was kicked in the face by a police 
officer and Ihe matks of the boot tread could be seen clearly. Another student who was beaten 
during the Vari Hall incident expressed regret that he had begun to feel fearful whenever he saw 
a police officer on the street although he did indicate that response was beginning to dissipate. 
We heard from representatives of student organizations and students themselves thai many of 
their peers, especially international students and those with student loans, have become scared 
to participate in political activities for fear they would be expelled or punished in ways that would 
threaten their ability to complete their degrees. In general, students felt intimidated and their 
sense of security on campus has been threatened. Most of the students we interviewed also 
acknowledged that their academic work had suffered because of the treatment they received 
and the lime ttiey lost defending themselves whether in responding to disciplinary charges tiled 
by the administration or in preparing for and appearing in courlruoms. Most of the students 
repoil experiencing anxiety, stress, fear and ottier related emotions and some cannot escape 
llie anger Ihey feel towards York University for its part in these events. Although the students 
have been ej^onerated or tiud charges dismissed at both the campus and court levels, they 
have not escaped lite repercussions of these experiences in their lives. Time will tell to what 
degree students at York have "learned" the university administration's lessons about political 
conformity and the narrow confines of acceptable citizenship. 

14 



As we examined student accounts of their experiences, we also noticed a number o^common 
themes tn student narratives of events ranging from the anti-war demonstration of 5 March 
2003 which consisted of pickets at the York University gates to the events at Van Hal! described 
above there is a recurring mention that the police officers involved operated under the 
assumption that OCAP was involved, that police officers expressed surprise when students 
produced their student cards, and that police behaviour changed when they realized they were 
dealinq with students and not the anti-poverty organization. This raises questions about where 
the poNce might be getting the erroneous information that it is OCAP activists and not students 
involved in certain political activities at York. Although the evidence at this point is only 
circumstantial, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that someone or some unit al Jork is 
cvnically using the widely reported mutual antipathy of Toronto police officers and OCAP tor the 
purpose of encouraging police officers to be more forceful than they might normally be towards 
students, thus escalating Ihe intimidation factor- 
Concerns about the presence of OCAP also arise in the events surrounding a symposium 
sponsored by tho York University Department of Sociology on 26 November 200-1- The. 
Colloquium Committee of the Department organized a session called '■Activist Research and ttie 
Sociology of Confrontation: A Roundtable on Resistance' and invited three speakers to present 
papers According to the flyer advertising the event, Gary Kinsman, Professor of Sociology at 
Laurentian University, was to give a paper on "Political Activist Ethnography, Social Relations 
and Struggle " Clarice Kuhling. a doctoral student in sociology at York and a CUPE 3903 
activist would discuss "Confrontation, Collective Bargaining, and Mapping University Labour 
Relations" and John Clarke, an organizer for OCAP. would address "The Housing Crisis, 
Squatting and Activist Research." Without any pnor warning to the organizers of the panel, and 
along with about 30 other people, a York University security officer attended the event. He did 
not identify himself, he was not in uniform, and he took notes during the presentations. When 
recognized by people at the symposium, he was asked why he was there and disclosed that he 
vifas present at the request of Ihe administration to do surveillance work. He was asked to leave 
by a vote of the meeting but refused to do so and is reported to have challenged participants to 
"do something about it" (Christensen S, Fenton, 2005, p. 3; P. Stewart. D. Brock, S. Longstaff, 
personal communications, 16 September 2005}. 

