Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT): Its Shameful Behaviour
- Mark Sandler
- May 11
- 7 min read
The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is the supposed national voice representing 72,000 teachers, academics, and other staff at universities and colleges across the country. It describes itself as an outspoken defender of academic freedom.
Outspoken? Yes. True defender of academic freedom? Not really.
CAUT recently released its Report on Academic Freedom in Canada after October 7, 2023. The report purports to examine the state of academic freedom on Canadian campuses “concerning debates and discussions over contemporary events in Israel and Palestine.” It states that the events in the Middle East (including a remarkably benign description of the October 7 barbaritiesⁱ) have prompted “renewed concerns about the censorship of discussion and debate about Palestinian rights, a problem that someⁱⁱ refer to as the “Palestinian exception.” The report then embarks on a one-sided, distorted portrayal of examples of cases where academic freedom may be implicated.
To be clear, I take no issue with an objective evaluation of the erosion of academic freedom that asks whether, and to what extent, the expression of merely pro-Palestinian views has been inappropriately suppressed. But that isn’t what this report is all about. It cites many examples said to implicate pro-Palestinian speech. Quite a few misstate the underlying facts or what academic freedom is all about.
For example, in the category of “extramural academic freedom,” the report cites cases that ostensibly attract the protection of academic freedom, including the suspension with pay of a university professor, and others after being criminally charged with vandalizing an Indigo bookstore. The vandalism was explained as a protest against company CEO Heather Reisman’s foundation that provides scholarships to people wishing to serve in the Israeli militaryⁱⁱⁱ.
It is an absurd suggestion that academic freedom is imperilled by suspending with pay, on an interim basis, academics criminally charged with acts of vandalism. Indeed, the jurisprudence is clear that acts of vandalism attract no freedom of speech protection under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, regardless of motivation. This is but one example of the poor scholarship and biases displayed in the report. (See NECA's letter dated April 24, 2025)
Repeatedly, the report illustrates its points through examples that transcend protected speech and rise to the level of hate speech or speech reasonably regarded as creating a poisoned environment for students, faculty and staff on campus. Sometimes, these points are made by understating or sanitizing the applicable facts, sometimes by a flawed view of the boundaries between protected and actionable speech.
Admittedly, there is scope for legitimate discussion on where these boundaries should be drawn in borderline cases, and I share (if little else) the authors’ view that academic freedom must be zealously guarded. For example, in the context of criminal law, I have repeatedly stated that although “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Shall Be Free” is reasonably regarded by most Jews and Israelis as a genocidal chant for the destruction of Israel and its people, this malevolent use is insufficient to support, on its own, a criminal charge in the absence of context proving the requisite intent.
Such context might include the accompanying use of the Arabic translation or parallel chant, “From Water to Water, Palestine Shall be Arab” or “From Water to Water, Palestine Shall Be Muslim” or language that clearly promotes the kinds of atrocities that took place on October 7”.
Similarly, it is difficult to give a benign interpretation of “From the River to the Sea. Palestine Shall Be Free” when accompanied by banners such as “By any means necessary,” and chants supporting the use of weaponry to support Hamas’s leadership. The report shows no interest in an objective assessment of the illustrations it provides (including this kind of context). Instead, its descriptions frequently expose the authors’ confirmation bias.
However, this is all just the prelude to the most problematic part of the report. The report pays only lip service to the need to examine the suppression of views of pro-Israel or pro-Zionist academics, despite abundant evidence that such academics are being marginalized, shunned, harassed, intimidated and demonized on Canadian campuses and through social media.
The report says that it does not claim to provide an “exhaustive” review of all instances involving academic staff that have occurred but relies only on widely reported cases or those brought to CAUT’s attention. The problem isn’t that the cited examples are non-exhaustive. The problem is that they are skewed to support a flawed narrative.
The Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA) has accumulated numerous cases that legitimately raise deep concerns about the academic freedom of those who wish to express any pro-Israel views, campus environments in which calls for “Zionists off campus” are normalized and Jews are expected to disavow Zionist views, or experience ostracization. If CAUT was truly interested in addressing the erosion of academic freedom, regardless of geopolitical viewpoint, it could have done so.
