To see the gloomy fate that may befall many universities on both sides of the 49th parallel in the years ahead, all you need to do is consider the events that overtook and almost destroyed the Political Science Department at the University of British Columbia during the last four years.
Years after the initial event, as The Chronicle of Higher Education reported just last spring (24 May 1996, A45), the wounds that were opened when charges of racial and sexual harassment were leveled at the male professors of this widely respected department have not healed. This episode was so traumatic, and so emblematic, that it has recently been the subject of an entire book: Racism, Sexism, and the University by Patricia Marchak (1996.)
Having established in London, Ontario, a Documentation Centre for Harassment Charges, I would like to draw on official material to explain to the readers of The Montana Professor the details of the controversy that tore a once proud and productive department almost to shreds.
In June 1992, twelve mostly women graduate students from the Political Science Department submitted an anonymous memorandum of nine pages to the Dean of Graduate Studies, Professor John Grace. The students complained about a long list of faculty sins, among others "a profound problem with" sexism and racism. In particular they remonstrated against
unprofessional put-downs of women regarding their academic abilities and interests, limited access to classroom participation, instances of sexual harassment experienced by women of colour, and the use of racist metaphors,...a uni-perspective intellectual climate, one where many faculty express intolerance of ideological pluralism, and where students who present alternative views, such as critical, race and feminist theory, are either marginalized or penalized; parochial attitude toward women, visible minorities, and international students,...generally non-supportive and even obstructionist environment;...although several applicants stated their commitment to critical theory and feminist theory, the department focuses on "liberalism" in the theory courses.... In one word, we would call the department medieval. (McEwen, 1995, 2-3)
No names were mentioned, instead, the entire department was collectively indicted.
On June 15, 1992, the Head of the department, Professor Donald Blake, replied to the Dean expressing his "complete surprise" about the charges that he knew were "exaggerated, misleading or simply untrue." In particular, he rejected the allegations of "sexual terrorism" and "systemic racism" in the department and expressed his dismay about the fact that the existing sexual and racial harassment procedures were not utilized. With respect to the charge that the department was "sexist" he pointed out that 8 of the top 13 marks in the 13 graduate seminars that were offered in the previous year were obtained by women.
On Oct. 8, 1992, in order to show his Department's good will and cooperation, Professor Blake wrote a memorandum to the Dean of Graduate Studies outlining the steps that had been taken in response to the students' demands: The department had reviewed its admission procedures; it had distributed documents on discrimination ("Success and Survival Strategies for Women Faculty Members" of the Association of American Colleges); it had invited a representative of the Sexual Harassment Policy Office to address newly admitted graduate students, to speak to faculty at the first department meeting in September and to graduate students and faculty at a retreat; finally, it had formed a committee to "improve the consideration of gender issues in the curriculum."
In the fall of 1992, the university implemented the regular quintennial external review of the department. Two of the three external appraisers were women (1). In their report, the reviewers concluded that the department "ranks among the top five in Canada in the quality and reputation of its faculty" and consists of "one of the most reputable faculty cohorts in the country" (McEwen, 1995, 12, 13). They, however, chastised the department for having too many professors who were hired before the late 1970s. The "very productive scholars who are in the department are also (with some obvious exceptions) still working with paradigms which are somewhat dated" (12). The latter expression is clarified in the section on the "gap in the study of gender and feminist theory." The expression "somewhat dated" means that the older faculty members are not sufficiently interested in postmodernist, critical, multicultural and feminist theory. Two of the proposed remedies were first, to ignore the rights of all future qualified male candidates and to hire only women in order to right the sexual imbalance, and second, to "engage in more 'aggressive' [sic] mentoring of new graduate students" (17). For some mysterious reason the complete texts of the three external appraisers were not made available to the Department, a fact that understandably prevented the Department from taking proper corrective action. Administrators were depriving a department of the full benefit of a review that it claims is essential for maintaining academic standards!