The first response of faculty members was to write to the Ctiair of Senate to complain but then, 
almost immediately thereafter, a grievance was filed about violations to the academic freedom 
clauses in the collective agreement. In the course of the first stage meeting, faculty members 
learned that York security had received a "tip" from the Toronto Police Services that there would 
be trouble around the visit of John Clarke to campus because Clarke's partner had, it was 
reported, been recently fired from the Metro Hotel for efforts to organize a union and that hotel 
was owned by Henry Wu, a member of the Board of Directors of the York University Foundation 
{P Stewart, D- Brock. S. Longstaff, personal communications, 1(i September 2005). The 
surveillance by security of an academic event at York and the co-operation of York Seciinty and 
the Toronto Police Service in monitoring the lawful activities of John Clarke while on campus 
raise extremely troubling questions about academic freedom and freedom of speech. It is 
difficult not to conclude that one of Ihe key drivers in this chain of events was Ihe desire to 
monitor the symposium because of the possibility that il might draw attention to and lead to a 
protest of the labour practices of a wealthy member of the Board of Directors of the York 
University Foundation. Il is also difficult not to see a link with the demand recorded above that 
Freeman-Maloy, who had protested outsidn the Metro Hotel, apologize to Henry Wu for 
statements that were ■personally threatening to him" (Counsel for York University to Counsel for 
Daniel Froeman-Maloy, 10 June 2004). There is here a real indication of the way in which a 

15 



desire on the part of administrators to placate donors and those associated with managing the 
university's Foundation funds can .ntcriere with the ca.dinal principles of academic freedom and 
free inquiry in the academy. 

It is also worth noting here that some students and professors we interviewed observed that 
events at York had created a chilling effect on teaching and that this was e^P^;='^|lyJ^^,^^^"^^t.,,t 
with content related to the Middle East. We received evidence that demonstrated that in at least 
two cases, and quite likely more, students sat in on various professors dasses and then 
reported on those professors to their deans if the students disagreed with the content be ng 
delivered One student, who self-described as a Zionist and a ■Hillel-nik and observed that 
she "knew who her enemies were," spoke of student efforts tn monitor profpssors in his way (A 
Libman personal communication, 8 June 2005). She also voluntarily provided us with a copy o 
a letter of complaint she had written about a senior professor and sent to his chair, his dean and 
the academic vice-president. In this case, her allegations concerned anti-American,sm on the 
part of the professor in whose course she was enrolled. That some students, at least, feel they 
can operate as academic spies and engage in their own surveillance activities and 
surreptitiously report on professors indicates that a climate of mistrust and accusation is 
developing on campus and this will have repercussions for the quality of teaching and learning 
and for the academic freedom of professors. 

Also chilling to the academic environment and the principle of academic freedom was the way 
in which York University treated the case of Professor Robert MacDermid when he was 
threatened with libel suits by then Ontano Minister of Health, Tony Clement, and Leslie Noble, a 
lobbyist (and now, coincidenlally. a member of York's Board of Governors). MacDermid, in an 
article in the Ottawa Citizen, had drawn on his research to comment generally on election 
financing and the difficulties that arise when political donations are made by companies bidding 
for public contracts. As a result of his comments, he received letters from two law firms, one 
acting on behalf of Clement and the other for Noble, demanding apologies and retractions with 
respect lo content in the news article related to their clients. Counsel for the University, Harriet 
Lewis, provided some advice but made it clear that the University had no real responsibility m 
the matter Prof MacDermid was forced to take his own case fonvard and secured the 
assistance of the law firm used by YUFA. Ultimately, through the grievance process, an 
agreement was reached whereby (he University paid ProL MacDermid's legal bill {R. 
MacDermid, personal communication, 9 June 2005). Paradoxically, while the University, 
through its Communicalions office, encourages professors to engage in media work and while 
the University's reputation is enhanced as a result, it took "the posilion that when faculty 
members and librarians speak to the media about matters in Iheir areas of academic expertise 
they do so on a 'voluntary' basis and thai such activities are not part of our professional 
responsibilities." As YUFA noted, such a stance encourages libel chill and thai "is a real 
phenomenon that infringes not only our rights as citizens and academics, but inhibits our ability 
to fulfill our responsibilities to the public at large" {How Free are York Professors to Speak? 
Retrieved from htip://www.vufa.orq/exec/ libel-html. Prof. MacDermid indicated that this 
experience has had a slight chilling effect on him and he has become aware of other examples 
among liis colleagues (R. MacDermid, personal communication, 9 June 200b). 

