Senate Committee on Academic Freedom
Annual Report 2023-2024
Members of the Committee:
• Marie-Eve Sylvestre (Dean of the Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section; co-chair)
• Graham Mayeda (Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section; co-chair)
• Marc Charron (Interim Dean, Faculty of Arts)
• Francis Bangou (Professor, Faculty of Education)
• Philippe Chipman (Part-time Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences)
• Agil Réana (representative, undergraduate students)
• Linda Diopka (representative, graduate students)
• Harneet Cheema (representative, undergraduate students)
Invitees:
• Ibrahim Awad (Vice-Provost, Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence)
• Annick Bergeron (Secretary General)
Committee mandate
The Committee has three mandates:
1.) To monitor issues involving academic freedom and report its findings. The Committee must meet at least once a year to provide an update on all complaints related to academic freedom and/or freedom of expression at the University that it receives through other current mechanisms, and report on the number and general nature of these complaints.
2.) To act in an advisory capacity when required. Members of the University administration, faculty deans or vice-deans may convene the Committee to discuss general or recurring cases occurring within their faculties and seek the Committee’s advice on what approaches to take.
3.) To play an advisory role in training and support activities, most notably by recommending training.
Work of the Committee during academic year 2023-2024
Mandate no 1: reporting
This year, the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom received complaints about academic freedom and freedom of expression in two contexts:
1.) Following a series of incidents on campus beginning in August 2023, the Provost and Vice-President Academic Affairs, Jill Scott, charged the co-chairs and the Vice-Provost, Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, Awad Ibrahim, with meeting people directly affected by the incidents. They were also charged with organizing meetings of the teaching personnel to hear about the potential repercussions of these incidents on their academic freedom.
2.) A member of the teaching staff contacted the Committee co-chairs to report an incident linked to an alleged breach of his academic freedom. The co-chairs put this person in contact with the office of the Vice-Provost, Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, who took charge of resolving the complaint.
Mandate no 2: periodic consultation
As mentioned above, the Provost and Vice-President Academic Affaires, Jill Scott, conferred a mandate to the Committee co-chairs and the Vice-Provost, Equity, Diversity and Inclusive Excellence, following security incidents on campus that began in August 2023. The co-chairs and Vice-Provost submitted a report to the Senate on this topic at their meeting on April 15th, 2024. The report can be found in Annex A of this report.
The Committee was also consulted about the use of spaces at the University of Ottawa for student activities that might affect freedom of expression and the security of members of the community.
Finally, the members of the Committee discussed two other hypothetical scenarios in anticipation of situations that might occur on campus in relation to academic freedom (see Annex B for the precise description of these scenarios):
• A scenario dealing with the invitation of a controversial speaker on campus.
• A scenario involving a student complaint about a classroom discussion involving a controversial and sensitive topic.
The following points arose during this discussion:
• The Senate’s statement on academic freedom in a university context has proved to be a very useful tool for responding to the scenarios, as well as for responding to all questions that raise issues about academic freedom or freedom of expression on campus. The statement strikes an appropriate balance between these two values and the university community’s collective engagement to maintain an environment that encourages the expression by a diversity of voices, including the voices of those who are marginalized or historically excluded, and where the expression of hatred or racist and discriminatory statements are not tolerated.
• There is room for the development of procedures or forums for ensuring that students organizing events on campus as well as decisionmakers at the faculty or departmental level can evaluate a proposed event in light of the values expressed in the statement.
• To ensure that the values in the statement are reflected in decisions about academic freedom and freedom of expression, it is essential that affected parties be educated about and sensitized to the values contained in it. To this end, the education and sensitization of the following groups is essential:
o Students (especially those who will be arriving on campus for the first time in September);
o Teaching personnel (full-time and part-time professors as well as teaching assistants);
o Decisionmakers at every level of the University (deans, vice-deans, directors, those responsible for reserving rooms, etc.).
