How TMU’s Administration Is the Problem, Not the Solution
- Mark Sandler
- 23 hours ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 15 minutes ago
A shorter version of this article was first published by The Hub.
Last Friday, Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) released a redacted version of a report from former Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Mary Lou Benotto. Benotto was appointed in November 2025 to conduct an independent external review of two incidents involving the arrest of students affiliated with campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP-TMU) and make related recommendations for change.
In one event, SJP-TMU members engaged in a coordinated disruption of a TMU-hosted event, directing epithets at specific members of the audience, despite repeated offers by event organizers and the guest speaker to engage in discussion. Benotto rejected the false narrative that security guards “brutalized” SJP-TMU members and that the arrest that followed resulted solely from the students' participation in protest activity. This narrative was advanced by SJP-TMU through a campaign of vilification and through misleadingly edited social media footage. Benotto concluded that the arrest was both reasonable and lawful, and the force used was not excessive.
In a second event, in November 2025, protestors associated with SJP-TMU attacked an off-campus speaking event organized by Students Supporting Israel (SSI-TMU), featuring speakers with ties to the IDF. After TMU denied the event permission to proceed on campus, it was relocated to a privately rented venue near campus. During a violent confrontation, a glass door was shattered and injuries were sustained. Four anti-Israel protestors (or more accurately, rioters) face various criminal charges, including public incitement of hatred, unlawful assembly, rioting while masked, and forcible entry. Again, Benotto rejected the false narrative by SJP-TMU supporters that protestors were assaulted and “brutalized” by one of the speakers at the event. All the credible evidence pointed to the contrary.
Benotto found the two incidents were symptoms of a deteriorating campus climate that, absent decisive institutional action, are likely to recur. She stated that TMU could not avoid responsibility for the second event simply by declining to permit it on campus. TMU effectively permitted a “heckler’s veto” to dictate who speaks on campus. Its approach undermines the university’s viewpoint neutrality and its obligation to protect the expressive rights of all its community members. Benotto concluded that TMU has policies capable of addressing the conduct identified in the report. However, too often, the university has failed to apply those policies consistently, and decisively. This has led to a perception that disruption carries few consequences.
Benotto’s report documents, in painful detail, the demonization and marginalization of Jews on campus, contributed to by anti-Zionism rhetoric and conduct that undermines institutional neutrality, academic freedom and respectful dialogue. The report states: “The redefinition of Zionism to incorporate genocide and the insistence that anyone who fails to actively support anti-Zionism is likewise culpable have contributed to an environment that has enabled antisemitism to flourish.”
"While many individuals – including many Jews – hold differing views about Israeli government policies, the Israeli state or the meaning of Zionism itself, concerns arise when Zionism is defined exclusively through the pejorative or demonizing frameworks that leave little room for the perspectives of Jews for whom Zionism forms part of their identity. … It is clear that, on TMU campus, the word “Zionist” has become associated with genocide, illegitimacy or moral condemnation, and that being called a Zionist is experienced as pejorative. … When anti-Zionism denies the Jewish people the right of self-determination that is recognized for other peoples, it ceases to be merely a political stance and becomes discriminatory.”
At the same time, she shows balance and objectivity in addressing the pain felt by many students at the school, whether Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian or Arab. Her findings and systemic recommendations are required reading for all universities and colleges across the country.
TMU’s Response
And yet, how did TMU’s administration respond to this exceptional independent report it commissioned? It said the issues are complex and announced that it was setting up an Implementation Task Force to address the recommendations. The Task Force is to provide a report to the university by March 2027, seven months later. This is about as long as Benotto’s entire review. It ensures that meaningful change is unlikely to take place during the upcoming school year, to the detriment of Jewish students living within a poisoned environment.
Despite the report’s devastating findings, TMU’s administration could not bring itself to promptly adopt any of Benotto’s recommendations or findings, a marked contrast to how it responded to an earlier flawed report (the MacDonald Report). Nor did TMU consult with any of the stakeholders most affected, including students victimized by the events described in the report, before announcing a committee and its composition. Incidentally, the committee includes at least three members whose publicly stated positions (for example, in rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism) are incompatible with Benotto’s findings and recommendation that TMU adopt the IHRA definition.
One can only reasonably infer that TMU, rather than acknowledging responsibility and moving to quickly address toxicity on campus, prefers to forum-shop and reopen all the issues. This approach will undoubtedly embolden faculty activists (also exposed in Benotto’s report) who reject respectful dialogue with Zionists and treat valued freedom of expression as a limitless licence to intimidate and harass.
