After the Open Letter to TMU’s President: What Comes Next

Last week, I issued an Open Letter to TMU President Mohamed Lachemi. It outlined the violent, hateful, and criminal attack perpetrated at an off-campus event on November 5, instigated by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a TMU-registered student group. It also described the longstanding toxic environment at TMU that enabled this criminal activity by and against TMU students to take place.

Shortly after my letter was issued, one of ALCCA’s member organizations, the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA) – representing more than 400 faculty members across 52 campuses – issued a similar open letter. NECA described SJP TMU’s conduct as anti-Zionist bigotry, warned that unchecked anti-Zionism inevitably leads to violence against Jews, and called on TMU to take decisive action.

John Levy, Founder of theScore, also responded, on his own initiative, to the toxic environment at TMU. He advised the President that he would no longer deliver his annual guest lecture at TMU’s Ted Rogers School of Management. He stated that he cannot in good conscience support a university where Jewish students are unsafe and where leadership has failed to act meaningfully. Brent Belzberg, Senior Executive Chair at Torquest Partners, who had attempted to encourage bridge building at TMU, has expressed similar sentiments both before and after the events of November 5.

After the events of November 5, Hillel TMU described the environment that Jewish students face as a “culture of impunity.” For years, it partnered with TMU President’s Office to host a multifaith Shabbat dinner, bringing together more than 120 students, faculty, and staff each year. This year, Hillel could not continue this partnership respecting “an event designed to celebrate Jewish integration into campus life when that integration is not supported in practice.”

President Lachemi responded to the open letters. He stated that he shared the concern and deep distress over the violence and harm that occurred, and unequivocally condemns hate, intimidation or violence in any form. He said that he recognizes the profound impact such events have on the Jewish community and the broader community.

He advised that TMU is cooperating fully with the ongoing police investigation and is committed to ensuring that any TMU students found to have engaged in conduct that violates the law or the university’s Code of Conduct will be subject to disciplinary action. He also said that student groups are administered by the Toronto Metropolitan Students Union, a separate corporation, and that the administration has expressed its concerns and shared my letter with the union and has asked the union to review the matter. He has also requested that the union meet with the administration.

He stated that the concerns expressed would be addressed transparently.

I will be candid in my reaction. An evaluation of TMU’s response to the issues identified can only be based on the administration’s performance and measurable outcomes, not words. Lots of words have been exchanged over the past two years.

I fully expect the administration to cooperate with the police respecting the ongoing criminal investigation. But beyond that, will the university impose meaningful discipline on those found to have engaged in wrongdoing? Meaningful discipline would include interim measures for students charged with crimes. (See Student Code of Non-academic Conduct, Interim Measures (s.11) and Procedures, Interim Measures (2.2.3-2.2.4))

Or will the university capitulate to a narrative that justifies wrongdoing, including violence, to promote an anti-Zionist agenda?

Already, the TMU chapter of Faculty for Palestine published a letter to the President, framing the events of November 5 as justified protest, accusing visiting IDF speakers of being war criminals, and arguing that Palestinians and pro-Palestinians were the ones harmed. These faculty members demanded that TMU ban visits by military personnel, halt disciplinary processes, adopt an institutional definition of anti-Palestinian racism, and guarantee that no disciplinary action be taken against those involved in the violent confrontation.

We are living in a world of logical, legal and moral absurdity. Forced entry by masked intruders into a private event is said to be justified by their political cause. The perpetrators are described as the persons harmed, and immune from any accountability for their actions. Instead, the victims are blamed. And of course, there is apparently no room, on or off-campus for those who have served in Israel’s military (namely, the vast majority of Israelis) to defend themselves or the military against allegations of genocide.

These faculty members – supposed champions of freedom of speech, and academic freedom – are quite content to suppress any opposing views even to the point of excusing criminality. And if anyone doubts their underlying motives, they also demand that the university adopt “an institutional definition of anti-Palestinian racism (APR)”, a doctrine whose proponents largely rely on a definition that labels as racist all those who dispute Palestinian narratives about Israel’s creation or fail to acknowledge that Israel is entirely occupied land.

In other words, there is no place for Zionists on campus or even to meet off-campus.

President Lachemi’s administration is going to have to make a choice. Will it continue to allow a toxic environment to exist where faculty and students cannot safely express their views as Zionists or will the administration:

• unequivocally reject the demands of the Faculty for Palestine

• unequivocally condemn activities that make it unsafe to be a Zionist on or off-campus

• unequivocally condemn violence against any student or faculty member for expressing their political beliefs

• truly make faculty, staff, and students accountable for violations of existing policies

  
  

These represent steps the administration must take to address its toxic environment.

This has nothing to do with suppressing criticism of Israel, its conduct, its policies or its government. Robust criticism of Israel, of the same kind levelled against any other country, is protected speech and is not antisemitic. This is about countering the labelling of all Zionists (including the vast majority of Jews) as evil, genocidal and racist and creating an unsafe environment for students and faculty on and off-campus. This is about zero tolerance for intimidation and harassment.