• It is desirable that the University develop and distribute best practices and guidelines for responding to complaints related to breaches of academic freedom and freedom of expression. These mechanisms should prioritize resolving complaints in an informal manner through respectful dialogue between the affected parties.
• It would be useful to clarify and communicate the jurisdiction of each office that receives complaints about academic freedom of freedom of expression. It is likewise useful to do the same for those offices that receive reports of discrimination on campus.
Mandate no 3: educational activities
In consultation with the Committee on Academic Freedom, the office of the Provost and Vice-President Academic Affairs launched a website dedicated to questions relating to academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The site provides:
o A definition of important terms,
o An explanation of the importance of academic freedom and freedom of expression in the university context,
o The meaning of freedom of expression and academic freedom in classrooms, and
o A statement of the commitment of members of the teaching staff and students toward creating learning spaces that promote the expression of a diversity of opinions in a respectful and enriching way.
This year, the office of the Provost organized two workshops for members of the teaching staff on the topic of best practices for addressing difficult topics in the classroom:
o March 5th, 2024: “Teaching Difficult Topics: Managing Discomfort in the Classroom” (with professors Angel M. Foster, Brenda Macdougall, Baljit Nagra and Jess Whitley);
o March 24th, 2024: “Aborder des thèmes délicats en classe : comment gérer l’inconfort” (with professors Jean-François Cauchie, Dave Holmes, Modeste Mba Talla et Marie-Ève Sylvestre).
The Committee also collaborated on the creation of an accessible infographic aimed at students.
Plans for next year:
• The Committee proposes that the annual workshops for the teaching staff continue. It also proposes developing a “tool kit” to encourage departments and faculties to develop and present workshops to address the specific issues that arise for them in regard to teaching difficult topics in class.
• Distribution and mobilization of the infographic tool: The Committee would like to explore the possibility of collaborating with TLSS to develop a workshop for teaching assistants and new professors (both full- and part-time). This workshop would aim at providing these groups with guidance in how to manage classes and sensitize students about the importance of diverse opinions. It would also help instructors to address freedom of expression and academic freedom and its limits, as well as providing methods for communicating and acting in ways that are trauma-informed.
Annex A: Report on Campus Security
Security on campus: findings and recommendations / La sécurité sur le campus: La sécurité sur le campus: conclusions et recommandationsconclusions et recommandations
Mars 2024
Marie-Eve Sylvestre
Doyenne, Faculté de droit –– Section de droit civil et co-présidente du Comité permanent sur la liberté académique
Graham Mayeda
Full Professor, Faculty of Law – Common Law Section and co-president of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom
Awad Ibrahim
Vice-Provost, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusive Excellence
Starting in August 2023, a series of incidents took place on the University of Ottawa campus that have threatened the safety and physical integrity of members of our teaching staff and community. These incidents consisted of hate speech, threats, and intrusions in faculty members’ offices and in classrooms. Many of these incidents targeted individuals who work in the areas of feminist and gender studies, race and antiracism, decolonization and Indigenous identities, and the rights of all marginalized groups and identities.
These incidents took place only two months after the stabbings on the campus of the University of Waterloo where a student entered a gender studies classroom and seriously injured one faculty member and two students.
On September 18, 2023, before the Senate, Provost and Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Jill Scott, read a statement denouncing such “cowardly acts” that occurred on the University of Ottawa campus. She reaffirmed that the “University of Ottawa denounce[d] all forms of hate speech, racism and discrimination, including against Indigenous persons, LGBTQ2S+ persons and identities, persons with disabilities and any other marginalized individuals.” She further stated that the University valued teaching and research conducted in this area, and she reaffirmed the importance of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
In the following days, many actions were taken to increase safety on campus including increased presence of protection services, the removal of information on classroom locations from all public websites, installation of cameras to increase remote surveillance, and the development of scenarios to address cases of violence on campus.