In a second memorandum of Nov. 15, 1993, the anonymous group of twelve students dismissed the above measures as "decorous" and "cosmetic" and identified "nine areas of ongoing concern." Some highlights may suffice to convey the nature and flavour of the accusations, The students complained about "dismissive and exclusionary attitudes toward feminist and gender studies and critical theoretical frameworks." They claimed that professors spend less time consulting with women students than with men and that they make less effort to engage intellectually with women students; that they turn academic conversations into "small talk" and that "there is an absence (save for isolated instances of 'tokenism') of female writers and/or feminist theory in the curriculum" (McEwen, 8). Further, they argued that
The first symptom of racism is to deny that it exists. This is a feature of the way that racism is legitimated: by silence.... There are no graduate courses that include an examination of "race" and racisms. Nothing less that [sic] zero tolerance of racism will create an environment that is equally responsive, hospitable, and intellectually engaging for all students and faculty.... The need to address racism is just as strong when it occurs unintentionally as when it is meant to harm someone because the effects on the learning environment are just the same.... Unacceptable practices of the department reduces [sic] the students' ability to function in an academic environment... The relationship between faculty and students is "authoritative" [sic], and students are not made to feel as though they are "partners" in the learning experience.
Besides invoking the repressive shibboleths of victimism--"zero tolerance," "exclusionary attitudes," "learning environment," "symptom," "feel," and "ability to function"--these tracts equated a defense against unjustified accusations with further "symptom[s] of racism." Self-defense aggravates the problem and is therefore illegitimate! Astonishingly, some students apparently still have the expectation that academic, rather than propagandistic "courses that include an examination of 'race' and racisms" can still be offered in North American universities today. Which white, male professor in his right mind would offer such a course in the currently overheated university atmosphere?
The Rubicon was finally crossed by a black graduate student, Lorraine Rigo, whose incident with her supervisor escalated the conflict into all-out war. On March 8, 1994, the teaching assistant met with her professor and discussed the grades she had just assigned to one of his classes. Many students were displeased with them, and the professor in his meeting with Ms. Rigo reportedly said: "Yeah, now they probably think that you are just one big, bad, black bitch." The circumstances and Ms. Rigo's contribution to the situation that provoked the comment that she claimed she found offensive, were considered irrelevant for administering justice. According to the professor's testimony, she had "encouraged an atmosphere of informality. She bantered with me, made jokes about her race, and discussed personal matters with me. How was I to know that she would find my reciprocation offensive?" The ill-chosen alliteration, despite multiple apologies, effectively finished the career of the professor at UBC, whose contract with the university was not renewed.
In politically healthier times, apologies, formal reprimand, and summary dismissal of the "culprit" would be ample satisfaction to most self-proclaimed "victims." University executives, however, wrote another letter of apology to Ms. Rigo and promised to bring in "specialists on equity issues to work with us to resolve climate issues in the department' (Globe & Mail, June 23, 1995). However, Ms. Rigo was still not satisfied, perhaps sensing that there was more to gain.
After insisting how offended she was and after rejecting all solutions offered so far, Ms. Rigo revealed her real wish list. First she extended her complaint about the professor's remark to an allegation of "systemic" racism and sexism in the department and took her complaint to the British Columbia Council of Human Rights. Then, on June 23, 1994, she issued a catalog of "non-negotiable requests," averring that she would drop the charges only if the university complied within eight days. She requested a guarantee that she would obtain her master's degree and that she be accepted into a doctoral program "in any [sic] political science department"; she demanded the right to choose the members of the committee that would evaluate her master's thesis (she requested that the members be the head of the department, a named professor from the Geography Department and a particular doctoral student); she demanded the conversion of two low course grades into passing grades; she insisted on obtaining six letters of recommendation to be vetted by her upon the completion of her MA degree; and she requested $40,000 in cash as reimbursement of all her costs during her studies at UBC together with "time to recover from the traumatic experience related to the MA program" (The Vancouver Sun, June 24, 1995). Last but not least, she asked to be allowed to contribute her thoughts to the letter of reprimand of the dismissed professor. The letter was to remain in his file for four years and was to be included as part of any oral or written job reference that the university may offer on the professor's behalf.