As a critically urgent matter, Students for Justice in Palestine’s standing at TMU must be revoked, given its history of incitement and intimidation at the university. Similar action has already been taken regarding SJP on a number of other North American campuses.

President Lachemi said that its status is controlled by a separate corporation, the Toronto Metropolitan Students Union. I am unconvinced that the administration is powerless, in law, to take affirmative steps to address a student group responsible for fomenting hatred on and off-campus. Regardless of the union’s position, SJP should be disentitled to use TMU’s name or benefit from any university funding. Regardless of the group’s official standing, the administration must unequivocally condemn its activities. If the union is not prepared to act, the university should suspend its relationship with the union and terminate the Operational Agreement between them.

The President’s response to my open letter (or the letters of the others) did not adequately address the deeper issues raised: namely, the existence of a culture of antisemitism, chronic failures to enforce existing policies, persistent double standards applied to Jewish students and faculty, and unchecked extremist rhetoric that created the environment in which Jewish students and faculty are unsafe and this violence occurred.

Earlier this month, TMU engaged former Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Mary Lou Benotto to conduct an independent review “related to a September 19 event featuring a federal minister that was disrupted, and where concerns were raised about the conduct of security guards and of student protestors.” This week, the President announced that the review would be expanded to include the November 5 incident and “more broadly how TMU manages protests, events and demonstrations, including how we balance freedom of expression, campus safety and the orderly functioning of the university.”

Nothing I say here is intended to reflect upon former Justice Benotto, who was a distinguished jurist. However, she is being asked to conduct a systemic review of TMU’s policies, practices, and procedures, and make factual findings about the September 19 and November 5 events. It is unclear to me how these factual findings can or will be used in any disciplinary proceedings. However, her review, which will not be completed quickly given its scope, will make timely disciplinary action, where warranted, extremely difficult, if not impossible.

I am especially concerned that the university will not take appropriate interim measures respecting Students for Justice in Palestine or students charged with criminal offences pending completion of the review. The university cannot (or more accurately, should not) indefinitely delay any action whatsoever by deferring everything to the independent reviewer. Jewish students at TMU are at risk. Now. The university is obligated to take immediate steps to protect them.

There is also understandable scepticism about yet another independent review at TMU, following a legally and factually flawed report by former Justice Michael MacDonald. Not only did Mr. MacDonald misapprehend human rights jurisprudence, but as I predicted when his report was released, his report has been mischaracterized by anti-Israel advocates as an “exoneration” or “vindication” of speech that even Mr. MacDonald characterized as “misguided” and as a “significant” contributor to the “intimidating, hostile and offensive” study environment at TMU for Jewish students. (Read my commentary on Mr. MacDonald’s report)

President Lachemi’s most recent announcement emphasized the importance of a culture in which academic freedom and freedom of expression always operate within a culture of mutual respect and safety. He said that community members deserve to feel safe and respected, regardless of their identity and that when “people’s safety, inclusion or dignity are compromised, the university will and must act.” He referred to the university’s Community Building Working Group initiative to acknowledge and to respond to the impact of numerous global and geopolitical crises in our community.

He also noted that we must celebrate diversity “alongside the enduring presence and stewardship of Indigenous peoples who have lived on and cared for these lands since time immemorial.”

I do not dismiss the content of this message lightly. I too emphasized the importance of respectful dialogue at TMU back in 2023 and continue to do so.

However, let’s be candid. When Jewish students’ safety, inclusion or dignity have been compromised, the university has not acted. To the contrary.

Moreover, the university cannot be successful in promoting respectful dialogue if it continues to permit faculty members to demonize all Zionists without distinction and deny them the right to freedom of expression.

Finally, the invocation of Indigenous values belies what has happened on campus. TMU’s campus is on the traditional lands of a First Nation whose leadership has condemned the misuse of those lands to permit antisemitism and hatred to flourish. The university’s response was dismissive.

I earlier outlined minimal steps the administration must take to restore trust, safety, and accountability at TMU.

Additional steps include:

Mandatory training on antisemitism and hate-motivated offences for all administrators, equity officers, faculty leaders, and student government officers – ideally developed in consultation with ALCCA/NECA and recognized experts on antisemitism.

Creation of a task force on campus safety and respectful dialogue, co-led by mainstream Jewish and non-Jewish faculty, students, and external experts, to develop reforms.

A clear, unequivocal and public condemnation of activities that make it unsafe to be a Zionist on or off-campus.

Creation of an institutional neutrality policy at TMU

Annual monitoring and public reporting to ensure transparency, ongoing compliance, and sustained institutional commitment.

None of these measures need await the more extensive independent review to be conducted. The status quo is unacceptable.

I encourage members of our community and our allies to remain engaged, share this call for change and continue to advocate for a safe and inclusive campus for Jewish students, faculty and staff. Your voices matter.

ALCCA will keep pressing for accountability, and we invite students, faculty, alumni, and our community partners to stand with us in calling for the concrete actions outlined above.

---

Take Action Today

Students, faculty, alumni, and community members can write directly to TMU’s Office of the President, urging immediate implementation of the measures outlined above.

Office of TMU President: pres@torontomu.ca

---

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.

Donate to ALCCA