But the report’s authors, and those who have endorsed the report, have no such interest. In fact, in the aftermath of CAUT’s report, it has resolved to form an investigative task force to conduct a survey on the repression of freedom of expression and research on Palestine on university and college campuses. There is not even the pretence of any investigation of the pervasive suppression of Zionist, mainstream Jewish or Israeli academic freedom. Indeed, an attempt to broaden the scope of this work to all affected since October 7 was defeated. (See NECA's letter dated May 1, 2025)
Nor do they apparently have any interest in institutional neutrality, or research integrity. Otherwise, they should have been the first to condemn the arrangement made between the University of Windsor’s administration, occupiers and the students union that compelled the administration to take a position on the Middle East conflict and prohibits researchers and academics from partnerships with Israeli institutions.
And now, perhaps the most dangerous hypocrisy. A motion was also passed by CAUT’s Council that its report on academic freedom be revised as follows: “Where anti-Palestinian racism is first named, acknowledge and cite The Arab Canadian Lawyers Association report on the term now widely used throughout North America.”
The Arab Canadian Lawyers Association has adopted a definition of anti-Palestinian racism that effectively labels anyone as racist who disputes Palestinian narratives about the creation of the State of Israel or who “fails to acknowledge” Palestinian belonging and rights in relation to occupied and historic Palestine (including the entirety of the State of Israel even within the pre-1967 borders recognized by the United Nations).
Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that Zionism is not a pejorative term, and he regards himself as a Zionist. He apparently would be labelled as an anti-Palestinian racist, together with all those who recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish democratic state and the desirability of a two-state solution.
CAUT’s hypocrisy is found in endorsing a definition of anti-Palestinian racism that unequivocally suppresses free expression and academic freedom by labelling Zionists, Israelis and the vast majority of Jews as racist, while repeatedly rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism purportedly because it suppresses pro-Palestinian speech, anti-Israel criticism. Even those who strongly condemn Israel’s conduct should be embarrassed at this level of intellectual hypocrisy.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism explicitly excludes criticism of Israel of the type levelled against any country from being labelled antisemitic. It also prefaces illustrations of antisemitism by the caveat that they “could” (not “must”) be antisemitic depending on the context. The definition of Anti-Palestinian racism contains no such exception or context. It suppresses the very academic freedom and freedom of speech it purports to defend. (For a detailed examination of anti-Palestinian racism, see my December 2024 analysis of the Justice Committee’s Report on Islamophobia).
The IHRA definition of antisemitism has been adopted as a non-binding guide in 43 countries including Canada. It followed well over a decade of broad international consultations. It represents a very useful tool in understanding contemporary antisemitism.
But not for those who refuse to acknowledge how easily anti-Zionism morphs into antisemitism. “Death to all Zionists,” “All Zionists are evil, genocidal and racist,” “All Zionists off campus,” rely on a distorted definition of what Zionism means to the vast majority of Jews and their allies, demonizing all Zionists (and thus, 91% of Canadian Jews) without distinction.
There is no kind way to say this. An organization that should lead the way on issues of academic freedom, institutional neutrality, research integrity, objective, evidence-based scholarship, has abandoned principle for political expediency.
Palestinians are entitled to be free from discrimination, as are Arabs, Muslims, Jews, and Israelis. Universities and colleges have a duty to protect academic freedom and resist its erosion, regardless of the perspectives (subject to legal limits) of those affected. It is tragic that CAUT has disqualified itself, unless it reverses its position, from credibly addressing these important issues.
--
Endnotes
i) The report states: “Hamas militants based in Gaza fired rockets into Israel, breached its defenses and conducted a ground attack on nearby communities.”
ii) Citing Independent Jewish Voices, an anti-Zionist lobby representing the views of a very small percentage of Canadian Jews.
iii) I leave aside the misdescription of the foundation, itself problematic.
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.