The new term is upon us and at UNB, like every other law school across the country, we are thinking about the TRC calls to action and how to best respond. The other day, we were lucky enough to have Charlene Bearhead visit UNB’s Faculty of Education, which included a public event on indigenizing the university. An important part of the discussion was about the role of mandatory courses and mandatory curriculum. We all agreed that having one mandatory course would be insufficient in law or any program, but there was some discussion about whether having mandatory courses on Indigenous law and governance, Aboriginal law (I am using that term as a shorthand for settler law applied specifically to Indigenous people(s)) and so forth was a good idea.
The discussion took me back to a conversation I had with Karen Drake from Lakehead earlier in the year after a brilliant talk she gave at UNB on the need for mandatory courses and curriculum. At the time, she argued that faculty should be directed to include mandatory curriculum into their courses. I thought that would be easier to do for courses where the course description included those elements, but felt that directing faculty to include mandatory curriculum where this had not been the product of a collegial process was offensive to academic freedom principles. Karen was of the view that academic freedom attached to the ‘how’ but not the ‘what’ of curricular development. Talking about it more, I came to understand that my reliance on the collegial process was informed by my context of strong academic freedom protections under the UNB collective agreement and a very long history of collegial governance, while Karen’s views were informed by an institutionally younger context. Anyhow, we were both talking about the need to think through the academic freedom piece and she thought I should write something and I agreed and then summer happened and here we are.
The question we were wrestling with is this: when we commit ourselves to responding to the TRC calls to action, particularly to 28, how will we respond to professors who choose not to include aspects of a curriculum we would like to make mandatory for all students. Would it be permissible for a dean to discipline a faculty member who fails to include Aboriginal title in their first year property course? Or pushes it to the end of the syllabus, where it will predictably not get taught? I continue to think that coercion has no place in TRC implementation, and Karen and I were quite agreed that it would be disappointing and less than ideal if it came to that. Where we disagreed was whether it was possible.
My thinking about academic freedom has been profoundly influenced by Jon Thompson, a mathematics professor emeritus at UNB, former chair the CAUT’s academic freedom committee, inaugural lecturer of our faculty association’s Jon Thompson annual academic freedom lecture, investigator of the York conference controversy (No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities. Halifax: Lorimer, 2011) and coauthor of the report on Dr. Olivieri with Jocelyn Downie and Patricia Baird (The Olivieri Report: The Complete Text of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Toronto: Lorimer, 2001). He pointed me to the recent statement of academic freedom articulated by the AUCC (now Universities Canada) and the more elaborate CAUT statement, which makes express mention of freedom of teaching as follows: “Academic freedom includes the right, without restriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom to teach and discuss.” In a personal conversation, Jon also noted that the history of academic freedom shows that it tends to be progressives who are disciplined, not late adopters.
On its face, the CAUT statement does not answer the question whether academic freedom covers only the ‘how’ and not the ‘what’ of teaching, and the AUCC statement is even less instructive. So I turned to the arbitral jurisprudence. It turns out that there are not many decisions that address academic freedom in the context of teaching. But I did find a couple that might be helpful. One is a recent Quebec decision involving Concordia University where the collective agreement specifically protected the rights of instructors to pick their own teaching materials. Despite this, the grievance was denied in the context of a multi-section course because academic freedom of teaching was found to be constrained by a general ‘reasonableness’ requirement. Also, the institutional purpose of delivering the multi-section course in a consistent manner was found to be compelling, particularly when the requirement to use particular materials was the subject of express language in the job ad. It is noteworthy, however, that the decision affected the right to recall of a part-time instructor for a particular course, rather than a discipline grievance by a tenured or tenure-track professor.
The second potentially relevant case is from Memorial. Here, a professor’s right to determine the final mark for a student in her course was in issue. In that case, the arbitration board found that the university had violated the professor’s academic freedom, but not because her freedom to mark student work was unlimited, but rather because academic freedom has a procedural rights component that meant she had a right to be included in the discussion. This is not on point in terms of teaching materials, but the notion that academic freedom principles could be respected through process is helpful.
In an ideal world, the general enthusiasm for and commitment to implementing the calls to action would be sufficient for pervasive and comprehensive curricular reform. My sense from speaking with colleagues across the country is that faculty everywhere are working on this with dedication, creativity and love. Maybe it is because I have been working in faculty labour relations for too long, but I would nevertheless be surprised if the issue of mandatory curriculum inside of existing courses will not give rise to tensions somewhere along the way. In particular, what is true for many of our students is also true for many of us: we simply know too little and do not have confidence in our ability to teach a reconciliation curriculum. I am therefore incredibly grateful for all the contributions to the blog project, it is the kind of capacity-building that is desperately needed. Maybe we don’t have to answer the academic freedom question, but I hope that if we do, we will find ways to make progress as colleagues.
Jula Hughes is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick and a former president of AUNBT, the UNB faculty association.