“SECOND.

Statement || 270"

TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1969

- Sir George Williams University has become embroiled in a racial contro- versy. Many find it difficult if not impossible to figure out what is going on. Rumors, accusations and distortions abound. The issues involved are, to name a few, justice, freedom and the affirmation of the dignity of all men. Thei issues are huge, the inform- ation is small. This leads to strain.

One thing is clear. Representative members of the University are now in the process of resolving the specific issues involving Professor Anderson. It is impor- tant that every member of the University be made fully aware of the facts of the case. But the “Anderson Affair’, which appeared overnight on the TV news, had been long brewing behind the walls of the University. It is imperative that all members of the University community examine closely the institution and the society in which this “affair” has arisen.

More specifically, the events of recent weeks have raised the need for a

well-defined set of principles pertaining to the rights and responsibilities of the var- ious elements of a university.

Responding to this kind of an analysis of the situation, an ad hoc group of students and faculty held meetings since Saturday. This group came together with the -knowledge of the Principal who encouraged the idea of university-wide discussions on “the just exercise of rights and responsibilities by faculty and students’’. At the same time, it was clear that the group should not concern itself with the arrange- ments for inquiring into the specific case under menon. To this end, the meet-

ings were held off University grounds.

=~ The group met for the first time on Saturday morning. At that time, for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the issues to be discussed, the events leading up to the specific case were outlined. (A “Chronicle of Events” was undertaken by one of the working groups) The review of these events led to the decision that the imme- diate objective of the group should be to formulate and structure a form for discussion of three basic issues. They all relate to the continuing functioning of the university _and the administration of justice within the community. The three specific issues were: 1. Student rights and responsibilities 2. Faculty rights and responsibilities _-3. Procedures and limits for providing freedom of a university

The group then divided into small working groups with the objective of preparing key questions and commentaries (contained herein), in the hope that they would serve as a basis for discussion by the University community.

The people listed below were among the participants in the deliberations and work of the ad hoc group. They felt, and continue to share, the deep concern of the whole University community about the issues being raised. In the hope of maintain- ing a workable and productive group however, they did not seek to enlist additional help. It should be understood that not everyone was necessarily in agreement with all the recommendations contained in the working papers. Nevertheless, the working papers and recommendations express the consensus of the majority of the individuais

et = oa =

ay N. ‘Fletcher (f) W. Francis

Sat tk OO TE IA cca ce

\ 2 STATEMENT

What follows is a chronicle of events. It has been drawn up by a group of faculty and students in the inter- est of informing the University Community.

February, 1968

1. Professor P. Anderson informed by Senior La- boratory Demonstrator that some Black students in Zoo- logy 431 believe him to be prejudiced against them.

2. Professor Anderson convenes meeting with two Black students to discuss their view that he is prejudic- ed.

April 29th

Black students approach Dean Magnus Flynn with complaint against Professor Anderson. Group includes some non-biology students. Dean Flynn invites biology students to return Wednesday, May 1.

April 29th or 30th

1. Black students see Dean Madras and make spe- cific charges against Professor Anderson, which are written down by Dean Madras. Dean Madras does not ask students to identify themselves or sign charges. The charges, as recorded by Dean Madras, are printed below:

“Case of negro students

Prejudice

1. No Negro student gets above ‘‘C”’ despite their obtaining higher grades in quarterly and mid-term. 2. Failure rate, D, lab reports are all in same trend.

Organization of the Lab and Lectures

1. Unethical demonstrators who urge you to copy someone else’s paper.

2. Inconsistency in the marking of labs.

_ 3. Labs not well organized. The circuits did not work. The labs were not previously prepared and not tested. Electrical signals were not obtained.

4. Two junior demonstrators ‘are completely in- competent. They cannot answer questions nor explain anything.

5. Lecturer is not qualified. Appears in class with lectures unprepared. Answers questions so poorly as to be embarrassing. Was unable to work out buffer concen- tration problem. On examination, question was asked to define buffer, but the answer expected is presumably much more than a simple definition and yet no indication of precisely what that might be. Class morale suffered.

