Meeting marked by tension and silence
On October 7, the Faculty Council held its first meeting since the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) hiring controversy arose. Dean Iacobucci provided few answers, despite many questions from student representatives and a handful of faculty.
IHRP Questions Continue
The spectre of the IHRP affair loomed over the meeting. As Dean Iacobucci opened the meeting, he indicated that he had said everything he could in prior statements, and that this issue was a Human Resources one and therefore not a matter for the Faculty Council.
The discussion was not, however, so easily curtailed.
As the Dean pressed forward with the agenda, Professor David Schneiderman quickly raised a point of order, asking why the Dean, as chair, had not called upon those who had written questions in the chat. (The chat was only visible to Council members and not observers). The Dean reiterated that the IHRP was not a matter for Faculty Council discussion purposes. Schneiderman then asked what steps the Dean had taken to ensure the future efficacy of the program. In response, the Dean stated that since the IHRP currently lacked a director, there was no one in a formal position to make a statement to the Faculty Council.
Students’ Law Society (SLS) President Robert Nanni summarized the unaddressed student concerns around the IHRP. Some students had criticized the anti-Semitic undertones of media reports. Some students considered the situation an act of anti-Palestinian racism. Nanni emphasized that students were most concerned about the future of the program.
Later in the meeting, SLS Representative Jean-Pierre D’Angelo raised a motion to discuss the faculty’s plans for the IHRP, emphasizing that this academic question fell firmly within the Faculty Council’s mandate. The motion was seconded by Professor Mohammad Fadel, and despite the Dean’s resistance, was narrowly carried with strong support from student representatives.
In the ensuing discussion, faculty members raised a number of different questions.
Professor Fadel asked when more information may be available, while Professor Ariel Katz asked at what point the Dean would be willing to discuss this matter. Professor Kent Roach underscored the importance of ensuring that the principles of academic freedom extended to clinical programs, and asked the Dean to affirm this point. In response, the Dean referred to his prior statement that academic freedom was not an issue in this matter.
The Dean also refused to answer questions on the status of the program or timelines for a new hiring committee. When Professor Anver Emon noted that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other partners had spoken out, he asked whether there was an effort by the University to rectify reputational harms. While the Dean thanked him for the question, he did not respond and moved on to the next speaker.
Near the end of the meeting, Professor Denise Réaume asked the Dean to say something that would reassure students of the security of the future of the IHRP. He responded that he was not prepared to say anything about the future of the IHRP, and abruptly concluded the meeting.
An Unusual Academic Year
Earlier in the meeting, Dean Iacobucci recognized the exceptional nature of the year, thanking the faculty and the efforts of the non-academic staff in transitioning to online learning. The Dean further thanked faculty for contributing research funding to hire 60 short-term Research Assistants over the summer.
Two new programs were also discussed. The Investor Protection Clinic provides services to communities vulnerable to unscrupulous investment advice, and is helmed by new director Ivy Lam. The Future of Law Lab features alum Josh Morrison as its new director, and will work on how the law and its practice are evolving.
Truth and Reconciliation Committee
Professor Douglas Sanderson spoke to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, which was focused on updating the 1L curriculum to find enough hours equivalent to a one-credit course dedicated to instruction in Aboriginal, Indigenous law, and cultural competency. The Committee recommended that the administration formalize the delivery of these hours. Professor Sanderson noted that two of the planned hours went to Black Lives Matter content and other initiatives this year, but that they hope to regain that time in the future.
The Committee had been tasked with exploring the development of a new mandatory course on legal history in Canada, which would explore Indigenous legal traditions up to and including s. 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, in addition to other possible topics. This would be a step towards implementing Call to Action 28 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which asks for a mandatory course in law schools on the history of Indigenous peoples and the law. The Dean indicated that this would be part of the mandate of this year’s Committee.
For more information on the IHRP controversy, see UV’s Resource Page.
