Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Reaction Statement From David Matas About The University of Toronto Review by Justice Cromwell

    Uploaded by

    Samantha Mandeles
    David Matas welcomes Justice Cromwell's conclusions that no formal job offer was made to Valentina Azarova, the position was administrative not academic, and the dean had not approved pursuing an LMIA or felt Azarova was qualified. Matas argues Azarova was unqualified due to her history of focusing criticisms on Israel alone and association with anti-Zionist groups. He also claims there were qualified Canadian applicants that should have been prioritized. Matas suggests the university apologize to Azarova for how the search committee misled her but that her candidacy presented real problems. He states freedom of expression must include outside criticism of the university.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Reaction Statement From David Matas About The University of Toronto Review by Justice Cromwell

    Uploaded by

    Samantha Mandeles
    47 views2 pages
    David Matas welcomes Justice Cromwell's conclusions that no formal job offer was made to Valentina Azarova, the position was administrative not academic, and the dean had not approved pursuing an LMIA or felt Azarova was qualified. Matas argues Azarova was unqualified due to her history of focusing criticisms on Israel alone and association with anti-Zionist groups. He also claims there were qualified Canadian applicants that should have been prioritized. Matas suggests the university apologize to Azarova for how the search committee misled her but that her candidacy presented real problems. He states freedom of expression must include outside criticism of the university.

    Original Description:

    Via B'nai Brith

    Original Title

    Reaction Statement From David Matas About the University of Toronto Review by Justice Cromwell

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    David Matas welcomes Justice Cromwell's conclusions that no formal job offer was made to Valentina Azarova, the position was administrative not academic, and the dean had not approved pursuing an LMIA or felt Azarova was qualified. Matas argues Azarova was unqualified due to her history of focusing criticisms on Israel alone and association with anti-Zionist groups. He also claims there were qualified Canadian applicants that should have been prioritized. Matas suggests the university apologize to Azarova for how the search committee misled her but that her candidacy presented real problems. He states freedom of expression must include outside criticism of the university.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    47 views2 pages

    Reaction Statement From David Matas About The University of Toronto Review by Justice Cromwell

    Uploaded by

    Samantha Mandeles
    David Matas welcomes Justice Cromwell's conclusions that no formal job offer was made to Valentina Azarova, the position was administrative not academic, and the dean had not approved pursuing an LMIA or felt Azarova was qualified. Matas argues Azarova was unqualified due to her history of focusing criticisms on Israel alone and association with anti-Zionist groups. He also claims there were qualified Canadian applicants that should have been prioritized. Matas suggests the university apologize to Azarova for how the search committee misled her but that her candidacy presented real problems. He states freedom of expression must include outside criticism of the university.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    REACTION STATEMENT FROM DAVID MATAS

    ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO REVIEW BY JUSTICE CROMWELL

    These are my comments. I welcome the conclusion by Justice Cromwell that no formal offer in
    any legal sense was made to Valentina Azarova and consequently no accepted offer was
    rescinded, that the position had the status of administrative staff, that the inquiry by an
    alumnus did not in any way affect the decision by the Dean and did not affect the academic
    freedom of faculty members, and that the Dean had not been consulted about and had not
    approved resort to the LMIA process and that after looking at the resumes of some of the
    Canadian applicants, he would not have approved proceeding by that route as in the Dean’s
    opinion there were qualified Canadians for the job. I especially welcome the review of Justice
    Cromwell for the light it shines on the internal attempts by the Search Committee to misrepresent
    its role, and to foist an unqualified candidate on the University.

    Valentina Azarova was unqualified for the position of director of the International Human Rights
    Clinic because of her long past history of focus on Israel virtually alone, her extreme one sided-
    published criticisms of alleged human rights violations by Israel and her prolonged professional,
    active, visible association with a variety of virulently anti-Zionist organizations. These concerns
    are elaborated at length in the submission B'nai Brith Canada made to Justice Cromwell, but
    which Justice Cromwell did not address as not within his mandate.

    Ms. Azarova was also not qualified because there were qualified Canadians who applied for the
    position and had to be given priority. The failure of the Search Committee to do this, to pretend
    that there were no such candidates, to give the impression that they had the final say, and to
    attempt to bully the University into choosing Ms. Azarova is the troubling story of the Cromwell
    1
    Review. It is ironic that the Search Committee was guilty of the very reprehensible behaviour of
    undue pressure on the University that others had accused outsiders of having imposed and that
    Justice Cromwell found did not occur.

    Justice Cromwell recommends an attempt at reconciliation with Ms. Azarova. I suggest that this
    effort be limited to a letter of apology about the manner in which the Search Committee misled
    her by not exploring with her the real problems her candidacy presented to the University,
    something both she and the Committee itself acknowledged failed to happen, by ignoring
    qualified Canadian candidates which the Search Committee well knew should have been given
    priority and by giving Ms. Azarova the impression that their endorsement of her candidacy would
    be the final result and then attempting to present the University with a fait accompli.

    Justice Cromwell also recommends that the University:


    "reaffirm the principle that to block, prevent or disqualify an applicant in a merit-based
    hiring process on the basis of the candidate's religious or political views, their scholarly or
    other public work or their social activism must be firmly rejected unless the matter raised can
    be demonstrated to be evidence of unfitness for the duties of the position."

    The B'nai Brith Canada submission to Justice Cromwell demonstrated, in my view, the unfitness
    of Ms. Azarova for the duties of the position of director of the International Human Rights Clinic of
    the University of Toronto. Be that as it may, freedom of expression and academic freedom in a
    university context cannot just mean freedom of expression within the University. It also must
    mean freedom of expression outside the University about the University.

    The University needs to do more than just reaffirm basic principles. It needs to establish
    institutional links with the community so that community concerns about University activity can
    be communicated to the University in an open transparent way.

    You might also like