6. Examination is poorly constructed. Questions about complex concepts expected to be answered in 35 words or less. Mid-term had question for 55 marks on “Organell’’, not legitimate in course in animal physiology.

7. The Mid-term was written on December 18, marks released to class on March 19. The second quarter- ly was written before marks for mid-term released.

8. Textbook is too short and too simple. Does not satisfy ¢xamination answering. None of the books recom- mended were very appropriate. No book was assigned for the second term. The first semester was on the Cell membrane. Nervous system, etc., suffered.

9. Absenteeism Slept in, alarm clock, no cancel- lation. 15 lectures cancelled. 6 movies. Out of time, out of context with lecture development. Student contact very bad. No appointments, breaks appointments.

10. The second quarterly (February) exam was “fixed” in a prejudicial way. Student asked to see the master sheet and was evaded.

11. On first name basis with white Canadians, on Mr. basis with Negroes. See Bill Greenfield re its whom you know and whom you blow.”

2. Dean Madras communicates with Dr. MacLeod, Chairman of the Biology Department. Dr. MacLeod ob-

ri

“` Tuesday, January 28, 1969

Chronicle

tains a sample of exam papers which are given to Prof- essor F. Abbott for revaluation.

May 1

Seven non-white biology students see Dean Flynn and lodge complaints of discrimination and incompetence against Professor Anderson. Dean Flynn informs Vice- Principal (Finance) Smola.

April 29 May 4

Professor Anderson visits Professor Frank Chalk, President of Sir George Williams Association of Uni- versity Teachers (S.G.W.A.U.T.), to inform him of the charges. Professor Anderson says he does not wish the Faculty Association to investigate at this time because the complaints are being examined by the Dean of Science

May 5 2:30 p.m.

1. Dean Madras convenes a meeting with the fol- lowing people present: Professor Anderson, Messrs. Terrence Ballantyne, Allan Brown, Oliver Chow, Ken- nedy Frederick, Rodney Johns, Douglas Mossop, Mervyn Phillips, Dr. MacLeod, Dean Flynn, and Miss Joan Ri- chardson, advisor to overseas students. The meeting lasts approximately 3% hours during which time dis- cussion of all charges takes place. Unofficial notes of meeting are made by Miss Richardson.

2. Subsequently, Dean Madras meets Dr. MacLeod and requests rectification of students’ complaints regar- ing academic matters.

June 14

In response to phone request from Dean Flynn, Dean Madras writes Dean Flynn a memorandum stating his conclusions. Copies of this memo are sent by Dean Ma- dras to Miss Joan Richardson, Professor Anderson, Dr. MacLeod, and Acting Principal D. B. Clarke. The memorandum reads as follows:

“My investigation of the charges and the grievances brought by a group of students against Professor P. Anderson consisted of talks with Mr. Anderson, Dr. MacLeod, and attendance of (sic) the hearing held on Sunday, May 5th, 1968.

I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Iam convinced that there is no substance to the charges of discrimination and racism levelled against Mr. Anderson. Every case cited of a changeover in mark evaluation of an examination, or the calling of students by their last names instead of their first names, can be explained as well within the margin of general experien- ce and encounter between.professor and student, Black or white.

2. The laboratory preparedness is at the level to be encountered, if not expected, in an advanced science course especially in a biological discipline. Needless to say, everything will be done to improve the laboratory in the future.

3. In the same spirit, all academic weaknesses in this and other courses are a matter of grave concern to the students, the professor and the faculty and every ef- fort will be made to improve the teaching.

4. Students are invited at all times to approach their professors and dean and to discuss freely and cons- tructively any of their problems.”

September October November

1. Professor Anderson informs a Black student that Dean Madras has cleared him of charges of racial dis- crimination.

2. Professor Davis informs Dean Flynn that the Black students are still dissatisfied.

3. Miss Richardson informs Dean Flynn that Black students are still dissatisfied.

_ 4. Dean Flynn informs various members of the University community that, in the opinion of the Black students, the Anderson case is not settled.