In addition to these measures, the Provost mandated the co-presidents of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, Dean Marie-Eve Sylvestre and Professor Graham Mayeda, as well as Vice-Provost Equity, Diversity, and Inclusive Excellence, Awad Ibrahim, to meet with individuals directly concerned by the incidents and to hold public meetings across campus to hear from our teaching staff about the impact of those threats and incidents on their ability and willingness to teach and conduct research in these critical areas. Their mandate included identifying best practices and suggesting concrete measures that could be taken to enhance security on campus and protect members of our community.
Steps taken by the Committee
Starting in November 2023, our committee met individually with five people who had been directly or indirectly subject to threats or intrusions in their offices or classrooms to hear about their experiences and identify best practices to respond to such incidents and prevent them from occurring in the future. Further, on January 23, 24 and 30, 2024, we held three public meetings in TBT 083 during which we met with 32 members of the teaching staff (APUO, ATPUO and CUPE members).
Nature of the reported incidents
- In individual interviews and public sessions, reported incidents included the following: intrusions in faculty members’ offices and leaving threatening and hateful notes about them or their children; repeated death threats received by emails, in some cases to an entire department or list of professors working in an area; intrusions in classrooms and disruption of class – intruders asked disruptive questions about the class materials, insulted students and threw things at them.
General observations
- Those who attended the meetings alluded to more incidents threatening the physical integrity and psychological safety of our teaching staff than were initially reported. While those targeted were often told that their case was ‘isolated’, many participants told us about other incidents that had occurred in the last few years that were either not reported or that were reported but not systematically tracked.
- Those who teach sensitive or controversial topics that create discomfort and those who teach in the areas of feminist and gender studies, LGBTQ2S+, Indigenous identities, racism and discrimination, and other issues pertaining to marginalized communities, are often verbally harassed by students.
- It is worth restating that not all members of our teaching staff benefit in the same way from academic freedom. Racialized, Indigenous, and other marginalized members of our communities, including LGBTQ2S+ individuals, have long experienced such threats to their physical integrity and their academic freedom because of who they are and the bodies they are in. For them, this is not a new problem.
Impact on individuals subject to threats, intrusions, or violent incidents
- Faculty members did not report that the security threats they experienced had a significant impact on their research and their willingness to continue researching and publishing in the targeted areas, although a few noted that the threats led them to wonder whether others (their colleagues in particular) valued their research.
- Most participants reported that these incidents had an impact on their teaching and their feeling of being safe in the classroom. They led them to be more vigilant and conscious of their surroundings, causing them to scan their environment for potential threats, identify exits, teach with SecurO app open on their phone, and pay attention to where their classroom was located on campus and their proximity to protection services. In some cases, the incidents also led them to avoid discussing certain topics in class, to change the examples they use when teaching, to increase the amount of preparation they did before class, and to remove certain material from their syllabus.
- The most significant impact of such incidents was psychological and related to mental health and a sense of safety: colleagues who experienced intrusions in their personal office space reported being deeply affected. The incidents caused them stress, anxiety, and exhaustion, and in some cases even gave rise to paranoia. They no longer feel safe in their offices, they tend to work remotely, and they have removed personal belongings from their workspace. One participant went as far as to indicate that they are looking for a job elsewhere.
- Many participants described feeling alone and isolated after the incidents and wanting to talk about it and debrief.
- Repeated assaults from students or from colleagues can discourage staff from taking on administrative roles or leadership roles in institutes, departments, and faculties for fear of being further exposed.
- Death threats are destabilizing with respect to one’s career and engagement with the institution, especially if the institutional response is not perceived as adequate. Some participants reported that they questioned their place in their department/faculty/university and whether their work and presence were important or valued.
- The impact of death threats may continue for years: some participants reported carrying their resume around for over 5 years after the incidents.
- The University’s response, failure to respond, or delayed response to incidents involving security on campus have important psychological consequences for concerned individuals, including feelings of being unheard and unseen, increased stress, anxiety, feelings of injustice and self-doubt.