In a letter of July 28, Ms. Rigo expressed her impatience with the lack of speed of the administrative action, and she ,upped her demand for money requesting now $50,000 "for the additional stress and trauma" of waiting without getting a satisfactory response. This extraordinary catalog of requested remedies apparently came somewhat as a surprise even to those administrators who were inclined to see guilt wherever there was an allegation. Although the university had the wisdom to refuse all her demands, officials indirectly still validated her claims by making another monumental error: upon the request of the Political Science Department, it called for an independent inquiry and appointed the Vancouver feminist lawyer and specialist in sexual harassment, Joan McEwen, as investigator.
Ms. McEwen was given an impossibly confused mandate. She was commissioned to find out whether or not there was a "basis" for the allegations of "pervasive sexism and racism" in the Political Science Department. She was not asked to find out the facts and to rule on either the truth or falseness of the allegations, but merely to make a preliminary investigation, which reasonable people would argue and expect would be followed by some kind of adjudicative process. Such adjudication, of course, would follow customary court proceedings; it would respect due process, allow for appeal, arbitration, and grievance.
Because I have not been constituted a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, and have not conducted a hearing wherein all of the "due process" safeguards have been available to the faculty, students and University, it would be inappropriate for me to make a juridical finding in respect thereof. Rather, I interpret my mandate as requiring me to consider whether, on the information before me, a "basis" exists for the allegations in question; namely, do the complaints raise a genuine issue for determination? (McEwen, 22)
On June 15, 1995, Ms. McEwen submitted her 177-page Report in Respect of the Political Science Department of the University of British Columbia and charged the university $246,364.24 (Canadian) for her services. She had, over the preceding ten months, interviewed 225 present and former students, faculty and staff and discovered that there were complaints of two kinds: (1) "direct" forms of discrimination such as "individual forms of harassment (intentional or otherwise) as telling crude jokes, engaging in inappropriate socializing with students" and "non-verbal harassment (such as staring at female students as they walk by"; and (2) "systemic forms of discrimination that are 'system(s)-based,' and adversely impact on [sic] disadvantaged groups" (21). Of both kinds she averred to have found ample evidence and produced reams of examples. Most revealingly she concluded:
The culture of the department...is the product of a cohort of faculty who, for the most part, are older, white, male, heterosexual, middle class, of Angle/European cultural heritage, proud (the students would say to the point of being arrogant) of their reputation as excellent scholars, conservative in their ideological and methodological approaches, narrow rather than widely focused in their research interests, not committed to a multi-disciplinary approach, working with paradigms which are "somewhat dated," not apparently committed to fostering a more illustrious graduate program, and intensely committed to preserving their perceived longstanding "collegiality"...and who have been educated in the patriarchal and authoritarian traditions of Western society. (McEwen, 21-22)
This is an impressive list of professors with undesirable and quasi-sinful characteristics that, McEwen concludes, "may well have an adverse impact on those students who do not share [their] prevailing characteristics." Although she concludes that a "genuine basis" exists for the allegations of pervasive racism and sexism in the Department, she, however, makes the following concession:
I am not saying that a basis exists for concluding that any member of the faculty is prejudiced, or that she/he ever intended to discriminate on the basis of race and/or sex. To the contrary, there is no reason for me not to accept at face value members' assertion that one of their core values is the equitable treatment of women and people of colour. (McEwen, 22)
What were the allegations? What were the sins of the male professors, besides being white, heterosexual, etc.? Appendix C of the McEwen Report, entitled "Examples in Support of the Allegations of Racism and Sexism," contains five sections. A few representative examples from each section may illustrate the nature and gravity of the complaints:
A. Teaching
B. Professor/Student Interactions
C. Intellectual Climate
D. Inappropriate Socializing and Sexual/Racial Harassment
E. Mentoring and Supervision
Departments from now on may have to reconsider their policies of creating women's courses (such as "Women in Politics") when lawyers construe this sort of "ghettoizing of feminist theory" as evidence of sexism and sexual harassment. What are the implications for academic freedom when "discounting the Marxist perspective of students" is considered evidence of racism or sexism? When controlling class discussions of students is labeled "silencing," how are professors supposed to navigate through such a swamp? These complaints, however, some no more than whines, were taken seriously by administrators at UBC!