November 20 - December 3

1. Dean Flynn, Professor Davis and Miss Richard- son meet and agree that-an enlarged meeting of all concerned people should be convened to discuss the situa- tion.

2. Urgency of the situation conveyed to Dr. Smola.

3. Unsuccessful attempts made to organize meeting.

December 4

S.G.W.A.U.T. Council approves, for submission to University Council, “Procedures for Dealing with Com- plaints Against Faculty Members”.

December 5

1. Morning: A Black student visits Dean Madras and demands that Professor Anderson be removed from the faculty. `

2. Later in the day, Black students visit the Principal, Robert Rae, in his office in the Norris Build- ing and demand. the immediate dismissal of Professor Perry Anderson. Principal Rae claims no knowledge of their previous accusations and is unable to contact Professor MacLeod or others who might bring him up to date. Principal Rae refuses to dismiss Professor Ander- son without due process.

3. The Principal and the Black students are next seen by witnesses on the 12th floor of the Hall Building, looking for Professor MacLeod. While the Principal went to search for Professor MacLeod, one of the Black students found Dr. MacLeod speaking with Professor An- derson. Dr. MacLeod and Professor Anderson joined the Black students in Dr. MacLeod’s office, awaiting the re- turn of Principal Rae.

4. Principal Rae meanwhile informs the Council of the Sir George Williams Association of University Teachers of the Black students’ demand for Professor Anderson’s summary firing. The Council informs Prin- cipal Rae of the proposed “Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Against Faculty Members” and dele- gates Professor Michael Marsden, President of S.G.A.- U.T., and Professor Taylor Buckner, to bring the docu- ment to the Black students’ attention as a possible means of introducing due process for an investigation of the charges against Professor Anderson.

5. While Professors Marsden and Buckner attempt to explain the procedure to the students, Professor Davis arrives and establishes communication with the students.

6. Professor Marsden then visits with Vice-Princi- pal D. B. Clarke, who has assumed responsibility at Principal Rae’s request, and proposes that a hearing process be instituted, conforming, in so far as possible, with the procedure recommended by S.G.W.A.U.T. Vice- Principal Clarke agrees and proposes five faculty mem-

.bers to comprise the Hearing Committee. Professor

Davis brings the five names to the students in Dr. Mac- Leod’s office. The students accept the formation of a hearing committee. However, they ask to substitute Professors Marsden and Menon for two of the profess- ors on the original list.

7. Vice-Principal Clarke, the Black students, and Professor Anderson agree to the revised committee membership, namely, Professors A. Adamson (Chair- man), C. Bayne, C. Davis, M. Marsden and P. Menon.

8. Professor Marsden tells Vice-Principal D. B. Clarke that under the proposed S.G.W.A.U.T. procedure the Committee must be appointed formally by the Coun- cil of the Faculty concerned (in other words, the Science Faculty Council); that complaints must be available in writing before the investigation proceeds; and that Vice-Principal Clarke should try to conform as much as possible to that procedure.

9. It is to be noted that

a) the proposed $.G.W.A.U.T. procedures include no provision for consent by the concerned parties on

of Events

Tuesday, January 28, 1969

STATEMENT 3

questions of procedure, including the naming of the com- mittee;

b) none of the parties involved on December 5 en- tered into a formal written agreement requiring mutual consent for the naming of the Hearing Committee or its procedures;

c) however, in accepting the changes in the commit- tee membership suggested by the Black students and in consulting Professor Anderson about the personnel changes, a precedent may have been set leading the parties to believe that their approval would be sought at each stage of the process. à

10. Vice-Principal Clarke accepts Professor Ander- son’s request to be temporarily relieved of his teaching duties.

December 6th

Emergency meeting of Science Faculty Council to inform members of the events of the previous day and to ratify selection of the Hearing Committee and its membership. The secretary of the Council was absent, and informal minutes were kept by the chairman, Dean Madras.

December 9th

Members of the Hearing Committee write letter -to Vice-Principal Clarke requesting his assurance that the committee has authority and the confidence of the admi- nistrations.

