UBC's Promises to Protect Academic Freedom


Twenty months ago UBC accepted the findings of the Smith Report: that UBC failed in its obligation to protect and support my academic freedom.

There was no public (or departmental) apology or acknowledgement of the wrong and harm done, and a lot of unpleasantness ensued for me in the following year, including the loss of my funding (eventually restored thanks to the Faculty Association) and named professorship, as well as becoming persona non-grata in the Sauder School of Business.

On a more positive note, the Faculty Association tells me the Smith Report has helped protect other faculty's academic freedom at UBC by articulating the scope and nature of academic freedom and the duty of the institution to protect and support it. I sincerely hope this is the case. What happened to me as a full professor felt like a deep wound but is merely a scratch compared to what happens to those without my title or tenure. What I hear from many of my colleagues at UBC - even tenured ones - is that they often refrain from speaking out on issues for fear of retribution; several have shared the ugly consequences they endured when they did speak out. There is an atmosphere of fear and a lack of intellectual safety at UBC. Unlike my case, most happen out of public view; those close to the incident know what happened, and the chill spreads to increase fear and silence.

In her announcement accepting the findings of the Smith Report, Interim President Martha Piper promised four corrective actions:

1. Hire a specialist who will proactively work with faculty, staff, and governors to ensure that academic freedom is safeguarded and preserved at UBC. This person will provide advice, education, and counsel regarding all issues involving academic freedom, including the obligation of all members of the university to protect and support this central freedom.

2. Create an education program that would be aimed at all new faculty members, heads, directors, administrators and deans, regarding how to fulfill their obligation to protect academic freedom.

3. Develop an online tool to allow people to access information on what academic freedom is, how to manage academic freedom issues, and answers to frequently asked questions.

4. Develop a more formalized module on academic freedom as part of the orientation/on-boarding process for all new governors and senators.

Action item 1 was completed 13 months ago: Professor Neil Guppy was appointed to serve as Senior Advisor to the UBC Provosts on Academic Freedom. He told me, however, that he is not allowed to read the Smith Report (just the summary public version) that prompted the creation of his position. This prevents him from understanding the full scope of UBC's failure to support and protect academic freedom, and limits his ability to help the institution learn from and prevent this mistake in the future.

As for action items 2 through 4, Professor Guppy's recent comments in The Globe and Mail do not provide a forecast for when they will be completed. Where is the promised education program, the online tool, and the module for governors and senators? I hear Professor Guppy gave a presentation on academic freedom to the governors. If so, can others learn what our governors are being told about this core principle at our university?

I hope the UBC research community can look forward to a robust defense of our freedom to ask questions, share insights and knowledge, and investigate ideas when Andrew Szeri joins our faculty as Provost. As for me, I will be joining the Faculty Association Executive next month and look forward to working to defend and advance academic freedom across UBC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Tale of Two Women -- Who Exercised Their Professional Independence

Image
May 2018, Vancouver BC Jody Wilson-Raybould’s story has triggered memories of professional trauma for me, like watching Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony last fall triggered memories of sexual trauma for many women. The way Wilson-Raybould has been treated represents a pattern of pressure applied to women who dare assert their professional independence, voice, and decision-making power. Most cases just aren’t made public. Wilson-Raybould and I were each welcomed to our professional appointments (as Attorney General of Canada and as Montalbano Professor of Leadership Studies: Gender and Diversity at UBC’s Sauder School of Business , respectively) with publicity and fanfare that celebrated diversity and the goodness of the White men who put us there. But when those men realized they couldn’t control how we carried out our professional duties, everything came crashing down. Each of us got in trouble for exercising our right to make independent judgments in our professional capaci
Read more

Jack Dovidio, Yale: Included but Invisible? The Benefits and Costs of Inclusion

Image
The following are my notes from Dovidio's talk at the  HBS Gender & Work Conference , February 28, 2013. Social inclusion is essential to equality. Discrimination is systematic exclusion. Exclusion is painful. But superficial inclusion cloaks injustice and takes the form of subtle contemporary bias. Contemporary bias: there are explicit attitudes about racism and sexism and there are implicit attitudes. Explicit and implicit attitudes are only weakly correlated. Most Americans (80%) say they're not racist or sexist [explicit attitudes], but 60-70% of the population is racist/sexist according to implicit measures of bias. Most people will rely on explicit attitudes when a situation is unambiguous, and when what needs to be done is absolutely clear. Most discrimination occurs when a situation is ambiguous (i.e., what is right and wrong behavior is not defined) or justifications are possible for racism and sexism (such as "merit"). Devine (1989) study of Black and
Read more

Peter Glick, Lawrence University: BS at Work: How Benevolent Sexism Undermines Women and Justifies Backlash

Image
The following are my notes from Glick 's  HBS Gender & Work Conference  presentation, February 28, 2013. “The battle of the sexes will never end -- there's too much fraternizing with the enemy” - Henry Kissinger Paradox: The interdependence of the sexes -- male dominance coexists with intimate dependence on women. Ambivalent sexism theory ( Glick & Fiske, 1996 ): Dominance & intimate interdependence lead to hostile sexism (HS, directed toward women who threaten male power) and benevolent sexism (BS, directed at women who conform to feminine ideals, serve men’s needs), respectively. Sample items of HS and BS . BS is a pedestal: A narrow and confined space, difficult to stay up on, especially in high heels. BS justifies HS, fosters unrecognized, patronizing discrimination, elicits backlash when resisted, saps women’s career ambitions, makes inequality more palatable. For men, BS protects self image, they can see themselves as not an oppressor, but rather as a provider
Read more