Even though McEwen was never asked to establish facts, to find guilt, and adjudicate, she nevertheless did not shy away from recommending that strong disciplinary action be taken against the entire Department. Since no names were mentioned in her report, neither those of the accusers nor those of the accused, the whole Department was indicted. Nobody's reputation remained intact and nobody could defend himself. From among the seven recommendations, the first one, the most draconian and unjustified, was coined in the following terms:
In order to provide the University and the department sufficient time to address the problems in the department, the University should immediately suspend any further graduate admissions to the Political Science Department, and should not reopen admissions until such time as the Dean of Graduate Studies recommends, and the President and Board of Governors are satisfied, that all of the students in the department, both existing and prospective, will be accorded educational equity, and will be afforded a learning and working environment which is harassment- and discrimination-free.
The other recommendations dealt with possible retaliation as a result of having participated in the inquiry, the role of administrators in the Faculty of Graduate Studies, the revision of the mission statement of the university, the "learning and working environment...[as] free from harassment and discrimination," and the "ombudsperson's" office.
With extraordinary swiftness, the President of the University, David Strangway, apparently without understanding either the report or its implications, set out to implement the recommendations: "I think that now that she has recommendations, we're proceeding to act punctually and promptly on them" (Hiebert, 1995, 19). Not admitting new graduate students (who are certainly punished as well by not being allowed to enroll) is, of course, effective punishment for the professors who thus lose research and marking assistance. "And they'll [the professors] have to reflect very carefully on that," was Strangway's callous comment.
The report was warmly endorsed by a few enthusiasts like Robin Cox from the Alliance of Feminists Across Campus, who sees harassment as "pervasive across the board in Canada" (Ward, 1995, A12); Nancy Sheehan, Dean of Education at UBC, who commended the President and Dr. Daniel Birch, Academic Vice-President, for their "prompt and courageous response to the recommendations of the McEwen Report" and who expressed her hope that "this experience will benefit us all" (Letter of July 10, 1995); and above all by Dr. John Grace, Dean of Graduate Studies, who sees many "unresolved problems in the department which affect the climate of study there" (Stein, 1995, 3). Finally, the Graduate Student Society weighed in by acknowledging that the "Report represents an absolute vindication of students who brought forward complaints," and the Society's lawyer Anita Braha boasted that "the report sets a new standard for protecting human rights and achievement of educational equity at Canadian universities" (Douglas, 1995, 1).
Apart from these aficionados for politically correct causes, the consternation and outrage about the report and the President's immediate suspension of all graduate student admissions to the Department were widespread and, in fact, nation-wide. Locally, Dr. Patricia Marchak, the Dean of Arts, characterized the report as "deeply flawed" and stated that it "makes a persistent assumption of guilt by virtue of accusation. [It is] deficient in principles of natural justice, a deficiency that does not, in the long run, serve the interests of the aggrieved any more than of the defendants" (Globe & Mail, 1995, July 15). She further identified the major shortcomings of the report as lacking evidence; as dismissing testimony and evidence that is contrary to the allegations; as repeating allegations "as if all were about sexism and racism even when there is no apparent or necessary linkage"; and, finally, as failing to distinguish between important and trivial allegations.
