academic-freedom | James Colliander

Notes on Academic Freedom Dialogue hosted by UBCFA

Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Robert Lee Auditorium in the Alumni Center, UBCFA Fall General Meeting:

My central takeaway from the discussion below and the preceding actions by the Sr. Advisor on Academic Freedom is that faculty at UBC should be concerned. Guppy’s Historical Note on academic freedom at UBC references the Smith report but presents no analysis of the issues surrounding the Berdahl Case. Why? When asked about the lack of consequences to senior and honorific administrators who collectively violated academic freedom at UBC, Professor Guppy confirms that the history shows that there are no consequences. His position is not equipped with any authority other than to provide guidance. When pressed, Professor Guppy pointed out that his role is to advise the Provosts and that he was not appointed by the President. However, the position that Guppy presently occupies was created by M. Piper. The terms of reference in the announcement of the position promises that UBC will hire a “specialist who will proactively work with faculty, staff, and governors to ensure that academic freedom is safeguarded and preserved at UBC.” Guppy has previously reported that he does not have access to the full Smith report. Why? And why wouldn’t he demand access to that document to carry out his charge? Between the time of Piper’s promises and today, it seems that the important role of the Sr. Advisor on Academic Freedom has been directed to avoid interacting with any aspects of the Berdahl/Gordon/Helsley/Montalbano case that launched the position.

UBCFA Fall General Meeting, Tues. Oct. 24

Posted on October 10, 2017 at 1:00 AM. Technical delays led to the meeting actually starting at 1:13pm.

Join us for a Dialogue on Academic Freedom, presented by Dr. Neil Guppy, Professor of Sociology & Senior Advisor to the Provost, Academic Freedom The UBCFA Constitution requires that a general meeting be held every Fall term. This year, the first order of business will be to appoint Hedden Chong LLP as auditors for the 2017 fiscal year. Following this, Professor Neil Guppy will lead a Dialogue on Academic Freedom.

Date and Time: Tuesday, October 24th starting at 1:00 p.m. Locations:

Robert H. Lee Family Boardroom, Alumni Centre (6163 University Blvd) UBC Okanagan (Video Conference) – Sci 331 We hope you can join us!

Faculty Association Executive

Nancy Langton brings the meeting together at 1:12p. The agenda is approved. The auditors are approved. The business actions are carried out very efficiently.

Neil Guppy is introduced as a Professor and as the Sr. Advisor to the Provost on Academic Freedom. Neil gave a discussion of academic freedom to the Board of Governors. They were perhaps not as enthusiastic as this audience will be to hear this presentation.
The creation of the Sr. Advisor on Academic Freedom postion was announced by Interim President M. Piper on 2015-10-15. In the same announcement, Piper reported that “UBC accepts and will be guided by the findings” of the Smith Report.
Neil Guppy was appointed Sr. Advisor on Academic Freedom on 2016-05-25. The announcement of this appointment was made by Provost (pro tem) Angela Redish and Provost Cynthia Matheson.
Neil Guppy wrote Academic Freedom at UBC: Historical Notes.
Another page on Academic Freedom at UBC.

Neil Guppy

This is (essentially) identical to the presentation I gave to the Board of Governors. He highlights the intial tasks:

lead a dialogue
education program
online tool
formalized module

This presentation was delivered many times across campus. The one thing that has changed up about this….I did not know that much about academic freedom when I stepped forward for this role. Many things come out of the blue and I’ve found the topic to be expansive and surprising. Does academic freedom apply to staff? I’d say yes at this time.

UBC Senate statement (1976) on academic freedom

What is academic freedom?

(a) freedom to pursue knoledge claims in whatever directions they take
(b) tenure to protect knowledge-seeking activity of all legitimate kinds
(c) collegial governance and scholarly critique of the admininstration
(d) ability of the scholar to participatge freely in public life

At what point should a Dean be able to criticize a strategic plan for the university? Is there a line where the critique of the administration should not be allowed? cites the Potter case at McGill. M. Piper, wrt this line, would not be able to speak her personal opinion since she would be speaking on behalf of the university.

My own view is that UBC is good on a, b and not so good on c, d.

Smith report remarks

Gupta….Montalbano/Berdahl…..slide changed too fast for me to keep up.

The public version of the Smith report is up online. Key points

Who has academic freedom?

individuals
universities

Who controls academic freedom?

Professions/Disciplines
- contexts/units in which we develop and disseminate knowledge – what is “academic”?
- questioning accepted wisdome key but within set boundaries – questioning, boundary setting
- duty to uphold standards and monitor disciplinary ranks

Restrictions and Responsibilities

Are there restrictions on academic freedom?
- Yes
How does academic freedom coexist with academic responsibilities?

Is academic freedom more than “freedom of expression”?

If yes, how does it differ?
- quality control – academic modifies the freedom
Is it less than “fredom of expression”?
Example: Why is the theory of evoution taught but not creationism?

Specific Issues of Academic Freedom

Teaching
Scholarly work
Governance
Donor relations

Questions

How do we handle the collision between the university and an individual?

What are the consequences for the failure to defend of academic freedom? When Justice Smith finds that Mr. Montalbano, Chancellor Gordon, and the leadership at Sauder contributed to a collective failure of academic freedom at UBC, why are there no consequences? OK, Mr. Montalbano resigned by the Chancellor, a position that is meant to be honorific, was reappointed to the Board. What is the impact of violating academic freedom?

“It appears that there are no consequences.”
“I am not able to provide further input on any specific case.”
Why not? “I was appointed as a special advisor to the Provost, not by the President. You seem to know more about this issue than me…”

What would you do now if a case like Berdahl/Montalbano arose again?