December 10th

Vice-Principal Clarke replies by letter assuring the Committee of his backing and confidence.

December 12th

1. Second emergency meeting of Science Faculty Council as a result of a petition to Dean Madras signed by some members of the Council.

2. Some question exists concerning the way in which the meeting became an open meeting.

3. Some white students, but allegedly no black stu- dents, are invited by phone to attend this meeting.

4. After several changes of time and place, the meeting is convened at approximately 2:30 p.m. in room 762.

5. Dean Madras calls the meeting to order, declares it to be an open meeting, with the proviso that non-Coun- cil members do not have the right to speak.

6. Dean Madras reads his informal minutes of the meeting of December 6th. Because of the frequent and sometimes abusive interruptions on the part of some of the Black students, it is impossible for the meeting to continue.

December 12th

Principal Rae submits his resignation to the Board of Governors.

December 13th 11:00 a.m.

Meeting in Acting Principal Clarke’s office with the Black students, and Mr. David Schwartz, a legal repre- sentative of the University.

December 16th

Acting Principal Clarke sends letter to Hearing Committee stating that Dean Madras has been given until January 3, 1969 to produce written and signed charges. Acting Principal Clarke also states that the Black stu- dents have agreed to produce written charges by January 11th, if such charges are not forthcoming from Dean Ma- dras.

January 6, 1969

1. Late this day, Vice-Principal O’Brien learns that Professor Anderson proposes to resume teaching in the evening unless he receives a letter formally relieving him of his teaching duties until his case is settled.

2. Vice-Principal O’Brien signs a letter to Pro- fessor Anderson. The text follows: <

“Dear Professor Anderson:

This will confirm that you are a member of. the teaching staff of Sir George Williams University in full standing and as such you are entitled to teach your classes The first lecture for the 1969 session is this evening at 6:15 p.m. and, of course, you are perfectly at liberty to give said lecture and those that follow. However you are aware of the potential difficulties that may arise, includ- ing the risk of violence, and which latter situation we all wish to avoid. We would suggest that you consider very seriously, in view of this possibility, that your lec- turing be temporarily suspended. Be it clearly under- stood that this decision is entirely up to you and, should you decide to so suspend your lectures, this decision will in no way affect your academic position.

Yours truly John W. O’Brien Vice-Principal (Academic)”’

3. Professor Anderson receives the letter fifteen minutes before his evening class, and decides to conti- nue not teaching.

January 10

1. Professor Marsden submits his resignation from the Hearing Committee to Dean Madras, in the Dean’s capacity as Chairman of the Science Faculty Council. Professor Marsden says he wishes to be free as Pres- ident of SGWAUT, to initiate a review of the responsibi- lities of faculty, forms of prejudice, and the role of ad- ministration in such affairs. He urges that if a repla- cement is to be found for him, such replacement ‘‘should. be accepaite to the students and to Professor Ander- son in the spirit of the original agreement on December 2.

2. A meeting is held between acting Principal Clarke, the Black students and Mr. Michael Sheldon (Assistant to the Principal). The Black students present their signed

written charge. It states: “We the undersigned students’

accuse Assistant Professor Anderson of Racism.” The signatories of the complaint are Messrs. Kennedy J. Frederick, Allan Brown, Douglas Mossop, Wendell Good- in, Terrence Ballantyne, Rodney Johns.

January 15

1. The Hearing Committee receives a memorandum of record, written and signed by Mr. Michael Sheldon, describing his impressions and those of Acting Principal Clarke regarding the meeting in faculty men’s lounge on January 10th. This memorandum states:

a) that the Black students now take the position that a Hearing Committee consisting solely of faculty mem- bers is wrong, but admit that they agreed to such a com- mittee earlier;

b) Mr. Frederick claims that he tried repeatedly all summer to obtain the conclusions of Dean Madras from the Faculty of Science, without receiving any satisfac- tion;

c) that some of these students believe that no lawyers should be present at the hearing. Acting Prin- cipal Clarke and the students state the view that if law- yers are present at the hearing, they should not be al- lowed to speak for interested parties. The students say they do not intend to consult a lawyer. If outside law- yers are allowed, they may demand that the press be present.

d) the Acting Principal comments on the kind of procedures the Committee might wish to lay down, but a student points out that such opinions are a matter for the Hearing Committee, which can speak for itself.

