What is the future of academic freedom at U of T?
On June 7, the University of Toronto Faculty of Law announced that the hiring process for the Director of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) had resumed. This announcement suggested the candidate identified in last year’s search, Dr. Azarova, may continue to be the preferred candidate for the position.
Ultra Vires reached out to Dean Brunnée, to ask whether Dr. Azarova had expressed any interest in accepting the director position, if it were offered. Unfortunately, Dean Brunnée “cannot comment on the candidacy of any particular person,” citing the confidentiality of the search process.
On the same day as the IHRP announcement, the University released a response to frequently asked questions (FAQ). This announcement highlighted actions taken by the University in light of the CAUT censure and the recommendations within the Cromwell report.
Ultra Vires reached out to the University of Toronto Media Relations team to better understand how the University plans to move forward.
Currently in the works is the development of protections for staff that speak out on “controversial or unpopular causes”, which the University claims will be an innovation in post-secondary education. When asked what faculty and students can expect from these upcoming “innovative” protections, the media relations team had only this to say:
“The President, consistent with his commitment to implement all the recommendations of the Cromwell Report, has asked the Provost and the Vice-President of Human Resources to co-chair a Committee to make recommendations on protections for non-faculty administrative and professional staff in experiential settings where their positions may require them to take on controversial or unpopular causes. The terms of reference for this committee will be posted shortly, and we will welcome collegial input into the process.”
It appears to be early days for the implementation of these new protections for staff. However, students may be happy to hear that they may soon receive their opportunity to speak up about the policies to protect the future of free academic expression.
The June 7 FAQ announcement also mentioned that, in the interest of strengthening the guidelines which dictate the relationship between the university and its donors, mandatory education sessions would be taking place starting in June.
Ultra Vires asked the Media Relations what the content of these educational sessions were, and when they occurred.
The Media Relations Team told us, first, that two meetings had occurred in May and Early June, where Vice President of Advancement, David Palmer, had spoken to all the Advancement leads and the the senior leadership team within the Division of Advancement, to review the Cromwell Report and to ensure that its implications for their conduct was well understood.
In addition to this, two educational sessions have occurred so far, with more than 260 advancement staff members attending. These seminars were a review of professional and ethical guidelines, University policies regarding donations, and a case study based on the Cromwell report.
There may be some skepticism about the ability of these educational sessions and meetings to make any meaningful improvements to the University. After all, these seminars are about the same policies and ethical guidelines which, just this past year, have proven to be insufficient to properly manage the relationship between the University and its Donors.
When asked about the future of the University’s policies regarding its relationship with donors, the Media Relations Team had this to say:
“In collaboration with the offices of the Provost and the VP HR&E, the Counsel in the VP Advancement’s office has completed an in-depth review of the existing policy and guideline framework on donations and will be shortly issuing revised and updated donation guidelines to explicitly address the recommendations contained within the Cromwell Report on the protection against external influences on hiring practices and confidentiality.”
University of Toronto students may be happy to hear that a revision of the donation guidelines is underway and may soon be issued. Time will tell whether these steps taken by the University of Toronto will be sufficient to ensure that such an attack on freedom of academic expression does not again occur within this institution.