The Department of Psychology of UBC on July 19, 1995 voted unanimously to Publish a letter in the UBC Reports (Aug. 17) "deplor[ing] the precipitous and ill-advised suspension of admissions." The Department, as well, chastised McEwen for "fail[ing] to distinguish between allegation and evidence," for "link[ing] all allegations to sexism/racism whether appropriate or not," for "fail[ing] to define systemic discrimination/harassment in terms of provable harm," and for "appear[ing] to dismiss testimony and evidence contrary to the allegations." The psychologists urged the President "to reverse forthwith the sanction." On August 18, 1995, the entire faculty in the Economics Department signed a strongly formulated letter of protest.
On July 1, 1995, the Board of Directors of the national Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (the Canadian equivalent of the National Association of Scholars) wrote an open letter to President Strangway urging him to "speedily reconsider" his decision to suspend graduate admissions. In particular they argued:
By this action of collective discipline imposed without due process, you have smeared the reputation of an entire department, as well as [that] of your University, whose academic status you are bound to uphold.We view your action as a gross and unwarranted assault on the academic freedom of your faculty, and, furthermore, of students... Under your leadership, the University of British Columbia is prepared to sacrifice due process and basic principles of fairness at the altar of political correctness. (Society of Academic Freedom and Scholarship, 1995)
The McEwen report gave rise to more practical reactions as well. About 30 students and professors from UBC and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver established a British Columbia Chapter of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship. The purpose of this organization, of course, is the defense of academic freedom and freedom of speech in general, on campus and beyond. The universities of Vancouver, being so near to the University of Victoria, B. C., had witnessed quite closely the events at that university where since 1990 departments must submit plans that detail the ways that feminist scholarship is incorporated into their courses. (In the late 1960s, at my alma mater, the Free University of West Berlin, and at many other universities in West Germany, departments had to submit plans outlining how Marxist scholarship would be included in their courses.)
Quite expectedly, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association called the McEwen report "seriously flawed" and lacking in evidence to support the allegation of pervasive sexism and racism. The Association was particularly critical of the university's precipitous reaction and excoriated the president for having "taken a step of huge proportions, one with (to our knowledge) no precedent in North American academic institutions.... The University has created a 'chill' on academic freedom which will be felt for many years in the Political Science Department and across North America" (Globe & Mail, Aug. 10, 1995). The Globe and Mail, Canada's national newspaper, echoed the Association when it deplored the "assault on freedom of expression at North American universities" as coming from within:
Instead of battling meddlers from beyond their walls, university administrators conspired in muzzling teachers. Dozens of universities have adopted "speech codes" regulating what professors can and cannot say, while building large and expensive bureaucracies to deal with allegations of racial and sexual harassment. In the process they have tossed due process, the fundamental condition of justice, out the door. (10 Aug. 1995, A18)
In September of 1995, finally, the Bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) published a Special Report, called the "CAUT Response to the McEwen Report" (1995). This commentary of the Executive of CAUT (the Canadian equivalent of the AAUP) was by many anticipated with some apprehension because, although CAUT, in abstract terms, has always defended academic freedom and due process, it has not been known as very helpful in the defense of individual cases, even when it was not a question of lacking the necessary resources. With regard to the McEwen Report and the hasty implementation of its recommendations by the university, CAUT, thankfully, was unequivocal and unwavering.
First of all, the CAUT Executive criticized the fact that in the earlier regular external review the Political Science Department was denied the opportunity to study the individual reports in their entirety. This prevented the department from taking the appropriate corrective actions. Further, it expressed its displeasure with the fact that the existing sexual and racial harassment policies were imposed by the administration rather than negotiated with the employee groups and students, the groups that would be affected by their application. In addition, they "were not followed in practice."
With respect to the McEwen Report, CAUT stated that "preliminary investigations are not a substitute for an adjudicative process" (CAUT, 1995, 6). The reputation of the entire department was tarnished by the report, although (according even to McEwen) half of its members were in no way implicated by any accusations and, in fact, had received high praise. Although McEwen was mindful of the fact that she was merely collecting allegations and therefore kept no transcripts and used counter evidence very selectively--faculty responses were relegated to an Appendix rather than inserted in the text where they belonged--CAUT found it incomprehensible why McEwen should have dared recommending disciplinary action.
