YUFA

News

 

 
Home

Reflecting on the Daniel Pipes visit

Robert MacDermid, Communications Officer
Jay Rahn, Vice-President (Internal)

YUFA organized a special meeting on February 11th in the Senate Chamber to discuss the union’s position on the January 28th visit to the York campus by Daniel Pipes (see the original notice 'D' appended below).   The YUFA Executive voted to hold the meeting in order to listen to members’ concerns about the union’s statement about the Pipes lecture.  The Executive had received a number of thoughtful comments on the union’s position and hoped to use the meeting to hear further comments and to explain the position taken by the YUFA Executive. 

The meeting was attended by a disappointingly small group of just 20-25 YUFA members.  Susan Dimock, President of YUFA , chaired the meeting and opened the discussion with the statement attached below (C).  A free discussion followed in which a number of members passionately but respectfully took positions for and against the original YUFA statement and on difficult issues of academic freedom and the right to speak.

Some members suggested that YUFA’s position should be to support the right to speak without passing judgment on controversial speakers.  Others suggested that YUFA has a responsibility to speak out in defense of academic freedom and in favour of just causes.  Susan Dimock’s statement pointed out that sections in our collective agreement bind both YUFA and the University's administration to defending academic freedom.  These sections are attached below (A and B).

Some members argued that Pipes’ affiliation with Campus Watch meant that he had forfeited his right to speak.

YUFA does not have a process for deciding whether to intervene in cases similar to this one, but it is frequently asked to take public positions on similar questions.  Some members want their union to take public stands on such questions; others would prefer that it not do so.

Several important suggestions emerged from this meeting:

  • YUFA needs more time to develop a response to certain controversial issues.  Immediate responses sometimes lack the clarity of positions that have developed in less haste and with more consultation. 

  • YUFA needs better ways of consulting with members in advance of taking public positions.   

  • YUFA should be taking public stands on the controversial issues of free speech and academic freedom. 

  • YUFA-M (the announcement list) should be distinguished from YUFA Forum (a discussion list that replaced YUFA-L)  with regard to various kinds of communication with members

  • As elected representatives, YUFA Executive members should feel free to make statements without consulting YUFA as a whole 

  • Today's forum should be the first step in arriving at a collective statement concerning YUFA's future handling of controversial speakers/topics 

  • The YUFA Executive should inform its members of issues as they arise

  • The YUFA Executive and YUFA have an obligation to academics beyond York/Canada to make strong statements on developments that affect academic freedom and free speech

  • The YUFA Executive should not make inflammatory statements to its members

  • The YUFA Executive should avoid over-inflating a particular occasion 

  • The YUFA Executive's statements should be, in the first instance, informative rather than opinionated

  • The possibility that the Administration will charge the entire cost of related security to groups sponsoring controversial speakers may tend to discourage free speech on campus

  • YUFA’s Collective Agreement commits both parties to 'promote' academic freedom

  • Invited speakers can be un-invited, i.e., invited speakers enjoy a different status than do faculty

A.  YUFA’s Constitution and Free Speech (distributed at Feburary 11 meeting)  

YUFA Constitution:

3. Equity statement

The Association is committed to upholding the principles of equity, non-discrimination and freedom from harassment and to nurturing a culture of acceptance, diversity and inclusion where every member of YUFA and the broader York community is treated with dignity and respect; receives equal treatment and enjoys freedom from harassment, interference, restriction, coercion, or intimidation exercised or practised by a member with respect to another member both within the union and in the workplace because of, but not limited to, race, ancestry, place of origin (birth place), colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, language, creed, sex, gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, sexual preference, age, marital status, family status, number of dependents, disability, political views or belief, religious affiliation or belief or membership in associations.

B.  The Collective Agreement between the York University Faculty Association and the York University Board of Governors (also distributed at February 11 meeting):

Article 3. Non-discrimination

3.01 “The parties agree that there shall be no discrimination, harassment, interference, restriction, or coercion exercised or practised with respect to any employee in any matter by reason of race, creed, colour, age, sex, marital status, family relationship, number of dependents, nationality, ancestry, place of origin, place of residence, political or religious affiliation or beliefs, sexual preference or orientation, non-conforming personal behaviour, disability, nor by reason of membership or non-membership in the Association, nor previous or impending exclusion from the bargaining unit, nor lawful activity or lack of activity in the Association.  ‘Non-conforming personal or social behaviour’ shall not include failure to conform to the terms of this Agreement or to carry out the duties and responsibilities stipulated herein.”