- Many individuals reported that they were especially hurt by threats, violence and persecution from their colleagues, or their lack of collegiality and respect for their work.
Best Practices
The individuals we consulted proposed several measures to prevent, intervene and react to security-related incidents on campus. They are presented in the following list, which is by no means exhaustive.
Incident prevention
- It is imperative that the vice-deans of graduate and undergraduate studies, as well as department heads, discuss campus security issues with teaching staff, and especially with early-career professors, less-experienced part-time professors, and teaching assistants. It was recommended that vice-deans and department heads adopt a clear onboarding process for these members in which such security-related issues would be specifically identified and discussed. Some of the important aspects to address are: the possibility that such incidents may occur; the need to ensure the safety of staff and students in the classroom, including the possibility of leaving the classroom if they feel unsafe; the name of the person to contact if such incidents occur in the classroom, and then who to contact within the department or faculty; important telephone numbers and apps (Protection Services, SecurUO, etc.); and ways to defuse conflicts while waiting for help to arrive. This first recommendation would also apply to librarians, who would receive the same training.
- It was recommended that the Office of Risk Management develop a clear campus security response protocol for teaching staff and librarians. The protocol should address how to deal with an intruder in the classroom, in an office, or in the Library, as well as what to do if someone receives death threats, or is the victim of a hate crime. Once these protocols have been adopted, they must be sent to all staff and professors, who must be made fully aware of them, especially part-time teaching staff and teaching assistants who have fewer direct ties with the department or faculty.
- As much as possible, faculties and the Office of the Registrar should consider the nature of the courses being taught when drawing up schedules and assigning classrooms. For example, steps should be taken to ensure that persons who receive threats or who teach in particularly sensitive areas (e.g., feminism and gender studies, racism and discrimination, Indigenous issues and decolonization) are assigned classrooms that are not isolated and that have clearly identified exits.
- It was suggested that Facilities consider installing panic buttons in classrooms and some offices, if necessary.
- It may be helpful for the University to adopt a colour code (yellow – orange – red) to identify the level of risk posed by certain threats in order to plan the appropriate institutional response, particularly with regard to communications.
- Faculties must educate students about academic freedom and the existence of different epistemologies (ways of knowing and learning), and remind them of the importance of respectful dialogue in the classroom. Particular attention should be paid to international students, who may be less familiar with the Canadian or North American cultural context.
- Protection Services should create a register of incidents that threaten physical integrity or security on campus in order to better understand the scope and significance of such incidents, and to avoid minimizing subsequent incidents.
- Facilities must ensure that maintenance personnel close and lock the doors to rooms and offices every day.
- A warning: we must not become overly reliant on surveillance technology. Although the participants said that technical solutions such as surveillance cameras are needed in certain areas to quickly respond to security incidents, these individuals also noted the limits of such technology and the false sense of security they may induce. For example, when asked if classrooms should be secured from inside, the participants said that this did not address potential threats from inside a classroom. In addition, some persons noted that the effectiveness of surveillance cameras depends on humans viewing them in real time, and that such humans are fallible.
- It was also recommended that the Human Rights Office, or any other service deemed appropriate, assess existing mechanisms for dealing with cases of violence, harassment and persecution between professors, and recommend changes if these mechanisms are insufficient.
Incident response
- Protection Services officers must react quickly when called to the scene. In the event of an imminent or serious threat, they should not hesitate to act and take control of the situation. Where circumstances allow, they should assess the situation with the teaching staff member concerned in order to determine the best way to defuse the situation. In any case, they should not leave the scene if the threat is still present.