2. Acting Principal Clarke addresses a letter to the Hearing Committee in which he states that (a) Profes- sor Marsden has tendered his resignation from the

Committee, and (b) that he will approve a replacement nominated by the Hearing Committee, and approved by Professor Anderson and the Black students.

January 16

1. Complainant. Black students present the follow- ing demands to Professor Adamson, Chairman of the Hearing Committee:

a) The hearing is to be held on January 26th, and completed that day;

b) Mr. L. Bertley to replace Professor Marsden on the Committee;

c) hearing to be open;

d) decision to be made within one day;

e) the following to be called to give evidence: Dean Madras, Joan Richardson, and Dean Flynn.

2. Professor Adamson agrees with Black students to arrange a meeting with Acting Principal Clarke, the Hearing Committee, and the Black students, to discuss these new conditions.

January 17

1. Professor Adamson is presented with another set of conditions by the Black students, as follows:

a) Mr. L. Bertley is on the Hearing Committee;

b) the Hearing Committee is set for 2 p.m., Jan- uary 26th;

c) It will be open;

d) Dean Madras, Dean Flynn and Miss Richardson will be present; :

e) judgement will be on the same day.

2. In a memorandum to himself, Professor Adam- son states that the students have informed Professor Davis that they now believe that the Hearing Committee should consist entirely of persons from outside the Uni- versity.

January 18

1. Professor Adamson writes letter to Acting Prin- cipal Clarke in which he states that the Committee has agreed on Professor Knelman as a replacement for Pro- fessor Marsden, and that Acting Principal Clarke should contact both parties to obtain their consent.

2. Hearing Committee meets and (a) rejects those conditions of the Black students which were presented as non-negotiable; (b) advises Acting Principal Clarke and Vice-Principal O’Brien to assume ultimate author- ity in the Anderson case, particularly with reference to a replacement for Professor Marsden; (c) decides to try to arrange a meeting between all the parties.

January 20

1. In the morning, Professor Adamson prepares six copies of a letter to the Black students inviting them to attend a meeting at 4:30 that day. He suggests that if the proposed time is inconvenient, the students should phone him. Three copies of this letter are delivered by hand to the students to whom they are addressed. Three copies of the letter are left in the office of the Caribbean Stu- dents’ Association.

2. At 11:00 a.m., the Black students hold a talk-in on the Mezzanine of the Hall Building. Acting Principal Clarke attempts to address the assembly, but is sub- jected to heckling and abusive language. He is unable to complete the reading of his prepared statement.

3. During the meeting on the Mezzanine, two Black students come to Professor Adamson’s office and say “Come with us. You are wanted at the meeting.” When he refuses to go, they say ‘Clarke wants you.” Adamson replies “If the Principal wants me, please tell him to telephone me.” When Professor Adamson attempts to verify their statement, they leave.

4. §.G.W.A.U.T. Council votes to relieve Profes- sor Marsden of his executive duties and responsibilities in any matter connected with the Anderson case, in order to create the proper conditions for his continuation on the Committee.

Continued on page 7

4 STATEMENT

Tuesday, January 28, 1969

Student Rights and Responsibilities

Following is the text of a ‘statement on rights and responsibilities of students’, originally prepared by representatives of five educational institutions in the United States and amended to suit the conditions at Sir George Williams. The institutions con- cerned are:

The American Association of University

Professors.

The Association of American Colleges.

The United States National Student As- sociation.

The National Association of Student Per- sonnel Administrators.

The National. Association of Women Deans and Counsellors.

Academic institutions exist for the trans-.

mission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. As members of the academic community at Sir George, students should be encouraged to develop the ca- pacity for critical judgement and to engage in sustained and independent search for eh

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn depends upon appro- priate conditions in the classroom, on the campus and in the larger community, stu- dents should exercise their freedom with responsibility.

The responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conducive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the academic community. The University has a duty to develop policies and proce- dures within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the aca- demic community. The purpose of the en- suing statement is to enumerate the essen- tial provisions for student freedoms to learn.

1. FREEDOM OF ACCESS

The admissions policies of Sir George Williams, while an institutional choice, must make clear the characteristics and expec- tations of students which it considers rele- vant to success in its programs.

Under no circumstances should a student be barred from the University on the basis of race, color, creed, ethnic origin, nation- ality, or socio-economic class.

Thus, within the limits of its facilities, Sir George Williams should be open to all students who are qualified to its admission standards. The facilities and services of Sir George should be open to all of its en- rolled students, and the University should use its influence to secure equal opportu- nity for all students in the local community.

II. IN THE CLASSROOM.

The student, in the classroom and in conference, has a right and a duty to engage in relevant and appropriate discussion. Stu- dent evaluation should be basic solely on academic standards, ot on opinions or con- duct in matters unrelated to academic mat- ters.

a) Protection Against Improper Academic Evaluation

Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation. At the same time, they are responsible for meeting standards of academic performance esta- blished for each course in which they are enrolled.

b) Protection of Freedom of Expression

Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judge- ment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled.

c) Protection Against Improper Disclosure

Information about student views and beliefs which professors acquire in the course of their work as instructors, advi- sors, and counselors should be considered confidential. Students should have protection against improper disclosure of such matters. Judgements of ability and character may be provided under. appropriate circumstances, normally with the knowledge or consent of the student.

d) Protection Against Erroneous Announc- ing of Course Content

The student has a right to receive correct and current information about the nature and content of the courses in which he is about to enroll.

e) Responsibility for Decorum

The student has the responsibility to conduct himself in a civil manner, in keep- ing with the atmosphere of an academic constitution. The student should not subject any member of the community to either verbal or physical insult, intimidation or degradation.

Ill. STUDENT RECORDS

Sir George Williams should have a care- fully considered policy as to the information which should be a part of a student’s per- manent educational record and as to the conditions of its disclosure. To minimize the risk of improper disclosure, academic and disciplinary records should be separate, and the conditions of access to each should be set forth in an explicit policy statement.

Transcripts of academic records should contain only information about academic status. Information from disciplinary or counselling files should not be available to unauthorized persons on campus, or to any person off campus without the expressed consent of the student involved except under legal compulsion or in the cases where the safety of persons or property is involved. No records should be kept which reflect the political activities or belief of the student.

Provision should also be made for pe- riodic routine destruction of noncurrent disciplinary records. Administrative staff and faculty members should respect confi- dential information about students which they acquire in the course of their work.

IV. STUDENT AFFAIRS

In student affairs, certain standards must be established and maintained if the freedom of students is to be perserved.

a) Freedom of Association

Students bring to Sir George a variety of interests previously acquired and develop many new interests as members of the academic community. They should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests.

1) The membership, policies, and actions of a student organization should be deter- mined by vote of only the students who are members of the University Community.

2) Affiliation with an extramural orga- nization should not of itself disqualify a student organization from institutional re- cognition.

3) Student organizations may be required to submit a statement of purpose, criteria for membership, rules or procedures, a financial statement, and a current list of officers of the Students’ Association. They should not be required to submit a mem- bership list as a condition of official rec- ognition.

4) Organizations under the auspices of the Students’ Association, including those affiliated with an extramural organization, should be open to all students without respect to race, creed, religion, or national origin.

b) Freedom of Inquiry and Expression

1) Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the University. At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and larger community that in their public ex- pressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak only for them- selves.

2) Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by the University before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities and adequate pre- paration for the event, and that the occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic community. The institutional control of campus facilities must not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest spea- kers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the sponsoring group or the Uni- versity.

c) Student Participation in University Government

As constituents of the academic communi- ty, students should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views on is- sues of University policy and on matters of general interest to the student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to participate in the formulation and application of University policy affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the Students’ Association and both its gene- ral and specific responsibilities should be made explicit, and the cations of the student government within the areas of its juris- diction should be reviewed through oderly and prescribed procedures.

d) Student Publications

Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in establishing and main- taining an atmosphere of free and respon- sible discussion and on intellectual explor- ation on the campus. They are a means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and the administration and of formulating student opinion on various issues on the campus and in he world at large.

