1] The Main Issue
The only ‘reason’ that has been mentioned for the administration’s negative recommendation is the question of ‘collegiality’ and, since there is no evidence on record of this, it has been presented in the form of a ‘lack of sufficient information.’ In the absence of any substantiated reasons, the Humanities faculty can only surmise that it is the controversial political views of Dr. Noble that have motivated this action. Thus, we regard this as a case of an attempt to abrogate the academic freedom of the Humanities Department to make appointments based on academic merit and without bias due to the political activities of the candidate.

2] Issues of Procedure
The unprecedented selection by the Dean of an outside consulting firm to conduct interviews of further referees after the Woodsworth Search Committee and the Humanities Department search and selection was complete raises several important issues:

• On what basis was it decided to take this course of action?
  

• Why was Dr. Noble not first called by someone from SFU to discuss the possible use of an outside firm? The first contact with Dr. Noble was from the firm itself.
  
• How were names selected for this firm to interview? In Dr. Noble’s view, they were all opponents of his views; they were obviously not selected arbitrarily. The Humanities Department was not consulted on the suitability of further referees.
  

• Both Dean John Pierce’s memo to V-P Academic John Waterhouse (12 March 2001) and John Waterhouse’s memo to Chair Stephen Duguid (20 March 2001) use Dr. Noble’s refusal to allow the private consultant to interview individuals that they had selected as a reason to argue that there is insufficient information on Dr. Noble to make an appointment. Thus, Dr. Noble’s exercise of his legal right to refuse further interviews is being used as a ‘reason’ for denying the appointment. To draw any inference whatsoever from his refusal is to abrogate exactly that right which is legally protected.
  
• Further reasons, such as the shortness of Dr. Noble’s c.v., have recently been added in a memo to this committee. They have the appearance of attempting to make the claim of ‘insufficient information’ more presentable since its basis is a negative surmise consequent to the exercise of a legal right. These issues, which could fairly easily be addressed, were never raised with the Humanities Department at any prior stage of the process.
  

Second University Appointments Committee Submission
14 November 2001
Ian Angus, Professor, Department of Humanities

The controversy over the proposed appointment of Dr. Noble to the J.S. Woodsworth Chair in the Department of Humanities at Simon Fraser University has dragged on for a very long time with numerous statements and allegations on all sides. I will not attempt to recapitulate all of the important points in this controversy at this late date. My statements, and those of others, are a matter of public record and I assume that the UAC will consider all relevant facts, statements and interpretations in making their decision. I will simply state what recent events since the first UAC hearing and decision pertain to the pending decision and summarize the major issues which your current decision to approve or reject the appointment will affect.
I notice that the composition of the UAC has changed by two members since the first hearing of this case. I do not know why two members had to be replaced and, without implying any lack of confidence in the new members, I think that this is unfortunate both because there are a great number of issues here regarding which a continuity of experience would be an advantage and also because in this case fairness and independence of academic decision-making must be preserved and, also important, be seen to be preserved.

First, I would like to note that both the memos by Dean Pierce (October 22, 2001) and Vice-President, Academic Waterhouse (October 29, 2001) make reference to the report by Mr. Robinson Q.C. commissioned by President Stevenson that became available in August. It is my understanding that the Board of Governors accepted the recommendations of this report but did not accept the report in its entirety. I do not know the reasons for their action but, I may say, that the treatment of the issues concerning academic freedom in that report is very narrow, abrupt and insufficient. There are also several matters of interpretation of fact that are inaccurate. I would be happy to document this judgment and/or discuss this matter in greater detail at any time. For this reason, I urge the committee to consider all of the academic freedom issues in their widest implications while coming to a decision.

