Academic Freedom for Some: Hypocrisy at TMU’s Faculty Association
- Mark Sandler
- May 18
- 7 min read
Updated: May 20
This week, the faculty association at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) voted on a “Motion for Recognizing and Addressing Anti-Palestinian Racism at TMU”. The motion was designed to lead to a formal policy at TMU recognizing and addressing anti-Palestinian racism (APR), and measures to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech of those who express support for Palestine.
That the motion passed handily (106 to 22 although there were over 900 eligible voters) was not surprising, given recent history at TMU and on other campuses. But it is important to understand why this motion, when coupled with its preamble, is so problematic.
I wholeheartedly support measures to combat discrimination, whether it is directed against Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims, Jews or Arabs. I also accept that faculty and students should be free to express support for Palestinian self-determination within the limits prescribed by law and appropriate codes of conduct. Indeed, many Zionists, Jews, and Israelis have supported Palestinian self-determination within the context of a two-state solution.
However, that isn’t what this motion was really about. Nor can this motion obscure what is actually going on at TMU.
The same week this motion was introduced, the National Post published an article with the headline, “You can’t be openly Jewish at TMU: Jewish Students at Toronto Metropolitan University say they’re now isolated, harassed". In this searing article, Jewish students describe the toxic environment for the small population of Jews on campus, especially those who support Israel’s right to exist.
This is certainly not a new story. One need only read the detailed Statement of Claim issued by a courageous TMU Jewish student against TMU. It documents the unprecedented levels of antisemitic activity on campus and on related social media.
At TMU, Students for Justice in Palestine has shown solidarity with recognized terrorist groups, demonized Zionists on campus and on social media, and figured prominently in creating an unsafe and unwelcome environment for Jewish faculty and students – unless, of course, they disavow any support for Israel’s existence.
The motion’s preamble describes, as a given, the existence of “unprecedented levels of anti-Palestinian racism” – an absurd inversion of the reality on the ground at TMU.
A formal policy recognizing and addressing anti-Palestinian racism (APR) is deeply troubling not merely because it ignores the most pronounced unaddressed discrimination issue at TMU – that is, against its small Jewish population. Any such policy (as explained below) is likely to exacerbate that discrimination, without legitimately addressing discrimination against Palestinians.
APR’s proponents have generally endorsed the Canadian Arab Lawyers’ Association’s definition of APR, a definition that labels anyone as a racist who does not accept the Palestinian narrative of Israel’s creation or who fails to acknowledge that Israel (even within its pre-1967 boundaries recognized by the United Nations) is occupied land.
Will the TMU faculty association reject the Canadian Arab Lawyers’ Association definition of APR? Will it acknowledge that faculty and students are entitled, without demonization or marginalization, to support Israel’s right to exist? Will it extend protection to the academic freedom and free speech rights of Zionist and Israeli academics on campus? Don’t count on it.
Support for APR is almost inevitably coupled with rejection of the IHRA definition of antisemitism on the basis that the latter allegedly suppresses criticism of Israel. The motion affirms that “support for the Palestinian struggle for self-determination is not antisemitic and that equating the two is an intellectually impoverished argument.”
Mere support for Palestinian self-determination is not necessarily antisemitic. But we regularly see many instances where activists glorify and legitimize the October 7 barbarities, and the conduct of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and their sponsor Iran. Equally important, these activists all too frequently, marginalize, shun, and demonize those on campus who support Jewish self-determination and the very existence of the State of Israel. This demonization extends to all Zionists without distinction. All Zionists, according to the ACLA APR definition, are said to be racist, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum. Activists at TMU demand all Zionists off campus. So much for freedom of expression, and academic freedom.
Interestingly, the motion also states:
“Given that Israel, as a political state, should be subject to the same accountability, criticism, and debate with regard to its policies and its obligations under international law as any other political state.”
Precisely. I agree wholeheartedly. However, the irony of this statement has been lost on those bringing this motion. The IHRA definition of antisemitism says precisely that: namely, that criticism of Israel, of the same kind levelled against any other country, is not antisemitic. But proponents of APR have generally supported a definition of APR that permits no criticism of Palestinian narratives (indeed, it labels those who criticize those narratives as racist). The definition stigmatizes as racist those who fail to adopt the Palestinian narrative on Israel.
Will TMU’s faculty association reject any definition of APR that demonizes all those who challenge Palestinian narratives about the Middle East conflict and support Israel’s legitimacy as a nation? Obviously not. Will they call out pro-Palestinian voices who shut down any pro-Israeli narratives? Equally unlikely.
