Voting, collegiality, and Gaza
A detour, here at Book Addiction HQ: this isn't a book review, and it's not about books. It's about Israel, and Gaza, and my love for my colleagues, even when I disagree with them.
All over the world, I suspect, but certainly across Canada, university faculty associations have been struggling with their responses to the situation in Gaza. At my university, the association has been pushed into a potentially riven situation, certainly one that features a fair bit of division, and in spite of my optimism, I'm worried about how things will go.
The short story is that some members (quite reasonably) called an association general meeting by following the collective agreement's provisions about that. These members moved several motions onto the agenda; another group, with quite a different perspective on things, moved several others onto the agenda. Discussion was long enough and intense enough that two meetings were needed, both of which I missed because I was visiting the Northwest Territories, and now it's time to vote on all 13 motions.
Now, I've blogged a bit already about my thoughts on Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza, in relation to rereading Michael Chabon's novel The Yiddish Policemen's Union (which has as its organizing principle the concept that the new Israel was overrun almost immediately in 1948, so a new new Israel was temporarily set up in the Alaska Panhandle. It's a long story).
Nobody who knows me would be surprised, I think, to hear that I condemn wholeheartedly the actions of Hamas on October 7, 2023, among other things they've done that are either terrorism or terrorism-adjacent. Nor should they be surprised to hear that I condemn wholeheartedly Israel's murderous, genocidal assault against the people of Palestine and their institutions: hospitals, schools, water treatment plants, food supplies, and so on.
But when motions get drawn up, you're faced with words, and that's when things can get complicated. So, now that I've voted, I thought I'd explain myself. As I say, I'm worried about how things will go among our collegium, and in particular I'm worried about how the voting results on separate motions will be construed. For me, the decision wasn't always simple, and in several cases, it came down to a question of how the motion was worded. As a result, I've declined to support some of the motions from each group, and I want each group to recognize that a lack of voting support isn't the same as opposition.
Motion A
The first motion was a challenge for me because of one short passage, which I've underlined:
"The FA will urgently communicate to the administration its intent to unequivocally and vigorously defend its members' rights to exercise academic freedom and express their viewpoints on campus without fear of intimidation, disciplinary actions or retaliation in any form, including through supporting or engaging in peaceful encampments, in accordance with CA Article 14.3 and the statement from British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner."
If the motion had been purely about academic freedom, or if it had cited article 14.5 of the Collective Agreement along with article 14.3, then I likely would've voted in favour, even if I'm not sure how one polices against "intimidation ... or retaliation in any form," and also it's normal for there to be opposition and response, both of which can be interpreted as intimidation or retaliation. With that passage included, though, especially without a citation of article 14.5, I couldn't get on board. For me, a "viewpoint" doesn't meet the standard for protection that flows from academic freedom, and some viewpoints need to be met with disciplinary action or retaliation (by which I mean nonviolent retaliation). I wouldn't call it sloppy drafting, exactly, but certainly I wouldn't call it wise to yoke mere viewpoint together with academic freedom.
As a result, I abstained on Motion A. As I say, I would've voted in favour had it not included that one passage.
Motion H
And then there was Motion H. My assumption is that the movers genuinely felt they were aiming at neutrality, but in fact this motion aims at inertia, if not conservatism. Although I'm sympathetic to the idea that neutrality on non-core issues is a valuable tool when it comes to advocacy for core issues, I was always going to oppose this one, for a few different reasons. Two passages gave me particular pause, so I've highlighted them separately:
"Whereas one of the primary purposes of the Faculty Association as stated in the Constitution 2.1 is “to manage relations between the University of Victoria and the Association,” be it resolved that the Association shall remain neutral in any disputes concerning outside political events which are likely to cause division within the membership of the Association, and which are not directly connected to the primary purposes of the Association. By remaining neutral the association will protect the academic freedom of all members."
(I remember one association meeting, for example, where a colleague objected strenuously and at length to the idea that the union should support the concept of parental leave or compassionate leave. His argument was that this should be an individual decision, and if he wasn't going back to Europe to help his parents, which he wasn't, then why should he subsidize someone else's decision to shirk their academic duties?)
The effect of this phrasing in yellow would've prevented the taking of a position on almost anything whatsoever, and for that reason alone I would've voted against Motion H.
The bit highlighted in blue, too, is a further "stay in your lane" canard that looks reasonable, but isn't. After all, the defense of academic freedom is a primary purpose of the Association, too. Members are likely to use their academic freedom on issues likely to cause division among the membership, and the association should be defending their academic freedom to do so. As such, the motion would've been entirely unworkable, so I voted against it.
Motion I
Although I trust and respect the drafters of Motion I, who are my colleagues, I'm puzzled by it. Some of the motion's implications are inaccurate, and some of its phrasing is inflammatory. I'm expecting that it'll fail, but I worry that if it does, its failure could be used to sustain division (and to be clear, not necessarily by its drafters).
"Whereas the FA believes that it is contradictory to fight for academic freedom for some while seeking to repress it for others;
"Be it resolved that the FA will immediately communicate to the administration its intent to unequivocally and vigorously defend its members' rights to exercise academic freedom; its staunch opposition to efforts to undermine the exercise of academic freedom anywhere, including through boycotts of academics and academic institutions for geopolitical purposes; and its support of the free exchange of ideas, information, and research with academics of all nations, in keeping with Article 14 of the Collective Agreement."
If you strip all those elements away, as I think one should, what's the purpose of this motion? That's not a rhetorical question: I don't see the purpose, and I'd love to hear one. I've voted against this motion, and/but I'm more worried by this one than any of the others.
