BY DAVID ROBINSON
David Robinson is executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).
One of Canada’s preeminent universities could be facing a rare censure by the Canadian Association of University Teachers over accusations the administration caved to outside pressure when it cancelled the appointment of an academic administrator.
According to a report prepared by CAUT’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law offered Dr. Valentina Azarova the position of Director of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) on August 11, 2020. Dr. Azarova was the unanimous recommendation of the hiring committee and seemed to be the perfect candidate for the job. She specializes in legal and human rights issues arising from immigration detention, the arms trade, and occupation and annexation. As part of this latter work, she has written several articles and book chapters on the application of international law and treaty obligations within the context of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
Of course, the politics of Israel and Palestine are bound to generate controversy. But Dr. Azarova’s research on the topic wasn’t a bother for the hiring committee. She accepted the job offer on August 19, and the University began making arrangements to finalize her contract and organize her relocation to Canada.
Things were proceeding swimmingly until September 4. That’s the day the Assistant Dean informed the chair of the hiring committee that a concern about Dr. Azarova’s appointment had been received by the Faculty’s chief fundraiser. The Assistant Dean reported that a sitting judge – who is also an alumnus and major donor to the University — questioned Dr. Azarova’s appointment based on the work she has done on human rights in Israel and Palestine.
On September 6, the Sunday of the Labour Day Weekend in Canada, the Dean contacted the chair of the hiring committee to announce the hiring process was being terminated. The Dean claimed his decision was motivated by two immigration and work visa issues that had arisen. The chair of the hiring committee specializes in immigration law and insisted the issues were minor and could be easily resolved. When the chair asked whether Dr. Azarova’s work on Israel and Palestine was the real reason behind the Dean’s decision, the Dean replied that “it is an issue, but given the other two issues, I don’t need to get to the third issue.”
As news of the story broke, the University faced a flurry of criticism. Two former IHRP directors accused the Dean of bowing to outside pressure. The IHRP Alumni Committee denounced the Dean’s decision to withdraw the offer and urged him to reconsider. Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, a group that advocates for international human rights law, charged the University with violating key human rights principles. On the flip side, B’nai Brith Canada urged the University to “keep Azarova out” and asked, “Why was she hired at all?”
In response to the growing public controversy, the University at first clumsily said that no contract offer was signed, therefore none was rescinded. No harm, no foul. When this didn’t get much traction in light of the documentary evidence made public (including emails about the “offer”), the University then pivoted to a second talking point: there’s no academic freedom concern here because this was an administrative position. Nothing to see here, folks.
CAUT has addressed this matter in a previous case at McGill University and in its Policy on Academic Freedom for Academic Administrators. The policy flatly rejects any distinction between the protections for academic freedom enjoyed by ordinary faculty members and that of those serving in administrative posts. The statement describes academic freedom as “indivisible and undiminished in all academic and public settings, whether or not these settings are aligned primarily with teaching, research, administration, community service, institutional policy, or public policy.” Academic administrators must be able to rely on the same protections in their academic activities as those in non-administrative academic positions.
Regrettably, the University of Toronto has shown little sign of backing down. The administration announced an internal review into the controversy, but its terms and scope were sharply criticized as inadequate by faculty in the law school.
In light of the continuing recalcitrance of the University, the CAUT Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee recommended that censure proceedings begin against the administration. Censure is rarely used in Canada, with nearly 15 years having passed since the last administration was under sanction. There’s still time for the University of Toronto to do the right thing and restore Dr. Azarova’s appointment. If it falls to act, however, Canada’s largest University could very well become a pariah in the country’s academic community.
I knew what the problem was before I read the article. I’ve been reading such stories for 50 years and they never end.The Palestine exception is alive and well.
“The Palestine exception”? And just what is that?
Without knowing the specifics of Dr. Azarova’s writings and views, I cannot make an informed judgment about her suitability for the position in question at the U. of Toronto. The original blog seems to be favorable to her appointment, as was the hiring committee, but that may be because they have a pro-Palestinian bias — just as the major donor may have a pro-Israeli viewpoint.
I can imagine circumstances in which a job candidate’s SPECIFIC publications or public views are WAY over the line and therefore subject to review by higher authorities at the university. (I’m not saying that that is the case here; I/we just do not know enough — absent a full dossier of material.)
I’m not an attorney but my guess is that Academic Freedom does not pertain to a job candidate but only to already tenured professors, so the McGill case seems irrelevant to me. The faculty vs. administrator issue seems moot, in that Dr. Azarova was not either when the question arose.
Academic freedom should apply to all members of the university, tenured or not — including not only faculty and administrators but also postgraduate and undergraduate students. Tenure is (or ought to be) a bulwark *protecting* academic freedom, but saying that academic freedom pertains “only to already tenured professors” is like saying that earning a living wage applies “only to union members”. Otherwise, contingent faculty (such as I) would have no option but to teach in the most bland and bloodless way possible, avoiding all topics of controversy or engagement, which is to say not to teach at all.
I realize that this is subsidiary to your main point, which is that she had not actually been hired yet. Legally speaking, that probably puts the University in the clear (I’m not a lawyer either, so I’m guessing). But bowing to the pressure of a donor who didn’t like something the candidate had to say is a disturbing precedent. There’s not much point in promising academic freedom within the university if alumni with fat bank accounts can, with a single phone call, exercise veto power over who gets hired in the first place. One might also say that the Dean’s termination of the process contravened the Committee’s academic freedom to select the best-qualified candidate for the job.
Academic freedom does not solely apply to tenured professors. It applies to all faculty, and to administrators who would hold underlying faculty appointments. It would also have to be extended to candidates for such posts or they would never consider such appointments. If Dr. Azarova was the committee’s top choice until a donor interceded then this is purely a backing off for financial and political reasons. I’ve sent 24 years in academe, including 7 at U Toronto.
Candace: You are misinformed when you state that “Academic freedom does not solely apply to tenured professors. It applies to all faculty, and to administrators who would hold underlying faculty appointments.” That may be true at your institution but at most colleges, “ALL” faculty do NOT have academic freedom. Read my posts and links, and do some research outside your own experiences.
Incidentally, how would a job CANDIDATE, who has not even been hired yet, be entitled to Academic Freedom at the institution she has applied to? I’d suggest asking an attorney for an answer to that one.
Dr. Campbell et al.: I WISH it were so that “Academic freedom should apply to all members of the university, tenured or not — including not only faculty and administrators but also postgraduate and undergraduate students.” I also agree with your rationales for wanting to extend Academic Freedom to more than just tenured professors.
However, most adjuncts are NOT covered by the sinecure of Academic Freedom, or even Freedom of Speech, EVEN IF REPRESENTED BY A UNION. In my case at CCNY, I was represented by the adjunct union, Professional Staff Congress (PSC/CUNY), and I learned that BY UNION CONTRACT I did not have any rights to Academic Freedom and that I could also be fired or non-renewed without cause.
Here’s my story:
https://www.academia.edu/23593134/A_Leftist_Critique_of_Political_Correctness_Gone_Amok_Revised_and_Updated