The Role of Policy and Procedures 

In the course of our investigation we also became aware of how policy and procedures, i.e.. 
modes ot governance, were being revised and modified lo afford greater control to the York 

16 



University administration over activities on campus. Because it was central to events at Vari 
Hall and the Freeman-Maloy case, ttie most obvious of these is a document entitled Temporary 
Use of University Space Poiicy and Procedures (TUUSP) revised in 2004 by the University 
administration, apparently without broad consultation with the stakeholders in the University 
community. The revisions included a statement declaring York University's lands and properties 
private, new rules governing the eligibility of users of University spaces, a requirement tor risk 
assessments of "High Profile, Controversial or High Risk External Speakers," and prohibitions 
on the use of spaces such as the Vart Hail Rotunda, the Vari/Ross Link, and The Common and 
Piazza Italia except for very narrowly defined events. Students were particularly concerned with 
what they saw as harsh restrictions on tabling and leafteting as this struck at what had become 
an established method on the York campus for bringing a wide range of events and 
organizations, as well as political and social justice causes, into public spaces. TUUSP also put 
in place requirements that would make the holding of many events difficult or impossible, 
primarily because of the high costs of the required security and insurance coverage. In addition, 
TUUSP was a very detailed and highly bureaucratic policy that demanded the completion of 
considerable paperwork and with long lead times required for booking facilities. Considerable 
power over matters such as advertising, signage and risk management was granted to 
University officials. 

As a result of the events of 20 January 2005 al Vari Hall, TUUSP became more widely known 
on campus and was identified quickly as one of the impediments on campus lo freedom of 
speech and freedom of assembly. We have already noted that at the special meeting of Senate 
on 3 February 2005, President Marsden agreed lo a review of the policy and subsequently a 
revised policy was introduced and came into effect on 20 February 2006. However, two York 
faculty members, Nick Lary, a former member of the YUFA Executive, and Ricardo Grinspun, a 
former senator, observfid that, 

if anything, the revised policy and procedures further restrict the opporlunities for 
free expression on campus, as they institutionalize a regime in wtiich expression, 
participation and discussion are strictly controlled and subjected to security 
checks and restraints. Although it is unlikely the Administration will ask police to 
disband a peaceful protest in the near term due to the negative pubiicity, there is 
nothing in Itie new policy and procedures ttiat would specifically ban that 
practice, (Lary & Grinspun, 2006, p. 2). 

They went on to argue that "The issue that the working group needed and failed to address was 
separating this intrusive security function from the useful coordinating mechanism" (p. 3). In its 
entirety, the current (revised) TUUSP document can be used as a powerful mechanism of 
control and surveillance. While couched in language of due diligence about safety and property 
rights, and these are undoubtedly legitimate concerns for any university, ii seems to us that the 
poiicy continues to institutionalize procedures and requirements that will work to limit freedom of 
speech and many academic activities on campus. It creates a range of barriers such as rather 
lengthy time lines for application and approval, limits on who may seek to use university space, 
requirements for detailed safety plans, and demands for security and insurance coverage that 
would be out of reach for many campus groups. 

Following the Freeman-Waloy case and the atlention it drew to the Presidential Regulations 
governing student conduct, York University also reviewed its policies on student behaviour and 
in September 2006 released a new "Student Code of Conduct." It was claimed thai the new 
sec "aims lo provide a fair, transparent, and easily understood system to deal with 

