There have been five public letters regarding the
Noble controversy. They are dated:

Before everyone rushes to join up on either David Noble’s or the administration’s side of the brewing controversy, I would like to add a perspective as a member of what I think is the main, and apparently overlooked, group in this matter: the Department of Humanities.

The Woodsworth Search Committee proposed David Noble as the top candidate for the J. S. Woodsworth Chair, and this listing was confirmed by the Department of Humanities. Noble did not ‘apply’ for the position; he was ‘sought’ by the Search Committee. When Noble emerged as, in our view, the best candidate we proposed him to the Dean as such.

It was then that the apparently irregular move of contracting with an outside agency to investigate Noble further was undertaken by Dean Pierce. Neither the Search Committee, nor the Department of Humanities was consulted in this decision. Noble exercised his RIGHT (under BC law) to refuse further referees that he had not chosen. It now appears that this exercise of this right is being taken by the administration as a reason for not appointing him.

The main issue at the present time, in my view, is whether the legitimate search by the search committee, which was confirmed by the Department of Humanities, is being upheld by the administration (for reasons that they have not undertaken to divulge). All members of the search committee and the department are qualified academics. It is academics who decide academic merit.
Thus, I caution against entering a debate on the merits or demerits of Noble’s work. Like any other body of work, it is arguable. In his case, it is more controversial than most. However, what is mainly at issue here is the appointment process at this university and the right of a department to select a candidate for a position on its own criteria of academic merit. I expect that the Department of Humanities will get a chance to state its case for appointment in the course of the regular appointment process at SFU. If we do not, there will surely be cause for alarm

The process is not yet over and it is too soon to say that Noble has been ‘denied’ anything. It is my hope that the administration will not attempt to deny an appointment proposed in good faith by a considerable number of academics in good standing at this university.

Ian Angus
Professor
Department of Humanities

The university appointment procedure in the case of the proposed appointment of David Noble to the J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities has now run its course and it is possible, and necessary, to draw some conclusions.

I have participated in this process as an active member of the Humanities Department and as one of its representatives to the review of the case by the University Appointments Committee. (I was not on the original search committee.) The UAC returned the issue to the Humanities Department with a request for further information, thereby effectively supporting the administration position that Noble was being deemed unacceptable due to procedural irregularities during the search, and failing to address the real issue. Dean Pierce, in a memo (8/5/2001) to the Humanities Department, has suggested that a new search be undertaken, after a “re-examination takes place of the policies and procedures.” The Humanities Department has consistently rejected the interpretation that there were any irregularities in its conduct during the search process.

There were irregularities, of course. The main one is that when the Dean decided that more references were required, instead of returning the recommendation to the department with a request for more references, he contracted with a private firm. This private firm then called Noble, asking him to allow them to contact four named individuals. Exercising a legal right under B.C. law, Noble refused. He has also stated that all four of the individuals were unknown to him personally but were proponents of enterprises that he had publicly criticized. President Stevenson has maintained that he has played no role in blocking this appointment, despite his opposition to the faculty strike at York University where Noble was a prominent voice. No one in the administration has yet offered an explanation of how, and by whom, these names were generated.

The J.S. Woodsworth Chair search of 2000-1 is thus effectively over. The administration is blocking the appointment of David Noble. They say that this action is warranted due to insufficient information in the file and to procedural irregularities during the search. I will not undertake a detailed examination of each of the charges here. Suffice it to say that they have appeared at various points in the process, though always in retrospect. For example, two days prior to the UAC hearing, a memo from Academic Vice-President Waterhouse took issue with the length of Noble’s c.v. This was already three months after Noble’s visit to the campus, when he met the Dean, and his file was circulated to all concerned. All of the administration charges are of this type. There is no substance to any of them. What, then, should one conclude?

When a multitude of charges are made, charges that appear and disappear at various stages of the process, and these charges are all entirely without merit, it is only reasonable to conclude that there is another, unstated reason behind the proliferation of spurious charges. In my opinion, there is only one such underlying reason that would explain the course of events that have led to blocking the appointment of David Noble: David Noble’s political views and actions. I therefore conclude that the actions of the administration constitute a two-fold violation of academic freedom: the academic freedom of the Humanities Department to choose its colleagues based solely on academic merit and the academic freedom of David Noble to act politically without being penalized as an academic.

