UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESIDENT ROBERT PRICHARD REPORT TO THE ACADEMIC BOARD ON THE DR. KIN YIP CHUN MATTER, SEPTEMBER 04, 1997

3. Report Number 69 of the Agenda Committee

The Agenda Committee had also discussed a request for information from a member of the Academic Board. He had asked the President to report on the matter to the Board. Before he asked the President to speak, the Chair laid out the parameters for the discussion. The matter that the member wished addressed was a personnel one. This Board did not adjudicate or discuss such matters; the Board's responsibility was to monitor policy, in this case, in the area of appointments. The President had been asked to speak to the matter of process so that the Board could assure itself that process had been properly followed. The Board could not discuss the particular case. He noted that he had had received several requests from non-members of the Board to address the Board and he had refused them. The risk of straying into inappropriate terrain was too great. With respect to the material members might have received concerning this particular personnel matter, he stated that no material had been authorized for distribution by the Secretariat and none had been distributed by the Secretariat.

The President was grateful for advance notice of the question. He said that he had reported four times previously on this matter - to the Governing Council in March, 1995 and June, 1997 and to the Executive Committee in September, 1995 and June, 1997. This would be one of a number of reports on the matter contained in the public minutes of Governing Council and its committees. He appreciated the point that this was a personnel matter but the individual concerned had given wide publicity to the details of his case. He, therefore, felt that it would not be objectionable to the individual to rehearse some of the background.

The President said that Dr. Kin-Yip Chun had joined the University in 1985 as a research associate in the Department of Physics. Between 1987 and 1991, he had applied four times for a tenure-stream appointment. Open searches for the positions were held and he was unsuccessful. He continued as a research associate and a status-only assistant professor until 1994 when his appointment was not renewed. Dr. Chun has alleged that he was unsuccessful in obtaining a tenure-stream appointment due to racism or racial considerations.

What did the administration do? The President said that the matter had been investigated by Dean Chandler of the Faculty of Arts and Science. Dean Chandler had concluded that there had been no racial bias. Dr. Chun then appealed to the Provost. The Provost judged it was appropriate to appoint an independent investigator. Dr. Cecil Yip, Vice-Dean of Research in the Faculty of Medicine and a past president of the University of Toronto Faculty Association, was appointed and he was given the support of legal counsel. Dr. Yip reported to the Provost and his report was accepted by the Provost. The President summarized the two principal findings of the Yip report. The first finding dealt with the allegation of racism. Dr. Yip said "I have found no evidence that Dr. Chun was improperly denied a permanent academic position in the Department of Physics because of his race." The President said that he had spoken to Professor Bill Graham, President of the University of Toronto Faculty Association, and Professor Graham had said "UTFA has no knowledge of any racism in the Physics Department." Dr. Yip's second finding was that Dr. Chun was treated unfairly in the termination of his position as a research associate. Dr. Yip also said that Dr. Chun was "exploited"; he was used as a professor although he was appointed as a research associate.

The President said that the Provost has accepted both of these conclusions. What remedies should be offered? On the question of the tenure-stream searches, he has accepted the findings of Dean Chandler and Dr. Yip that there was no racial bias. Dr. Chun was and is free to compete for any tenure-stream positions at the University of Toronto in his field. All tenure-stream positions are and must be filled by an open search process. This position on searches is supported by the Faculty Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). The Provost also accepted the finding that Dr. Chun had been exploited and that a remedy, crafted to the nature of his previous position, should be provided. Three possible settlements were offered to Dr. Chun for his choice. The President said that it was not appropriate to disclose the details of the proposed settlements to the Board. Both UTFA and CAUT have encouraged a settlement. The offers to settle dealt with the termination of his employment as a research associate, not with the allegation of racism since none was found.

The President said that Dr. Chun has continued to disagree with Dr. Yip on the question of whether racism was a factor in his unsuccessful application for the tenure-stream positions. It is his right to do so. He has taken his case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The administration's position at the Commission is that Dr. Chun's case is without merit but the University is subject to the jurisdiction of the OHRC and will cooperate with it in its deliberations.

By way of providing a broader context for this issue, the President noted that there were 50 - 100 tenure-stream searches each year, attracting anywhere from 5 to 200 applicants for each position. From this very large number of applicants, the Provost received 2 or 3 complaints each year. Upon receipt of a complaint, the head of the division is asked for a report on the search process. The Provost evaluates the report and he decides to accept the report, to take a further look at the process himself, or to appoint an independent investigator to review the matter.

The President referred to some documentation concerning other searches that was circulated by FAX. The individuals had not identified themselves and it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter. Where complaints were received, the Provost used his judgement based on the procedure he had just enunciated. With respect to the individual concerned in the Faculty of Law search, he did not feel as bound by concerns for her privacy since she had copied her complaint to a large number of people. The same process would, however, be followed. The Dean would investigate the complaint. The President and the Provost had done a preliminary review and they had found no evidence inconsistent with exemplary compliance with the policy.

The President referred members to the Employment Equity Report for 1995-96 which was on the agenda under items for information. The University had made good progress in this area and the University was determined to move ahead. In closing, he said that he would advise the Board of any major developments.

