Faculty members\u00a0at\u00a0the University of British Columbia are now left\u00a0in the dark\u00a0of legalism. On one hand is the overuse and abuse of legalistic non-disclosure agreements, such as that between the Board of Governors and ex-President Gupta. This form of legalism prevents us from knowing why our President resigned and who was behind the resignation.<\/p>\n
Now, on the other hand is the Honourable Lynn Smith\u2019s Report on interference with academic freedom<\/a>, specifically on whether BoG Chair Montalbano and Sauder School of Business administrators acted to suppress Jennifer Berdahl\u2019s inquiry into the resignation<\/a>. Smith delivered one of the most legalistic fact-finding Reports<\/a> one could write on the case. This form of legalism prevents us from knowing why a faculty member was submitted to\u00a0forces of suppression and who is accountable.<\/p>\n In a masterful crafting, Smith found that<\/a><\/p>\n UBC failed in its obligation to protect and support Dr. Berdahl\u2019s academic freedom\u2026 UBC as an institution failed [however] Mr. Montalbano, on his own, did not infringe any provision of the Collective Agreement, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment, or any of the applicable university policies. No individual in the Sauder School of Business identified by the Faculty Association, on his or her own, infringed any provision of the Collective Agreement, the UBC Statement on Respectful Environment, or any of the applicable university policies. (pp. 3-4)<\/p>\n \u201cUBC failed…\u201d UBC the\u00a0corporate person contravened the Collective Agreement and interfered with academic freedom. But no human person contravened or interfered.<\/p>\n If Lynn Smith finds the corporation of UBC liable for violating\u00a0an article of the Collective Agreement and\u00a0a faculty member’s\u00a0academic freedom, then which of its administrators or officials are responsible? Through which administrators or officials was the University acting in this case?<\/p>\n It\u2019s a\u00a0basic question of corporate liability that first year law students confront. But it\u2019s also an\u00a0advanced question that tests legal scholars. One retributivist option is to acknowledge UBC corporate personhood and responsibility\u00a0while at the same time holding to account senior officials, whether or not they participated in the transgressions, tolerated the actions taken, in this case by Montalbano and Sauder administrators, or just looked the other way.<\/p>\n \u201cUBC failed,\u201d and legalism is failing UBC. Jennifer Berdahl’s response takes the next step<\/a>, noting she’s “disappointed that university leaders” lost sight of academic freedom.\u00a0The Faculty Association’s response takes the next step in this process<\/a>, noting that “Senior academic leaders were conspicuously absent and silent.”<\/p>\n Who then were the senior administrators that tolerated the breaches or looked the other way? Provost and VP Academic pro tem? VP Human Resources? University Counsel? Dean of Sauder School of Business?<\/p>\n Through which administrators or officials was UBC acting in this case?<\/p>\n Once again, now is the time to speculate<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Faculty members\u00a0at\u00a0the University of British Columbia are now left\u00a0in the dark\u00a0of legalism. On one hand is the overuse and abuse of legalistic non-disclosure agreements, such as that between the Board of Governors and ex-President Gupta. This form of legalism prevents … Continue reading