Bear in mind that if the administration is about to violate your academic freedom, they do not send you a signed memo announcing the fact. The stated ‘reasons’ have to be something else. Thus, dissimulation is the order of the day. If the reasons do not hold up, when they appear and disappear at convenience, a concerned participant or observer has to consider the situation as a whole. The evidence, short of an inquiry in which written evidence can be required and spoken evidence can be taken under oath, will always require some reasonable conjecture. This being said, I do not see how the course of events which I have witnessed can reasonably be interpreted in any other way.

Thus, I call upon the SFU faculty, the SFU Faculty Association, students at the university, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and colleagues at other academic institutions to involve themselves in courses of action designed to call the Simon Fraser University administration to account for its actions in this case. A public university operates in the public trust, and academic freedom is an important feature of that trust. We, faculty and students of this university, have a duty to bring its actions into line with the great slogans that it espouses. Academic freedom is the core of the university.

Sincerely,

Ian Angus
Professor of Humanities
Simon Fraser University

30 May 2001

Dear Faculty, Students, Workers and Administrators of SFU:

I welcome the initiative of President Stevenson to move toward an independent review of the events leading up to the controversy over whether David Noble should be appointed to the J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities. Only a fully independent review contains the possibility of bringing to light all the relevant events and judgments made in the case and addressing the issues of the loss of confidence by many members of the academic community in decisions made by the administration.

As President Stevenson notes, a CAUT inquiry is likely. Other interested parties are: the Humanities Department, David Noble, the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association, the donors that funded the J.S. Woodsworth Chair, the Simon Fraser University community at large, and our colleagues at other universities across Canada. For an inquiry to be both thorough and for its findings to be persuasive, it needs to address the events in a manner that would include the concerns of all these groups.

I would thus suggest to President Stevenson that, instead of directly appointing an individual himself, himself setting the terms of reference for the inquiry, and having the results reported directly to him, an attempt be made to contact the other interested parties with an aim toward agreeing on a procedure for a committee of inquiry to be selected and for setting the terms of its reference. Such a course of action would have a reasonable chance of resolving the issues in this controversy. Conversely, an inquiry responsible solely to the administration for its constitution and procedures might well serve to heighten the alienation that has been a major effect of this situation. It is a good time to remember the old adage “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.”

A full and impartial review of these events is essential and this step by President Stevenson indicates his agreement and willingness to work toward a solution. However, I would like to point out to President Stevenson that it is not only his confidence in Professor Robinson that is at issue. I do not know Professor Robinson at all and have no reason to doubt his capabilities. However, only a thorough consultation of interested parties that affects the setting up of the inquiry, a setting of terms of reference that can be expected to air all the relevant issues, and an inquiry that reports to all interested parties and not just to the President, can expect to satisfy the concerns that have arisen during this controversy.

Sincerely,

Ian Angus
Professor
Department of Humanities

25 November 2001

Open letter to the Simon Fraser University community, the university community at large, and the public:

The controversy surrounding the proposed appointment of David Noble to the J.S. Woodsworth Chair of the Humanities at Simon Fraser University has been ongoing since last January. For the second time, the University Appointments Committee (UAC) has reviewed the case, this time including further documentation that they requested last May. In the words of John Waterhouse, Academic Vice-President (e-mail message, 23 November), the UAC has decided that “the recommendation to appoint Dr. Noble still fails to meet all the documentary requirements of the University’s appointment policies.” The Humanities Department is directed to begin a new search, thus terminating the recommendation to appoint Dr. Noble. This letter is an attempt to explain more fully the matters at issue in the controversy and to assert that the UAC has failed to live up to its responsibilities in taking this decision.

The UAC has decided to accept the administration’s interpretation of the controversy—that it depends upon certain irregularities during the search and an incomplete file from Dr. Noble. They have entirely failed even to address, much less refute, the other interpretation of events—that the normal hiring procedures of the university have been interfered with by the administration in such a manner as to constitute an abridgement of the academic freedom of Dr. Noble and the Humanities Department.

