TMU provides lesson in what not to do with independent investigations

Article content

So why was Benotto’s report different?

Article content

TMU has not explained.

Article content

The obvious concern is that institutions are more comfortable accepting independent reports when they are comfortable with the recommendations, and more inclined to create another layer of process when they are not prepared to implement them.

Article content

Even if that is not TMU’s intention, it is the appearance its conduct creates.

Article content

There is another problem.

Article content

Most members of the task force are TMU faculty or administrators. There is nothing inherently wrong with insiders implementing institutional changes. But Benotto was investigating TMU itself. She examined its policies, practices and handling of protests and identified institutional shortcomings.

Article content

Now, the institution criticized in the report has largely selected its own people to determine how those shortcomings should be remedied.

Article content

That is not independent deliberation.

Article content

And then comes perhaps the most extraordinary omission.

Article content

The community found to have been discriminated against was not even consulted.

Article content

Benotto’s report addresses discrimination against Jews and describes the profound alienation from campus life reported by Jewish members of the university community.

Article content

Article content

Yet Hillel TMU and TMU Jews, the principal Jewish organizations at the school, were not included on the implementation task force. Indeed, their representatives say they were not even consulted before the task force was created.

Article content

Consider that.

Article content

TMU has effectively decided that what happens to the Jewish community can be discussed without the Jewish community.

Article content

If there is a compelling reason for excluding and not consulting Hillel and TMU Jews, the university should explain it.

Article content

Then, to make matters worse still, consider who TMU did appoint.

Article content

Has a single member of the task force publicly endorsed even one of Benotto’s recommendations?

Article content

I have found no such public endorsement.

Article content

The record does, however, establish that three of its members, James Turk, Jeffrey Wilkinson and Sameh Al Natour, took a public position incompatible with one of Benotto’s primary recommendations, by signing a petition opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Article content

If the task force is supposed to implement a course of action laid out in the investigator’s report, why appoint people who have publicly opposed one of the primary findings?

Article content

Article content

TMU should answer that.

Article content

The university also cannot ignore a larger reality. Many people, particularly within the Jewish community, regard TMU as an institution that has been hostile to Jews and unresponsive to antisemitism.

Article content

Benotto’s report gave TMU an extraordinary opportunity to confront that perception.

Article content

An independent justice investigated. She heard from Jewish members of the community. She identified institutional failures. She provided a roadmap.

Article content

TMU could have said: We heard you. We accept the findings. Here is what we are doing to fix the problem and implement the recommendations.

Article content

Instead, it created another committee, largely from within the institution, did not even consult the principal Jewish organizations and included members whose public positions oppose one of the report’s central recommendations.

Article content

That may not prove antisemitism but it certainly does little to dispel the perception. Instead, it reinforces it.

Article content

There is yet another problem. TMU repeatedly undertook to make the report public upon its completion, but that view suddenly changed once it was received. TMU redacted large portions of the report and its recommendations.