“Words and behaviour that cross the line into harassment, discrimination, and hate cannot shelter under claims of free speech. One person’s free speech cannot shut down another person’s right to lawful expression… This has been a recurring concern on the TMU campus. The events examined in this Review demonstrate the consequences of that principle being lost.”
The Unconscionable Redaction of Benotto’s Report
Equally troubling was the administration’s decision to redact large portions of Justice Benotto’s report. The administration repeatedly undertook to make Benotto’s report public upon its completion. That is, before it saw what she said. When it appeared that TMU had received, but not released Benotto’s report, ALCCA and the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA) pressed for its publication. We were concerned that TMU was more interested in preserving its reputation and legal position than in transparency.
A key rationale for commissioning this report was to obtain Benotto’s findings and recommendations respecting potential disciplinary action against TMU students and the continued status of groups such as SJP-TMU. However, none of Benotto’s findings and recommendations in that regard have been made public. The report’s entire section on the complaint arising out of the November 2025 off-campus event has been redacted. Similarly, much of the section addressing the September 19 incident is also redacted, including, somewhat ironically, “A fair, accurate and impartial account of the events of September 19 inside the auditorium.” The section on “sanctions for impermissible conduct” has been removed altogether.
TMU claims that these passages are not presently being made public “to protect the integrity and confidentiality of proceedings under TMU’s policies.” However, Justice Benotto’s terms of reference specifically directed her to “have due regard to the confidentiality provisions under the [relevant] Policy and Code in preparing the External Review Report.” We can confidently assume that Benotto, an experienced appellate and trial judge, understood her obligations and complied with them. Indeed, it is disrespectful, if not insulting, to Justice Benotto that TMU has obviously ignored her legal assessment as to what could be publicly released in her own report.
TMU appears to have taken no real action (including legally available, meaningful interim measures) to address alleged misconduct by TMU students and SJP-TMU. Now it has Benotto’s findings and recommendations on point but has chosen to suppress them. This isn’t about preserving anonymity. Benotto undoubtedly did that. TMU has a continuing duty to ensure that its Jewish students – indeed all students – are safe and free from fear or intimidation. Unnecessary redactions of key components of the report further erode confidence in the administration and the likelihood of true accountability for misconduct.
Other Highlights of the Report
The report explains the importance of maintaining institutional neutrality as a university, especially relevant to concerns about adopting Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions measures or formally adopting the term “Anti-Palestinian racism” as an institutional framework or governing concept.
The report states that universities including TMU should unequivocally oppose discrimination, harassment, and exclusion directed at Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Israelis or any other members of the University community. However, TMU should not adopt the political positions or policy demands advanced by any particular advocacy group, including in relation to Anti-Palestinian racism, as defined by its proponents.
“The definition… incorporates contested historical, political and ideological propositions, including characterizations relating to the Nakba, indigeneity, and status of historic Palestine. Many members of the University community may reasonably hold differing scholarly, historical, legal, or political views regarding these issues. Concerns therefore arise that institutional adoption of such a definition could discourage or chill legitimate academic discussion, disagreement or inquiry relating to contested questions …”
The report recommends that TMU adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It provides the clearest guidance on what is and what is not antisemitic.
The report rebuts the MacDonald Report's premise that intent is a required element for discrimination. Human rights jurisprudence has consistently held that intent is not a necessary element. It is the discriminatory result which is prohibited, not discriminatory intent. Antisemitism can and does exist in the absence of intent. The MacDonald Report failed to characterize a letter as antisemitic signed by law students based, in part, on this flawed premise.
The report expresses concern about official statements by academic departments that compromise institutional neutrality. This concern is heightened where such statements adopt particular interpretations of disputed events, advocate institutional action, or align the department with particular activist movements or policy demands. Faculty and students who disagree may reasonably feel pressure to remain silent or self-censor.
The report pointedly observes that SSI-TMU repeatedly indicated that they would welcome an opportunity to respectfully discuss issues with SJP-TMU. They said that “if only they saw us as fellow humans there could be the path.” In contrast, SJP-TMU and its supporters, including Professor Sealy-Harrington, repeatedly stated that they would not be amenable to discussion. This is raised by Justice Benotto in the context of the importance of respectful dialogue.
On a personal note, ALCCA has raised all these points, as well as TMU’s toxic environment and failure to address antisemitism, for years. We are gratified that Justice Benotto heard us, and so many others. She provided a blueprint for change set out in her report. One can reasonably infer that she also provided findings and recommendations for discipline and for addressing SJP-TMU’s continuing presence on campus, although redacted by TMU from her report. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that her recommendations are implemented in a timely way.
-30-
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.