Article 10. Academic Freedom

10.01 “The parties agree to continue their practice of upholding, protecting, and promoting academic freedom as essential to the pursuit of truth and fulfillment of the University's objectives. Academic freedom includes the freedom of an employee to examine, question, teach, and learn; to disseminate his/her opinion(s) on any question related to his/her teaching, professional activities, and research both inside and outside the classroom; to pursue without interference or reprisal, and consistent with the time constraints imposed by his/her other University duties, his/her research, creative or professional activities, and to freely publish and make public the results thereof; to criticize the University or society at large; and to be free from institutional censorship. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual, nor does it preclude commitment on the part of the individual. Rather, academic freedom makes such commitment possible.”

C.  Statement read at the February 11 meeting by YUFA President Susan Dimock

I would like to welcome you and thank you all for coming to this special meeting organized by the YUFA Executive.  I am Susan Dimock, the President of YUFA.  I would like to take a moment to introduce the other members of the Executive Committee who were able to make it here today. 

I would like to take a few minutes to make some brief remarks, and then we can proceed with discussion of the advertised topic, the facilitation of which is the point of this meeting.

Let me begin by clarifying a few points which seem to have become confused since January 28th, the day that Daniel Pipes spoke at York University.  On the morning of January 28th, the YUFA Executive sent an electronic message to all YUFA members expressing its views on the issue of Dr. Pipes’ speaking at York.  The many messages which have since been received at the YUFA office indicate that there was some confusion as to what was said, to whom, by whom and what the Executive’s position was on the Pipes talk.  As the President of YUFA, I take the blame for the resulting confusion, and can plead only the very limited time frame in which we had to make decisions concerning this event as a mitigating factor which led to more haste and less clarity than we always strive for and are usually able to attain in our communications with members.  Some of you may still disagree with the position taken once these confusions are cleared up, but at least we will then be able to better locate the source of our disagreements.

A few members wrote expressing anger that the YUFA Executive had communicated the views expressed in that memo “in their name”.  With all due respect, this is a mistake.  The memo was issued from the YUFA Executive to members of YUFA across an internal list serve maintained for that purpose.  It expressed the views of the YUFA Executive as a whole, and was intended purely as in internal communiqué.  It was not issued as a public statement, nor as a statement which represented the views of all members of the Association. 

There also seems to have been some confusion as to what the position of the Executive was with respect to Daniel Pipes speaking on campus.  Contrary to some of the messages we have received, the YUFA Executive as a whole was in favour of allowing Dr. Pipes to speak.  Our position was that freedom of speech and academic freedom required that he be allowed to speak.  Thus it was no part of any message we meant to convey that he should be prevented from speaking as scheduled.  It was for that reason that I spoke at a rally organized by the Coalition for Academic Freedom, and spoke out against any position that would inhibit freedom of speech or academic freedom at York University.

The greatest number of messages we have received, however, took issue with the content of the message sent over YUFA-M.  Some of those messages were supportive, others not.  In speaking to this I know I am wading into perilous waters.  There were three issues that were raised repeatedly, and I will confine my remarks to them.  In the memo, the YUFA Executive expressed the following views: that Campus Watch, whose work Daniel Pipes supports and organizes, has a “racist agenda,” that it employs “a methodology of intimidation and harassment,” and that that methodology is exemplified in such activities as “spying and keeping secret files” on academics it considers to be subversive of American and Israeli interests in the Middle East. 