A member explained that he had received, unsolicited, a large number of documents about Dr. Chun. He had felt that he had a responsibility to write to the Chair of the Board and ask the President to report on how the University was dealing with the case. Any matters that touch on racism or employment equity were of concern to the Board. Members had a right to ask whether the University was following its policies. In addition, he wished to know whether Mr. Kelvin Andrews, Office of Race Relations and Anti-racism Initiatives, had sufficient resources to conduct investigations. All four complaints referred to in the circulated material referred to racism. He recalled that the President had said there were one or two complaints a year. Were all the cases that go wrong concerned with race? In two cases, including that of Dr. Chun, the University has conceded it was at fault. With respect to the law professor, she was, in his opinion, the brightest race relations expert. At this point, the Chair reminded the member to focus his comments on the process, not on the qualifications of individuals, which would be out of order. The member said that he had four questions for the President:

1. Was the Policy on Academic Appointments and Remuneration: Academic Appointments, Suspensions, Removals dated May 1992 properly implemented?

2. Were the policies enunciated in the Policy on Academic Appointments, Suspensions and Removals dated May 1992 followed in the circumstances leading up to and following the firing of Dr. Chun?

3. Were the policies enunciated in the Policy on Academic Appointments sufficient to deal with the issues which arose following the termination of Dr. Chun?

4. In the event the policies in the Policy on Academic Appointment and Remuneration: Appointments, Suspensions and Removals are insufficient, are there recommendations as to amendments, changes or other considerations the Board may wish to implement or recommend for implementation?

The President responded that not all complaints deal with race. Some complainants were dissatisfied with the way their qualifications were viewed, or with the discipline subfields as chosen. He said that Mr. Andrews felt fully briefed on the cases and considered himself to have sufficient resources. In response to the member's questions, the President indicated that the policies have been followed and applied. They were excellent policies and guided the University well.

A member asked whether the procedures for the review process were in written form. The President responded that they were not. They were the administrative practice and the way in which these matters had been handled while he has been President. He noted that the process would be recorded in this Academic Board Report.

A member asked why, if the situation was as reported by the President, the case had received so much attention. He wondered whether it was because of the University's bumbling of equity issues and the cuts in resources to support equity initiatives. He suggested that the situation might be remedied by the restoration of resources to these areas. The President said that the University was a place where people were free to argue their views but that reason and facts should count. He pointed out that all these events predated the "Common Sense Revolution" and the subsequent budget reductions leading to reductions in the Status of Women Office and the Ombudsperson Office. He believed he had given the Academic Board the facts. Dr. Chun genuinely believes that Dr. Yip was wrong and he has continued to press his case. That was why the matter was getting publicity. There were good debates at the Board on matters raised by members. He was proud of the University's officers; they served the University well. In the course of debates, it was the administration's role to put the facts forward for the Board's consideration.

A member suggested, as a means of moving the matter forward, the following notice of motion:

THAT the Academic Board reaffirm the existing principle that, in faculty tenure-stream hiring, provided that there was no evidence of racial or any other sort of bias, the decision was the right and responsibility of the academic unit(s) with the relevant disciplinary expertise.

The member suggested that whatever the views of a particular case were, given no evidence of individual bias, an academic hiring decision was that of the department. In this case, he could not say if the Department of Physics should have hired Dr. Chun over the other applicants.

A member suggested that Dr. Chun be invited to address the Board. The Chair reminded members of his introductory comments in which he had indicated that no non-members of the Board would be allowed to address the Board. The member moved to challenge the Chair. The motion was seconded and the vote was taken. The motion failed.

A member explained that the matter was one of process. He wished assurance that the policy on appointments was being applied properly, that all candidates would compete fairly and on an equal footing. It was disheartening to receive complaints from prominent contributors. He wanted to know that the University was handling these issues in an appropriate manner, not in the press and not in the cavalier manner in which the President had responded to his four questions.

The President noted that it was entirely appropriate for the member to ask about this issue. Both he and the Provost were accountable to the Board. He had had no discomfort in reporting to the Board and, as he had mentioned previously, he had reported on four other occasions. With respect to the member's questions, his answer had been sincere but he would be pleased to put it in writing. The Provost and he were fully committed to implementing the policies.

A member asked whether the administration had looked at how dependent the University was on non-tenure-track labour and if there were any data on this issue. Was there a higher proportion of minorities represented in this group? She also wondered what percentage was awarded tenure. Professor Finlayson referred to the Employment Equity Report 1995-96, table 12a, page 35. This table gave the percentage of minorities in each staff category.

A member suggested that perhaps "cronyism" was involved in some of the appointment decisions.

A member offered another perspective of the search process. He suggested that the competition for faculty positions was becoming increasingly stiff. There was no stigma associated with failure. Only the very best should be chosen; some very good people would not be. The continuing objective was that each and every applicant be treated fairly and equitably. In the end, it was matters of scholarly excellence that were of importance, and he, for one, was not competent to judge matters of physics.

A member asked about the terms of the proposed settlements. The President responded that this was a confidential matter, inappropriate for discussion at the Board, but one that could be raised at the Executive Committee, which met in closed session. There was a series of proposals that maximized Dr. Chun's choice. He believed the University had been sensitive to his concerns.

© Copyright 1998. All Rights Reserved.