Will the administration take a principled stand when its own faculty association (albeit represented by a minority of its members) reinforces the toxic environment for Jewish students and faculty at its school? If recent history is any guide, the administration appears unwilling or unable to take meaningful action, perhaps joining the list of those too frightened of recriminations and ostracization to speak out.
The motion states that neither the State of Israel nor the political ideology Zionism are synonymous with the Jewish people as such. However, for the vast majority of Canadian Jews, the existence of a Jewish homeland in Israel is synonymous with Jewish core identity. All too often, Zionism’s meaning for that vast majority of Jews has been distorted to demonize and marginalize them. It is easy to demonize people if you constantly misstate what they stand for.
This motion, which describes the “occupation of and apartheid in Palestine”, contributes to that demonization and marginalization, rather than promoting academic freedom, freedom of speech, and respectful dialogue for all concerned. Of course, proponents of the motion will inevitably point out that it finds support among Jewish colleagues. However, these represent about 1% of the views of Canadian Jews who overwhelmingly support the right of Israel to exist.
The motion cites the MacDonald report, Strengthening the Pillars, as support for its position. The report determined that a letter signed by over 70 students at TMU’s law school should not result in disciplinary action against them. Because the report concluded that the intent of the letter was not antisemitic, it is frequently referred to as proof that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
There are serious flaws in the report (see the detailed critique of the report). However, the report's contents have been repeatedly distorted to support the position that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism or that students and faculty can say anything about Israel and its supporters without accountability.
The report emphasized that it was not meant to be an endorsement of the students’ letter, and that the letter was at the very least, misguided and played a significant role in the “intimidating, hostile, and offensive” study environment Jewish students experienced. Perhaps its author foresaw how the report would be misused.
For example, one faculty member was quoted as saying that the report is an “unambiguous vindication” of the students and their supporters. It is no such thing. When will the TMU faculty association acknowledge and address the part of the report that describes he intimidating, hostile, and offensive study environment for Jewish students? Don’t wait for it.
The students’ letter denied the very existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel. It claimed that “'Israel’ is not a country, it is the brand of a settler colony." It maintained that “So-called Israel has been illegally occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestine since 1948” and declared solidarity with “all forms of Palestinian resistance and efforts towards liberation.”
The report itself observes that the letter “could be seen as justifying the October 7 attacks and the concluding paragraph could reasonably be read as minimizing the role of Hamas and its counterparts in orchestrating and perpetrating the attacks of October 7. At the very least, and most generously, it is misguided.”
The report accepts that “challenges to Israel can sometimes be interpreted as a call for the eradication of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people.” Its author states that “the letter left itself open to that kind of misinterpretation.” It is obvious that the report would not have treated a letter correctly interpreted as calling for the eradication of Israel as a Jewish homeland to be immune from accountability.
The report reflects that signatories to the statement acknowledged that their Jewish peers felt threatened, offended, and unsafe as a result of the content of the letter. A number expressed concern about the harm they had caused. This harm persists, although TMU’s faculty association appears to be uninterested in it.
The report’s author was legally entitled to conclude (applying a “generous” interpretation) that students lacked any antisemitic intent and should not be disciplined. However, he was not entitled to conclude that the letter was not antisemitic. The law has long recognized that statements may be (and often are) antisemitic or racist or homophobic or misogynistic in their effect, even where the authors may have no malevolent motive or intent.
When TMU students brandish signs that say Zionists or Zionism off campus, it is little comfort to learn that an external reviewer concluded that the signatories came close but did not cross the line into antisemitism (compounded by the reviewer’s misunderstanding of the law).
For the Jewish community, the recent motion passed by TMU’s faculty association reflects yet another silencing of Zionist and mainstream Jewish voices, another harm to their ability to participate in campus activities safely. The motion also shows how indifferent its proponents are to the true discrimination that makes TMU toxic.
It’s too bad. One can be a forceful advocate for Palestinian rights without demonizing the majority of Canadian Jews. As an academic, one can defend the right to be heard of those who hold opposing views, rather than creating one rule for those whose views you support, and another for those you disagree with.
As a scholar, you can remain strong in your geopolitical views while acknowledging the intellectual hypocrisy in both rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and adopting a deeply flawed APR.
However, intellectual hypocrisy appears to be alive and well at TMU. And on a number of other campuses.
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.