Written submission to the CAUT Inquiry into the Noble Case
Ian Angus, Professor, Department of Humanities, Simon Fraser University
17 July 2001


It is crucial to a successful review of the circumstances and events that the inquiry consider not only the charges of procedural errors that have recently multiplied. The review must consider the underlying issues to which procedural matters refer and which, in some circumstances, may obscure. I have come to the conclusion, as an informed and rational person, that academic freedom is at issue in the circumstances under question. One will not likely be able to find a memo stating that it was the intention of any member of the administration to violate academic freedom. This does not, of course, mean that no proof is required. It does mean, however, that such proof may be indirect (coming, for example, from the time when adminstration concerns were raised even though the file had long been available). This affects procedural matters also, such as when the Dean told our Chair verbally that the equity criteria had been met adequately—a statement that was later conveniently forgotten when charges of procedural irregularity began to proliferate.

Furthermore, members of the Humanities Department were not present when meetings, conversations and/or decisions by the administration were taken, and we cannot therefore state directly what occurred. It has been necessary to infer from events and writings to which we were party what might have been the considerations when we were not present. Unless the possibility that academic freedom was denied is to be rejected from the outset, such considerations cannot be ruled out of court. I, and we, have had to act on the basis of what knowledge was available. The administration has not been forthcoming in this regard. We are legitimate parties in the decision-making process of making an appointment and the information that was available to us was the basis for our decisions, which were taken in good faith. One must consider the conclusions that a reasonable person would draw from the circumstances that we have witnessed. I would like to underline that it is not important to find an individual who is culpable for academic freedom to have been interfered with. The claim is that the actions of the administration, as a corporate body, has acted in such-and-such a way. Redress of that corporate action is what is required, not individual culpability.

I would also like to point out that no member of the Humanities Department rushed to make this a public issue. There was considerable forebearance before this became necessary.

I am enclosing copies of five public statements that I have made in connection with the controversy over the proposed appointment of Dr. David Noble to the J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities in which my concerns over the process and the conclusions that I have reached are discussed. My concerns did not begin at the time that I began making public statements, however. I began to make public statements at the time that I had lost confidence in the normal procedures of the university to handle the matter straightforwardly and on principled grounds.
In addition to submitting these documents, I would like to underline the following points that I believe are crucial to an evaluation of the situation. It seems to me that the following questions require adequate answers if an understanding of the course of events is to emerge.