Let me very briefly explain the thought behind these judgments.  The claim that Campus Watch pursues a racist agenda was based upon our understanding that Campus Watch identifies those academics whose activities should be monitored and reported on by racial or ethnic criteria.  It is the singling out of Arabs and Islamists, together with the presumption that they are potentially extremists just in virtue of being Arabs or Islamists, that led us to believe that racism was operating here.  Secondly, we referred to a methodology of intimidation and harassment employed by Campus Watch.  This was based on our understanding that some academics listed on the Campus Watch web site have been targeted for campaigns of hate mail and have received threats of violence as a result of reports issued by Campus Watch.  It was also based on our understanding that Campus Watch advocates the withholding of funds and other forms of support for institutions which house academics and academic programs that Campus Watch believes to be dominated by Arab or Islamic scholars who are critical of American or Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.  Finally, we spoke of activities such as “spying and keeping of secret files.”  This was based upon information from the Campus Watch web site itself, the “Keep Us Informed” page, which includes the following:

Let us know if we have your permission to use your report (with or without your name) publicly on this website, www.campus-watch.org, or whether your report is to be used for internal CW purposes only.

This may be scant evidence for the bald statements made in our communication.  Reasonable people may disagree with our assessment of that evidence.  I doubt very much that we will be able to resolve those differences in this forum. 

But our primary concern, I believe, was actually with the practice of monitoring and reporting on the activities of academics because of either their area of academic expertise or appointment – namely in Middle Eastern studies programs – or the content of their research and teaching – namely if it is anti-war, opposed to American foreign policy especially as it relates to the Middle East, or opposed to Israel’s actions in the disputed territories.  This covers a very wide range of legitimate research activities, in which academic freedom must be protected.  There are serious threats to academic freedom in the US at this time, but it is precisely in such politically divisive and perilous moments that academics must be free to express themselves on these matters.  Political speech of the type that Campus Watch reports on is, I believe, the most fundamental that there is, and its protection is at the very heart of a free civil society.  I find some of the actions of Campus Watch to be dangerous precisely because they may intimidate academics into silence at this time when our voices most need to be heard (by each other and our governments).  Thus we wrote in favour of Pipes being allowed to speak at York, while raising our objections to the actions of at least one of his organizations.

Speaking as an individual, now, I must say that while I stand by the assessments made in our communiqué, I deeply regret the tone of the message.  It was unduly inflammatory and brusque as an internal communication between colleagues.  At this time, when respectful dialogues must prevail over polemics, such language is unhelpful and imprudent.  I can, again, only plead haste as an excuse. 

But that does raise the issue which brings us together here today.  The YUFA Executive is not infrequently called upon to offer its position on controversial matters both within the University and in society at large.  Often members explicitly call upon us to take a stand on contentious political issues or events, with respect to which YUFA members are divided.  This was one of those cases.  And it raises very serious questions about the role of the Association’s Executive in fulfilling its dual commitments: of promoting and protecting academic freedom on the one hand, and acting in conformity with our Constitutional and contractual commitments to equity and non-discrimination, on the other.  This was a hard case, in which doing nothing would be seen by some members as an abrogation of our responsibilities, while saying anything would require intervening into a series of debates in which we as a whole Association do not speak with one voice.  And as is so often the case, we had very little time to debate the issue, research the background material and develop our response.  In light of the events which transpired on January 28, and the overwhelming response from members subsequently, the YUFA Executive will be undertaking a review of its practices with respect to how it responds to controversial issues upon which the membership is divided.  This meeting is the first step in that process.  And so I invite you to share your thoughts on what considerations ought to shape any resulting policy to be followed by the YUFA Executive in responding to controversial political issues on campus or in the broader community.

D. YUFA Executive's January 28 Statement on the Pipes lecture 

To All YUFA Members

As you probably know, Daniel Pipes will be speaking on the Keele Campus of York University today.  The YUFA Executive believes that Dr Pipes, as a member of Campus Watch, is committed to a racist agenda and a methodology of intimidation and harassment that is inconsistent with the values of academic freedom and integrity, and the social values of justice and freedom.  We decry that agenda and the tactics of Campus Watch.

Dr Pipes poses the classic dilemma for those committed to academic liberty and freedom of speech, using those very rights in an attempt to silence others.  We join with academics around the world, and our colleagues at the Canadian Association of University Teachers, in denouncing the activities of Campus Watch.  Hatred, racism, intolerance have no place in our universities or our communities.  Spying, the compilation of secret files, and tactics of intimidation have no place in a just society.