Second, I would like to recall that Dr. Noble was invited to stand for this position, invited to come to the university, and chosen by the Search Committee and the Humanities Department to be recommended for the Chair. As this matter has repeatedly come up at Department meetings over approximately the last nine months, a situation emerged in which every decision, however minor, regarding this case in effect became another vote on the recommendation for Dr. Noble. I think that this has produced an unfair situation in two respects. First, it is to be expected that a candidate should undergo scrutiny by all interested parties in making a decision, but for this scrutiny to be constantly renewed for this period of time and in this controversial situation after such a decision has already been taken goes well beyond rigour. It has resulted in the daily actions of Dr. Noble, as he rightly attempts to defend his own interests in this case, being held against him each time the decision is renewed. How many votes does he have to win before it gains some legitimacy for the administration? Moreover, the actions of the Simon Fraser University administration have largely escaped such scrutiny. Second, as the pressure from the administration on the Humanities Department to change its decision has continued, there have been renewed opportunities for faculty members to change their original vote. In effect, the situation dragged out long enough for the vote to become close, even though the original vote was overwhelming in Dr. Noble’s favour. In my view, the current vote does not represent the uncoerced opinion of the Humanities faculty, but is the result of the continued pressure exerted by the administration. This has had the further effect of introducing serious disagreements and tensions into the relations between faculty in the Humanities Department, a situation very much to be regretted in light of the extraordinarily collegial and friendly relations prevalent previously. It is not only the positions taken by the administration, but the manner in which these positions have been enacted, that has produced this situation. Recall, for example, the Dean’s attempt to get the Humanities Department to change our recommendation without sending a written document with his opinion (repeatedly the Humanities Department has been asked to make the administration’s decisions for them); the Dean’s retraction of his assent to equity procedures and the claim that the search committee was not diligent in this matter; the Academic Vice-President’s concerns about Dr. Noble’s c.v. which surfaced just two days prior to the last UAC meeting, etc.

Third, we have the faculty meeting on 20 September 2001 in which the Humanities Department decided to proceed by forwarding its recommendation for the appointment of Dr. Noble including the further documentation required by the UAC in its decision in April 2001. At that meeting, the Dean gave a long justification of the actions of the administration in the case of the Noble appointment. The main message of his justification was that he was in possession of facts (that is to say, assessments of Noble made by people whose identity he would not, or could not, reveal) that, were we to be in possession of them, he was convinced that we would agree with and support the actions of the administration. In other words, he asked us to trust him that he was acting in everyone’s best interests even though he would not, or could not, reveal the sources or substance of the information upon which he was acting. Either at that time, or in response to questions, he indicated that many, but I understood not all, of these sources were at York University. Either at that time, or in response to a question, he stated that his reason for not being able to reveal his sources was that they were afraid of retribution. It was understood, or said directly, that such fear of retribution was from Dr. Noble personally. The Dean indicated that there were approximately two dozen people who fit this characterization. An assertion such as this severely strains credibility in the absence of any proof at all.

Toward the end of his long justification, the Dean stated that this was not the right appointment for the Department of the Humanities, that we must move ahead from this and make a good appointment, and that “a small department must look to its future.” In my recollection, these were his exact words. Understanding that statement, as understanding any text, requires an understanding of the context in which it was made. The immediate context was the justification on that day of the Dean’s, and others’ in the administration, actions in the case of the Noble appointment. The larger context was the recent creation of the Department of Humanities, its successful beginnings, and its projected future. In the Department, we all understand that the Dean has played a helpful and important role in supporting the creation and development of the Department of Humanities. Many, if not all, members of the Department have understood that the controversy over the Noble appointment has placed our good relations with the Dean in jeopardy and that it might affect the future of the Department. This has been mentioned a number of times in faculty meetings in which the Noble appointment has been discussed.

Subsequently, a motion not to forward the recommendation, which would have ended the appointment, was narrowly defeated (5 yes, 5 no, 4 abstain, 1 not cast). This is now being interpreted by both the Dean and the Academic Vice-President in their memos to this committee as evidence that there is not enough support for Dr. Noble to make the appointment. It is being treated as if this were the vote to recommend appointment that was already taken in January of this year with an overwhelming result (9 yes, 1 abstention). I submit that a) the recent vote may well be a measure of the department’s willingness to confront the administration any further, but it was not a vote directly on whether to recommend Dr. Noble, b) it is the original vote to recommend that is pertinent in the question of appointment, and c) the difference between the two votes has been created by the nine months of pressure on the Department by the administration, which I would hope that the UAC takes into consideration with regards to the question of academic freedom.

I am sure that you are aware that the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) is conducting an inquiry into this case. I, and I believe all members of the Department of Humanities and the administration, am cooperating fully with the CAUT inquiry. I believe that the actions of all parties in this controversy will be held up to scrutiny by the CAUT inquiry and perhaps afterwards by others interested in the truth of this matter. It is very important to know whether, as I have asserted, the academic freedom of the Humanities Department and Dr. Noble have been infringed by the actions of the administration of Simon Fraser University. There are now four important academic freedom cases being investigated by CAUT. It seems clear that the current socio-economic situation is exacerbating tendencies which undermine faculty control of the university and vest power in corporate-style administrations. While a direct line from this case to the larger situation cannot easily be drawn, I do want to urge the committee to take seriously the questions of university governance that this observation implies. Academic freedom is a key link whereby our university activities connect to wider social issues.

Thank you for your consideration of my observations and arguments.