Motion J
Finally, we come to the near-omnibus Motion J:
"Whereas the Encampment has violated campus rules such as no overnight camping or tents, nor use of buildings for overnight stays; has promoted efforts to curtail the academic freedom of others with demands for academic boycotts; has created physical and exclusionary barriers on university land in contravention of both rules and the spirit of open exchange of ideas and knowledge; and has contributed to creating a hostile environment for many campus users, including some campus minority groups, which contradicts UVic’s stance on discrimination and potentially BC’s hate and discrimination laws;
"And, mindful of UVic’s efforts over many years to establish safe spaces on campus for all students, particularly minority students;
"Be it resolved that the FA fully supports peaceful protests, while rejecting protests that espouse, celebrate, and encourage violence, and that the FA will immediately communicate to the administration its grave concerns regarding the UVic Student Encampment’s promotion of divisiveness, creation of security risks to the UVic community, damage to campus facilities, violations of campus rules, potential violations of BC and Canadian laws, particularly hate and discrimination codes, and harm to UVic’s reputation among prospective students and the community at large."
With respect to the drafters, this motion was too long, too imprecise, and too over-stuffed to meet its purpose. It was structurally impossible for me ever to consider voting in favour of it.
And to be clear, although I do have concerns about the actions of some of those involved in the encampment, I'm wholly in support of the encampment's right to exist as a protest action, and I'm wholly opposed to the idea that a faculty association should be telling the administration how to respond to student protest actions. It's a protest, and this means that various legal and quasi-legal remedies are available to the administration, but it makes no sense to me that the faculty association should be trying to play the projected role.
In terms of my particular objections, first I'd note that the entire "Whereas" section implies that the association's job is to tell the university to make everyone follow all the rules. That's false. This section's deeply windy, too, and at best it's unnecessary.
The phrase "exclusionary barriers": yes, the encampment is indeed structured in such a way that you can't access an area of the quad without getting what amounts to permission to go there, but it's a patch of grass it's a patch of grass and a short diagonal concrete path, a path which until the 1980s was merely a dirt "desire path." (The design for the quad didn't feature this diagonal path, but it was an obvious shortcut, saving you maybe 30 seconds of walking time. After the grass was trampled for enough years, the university relented and laid down paving. In other words, this is maybe the people's path, not the university's, so could the encampment be said to be reclaiming it?) Anyway, the barriers don't exclude anyone from even a paved pathway any of the originally intended pathways along the quad, let alone a building. [N.B.: Edited to transparently correct a factual error.]
The phrase "creating a hostile environment": plenty of protests on campus, including some that I've firmly opposed and whose organizers I have personally confronted, create pockets of what amounts to a hostile environment. There's no merit to singling out this one, not on that specific ground. (There may well be grounds for treating this protest as categorically different, but this ain't it.) Someone creating a genuinely hostile environment or actively fomenting conflict can and should be subject to responses other than--gasp--a motion from the faculty association.
And all that's before we get to the "Be it resolved" section, which is an explicit, direct attack on the legitimacy of this particular student protest. It's a laundry list, a catalogue of sins, and I assume that the drafters wanted voters who'd support one of those claims to vote in favour. For me, its effect was the opposite, even if I wasn't in support of the students' right to protest.
Partly it's because I think the motion misunderstands what I take to be the intent of the encampment. (But do note, please, the triply conditional phrasing: "Partly" and "I think" and "what I take to be"! Prove me wrong, by all means: I'll listen to anything you have to say.)
I'm not inside the encampment, and I haven't spoken directly with anyone there. But it seems to me that they've been working more successfully than I would've expected to remain focused on the actions of Israel's government and army. That's no different from objecting to the actions of any other country's government and army: the actions of Israel's government aren't elements of religious faith or of race.
At many protests around the world, unquestionably we've seen many specific chants, signs, and speeches that meet the standard for being described as antisemitic, racist, and so on. Those actions and objects must absolutely be opposed and condemned. It seems to me, however, that the UVic student encampment has been able to remain focused on Israel's government and army.
As for the idea that the encampment is responsible for the "promotion of divisiveness," well. I'm only in my 50s, young enough to still be wet behind the ears, but I'm pretty sure that at this point, the potential for divisiveness is baked into every discussion of the Middle East. That's been true for decades, certainly since before I was born.
With all that being said, I agree with the drafters that it's important to reject "protests that espouse, celebrate, and encourage violence." It's just that's not at all what I've seen from the encampment. I've disagreed with the disruptions of some events on campus in recent weeks, and I'm glad that those seem to have stopped, but overall this is a form of protest I'm currently comfortable with.
So yeah, I voted against that motion as well.
A proposal, in lieu of a conclusion
I can't imagine that anyone has a clear vision for how this ends, and by "this," I mean both the student encampment at UVic and the bombing of Gaza.
All we have is each other.
To my colleagues throughout the faculty association: our careers are long, and we work beside each other for decades, but life is short. Let's listen to each other, and allow each other to speak, because if we don't, we're failing each other. Together, we're a collegium, and we should all feel an obligation toward sustaining that connection.
If what I've written here upsets you, provokes you, encourages you, or reaches you in any way whatsoever, negatively or positively, please feel free to reach out. I'd be happy to buy you a coffee or tea and just listen to you. Maybe I'll have something to say, but maybe not. If you've read this far, I'll feel heard, and whatever your perspective, I want you to feel that way as well.
Whatever happens with these votes, with the campus encampment, and Israel's bombing of Gaza, and no matter how you feel about what I've written here, you remain my colleagues.
Comments