Post-incident reaction and follow-up
Ideally, the person directly affected by incidents would want the threat to be taken seriously and recognized as such. They would want to be heard and given an opportunity to tell their story and talk about their experience. Next, management of the incident would be entirely taken over by an individual or service that can accompany the person concerned and follow up with them to keep them apprised of the steps being taken. The person concerned would be consulted about the actions to be taken. The head of the department and/or the Office of the Dean would quickly take a position and voice support and empathy through oral or written communications (via departmental or faculty assemblies) and by implementing temporary security and support measures, such as allowing a period of remote work or online teaching, temporarily reducing teaching load, providing an escort while moving about on campus. Where additional security measures are required, the psychological well-being of members of the University community should be taken into account when other considerations, including protection of privacy and information system security, are at play.
More specifically, psychological well-being would be enhanced by:
- Quickly identifying one individual or one service responsible for taking charge of the incident and for initiating actions (e.g., support in reporting the incident to the police or to the Human Rights Office; security measures, including changing locks or installing security cameras in offices) and following up as required
- In consultation with the person concerned, assessing the expediency of communicating information about the incident to other members of the community. One aspect to consider is whether the incident appears to have targeted an individual in particular for personal reasons, or a group of persons more generally through that individual. It should not be assumed that the person wishes to keep the incident confidential.
- The Office of the Dean or the department head could bring the community together to express solidarity and collegiality, to bring the person back into the fold, and to show them that they can count on their colleagues. Where several persons are concerned or where there are recurring incidents in a sector, it may also be helpful to create discussion and support spaces for members of the community who have been targeted.
- Where an entire group or department is targeted, accommodation measures, such as remote work and online teaching, should be quickly implemented.
Annex B: Two Scenarios Discussed in Committee in Preparation for Its Consultative Role
Scenario no 1: Protest of Invited Speaker on Campus
A speaker has been invited by a full-time professor of the University of Ottawa. The event is part of an organized lecture series on human rights. The speaker is a Queer tenured professor at a university in the UK who is a recognized expert on the topic. The title of the talk is “The Sex v Gender Identity Debate in the United Kingdom”. The talk is advertised on the Faculty website and on social media. One week before the talk, several students complained and ask that the talk be cancelled on the basis that it is transphobic. The organizer decides to maintain the event. On the day that the event is to take place, student and non-student protestors arrive. Some enter the room where the talk is to take place and throw baking flour on the speaker. Outside the venue, protestors block the entrance and carry signs indicating that the talk is transphobic and that the speaker is a member of an organization that promotes hatred against trans-identified individuals. Protestors are asking for the talk to be stopped. They also take exception to the fact that the speaker belongs to an organization that they believe to be transphobic. On the website of the organization, its purpose is stated as follows: “The purpose of the organization is to ensure that lesbians, gay men and bisexuals live free from discrimination or disadvantage based on their sexual orientation. The organization also aims to “advance lesbian, gay and bisexual rights.” The dean of the faculty has been alerted about the protest. She must decide on an appropriate response.
Scenario no 2: Commentary on Israel-Hamas War in Mandatory Course
A mandatory course offered by the faculty for all first-year students has as a learning objective to teach students about the Calls to Action in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Another objective is to teach students their professional obligation to respect and implement these calls to action. The topic of one of the sessions is the legacy of residential schools in Canada. These sessions involve 25 students and are taught by a single instructor. During the session, the instructor shows a 10-minute video about the Israel-Hamas conflict; he then asks the students to brainstorm about the parallels between the role of colonialism in bringing about the Israel-Hamas war and the role of colonialism in bringing about residential schools in Canada. A student raises their hand to object to the exercise given the context of the unfolding conflict in Israel and Gaza. The student is told that they can leave if they wish, but that the exercise will continue. The student who objected decides to stay. In the course of the ensuing discussion, it is suggested that the parallel between the Israel-Hamas war and the residential schools situation is that just as Canada’s Indigenous people did not consent to the creation of the Canadian state that dispossessed them, so too Palestinians did not consent to the creation of the state of Israel, which resulted in their dispossession and displacement. The student who complained in class has now brought a complaint to the dean and has asked him to respond to the situation.