President Strangway received the brunt of the criticism. He took unilateral punitive action against a department without proper investigation and without the approval of the University Senate, a decision CAUT judged "unacceptable" and one that "should be rescinded immediately. The mistake made by the administration was to treat this report as though it were a judicial decision, and to issue it to the world as though it was the last word rather than the first word in this affair.... In short, the administration panicked" (6). CAUT found it "extraordinary" and "extremely disturbing" that the President, with his "authoritarian abdication of due process," took it upon himself to tarnish the reputation of the entire department without consulting the Senate, which is, after all, the democratically elected senior academic body of the university. It rightly points out that the Senate is the chief academic decision making body and that it is the Senate that decides which academic programs are offered and which are scrapped. If, for whatever reason, a department does not function properly, it is the Senate again that can place the department in question under trusteeship. CAUT found no justification for the "authoritarian" and undemocratic ruling to debar graduate students from enrolling in the Political Science Department.
Finally, CAUT found fault with the President who, by his action, accepted McEwen's muddling of the issues. The report confounded all sorts of complaints, failed to distinguish, for example, complaints about governance from allegations of harassment, and treated the most diverse and disparate claims as all supporting the charge of racism and sexism. McEwen's cavalier and casual reporting of allegations certainly exposes her to the charge of having reported more as a feminist advocate than as a fair and cautious investigator. The CAUT Executive concluded its analysis by arguing that the closure of admissions was unjustified and should be lifted. Any unilateral action by a university administration which denies due process to those affected by it is, by its very nature, a potential threat to academic freedom (8).
Interestingly, University Affairs/Affaires Universitaires, the journal of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, abstained from writing about the UBC fiasco until the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) more or less "forced" the journal to let its readers know about the events. In the November issue SAFS published a Letter to the Editor with the title "Who will judge progress?"
The unholy triumvirate Strangway-Birch-Grace, however, got even more feedback. On Oct. 1, 1995, twenty-two members of the Academy of Science and of the Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada wrote a letter to the Secretary of Senate and the Secretary of the Graduate Council
express[ing] publicly [their] distress at the UBC administration having based its suspension of admissions...on the McEwen report, a report condemned by the Dean of Arts as a violation of natural justice, condemned as flawed by the president of the BC Civil Liberties Association, by the Executive of the CAUT, by 24 heads, directors and chairs of the Faculty of Arts, as well as by the Dean of Commerce. (Laponce and LeBlond,1995)
The members of the Royal Society of Canada argued that "any reform obtained under the shadow of the McEwen report would be tainted with illegitimacy" and urged the university "to lift immediately the sanctions."
As if committee and private meetings, press releases, editorials, and letters to the editor were not enough, three further events substantially inflamed the debate; a raucous meeting of 160 professors, a senate meeting, and a request of a 12-week "12-step recovery" program for faculty.
When on Sept. 7, 1995, 160 professors from the Faculty of Arts met, it was with the intent to find a solution for the intolerable and burdensome situation. A new academic year had begun, the animosity and acrimony were at their peak, and it was difficult to see what good consequences could come out of the tragedy, and how, in Dean Nancy Sheehan's words, "this experience will benefit us all." Before the critical vote was taken, Professor Philip Resnick from the Political Science Department addressed the audience. He warned his colleagues that there is the
danger that we are transferring power into the hands of new university gatekeepers--sexual harassment offices, equity offices and hired legal hands...; [that there are] principles that apply equally to everyone [and that these principles are] precisely the principles that the McEwen report, by embracing the language of identity politics, flouts, and that the Strangway-Birch administration has so shamefully betrayed. [He enjoined his colleagues that they] are voting for something infinitely more important than the lifting of the suspension of admissions into one particular graduate program, you are voting to reaffirm the fundamental principles of a liberal university, principles that a faculty of arts, more than any other, needs to uphold. (Globe & Mail, Sept. 11, 1995)
The vote was 97-52 to lift the suspension of admissions. What was the reaction of the administration? Did it in the meantime get enough tutoring to correct its misguided and specious decision? Rather than limiting the damage, John Grace, the Dean of Graduate Studies, aggravated the situation even further by disregarding the faculty vote, and Vice-President Daniel Birch made a "plea that we not lose momentum" (Tudakovic, 1995, 3).