At the recent (14 November) UAC hearing with the Humanities Department (at which I was present), there were three main issues that were the subject of rather aggressive questioning of the Humanities Department representatives by the three UAC members: 1] the adequacy of the search committee’s attention to equity procedures in the selection of candidates, 2] the length of Dr. Noble’s curriculum vitae and the information (not) included on it, and 3] a recent (20 September) motion in the Department of Humanities that attempted to stop the forwarding of the recommendation. The vote on the motion was tied (5-5, with 4 abstentions) and thus the recommendation went forward. John Waterhouse’s e-mail message states that the appointment recommendation “does not have the support of the Dean of Arts, nor does it have the demonstrated support of the Department, as reflected in recent votes related to the appointment.” (That the Dean doesn’t support it is no news. The controversy began with the Dean’s irregular actions in the first place.) The recent Department vote on not forwarding the recommendation is thus being substituted for the actual vote to recommend Dr. Noble’s appointment taken on 22 February (7-1, with 2 abstentions).

Why has the vote changed? In the first place two Department members have retired. More to the point, the Humanities Department has experienced nine months of pressure from the administration, including a remark by the Dean that it must “look to your future in making this appointment” (20 September Department meeting). There has been red-baiting of Dr. Noble, an astonishing exaggeration of his influence and purported destructive potential, and comments about his behaviour that probably constitute libel. In effect, every discussion of the events in the Department became a vote on Dr. Noble’s appointment—basically, we kept voting until it became close. How many votes does he have to win? The recent vote was, as Waterhouse admits, “related to the appointment” (e-mail, 23 November). It was not the appointment vote, which affirmed the recommendation for Dr. Noble by a substantial majority. In this atmosphere, the Department still decided to forward the recommendation. The upshot is that the administration is taking the consequences of their own pressure as evidence that the appointment should not proceed. It is a fraud.

On the other two matters: 1] The adequacy of the search committee’s procedures concerning equity was verbally approved by the Dean. This approval was later revoked after he began to oppose the appointment. No members of the search committee are in agreement, even in retrospect, that there was any abrogation of equity procedures. The additional information submitted to the UAC named thirteen members of minority groups that were considered by the search committee. 2] In May, the UAC requested a “fuller c.v.” from Dr. Noble. At the 14 November meeting the UAC’s questions concerned the absence of a list of graduate thesis committees and university committees on which the candidate had served. It was pointed out that none of this was mentioned explicitly in their earlier decision. The UAC Chair, Dr. Mary Lynn Stewart, asserted that it was mentioned in the Robinson report. In fact, neither of these are mentioned in recommendation 4, which deals with Noble’s c.v., or anywhere else in the Robinson report. It seems that whenever more information is submitted something else is found to be missing.

For someone not closely involved with this controversy, the details become Byzantine. In fact, that’s the point. The administration and the UAC have steadfastly refused to address the question of academic freedom in this controversy and have attempted to hide this failure under a mountain of details. The Robinson inquiry did address my assertions and rejected them. However, when the Board of Governors considered the Robinson report, they did not accept its findings. They chose to accept only the report’s recommendations. While I am not party to their reasons, it seems safe to assume that there were some matters in the report with which they did not agree, and the narrow interpretation of academic freedom was a main aspect of the report.

The Robinson inquiry did, however, make public an e-mail by President Stevenson to Vice-President Waterhouse which referred to a previous conversation with Dean Pierce about Dr. Noble and said “I’d avoid this appointment like the plague” (23 January 2001). Immediately after this communication, the Dean changed his opinion of Noble’s candidacy. It is after this date that the charges of procedural and documentary inadequacy appeared and proliferated. It strains the credibility of any rational person to believe that communication between these three major members of the SFU administration, two of whom were directly involved in opposing Dr. Noble’s appointment, does not amount to a conspiracy to interfere with the normal process of academic appointment on other than academic grounds—a violation of academic freedom. It is interesting that no one who opposes this interpretation will address the question of academic freedom directly.