17 



inappropriate student behaviour" (Y-File, 18 September 2006) Leaving aside the implication 
that the Presidential Regulations did none of these things and that the problems in the 
Freeman-Maloy case were with the Regulations rather than the mis-application of the 
Regulations by President Marsden, it is clear thai the new SCC is more accessible to students, 
is written in plain language, and provides a clear process for dealing with complaints. However, 
while the Code notes that nothing in it "is intended as a method or excuse to suppress peaceful 
protest, civil debate, or lawful conduct," it goes on to say "so long as that conduct is not 
prohibited by ttiis Code," (York University Student Code of Conduct, 2006, section 2). This 
peculiar phrasing, by one reading, at least, implies that the administration at York University 
reserves the right to prohibit certain conduct even if it is lawful in the wider society and the Code 
extends this right not only to conduct on the campus but to "conduct not on University premises 
but which has a real and substantial link to the University" such as student participation in 
"events held off-campus by an unrecognized student group that is readily identifiable with the 
University or any part of it." (section 3). Among the prohibited behaviours is "Violation of 
University Policies, Procedures, or rules, such as; Temporary Use of University Space Policy...." 
(section 4). As already noted, TUUSP has the potential to effectively impose restrictions on free 
speech and free assembly in a variety of ways. In the same category and open to abuse in their 
application are other such prohibitions as "failure to comply with reasonable requests of a 
University official" and "making or causing excessive noise" (section 4). It is worth repeating 
here the conciusions of the Presidential Committee chaired by Bora Laskin: 

Only in a climate of openness of debate and discourse, of unhampered assembly and 
association, can the University community survive and adapt itself to a changing world. 
The exaltation of order at the expense of liberty would threaten the very foundations of 
the University. (Presidential Committee, 1970, p. 3) 

in both the case of TUUSP and the SCC, the dispassionate language of policy and procedures 
is utilized to camouflage mechanisms that have the potential to infringe in a significant manner 
on academic freedom and freedom of speech. The policies normalize narrowed understandings 
of teaching and learning, the purposes of university education, and the social responsibilities of 
members of the academic community. As our discussion of a number of events al York 
University illustrate, in the hands of administrators, policies and procedures may be called into 
use as forceful disciplinary tools to suppress legitimate debate and dissent. 

Conclusion 

Foi (nany faculty members and students, the explanation for the contentious events that 
unfolded on the York campus is found in what they see as decisions by the University's senior 
administration to support pro-Israeli initiatives and marginalize pro-Palestinian efforts. Certainly, 
many of the struggles revolved around these politics of the Middle East and President 
Marsden's trip to Israel in January 2005, financed by Gerry Schwartz, Milton Harris, Julie 
Koschitzky and Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Morgan, 20 January 2005), confirmed her 
bias and lack of balance In many minds. In fact, even Ihe student who self-identified as a 
Zionist and "Hillei-nik" observed that, in her view, Ihe administration did treat different students 
differently and the decisions taken by the administration were harder on SPHR than on Hillel. 
She attributed some of this to the fact that "Hillel people weasel irilo positions of power" and use 
the University's internal mechanisrns and outside rielworks for support whereas the Palestinian 
students and their supporters adopt different, more confrontational strategies (A, Libman, 
personal communication, 8 June 2005). On the other hand, Professor Martin Lockshin 

18 



{personal communication, 23 September 2005} expressed the view thai Ihe administration "is a 
qreat_g[ ip pnrtftr of froe dnms." and errs in thie direction of freedom of speech. He indicated ttiat 
President Marsden told him thai she has her own opinions but cannot speak out. Professor 
Lockshin also observed ihat he fell some of his colleagues were mis-using the classroom to 
speak out against Israel and the United States and action should be taken a g ainst the m, and a 
similar view also was expressed by Professor Sarah Horowitz (personal communication, 27 
October 2005), There is no doubt, then, that the larger issues of Mid-East politics provided a 
great deal of the content of the debates and struggles at York University. Undoubtedly, the 
celebration of the Israeli Defence Force on campus, the decision of President Marsden to 
introduce Daniel Pipes when he spoke on campus, the rallies and protests for Palestinian rights, 
and other events led to clashes between student groups and fierce debates among faculty and 
staff. 