On Sept. 20, 1995, the Senate met to consider the suspension. A highlight of that meeting was the prepared speech by Dr. Patricia Marchak, the Dean of Arts. First of all, she accepted part of the blame for the confused terms of reference for Ms. McEwen, as well as for the hiring of "that person." Then she drew attention to the fact that the staff of the Political Science Department had written a letter to the chair of the Women's Committee of CUPE 2950 (widely copied), stating clearly that they were not exposed to injustices of harassment and discrimination as was claimed. The staff insisted that they had communicated that information to Ms. McEwen. Moreover, Dean Marchak informed the Senate that 15 current and recently graduated doctoral students in Political Science had written to the President "register[ing their] extreme consternation." She read from their letter:
Many of the undersigned actively involved themselves in the inquiry, attempting to correct the scandalous and unjustified allegations of pervasive racism and sexism. However, our views, personal observations, and corroborating testimony, have been systematically expunged from the Report, presenting a highly distorted account of graduate student attitudes.
Dr. Marchak corrected McEwen's statistics (e.g., "fellowships are given in higher proportion to women at the MA level than their numbers in the program...") and pointed out that "all of this information was available to the investigator but none of it was cited." She concluded by saying that ...claims are made in this report that can be shown to be factually untrue and for which evidence was available. Further, many students spoke to McEwen or wrote letters which were ignored. Finally, the responses of faculty were treated with contempt.
Just as the McEwen Report was being "deconstructed," a former doctoral student, 48-year-old Carol Rice, who figured prominently in the McEwen Report's accusations, smelling money, issued a 12-page document with 37 demands from her "colleagues" (Globe & Mail, Sept. 7, 1995). Her goals were apparently twofold: a "cultural revolution" and compensation ("my withdrawal puts me in a stronger position for damages").
Following are the demands of her first two pages:
In addition, Ms. Rice and her "colleagues" requested the firing of three senior male professors whom she identified as the "worst offenders"; demanded "unlimited numbers" of letters of reference; requested that the majority vote be given to graduate students on all departmental committees; and that the ranking of graduate students be stopped, and much more. Money and power were breeding a form of insanity. The creation of ever more committees and the formulation of more and more policies and regulations drove demands up, paralyzing the department, and resulting in a surreal world of academia increasingly indistinguishable from parody.
On Oct. 18, 1995, another Senate meeting was scheduled to discuss, and to vote on, the divisive question of the suspension of graduate students. However, just two hours before the meeting, an eight-point agreement was reached to reopen the graduate program. According to Dean John Grace, the department had met the conditions of implementing improvements and monitoring, and "On that basis, I am willing and very pleased to announce the lifting of the suspension of graduate admissions." The packed gallery erupted into exclamations of "Shame!" and then into applause. According to the agreement, the Department will "implement improvements in the climate...; strengthen mechanisms to seek regular suggestions...; commit itself to deal promptly with any allegations of harassment and discrimination...; issue written progress reports" (Hall, 1995, B4) in February, May, and October 1996, reports which will be available to graduate students. With unspeakable arrogance and callousness, and apparently having learned nothing from the ordeal, Dean Grace warned the Department that failure to comply with the conditions of the agreement within a reasonable time period would result in renewed suspension of admissions to the Department.
In addition to the already existing equity, harassment, grievance, and so many other committees and permanent offices, three additional committees were established to monitor complaints and to resolve conflicts that arise when professors, for example, "discount" the Marxist perspective of students or use so-called "metaphors" such as "a pretty girl is like a melody." A "progressive" intellectual orthodoxy had essentially been imposed on the Department.