  1. A key turning point in events was when Dean Pierce decided to hire a private consultant to investigate further references for Dr. Noble. He did not consult with the Humanities Department about this course of action which is, I understand, required under University regulations. Second, it is important to ask who, and how, the four names of “additional references” were generated. This would be important to shed light on the interests and intentions of the administration. It is at this point that I, and other members of the Humanities Department, began to wonder what was going on. It appeared that there were interests and concerns entering into events that were not being shared with us. Third, it has been reported in Lingua Franca magazine, quoting two of Dr. Noble’s referees who were called by the consulting company, that their questions were clearly fishing for negative comments. The inquiry clearly needs to talk to the referees named by Dr. Noble in order to investigate the actions of the consulting company.
  2. When the University Appointments Committee returned the file to the Humanities Department for further information, the situation was ambiguous, in large part due to the fact that they did not comment further on the situation. Conversation between the Dean and our Chair indicated that a real possibility did not exist of the extra information satisfying the ‘concerns’ regarding its lack. On that basis, it was proposed by the Dean that the current search be cancelled and a new one begun in September. It would be important to know if this was the effect that the UAC decision had intended. In effect, cancelling the search amounts to an admission that something was wrong with it. However, when the letter returning the file for further information was made public by the UAC Chair Dr. Stewart on 1 June 2001, due to their perception that there had been “some confusion” about their action, it seemed to an informed observer that the subsequent course of events was not that intended by the UAC, ie. that their intentions had been interrupted by the Dean’s intervention.
  3. It is important to keep in mind that no member of the Search Committee or the Humanities Department agrees with the administration claim that we committed procedural irregularities during the search. This is an issue that must be investigated. A thorough inquiry cannot occur if it is simply assumed that procedural issues are what this case is really about. The judgment by members of the Search Committee and Humanities Department that there were no procedural irregularities such as have been alleged by the administration is key to later judgments that the administration was acting in an irregular manner that seems clearly to contravene norms of academic freedom.
In conclusion, I would like to explain the process of reasoning by which I have come to my assessment of the situation. Before forming any final conclusions, I waited until the decision of the University Appointments Committee was communicated to the Humanities Department along with the Dean’s ‘clarification’ that providing further documentation was not likely to satisfy the concerns for ‘a lack of sufficient information.’ Having been witness to the appearance of claims of procedural errors at various late points in the process (this can be documented further if it is not apparent from the documents available to the inquiry), I came to conclude that the multiplication of procedural quibbles appeared to hide considerations that were not being shared with us. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that there had been many rumours about Dr. Noble circulated throughout the process. Of course, the Humanities Department refused to consider rumours as a basis for evaluation and asked several sources to go ‘on the record.’ No one did. Thus, I, and we, were aware that there were people in the university who held negative views of Noble but were not willing to present them in public fashion, prior to his visit to the campus. At first, these did not seem to come from the Dean’s office, or from higher up. However, from the point at which the Dean hired a private company to pursue further referees, it seemed that they had found a hearing there. By the time of the University Appointments Committee hearing, no one was speaking of the rumours any more. Administration actions interfering with normal process appeared initially under the label of ‘lack of collegiality,’ but this was later dropped and they began to take place under the label ‘procedural errors.’ It shifted to matters of procedure undertaken not by Dr. Noble but by the Search Committee and the Humanities Department. At this point, I thought through the course of events from start to finish and came to the conclusion that the only viable interpretation was that Noble was unacceptable to some persons who had gained the ear of the Dean and Vice-President, Academic (or them, themselves, or their superiors, of course). Given no articulation of substantial reasons for their action beyond these empty phrases, after many opportunities for such articulation, I came to the conclusion that the ‘reasons’ were not likely ‘reasons’ that could be articulated publicly—thus, the proliferation of empty and minor charges of procedural irregularity.

Since Dr. Noble is a public figure who has criticized many university and public sector practices, I can only assume that these public views are the reason that he is unacceptable to the administration. I say “the administration” because I want to underline that this is an institutional action, for which the institution must be held responsible, and it neither stands nor falls on claims of individual culpability. Since the administration has not been willing to go on record with its reasons, it became necessary to shift responsibility for their actions to the Search Committee and Humanities Department—both of which have refused to become scapegoats for an institutional action undertaken by the University administration. Any thorough inquiry into the Noble case must explain the ‘reasons’ and methods through which this institutional action was undertaken, and evaluate it with respect to norms of academic freedom.

A final note about academic freedom. I have alleged in one of my public statements that there has been a double violation of academic freedom in this case. First, that of Dr. Noble, who is, in my judgment, being penalized by Simon Fraser University for actions that he has taken as a citizen in the public realm. While such a situation is not covered under tenure protection, since he is not currently a member of this university, it nevertheless pertains to the same issues as tenure protection and is thus an issue of academic freedom—pertaining to the movements of academics between universities. Second, that of the Department of Humanities. It is an accepted practice of university hiring that academic units make hiring decisions, subject to certain other regulations and constraints within the university. These regulations and constraints must fall within institutional, legal and ‘standard practice’ norms to which administrative actions are accountable. They do not justify arbitrary, irrelevant or prejudicial grounds for administrative review of the decisions made by academic units. The capacity of the Humanities Department, through the blocking of the appointment of Dr. Noble, has been deprived of its ability to choose its colleagues through normal procedures—which constitutes an infringement of our academic freedom. Also, it can be expected to produce a ‘chilling’ effect with regard to future appointments, not onlt in this department but in the university as a whole.


Cc:

  • Public email by Ian Angus counselling restraint sent in early April (exact date not available)
  • Public email by Ian Angus asserting violation of academic freedom, 19 May 2001
  • Public email by Ian Angus regarding the Robinson Inquiry, 30 May 2001
  • Public email by Ian Angus clarifying issues to SFU colleagues, 5 June 2001
  • Public email response by Ian Angus to the motion passed by the School of Communication, 26 June 2001