At the same lime, there was more to the troubles at York than conflicting views and strongly 
held position on Israel and Palestine- From the failure to follow University policy to the use of 
police force on campus, it seems apparent that there was a desire on the part of the senior 
administration to exercise control over public displays of dissent in the interests of creating a 
new public image of a privatized and corporate York University, A public relations and recruiting 
campaign reflected the desire to bury York's reputation as a politicized and radical campus and 
occurred as the University was ramping up efforts to obtain a Faculty of Medicine or, at ieast, 
create a Faculty of Health Sciences. Because fund-raising from private sources is now centra! 
to any university's efforts to expand or even sustain itself, university officials work hard to create 
the perception of their university as a place that is stable and, while liberal in orientation, well 
under control. And, as Schugurensky (2006) observes, 

universities are becoming embedded in the logic of academic capitalism, a logic that 
requires an appropriate policy and cultural climate, specific regulations, and a variety of 
administrative arrangements and academic regimes, (p. 302) 

The drive to restructure the university, create an entrepreneurial institution and cornmodify 
knowledge sets up the collision between academic freedom/freedom of speech and the 
piocesses of university corporatization and the new managerialism on campus, between 
administrators who just want to get on with things in the new heteronomous environment and 
faculty and students who critique and resist those developments. In this context, a conflict over 
conceptions of the university is inevitable and confrontations inevitably occur between 
administrators planning to impose a new academic order and, perhaps paradoxically, faculty 
and students defending the more traditional values of public education, university autonomy, 
freedom of speech and academic freedom. In Itie case of York, this led to the arbitrary use of 
power by the administration in attempts to control whal is the legitimate purpose of universities, 
namely free, open and even heated debate and socially responsible activism, precisely the 
freedoms Bora Laskin and the Presidential Committee sought to protect in 1970 and that York 
University's mission stalemenl exlols. 

Wheltier through bad management or conscious intent or a combination of both, on the face of 
the evidence before us, we can only conclude that there were threats to and breaclies of the 
right of free expression and academic freedom at York University and that these threats and 
breaches raise signiticant questions about the nature of university governance as it was 
practised at York, Indeed, the exoneration of students arrested in the Van Hall incident, Ihe 
withdrawal by President Marsden of Freeman-Maloy's rustication order as well as the out of 
court settlement with him, and the arbitration ruling in the Noble case all support this conclusion. 

19 



In 2007, York University appointed a new president, Dr. Mahmoud Shoukri. This affords an 
opportunity for York University to analyso and learn from its recent past and seek opportunities 
to move forwfird in vi/ays that are more conducive to supporting academic freedom and freedom 
of speech. The handling of the student sit-in organized by Ihc Sustainable Purchasing Coalition 
at the Office of the University President in March 2008 suggests that this process may be 
underway. Students camped out for 45 hours without recourse by the adminislration to police 
intervention, were able fo meet with President Shoukri and reached an agreement with him to 
develop a policy on Itie purchase of "no sweat shop" clothing at York University. One of the 
students involved expressed the hope that the resolution of this sit-in "will set a precedent tor 
future interactions between students and York administration" (SPC Media Release. 9 March 
2008). 

In keeping with our findings and the hope expressed by these activist students, we offer the 
following recommendations- 

Recommendation 1: 

We recommend that representatives from the CAUT and the YUFA executive meet with the 
President of York University to discuss the ways to protect academic freedom and freedom of 
speech on campus and ensure collegial governance. We suggest this should include: 

• an open and thorough review of policies such as the Temporary Use of University Space 
Policy and Procedures and the Student Code of Conduct with a view to ensuring that 
such policies do not restrict open debate, the ability of ali members of the York 
community to voice dissent in a range of ways, and the opportunity for students to learn 
and practise political engagement and citizenship; 

. an agreement to develop a clear policy statement about the role and use of police on 
campus and to publicize that statement widely and regularly; 

• an application of policies that Is fair, even-handed and transparent; 

■ an examination of governance structures and practices with a view to reclaiming a 
collegia! model for the University. 