Based on the principles, I’d provide guidance. I’m not in a position in which I have disciplinary or punitive power.
The conclusion I see here is that the creation of this position has no authoritity to provide defense or intervention.
Based on what I see today, I wonder what UBC considers by the term “positive obligation” to protect academic freedom?

Cases

Buckingham case at USask

Media attention on the Buckingham case led to his reinstatement.
Quick resolution led to a legal non-disclosure agreement. There should have been a complete analysis.

Issue with grade changes case

Who owns the content created for online courses?

The meeting closed at 1:59pm.

Fortier's Attack on Academic Freedom

Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:28:49 +0000

McGill University’s Mission Statement and Statement on Academic Freedom define the values and parameters for how the University should react when the Premier of Quebec lashes out at an article in Maclean’s authored by a scholar at McGill. Before analyzing the situation at McGill, consider two fictional scenarios involving Institute Directors.

The UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd wishes to eliminate end-to-end encryption for WhatsApp and other social messaging platforms following the recent Westminster terrorist attack. I can envision circumstances in Canada, painful as they would be, where our government might also request the power to intercept private communications between citizens. I can also imagine the Executive Director of Ryerson’s Privacy and Big Data Institute staking out scholarly, and potentially controversial, positions defending the public’s right to private conversation through encrypted channels. Should a Director who defends the public’s right to privacy following a terrorist attack in Canada be forced to resign?

I can imagine the Fields Institute Director convening a scholarly workshop exploring quantum computing skepticisim. I can also imagine that such a workshop might offend Minister Navdeep Bains. Should the Fields Institute Director be forced to resign if Minister Bains expressed disappointment in such a workshop?

We turn our attention to the recent case at McGill. Here are three examples where Principal Fortier’s comments in The Globe and Mail on 2017-03-26 corrode academic freedom.

1. Requirement to convene a nonpartisan environment

“The institute has to maintain [an] environment which is not partisan. It is anybody’s judgment if after an article like that, politicians would be happy to come to an event,” Dr. Fortier said. “That’s not pressure, that’s just reality.”

Fortier’s “reality” focuses pressure (from Premier Couillard?) on any future Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada (MISC) to “maintain an environment which is not partisan”. This is an imposition of “political orthodoxy” upon a member of McGill’s scholary community. No such requirement appears in the MISC Mission Statement. By demanding an environmental nonpartisan critereon on the operation of the Institute, Fortier weakens the capacity of MISC to carry out its mission to study Canada (a constitutional monarchy with government convened through a partisan election process).

2. Fortier’s Maxim: Never utter a controversial statement as Director

“It was an unfortunate article,” Dr. Fortier said. “It was perhaps a moment not remembering what his new role was and falling back on a previous role,” she said. “If he had written this article as Andrew Potter [period], nothing would have happened. He wrote it as director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.” “You have to remember what responsibilities come with new positions. When you are an academic administrator, there are things you must be more prudent about doing,” Dr. Fortier said.

Fortier asserts that “nothing would have happened” if Maclean’s had not identified Potter as Director of MISC. Following this logic, we derive Fortier’s Maxim for Institute Directors: Never utter a controversial statement as Director, a statement strikingly similar to Academic Freedom Destroyed: Never utter a controversial statement. Fortier’s Maxim commands Institute Directors to filter their comments based on controversy and then choose to speak with their little, personal voice on controversial topics and their big, prudent, Institute voice on vanilla topics. Fortier’s guidance weakens the academic leadership capacity of Institutes and their Directors.

3. Derision of scholarship

“I think he would be the first to admit that it is not a good piece of scholarship, which is important when you are director of an institute.”

After the Premier of Quebec criticizes a member of the scholarly community of McGill University, the central duty of the Principal is to intervene and protect academic freedom. Dr. Fortier, a protein crystallographer, may have various opinions on Canada, Quebec and the quality of work by McGill’s scholars. That said, Fortier’s scholarship is not focused on the study of Canada. Instead of carrying out the Principal’s central duty to protect academic freedom, Fortier chose to characterize Potter’s view of his work as “not a good piece of scholarship”. Fortier, speaking as Principal of the University, disparaged the scholarship of a member of McGill’s academic community. Fortier’s actions permit “infringement and undue external influence” from Premier Couillard and others to weaken McGill’s “institutional autonomy”.

Here is McGill’s Statement on Academic Freedom:

Academic freedom is central to McGill University’s mission of advancing learning through teaching, scholarship and service to society.

The scholarly members of the university have the freedom to pursue research and artistic creation and to disseminate their results, without being constrained by political or disciplinary orthodoxies, monetary incentives or punitive measures as a result of their academic pursuits. They may exercise this freedom in the service of both the university and the wider society. When scholarly members of the university participate in public forums and debates, they should represent their views as their own.

The exercise of academic freedom requires collegial governance with the full participation of scholarly members. They retain the right of free expression, including the freedom to criticize one another, university policies and administration.

The university and its officers have a duty to protect the academic freedom of its scholarly community, both individually and collectively, from infringement and undue external influence as well as to maintain the university’s institutional autonomy.

The scope of protection in the statement is wide: “scholarly members of the university have the freedom”. The protection is not restricted to faculty. The statement does not reference tenure as a requirement for academic freedom protection. The statement does not exclude administrators, directors, or others from the “scholarly community”. The statement does not reference prudence or impose any additional requirements upon directors or administrators for exercising their academic freedom. The character of academic speech, whether it is partisan or impartial is not referenced in the statement.

Although “the university and its officers have a duty to protect” academic freedom, the officers of McGill University, and especially Principal and Vice Chancellor Suzanne Fortier, failed to defend academic freedom of Andrew Potter as Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. Fortier’s public relations platitudes and distinctions are inconsistent with McGill’s mission statement. Fortier’s actions harm McGill and weaken Canada’s intellectual capacity.