I know you’ve all been very busy, so you may not have kept up with the to and fro of the University of Toronto’s law school lately.  Let me fill you in.

A little over a month ago, the Globe and Mail revealed (over a number of articles, most notably these two: here and here) that the University of Toronto law school had run into some trouble in filling the job of Director of its International Human Rights Law program.  Over the summer, a search committee had recommended Valentina Azarova, a scholar of some repute on issues of immigration, supply chains and corporate responsibility.  On August 11th, an associate Dean offered her a job on a Zoom call.  On August 19^th, she accepted.  Two days later, selection committee members were told that the hiring was under way, and that as a short-term measure Dr. Azarova – who currently lives in Greece – would be employed as a short-term contractor in order to get her into Canada.

Then the wheels fell off.  At some point over the next couple of weeks, the Faculty rescinded the offer.  If you believe the Dean of Law, Ed Iacobucci (son of the former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci), “no formal offer of employment was made because of legal constraints on cross-border hiring that meant that a candidate could not meet the Faculty’s timing needs”.  If you believe pretty much anyone else who had anything to do with the hire – the chair of the hiring committee, members of the centre’s advisory committee (all of whom resigned their positions in early September) as well former centre directors – what actually happened was that a Federal Tax Court judge and U of T law alumnus, David Spiro, made a call to the Dean’s office and made it clear that appointing Azarova was unacceptable on account of work she had done on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.  It’s not clear if Spiro and the Dean actually spoke, but the Dean certainly received the message.  The appointment was rescinded.

(It has never been made clear, in any of the media stories that I have seen, why Judge Spiro might have had such sway over the Dean.  Judges get paid well, of course, but not enough to give them the financial clout required to make them big can’t-ignore-them donors.  But I am given to understand that Spiro is part of the Tanenbaum family and – one speculates – their financial clout influenced this conversation.)

So, needless to say this quickly became a story of major proportions. Almost no one doubts that Iacobucci caved in the face of donor pressure, and that donor pressure was brought to bear because a small part of Azarova’s work was seen by some as being anti-Israel.   Iacobucci’s own behaviour since this came to light does nothing to dispel this view.  It has been, simply, indefensible. 

By early last week, pressure on the university to reverse the decision had become quite intense.  The university hired someone of unimpeachable integrity – former Trent University President Bonnie Patterson – to conduct a full and frank investigation of the Azarova affair.  Problem resolved, right?

Well, no.  And to understand why, let’s put ourselves in the position of senior admin at U of T: say, President Meric Gertler or Provost Cheryl Regehr.  I guarantee you they find the whole thing deeply embarrassing and are acutely aware of the extent to which Iacobucci has fouled the bed.  But the problem is that, in my view, Iacobucci thought he was acting in the university’s best interests.  In fact, I’d argue that the best explanation for Iacobucci’s behaviour is that he thought he was taking one for the team: sparing the central administration from having to deal any pressure by taking the decision – and the blame – himself. 

Now, how do you throw someone like that to the wolves?  He’s been an asset to the university – heck, he tried to protect the university!  And his father…well, enough said, right?  This is someone that any reasonable university would want to protect…no – to reward, for taking one for the team.  And hence the reason you hire a pair of “safe hands,”  someone who can be trusted to find fault, but not so much fault that U of T would have to do something rash, like let him go before his term ends next Spring.  It’s so much easier to “learn lessons” from the affair once the responsible individual is no longer in a position of responsibility (Iacobucci leaves the Dean’s position early next year).

I want to be clear that this is not a specifically University of Toronto attitude.  It is, in fact, an ethos that deeply pervades the Canadian establishment.  Look at how the WE scandal has played out in Ottawa.  The Liberals have apologized for the scandal without ever being precise what they were apologizing for because as soon as one makes clear where mistakes were made, then specific individuals’ actions might come under scrutiny.   And the entire point is that no individual must ever be held responsible.  Because, you know, they meant well – and they’ve done such good things in the past!  And thus, does the establishment protect its own.  And normally, that’s the end of the affair: there’s a period where the malfeasant goes quiet, while a soft landing is prepared somewhere else, somewhere far from the scene of the crime.  Everyone claims to have learned their lesson, but no one is held accountable for whatever it is that went wrong.

Only this time, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), stood astride this project and said no.   They pointed out – absolutely correctly in my opinion – that the University of Toronto’s process lacked procedural fairness.  It did not, for instance, commit to publishing the entire report.  It also made Dr. Patterson report to the VP for Human Resources – someone who has already defended Iacobucci’s conduct (See the longer CAUT report here). And as a result, CAUT is threatening the country’s largest and most prestigious university with censure; that is, recommending that no professor accept an appointment or even a speaking engagement at the university, so heinous are its crimes against academic freedom.  It is, in effect, the nuclear option – one CAUT sometimes threatens but (to my knowledge) has never enacted.  And to use it against the most prestigious institution in the country is simply mind-boggling.  It’s not a fight CAUT can really win.

But you know what?  Good for CAUT.  On this one, they’re right.  If what virtually everyone in the law faculty apart from the Dean says it is true, this action was a travesty.  The Dean should be asked to resign or be fired.   The desire to play for time and allow for a dignified exit is understandable, but it is also wrong.  Bad actions & bad actors won’t stop unless there are actual consequences to those who commit them.  However nice and well-meaning a guy Iacobucci is, we won’t avoid similar situations in future unless there are consequences for this one. 

However un-Canadian it may be, Iacobucci needs to go, before he retires.  And if CAUT’s censure motion is what convinces the University of Toronto, then vaya con dios.   It’s about time.  And may the rest of the Canadian Establishment pay close attention.  This failure to hold the powerful accountable is not good for universities, and it’s not good for Canada.  Enough is enough.