Recommendation 2: 

We recommend thai the CAUT urge York University to develop a comprehensive program of 
leadership education and support to ensure that administrators at all levels and in all units 
develop She knowledge and skills that would allow them to fulfil their obligations in a collegial 
manner. 

Recommendation 3: 

Because of the fears and concerns we heard from recently appointed faculty members, wc 
recommend that the leadership/executive of YUFA engage in a process of union renewal and 
re-connection with the membership in order to ensure that all members feel confident that llieir 
rights and interests can and will be protected in the workplace. Matters that need attention 
include student surveillance of professors and secretive reporting to senior administrators and 
additional protections for professors who speak to the media as a way to deal with the problern 
of libel chill. 

With respect to the negative consequences of university re-structuring, the commercialization of 
research, the commodification of knowledge and the new manageriaiism, there arc no easy 

20 



recommendations. The struggle over the meaning and nature of the university is a political one 
that requires the informed engagement of all members of the academic community. 



Respectfully Kubmitted, 
Rebecca Coulter 
Ken Field 



References 



Canadian Association of University Teachers. {March 2006). Policy statement concerning the 
role of public and private poiice forces and security services on Canadian university and 
college campuses. 

Christensen, M., & Fenton, L. (2005. Jan--Feb.). Academic freedom. Letter to the Editor. 
Critical Times. 4,2, p. 3. 

Lary, N., & Grinspun, R. (2006). Comments on the Temporary Use of University Space Policy. 
Typescript. 

Morgan, E. (2005, January 20). Academics in Israel: Wfial we did on vacation. Canadian 
Jewisli Congress Op-Eds, retrieved from 
h Hp://www.cic.ca/tem plate php?action-ope d &Rec^113 

Presidential Committee. (1970). Freedom ar>d responsibility in the university: Report ofthe 
Presidential Committee on Rights and Responsibilities of Members of Yorl< University 
Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Rahn, J, (2005). Police brutality meets communications and marketing at a public university. 
Our Sc/ioo/s/Ourse/ves (Spring), 105-115. 

Schugurensky, D. (2006). The political economy of higher education in the time of global 
markets: Whither the social responsibility of tlie university? In R. A. Rhoads 8. C. A. 
Torres, eds.. The university, stato, and market: The political economy of globalization in 
the Americas, pp. 301-320. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 



21 



Appendix A 

CAUT Policy Statement Concerning the Rote of Public and Private Police Forces 
and Security Setvices on Canadian University and College Campuses 



1 Preamble 

CAUT seeks to proteci the rights of individual members of academic staff in their relations with 
their own institutions and with private and public organizations with w/hich they come in contact 
in carrying out their responsibilities. 

CAUT believes the activities of policing agencies and security services on post-secondary 
institution campuses can threaten academic freedom. Experience shows that this belief is 
vwarranted. Such activities can interfere with the rights of individual members of the academic 
staff and students, and can undermine institutions' obligation to foster freedom of thought, 
expression and intellectuat inquiry without restriction. 



2 Policy Statement 

2.1 Campus Police and Security Services 

2.1.1 

Where resources permit, rather than relying on private security services or public police 
services, a posl-secondary institution should establish a security service, staffed by institution 
employees. Private policing agencies or security services stiould be given no status on campus 
unless they are employed by, retained by, or under contract to (be post-secondary institution. 

2.1.2 

The post-secondary institution should establish a permanent committee, with membership 
drawn from all campus constituencies, to develop policies on the role of public police and 
campus security, and to monitor the implementation of these policies. 

2.1.3 

The primary responsibilities of a campus security service are to protect the lives and well-being 
of individuals on campus, to protect their property and the university's and college's properly, to 
deliver programs that prevent or reduce risks to individuals or propeily on campus, and, 
generally, to enforce the Post-Secondary Institution rules and federal, provincial, and municipal 
laws on campus. 

2.1.4 

Members of a campus security service should have the education, background, and training that 
will permit them to carry out properly the duties assigned to them. 