The SFU administration seems to believe that the charge of violation of academic freedom can be swept under the rug by making a big noise about “documentary requirements.” It is through such bafflegab that bureaucracies attempt to avoid responsibility and bureaucrats seek anonymity. It is important in this case that all involved be held to account for their actions at every stage of the controversy. The issue of academic freedom will not go away. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is currently investigating the entire history with a specific mandate to decide whether academic freedom has been compromised. The Simon Fraser University community should understand that this issue goes to the very heart of our activity in teaching, researching and publishing and to our responsibility for the role of the university in a democracy. There is too much at stake to be diverted by bafflegab.

Ian Angus
Professor
Department of Humanities
Simon Fraser University

17 September 2003

Dear Members of the Simon Fraser University Community:

As Professor Palys has pointed out, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Report into the allegation of violation of David Noble’s academic freedom by Simon Fraser University concludes unambiguously that such violation took place and that it originated with President Stevenson both through the email that said Noble was to be avoided “like the plague” and initiation of the irregular Provence background check. It should be required reading for all of us. See Report

The report thus raises significant questions of finding an adequate response to a serious violation that goes to the highest level of our university structure. One is, of course, the appropriate course of action that might remedy or mitigate the damage to David Noble through this violation. Another is the inability of university structures to identify and remedy such violation in the course of its advisory and review procedures. This failure has contributed to the situation of increasing skepticism about the participatory features of university governance and the tendency of the administration to run the university in the manner of any other corporate structure. As a consequence, the ability of faculty members to speak publicly about university functioning and their credibility when they become critics of it has been seriously compromised.

As Professor Lowman has pointed out, the role of the Simon Fraser University Faculty Association (SFUFA) under Drew Parker’s leadership in this affair has throughout been as an apologist of the administration. No aid or comfort has been offered to SFUFA members who have been involved. What is this organization for?

The role of the University Appointments Committee (UAC) should also be noted. This committee (without the Academic Vice-President) hears controversial issues and appointments in the university. It is composed of faculty members and is the highest body whereby the administration is held accountable to the faculty. The UAC twice reviewed the Noble case. (I was present as a representative of the Humanities Dpartment on both occasions.) In notable contrast to the CAUT finding that the Humanities Department conducted a “fair and thorough process” in the search, the UAC questioning of faculty members during these hearings was based on the assumption that the posteriorly invented administration assertions about faulty procedure were the sole object of their investigation. The first UAC finding, under the direction of Professor Mary Lynn Stewart, sent the application back to the Department for more information—thereby accepting the administration contention that this was the source of the controversy. At the second hearing I was aggressively asked by a faculty representative from outside the Arts Faculty why Prof. X (a well-known woman academic from Ontario) was not considered for the position. I replied that I was not on the Search Committee (where these judgments were made) but in my view her work was good but not of sufficient profile nor extent to merit this position. This female colleague then admitted that she did not know anything at all about the work of the person in question. Throughout, the deliberate practice of the search committee to identify and consider qualified women and minority candidates was ignored. My point is that the UAC in all its investigations assumed the legitimacy of the administrations assertions and ignored the Department’s statements about the origin and real nature of the controversy.

The Humanities Department, its members, and its procedures have been subject to unfounded allegations of bias (toward women, for example) and improper decision-making throughout this affair as an attempt to justify the administrations interference with normal procedure. In defending itself, the administration has not hesitated to impugn the character and practice of any and all members of the Humanities Department. While the CAUT has exonerated us, the charges have not been revoked by the administration and there hangs about every decision the feeling that it may be scrutinized minutely by those above. This is compounded by the knowledge that the university body that should guarantee faculty a fair hearing operates directly as an administration lap-dog. This situation bodes ill for the university as a self-governing academic institution. All the bodies that might have been expected to take grave concern in this matter have been notable for the silence or outright complicity (SFUFA, UAC, the vast majority of individual faculty). It is hard to muster any confidence in the integrity of our institution in such a situation.

If past practice is any guide, there will probably be efforts by the administration to cast doubt on the thoroughness and objectivity of the CAUT Report. Will the faculty and its representatives simply get pulled into discussing this question, as they have in the past, or will they ask more penetrating questions about why such allegations are made here and now, and what they are designed to cover up?


Ian Angus
Professor of Humanities
Simon Fraser University