John Ivison: On the eve of pro-Hamas vigils, universities finally seem ready to tackle campus antisemitism

The macabre spectacle of planned pro-Hamas vigils at universities across Canada on Wednesday “honouring our martyrs” may wipe away the last vestiges of public trust in our seats of higher learning.

Sign In or Create an Account

The fact that remembrance on October 7 is being devoted to the perpetrators of murder and rape, rather than their victims, is a sign of how far universities have allowed a Marxian secular worship of “the oppressed” to justify bullying, intimidation and harassment of Jews in Canada.

(A vigil at the University of Toronto was cancelled by the administration over “safety and operational concerns,” but as of press time, similar events remain planned at McGill University and the University of British Columbia).

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

It seems that the universities have belatedly realized that the time for talking about taking action has passed and they had better address the epidemic of antisemitism that has broken out on campuses across the country.

A meeting to that end was attended by representatives of 70 institutions on Monday, with the goal of creating a national strategy that might turn the tide.

Gabriel Miller, president of Universities Canada, said universities have done work at ground level to improve policies to protect Jews and fight antisemitism by beefing up campus security, improving training in diversity offices, and so on. “The one thing I’ve heard most consistently from Jewish students is that they want the same protections under the same policies that every student is entitled to on campus and that’s something that universities have taken to heart,” Miller said.

But he said the real decision from Monday’s forum was to take stronger action at a national level.

The forum agreed on the need to co-ordinate government, law enforcement and the thicket of human rights regulations across the country.

But it really shouldn’t be this hard.

In December 2023, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania were unable to answer a simple question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct, regarding bullying and harassment?

Most Canadian university presidents would be able to answer in the affirmative.

But, as a review of antisemitic incidents at Toronto Metropolitan University last year by Justice Mary Lou Benotto found, the absence of clear enforcement, combined with ambiguity around free expression, has contributed to the perception that disruption and discrimination carry few consequences.

It is possible that individual students were sanctioned after the TMU review, which followed on from the violent disruption of  two Jewish-linked events. Pages of the report were redacted on privacy grounds.

But the Benotto review concluded that the deteriorating campus climate was the result of the absence of decisive action by the university.

The consequences of this inaction are evident in the findings of the Campus Anti-Semitism and Student Experience (CASE) report, commissioned by the federal government.

It found 84 per cent of the 900 Jewish students interviewed said antisemitism on campus is a serious problem; 95.7 per cent said they had experienced or witnessed it; 70 per cent said their university does not take antisemitism seriously; and 68 per cent said their campus is not a safe or inclusive place.

More than half of those students avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols — a damning statistic in a country that trumpets its diversity credentials.

Universities Canada president Miller said that point resonated with him. “Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit of Canada, let alone our universities, than that,” he said. “(But) in addition to continuing to strengthen the response on campus, and giving this a national effort on behalf of universities, it’s going to require a much closer partnership between all the institutional players because antisemitism does not stop or start at the edge of campus.”

Maybe not, but the other players seem to be ahead of our universities in addressing the problem.

In his speech at a Toronto synagogue in June, Prime Minister Mark Carney called for public institutions to address the scourge of antisemitism.

In a statement on the third anniversary of October 7, he said every Jewish Canadian has the right to be “visibly, fully, joyfully Jewish in public life, at school, at work, in the street, in synagogue, in every place that is theirs because Canada is theirs.”

New laws strengthen protections against anti-hate and criminalize wilful promotion of hatred by publicly displaying certain symbols. After the attack last month on a synagogue in Belleville, Ont., the government issued a statement recognizing antisemitism as a matter of national security and “a core compound of many violent extremist ideologies.”

Law enforcement is stepping up, with some setting up hate-crimes units and laying charges related to wilful promotion of antisemitism (the first successful prosecution was made last year, when Kenneth Paulin of North Bay, Ont. was sent to jail for online posts that denied the Holocaust and called Jews cockroaches and demons).

The Ontario government’s Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has pledged to reduce the operational funding of universities that fail to comply with its directive to apply their own standards and policies. Interestingly, the ministry directive is clear that the institutions retain authority over (and responsibility for) student associations and groups operating on campus, when it comes to anti-hate and discrimination conduct.

Jewish advocates such as Noah Shack, the CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, would like to see Ontario’s harder line adopted across the country.

“I think it provides some of the clarity for universities that have failed to find clarity. It requires standardized reporting, resolution timelines for complaints, transparency, anti-hate training and security protocols to deal with intimidation … And where a university fails to follow the directive, it gives the minister the ability to withhold operational funding.”

Now, the ball is in the court of the universities, which have at best shrugged at and at worst been complicit in the adoption of a cancel culture that rejects nuance, the benefit of the doubt and true diversity, in favour of one, increasingly narrow path of self-defined righteousness.

The idea of national standards is not terrible, as long as they adopt the tougher options. For example, York University removed an anti-Israel encampment almost immediately, while other campuses, such as McGill, tolerated them. They quickly became the focal points for antisemitism.

Yet, as Justice Benotto concluded, while universities cannot resolve the conflict in the Middle East, or forge a consensus over competing historical narratives, they can establish clear behavioural recommendations and protect the rights of all members of the student and academic community.

“What the university can do is ensure that it has clear policies that are consistently enforced to ensure that people are behaving towards one another in the university environment in a way that’s conducive to higher education,” agreed Shack. “Ultimately, Jewish people in this country are going to be driven out of public institutions, and out of society, in a very scary way that we’ve seen in other countries throughout history and that no one would ever think possible in Canada.”

The right to free speech is always subject to boundaries

The argument against tighter rules against intimidation on campus is that it will stifle free expression.

But the right to free speech is always subject to boundaries.

Cary Kogan, a professor of psychology at the University of Ottawa who heads the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, said that there is a sense in some faculties that academic freedom is a kind of “white magic that protects you from anything and everything.”

“But the right to experience and participate in an educational setting as a full member of a democratic society has to be balanced with the rights of academic freedom,” he said.

The solution is not that complicated. Expressly prohibit intimidation, harassment, discrimination and conduct that interferes with the rights of others, and impose disciplinary sanctions on those who broach those rules.

Criticism of Israel’s government is protected expression.

But anti-Zionism —  the libel that the Jewish collective, Israel, rather than the individual Jew, is uniquely evil — is not. And it is the normalization of anti-Zionism that is driving antisemitism in Canada.

National Post

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.