Readers can judge for themselves who was harassing whom at the University of British Columbia. I am reminded of the world in which I grew up. The legal construction of "Sippenhaft" in Germany during World War II (the liability of a family for the political "crimes" of one of its members) allowed entire families, groups, and villages to be indicted, harassed, and punished for the "sins" of one of their members, and has so much in common with the definition of harassment in our current sexual and racial harassment codes that one has to surmise common intellectual parentage. Harassment, in most North American policies, embraces an extraordinarily wide spectrum of "offenses," and the policies, after giving a long list of examples, typically state that the understanding of "harassment" should "not be limited" to the examples given. Harassment thus comprises everything that is subjectively perceived as unpleasant, from unconscious, unintentional "leering" or "ogling" to criminal rape. The only reason why rape is included in the definition of many harassment policies is apparently to imbue the other offenses with the ugliness and perversion of rape. Thus, "ogling" at someone, "inviting a woman for dinner," and "discounting the Marxist perspective" of a student become semantically associated with the characteristics of rape, and to some become a mitigated form of rape.
One of the claims at UBC was that the department "'ghettoiz[ed]' feminist theory by creating a course entitled 'Women in Politics.'" In other words, the Department "harassed" feminist students by granting them what they had fought for so long to obtain: a feminist course! We certainly live by now in the kingdom of Roi Ubu!
It is certainly tempting to consider the craven administrators of UBC to be solely responsible for the mishandling of the students' complaints and for having abandoned all principles of natural justice and due process. It should, however, not be overlooked that in a way all faculty share a measure of responsibility for the dérapage. Whoever voted for the adoption of the existing speech codes under the guise of sexual and racial harassment policies, or acquiesced when they were adopted, has to accept some blame for the tragedies that mutatis mutandis happen today in every Canadian university. Were Julien Benda alive today he would have much more reason to deplore la trahison des clercs.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (1995). CAUT Response to the McEwen Report, Bulletin, Sept., 6-8,
Douglas, Stephen (1995). Students Vindicated. The Graduate, 18(10), July/August 1995.
Editorial (1995). A little common sense at UBC, Globe & Mail, July 15.
Editorial (1995). The tide turns at university, Globe & Mail, Aug. 10, A18.
Editorial (1995). Students want a 12 step rehab program for errant profs, Globe & Mail, Sept. 7.
Hall, Neal (1995). "Time to get on with healing" at UBC, The Vancouver Sun, Oct. 20, B4.
Hiebert, Rick (1995). Guilty of being traditional, British Columbia Report, July 10, 16-19.
Hiebert, Rick (1995). Counterattack on a witch hunt, British Columbia Report, Sept. 25, 20.
Laponce, Jean and LeBlond, Paul (1995). Letter to the Secretary of Senate and the Secretary of the Graduate Council, Oct. 1.
Marchak, M. Patricia (1996). Racism, Sexism, and the University. The Political Science Affair at the University of British Columbia. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
McEwen, Joan (1995). Report in Respect of the Political Science Department of the University of British Columbia. Unpublished report prepared for the Deans of the Faculty of Arts and Graduate Studies.
Parton, Nicole (1995). Student sought $40,000 to drop charges, Vancouver Sun, June 24, A3.
Sheehan, Nancy (1995). Letter to the President and Academic Vice-President, July 10.
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (1995). Open letter to Dr. Strangway, July 1.
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (1995). Who will judge progress? University Affairs/Affaires Universitaires, Nov.
Stein, Dianna (1995). Poll Sci Program Still Closed, Campus Times, Sept. 13, 3.
Tudakovic, Emina (1995). Poll Sci Faculty Righteously Disgruntled, Campus Times, Sep. 27, 3.
Ward, Doug (1995). Sexism at universities "a national phenomenon," Vancouver Sun, June 26.
I am indebted to Professor Peter Suedfeld from the Psychology Department of the University of British Columbia for making many documents available to me which I would not have obtained otherwise.