An update on the University of Toronto’s response to anti-Semitism
On December 8, 2021, the Anti-Semitism Working Group (ASWG) released its Final Report, including eight recommendations to inform the University of Toronto’s response to anti-Semitism in its various manifestations. The University of Toronto accepted all eight recommendations as a guide to inform the University’s response.
In accordance with its mission, the ASWG developed its report after consulting with members of the University community, examining practices in other institutions, and reviewing the University’s existing policies. In writing this summary of the ASWG recommendations, UV spoke with Professor Arthur Ripstein, chair of the ASWG.
Recommendations 1 and 2 focused on ensuring that tackling anti-Semitism fell within the ambit of the existing offices dealing with racism, discrimination, and exclusion. This includes requiring that anti-racism training, education, and outreach campaigns include consideration of anti-Semitism.
Recommendation 3 was perhaps the most controversial in recommending the University not adopt any definitions of anti-Semitism that have recently been proposed. Some Jewish advocacy groups conveyed disappointment, especially at the recommendation not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition.
On May 16, 2016, the IHRA adopted the following non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism: “[Anti-Semitism] is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The IHRA definition has since been adopted in a number of countries. However, scholars and advocates have expressed concerns over the IHRA definition’s capability to equate Judaism with the State of Israel and undermine debate within Jewish communities.
When asked about this matter, Prof. Ripstein stated that recommendation 3 must consider the University’s place in society. The ASWG report noted that the University must be a place in which difficult and controversial questions are discussed, which is inconsistent with the IHRA working definition.
Recommendations 4 and 5 focused on academic freedom and freedom of speech. The report urged the University to issue routine communications about its approach to controversial events. However, the report also urged the University not to regulate the views of individuals or place content-based restrictions on events.
In November 2021, the University of Toronto President Meric Gertler publicly denounced two Scarborough Campus Student Union’s motions that promoted boycotting, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel. When asked whether the University’s response represented an example of the University balancing its commitment to academic freedom and its commitment to inclusion in a manner envisioned by the ASWG recommendations, Professor Ripstein had this to say:
The [University’s Response] reflects the proper consideration of both academic freedom and inclusion, although I would not describe it as a matter of balancing them at all. I think that issues of academic freedom and inclusion are fully aligned in this case, as reflected in the statement.
As the ASWG report emphasizes, academic freedom is fundamentally an individual right, as is freedom of speech. Inclusion is also an individual right to be able to participate fully in the life of the University. It is inconsistent with both freedom of speech and inclusion to impose political tests on participation in ordinary aspects of campus life, or to impose such tests on access to funding or participation in elected student government.
Student governments are autonomous organizations whose membership is determined by students’ registration, and that collect mandatory fees from those members. They are required to operate in a democratic manner, which means that they must allow individual members to decide for themselves what positions, if any, to take on controversial social and political issues. They therefore cannot make participation in their structure, or access to the funds that they have been entrusted to disperse, conditional on taking the positions held by their governing bodies or the majority of their members.
Imposing such political tests or conditions is inconsistent with both freedom of expression (because it is literally compelled speech) and inclusion. As the President’s response notes, many people were understandably concerned about the way in which the SCSU resolutions singled out Israel. But they would have been no more acceptable if they had been accompanied by additional motions requiring students to take positions on one or more other conflicts.
Recommendation 6 urged the University to develop measures to respond to various forms of social exclusion, harassment, microaggressions, and bullying. This includes a strategy to deal with online instances of these events.
Recommendations 7 and 8 encouraged the University to improve accommodations for Jewish individuals. This included ensuring that kosher food is readily available on campus and that the University’s policy on the scheduling of classes and examinations in relation to religious observances is applied consistently.Since accepting the ASWG recommendations, the University has handed over the implementation of the recommendations to the University administration. The University administration has stated its intention to communicate its progress on these recommendations via the Commitments Dashboard website currently being used to track progress on the recommendations outlined in the Anti-Black Racism Task Force Report.