2.1.5 

The actions of a campus security service must be respectful of and not constrain legitimate 
freedom of expression and assembly. 

2.1.6 

22 



The relationships among the post-secondary institution, its campus security service, and public 
police agencies should be clearly established, particularly respecting: 

a) on-campus events for which members of public police agencies provide policing 
services, 

b) the coordination of campus security ser.^ice and public police agency roles for on- 
campus offences, and 

c) emergencies, 

2.1.7 

A campus security service should be responsible to a senior member of the university or college 

administration. 

2.1.8 

A campus security service should report annually to the security committee and to the governing 
academic body of the post-secondary institution, and give incident statistics. 

2.1.9 

The post-secondary institution should establish a process for adjudicating complaints respecting 
the conduct of members of its campus security service. 

2.1.10 

Policies should be established for a campus security service, at the appropriate levels of 
university or college governance, respecting the following matters: 

a) use offeree; 

b) procedures and facilities for the reporting of offences or other emergencies; 

c) responses to the reported offences or emergencies; 

d) the security of campus facilities, including residences; 

e) the promotion of prompt reporting of offences; 

f) the establishment of linkages between the campus security service and other campus 
resources and services (for instance, counselling and student services, emergency 
response teams, foot patrols, parking services), 

g) (he provision of information to the campus community respecting threats to individuals 
or property; 

h) the provision of educational programs to the campus community (for instance, 
concerning sexual offence prevention, the reporting of sexual offences, personal 
safety, and the protection of properly); and 

i) the collection and reporting of campus incident statistics. 

2.1.11 

In the absence of a campus security service, public police agencies and security services may 
provide policing for the campus, but (he principles embodied in 2.1 must apply, and should be 
the subject of regular discussions between a publicly accountable post-secondary institution 
body on one hand and the outside provider on another. 

2.2 Public Police Agencies and Security Services 

2.2.1 

Where a campus security service operates, public police agencies and secuhty services should 

23 



restrict thfiir activities on post-secondary instituiion campuses to investigating specific alleged 
violations of the iavi', and performing such aspects of their official mandate as are agreed to by 
the institution, acting in accordance with the principles in this CAUT Policy Statement. 

2.2.2 

Such investigations or other activities should be drawn at the outset to the attention of the senior 
member of the post-secondary institution's administration having lesponsibility in this area of 
policy and practice. 

2.2.3 

Police agencies and security services should not place or use informers on post-secondary 
institution campuses and should refrain from recruiting members of the academic staff and 
students as undercover agents or Informers. This does not mean that members of the acadefnic 
staff should not report criminal wrongdoing on campus when it comes to their attention, nor that 
members of the academic staff should evade their obligations to appear as witnesses in court 
proceedings. 

2.2.4 

If academic staff members are approached for information about colleagues or students in the 
course of pre-employment or security clearance inquiries, whether by policing agencies, security 
services, or others, thoy should be aware that cooperation with investigators is voluntary, but 
that the refusal to provide information may cost the student or colleague the job or position. 
Respondents should satisfy themselves of investigators' credentials. If respondents agree to 
assist, they should provide information in writing only, and should have an opportunity to 
examine for accuracy a written record of information provided. They should request confirmation 
that the provisions of section 2.2.5 will be observed, CAUT countenances such activities only 
when they arc not a surreptitious means to secure other information on campus or to recruit 
informants. 

2.2.5 

Academic staff members or students who are the subjects of pre-employment inquiries and 
related security clearances should be told by the agency conducting the inquiry of the inquiry 
and, subsequently, of (he results of the investigation, unless sucfi disclosure is prohibited by 
law. 

2.2.6 

Information on the interests, data use or borrowing patterns of library, archive, or internet users 
should not be released to police or security agencies. Release in response to court orders, 
subpoenas or warrants should occur only when all legal avenues to prevent release are 
exhausted. This applies to all records of access to information and to alt records of the use of 
library resources. 



Approved by Council, September 1987; revised, September 1988, February 1989; April 
2006. 

24