UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESIDENT ROBERT PRICHARD REPORT TO THE ACADEMIC BOARD ON THE DR. KIN YIP CHUN MATTER, OCTOBER 09, 1997
To the Governing Council,
University of Toronto.
Your Board reports that it held a meeting on Thursday, October 9th, 1997 at 4:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall. An attendance list is attached to this report. In this report, items 6, 7 and 8 are presented to the Executive Committee for confirmation, and the remaining items are reported for information.
1. Time of Adjournment It was duly moved and seconded,
THAT the meeting adjourn no later than 6:30 p.m. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried.
4. Report Number 70 of the Agenda Committee
The report was presented for information.
Item 3: Notice of Motion
The Chair drew members' attention to the disposition of the notice of motion proposed at the last meeting concerning faculty tenure-stream hiring. The Agenda Committee had referred the motion to Professor Sedra for clarification and advice.
Item 4: Speaking Requests
The Chair noted that he had received two requests to address the Board arising from the President's report on Dr. Chun's case. On the advice of the Committee, he had refused both requests to speak for the reasons outlined in the Report. It was a personnel matter that was being reviewed at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but above all it was inappropriate for the Board to deal with an individual's grievance.
A member indicated that he wished to propose that Dr. Chun be allowed to address the Board. He suggested that since the last meeting of the Board, the University had been made to look ridiculous. The public perception was that the University was afraid to hear the truth. He said that an academic institution was founded on openness and debate. These principles pervade the classroom and should also pervade governance. He turned to the reasons presented for not allowing Dr. Chun to speak. The first was that it was a personal personnel matter and should not be discussed in open session. In fact, Dr. Chun wanted to speak in public about his affairs. The second reason was that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Board. He understood that the Board was not a tribunal but he said it was responsible for policy and that extended to policy on appointments and academic staff. If Dr. Chun spoke, he would address the specific issues of how the University violated its own policies. In his opinion the reasons against allowing Dr. Chun to speak fell like a house of cards when the underlying assumptions were removed. The Board has been told that it only need hear one side of the story. This demagoguery should not be accepted at an academic institution and he found the idea offensive. Dr. Chun should be allowed to speak in the University's self-interest and because the University was founded on openness and fair debate.
The Chair noted that a motion to allow Dr. Chun to speak was non-debatable. He asked if the member would consider delaying putting the motion to allow for some debate of the matter. The member agreed to wait.
A member spoke against hearing Dr. Chun speak on the ground that if the Board heard Dr. Chun it would have to, in fairness, hear from a representative of the Department of Physics. This would require time and would lead to hearing of a large number of witnesses to corroborate the statements. It would eventually lead into an attempt to adjudicate the matter, a role completely inappropriate for the Academic Board. An argument has been advanced that the Board should hear him because he wants to speak. In the Faculty of Arts and Science alone there were probably 800 candidates a year who were not successful in gaining an appointment. It would be completely inappropriate for this Board to hear from disgruntled job applicants. There were other fora for Dr. Chun to use to have his complaints heard.
Another member commented that the Academic Board had existed for ten years and had served the University well. Its rules of procedure were set by Governing Council and were similar to those of a legislature. Just as he could not go to the provincial legislature and demand to speak, individuals pressing their own complaints have not been heard by this Board. During his term as chair, he had made two exceptions. The University of Toronto Faculty Association, by virtue of the Memorandum of Agreement, had a right to speak and, in the discussions concerning the Faculty of Forestry, three individuals had been invited to summarize for Board members evidence given at a lower committee. He believed the previous speaker was right. If the Board ever heard an individual's grievance, the doors would be open to other complainants. There were other procedures for resolving differences and these should be explored in this case.
A member indicated his agreement with the comments of the previous speakers concerning not making the Board an adjudicative body. However, he indicated that it was not Dr. Chun's intention to speak to his own case but rather to general policy issues. For example, he referred members to the third paragraph under item 4 of the Agenda Committee Report which responded to the allegation that a professor had been hired, bypassing the Provost in the procedures. That whole matter suggested that there were significant policy issues to be addressed. The Board must deal with hiring practices that erect systemic barriers faced by racial minorities. This Board had the jurisdiction and the mandate to deal with such policy issues. He said that the Board had the right to establish a special committee to deal with the policy issues that flow from the Chun case. The member referred to the letter written by Dr. Chun outlining the reasons for his request to speak. He said that the President had spoken for 25 minutes at the previous meeting and had not presented all the facts; Dr. Chun should be allowed to speak.
A member said that if an issue was important, the time should be devoted to it. Although individuals might not go to a legislative body and speak, they could be invited. The Board should invite Dr. Chun to speak
A member stated that he supported justice for Dr. Chun and at the previous meeting had supported his request to speak. Since then, he had been persuaded that this was not the appropriate forum to hear his grievance. What he did feel was appropriate was to ask how the University would provide justice for him. He understood that discussions were underway again to try and resolve the matter. The President reported that following the last meeting of the Board, Dr. Chun had written indicating his wish to enter into discussion to work toward a negotiated resolution of his complaint. This was a welcome letter and Dr. Chun had identified a legal representative for these discussions. The President hoped the matter could be resolved. He reiterated his and the administration's obligation to answer any questions put by the Board members, subject to instructions to the contrary.
A member made two points which he found ironic. One was the proposition that allowing Dr. Chun to speak was a violation of procedure when the Board was currently violating procedure by de facto discussing a motion that was non debatable. The other point concerned his interest in equity issues. He believed that there was an injustice done to Dr. Chun and he hoped for a speedy resolution. However, he found it ironic that Dr. Chun claimed discrimination, but had implied in at least one statement that an irrelevant factor, family status, should be considered in connection with his seeking a position.
A member noted that there were appeals committees where students could take their complaints. He asked whether there was a similar process to hear staff complaints. Would the outcome of such a process be a summary of the case and a report to this Board? The Chair responded that there was not an analogous process.
It was duly moved and seconded,
That Dr. Chun be invited to address the Board.
The Chair ruled the motion out of order for the reasons given in the Report of the Agenda Committee. A member challenged the Chair's ruling and asked for a recorded vote. The request for a recorded vote was supported by three members. The vote was taken on the challenge to the Chair. It failed, 17 supporting the challenge and 51 opposing the challenge.