The student newspaper should be edito- rially independent and financially separate from the university administration. Where financial autonomy is not possible, the University may have to bear the legal res- ponsibility for the contents of the public- ations. In the delegation of editorial res- ponsibility to students, the Students’ Asso- ciation must provide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomy for the student publications to maintain their in- tegrity of purpose as vehicles for free in- quiry and free expression in an academic community.

The Students’ Association has a respon- sibility to provide written clarification of the role of the student publications, the standards to be used in their evaluation, and the limitations on external control of their operation. The editorial freedom of student editors and managers entails co- rollary responsibilities to be governed by the canons of responsible journalism, such as the avoidance of libel, idency, undocu- mented allegations, attacks on personal in- tegrity, and the techniques of harassment and innuendo. As safeguards for the edito- rial freedom of student publications the following provisions are necessary:

1) The student press should be free of censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news coverage.

2) Editors and managers of student pu- blications should be protected from ar- bitrary suspension and removal because of student, faculty, administrative, or public disapproval of editorial policy or content. Only for proper and stated causes should editors and managers be subject to removal and then by orderly and prescribed proce- dures. The agency responsible for the ap- pointment of editors and managers should be the agency responsible for their remo- val.

3) All university published and financed student publications should explicitly state on the editorial page that the opinions there expressed are not necessarily those of the University or student body.

V. OFF-CAMPUS FREEDOM

a) Exercise of Rights of Citizenship

University students are citizens and members of the academic community. As

Continued on page 6

Tuesday, Jan uary 28, 1969

STATEMENT 5

Procedures and Limits of Freedom

PREAMBLE

When this institution came into being, thirty-five years ago, it was, by its very nature, a unified community of interested and committed teachers and serious and motivates students. This atmosphere has recently been challenged. This is a result of both the tensions being undergone by North American society as a shole and the burgeoning growth of Sir George Wil- liams in particular. Issues which could formerly by settled in an informal way suddenly require codified procedures. That these procedures have not been available during the present situation attests to the fact that the Universi- ty’s recent growth has been far more acute then had previously been imag- ined.

In providing such procedures and extensions and limitations for mem- bers of the University community sev- eral factors must be taken into ac- count. To begin with such a task must be performed within the framework of a liberal social mainstream. That is, freedom must be the priority but similarly, because human interaction demands that the freedoms of one individual must at some point be curtailed in order to preserve the right of another, this premium on personal freedom of action must be married with precisely defined limi- tations.

There are, clearly, in an institution such as Sir George Williams, any number of potential conflicts. This section deals with inter-function con- flict (i.e. student-faculty, faculty-stu- nt, administration-student, student- student) in the main. The initial em- phasis in matters of conflict should, we believe, be placed upon commu-

Student vs. Faculty

Faculty vs. Student

Student vs. Student

University vs. Student

ting: parties, will this step

(or for that matter, can

this step) be successful _in resolving the conflict and reducing the number

formal hearings

6) Concerne proof

aad a awis.

nication between the parties involved. Since many conflicts, obviously cannot be resolved informerly, procedures

Communication

Communication

Communication

>

Communication

oof the mited

ER

- ) To wha extent a) can any ‘member of the m

versity

b) should any member iniversity be li- exercise of -

is basic or peripheral free- Gras outside the universi Ss me

as- a result rshi m

community for me over extension of freedoms, hat s ction an 1 be

have been provided for wherein all parties concerned may be judged im- partially by their peers. In short, we

SUGGESTED PROCEDURE

| | ee

Complaint

Student

Charge

Charge

have sought to provide institutionalized avenues through which any member of the University community can seek redress for wrongs which he believes have been committed against him.

Procedures for the resolution of Disputes

1) In the event that a student feels that he is receiving unfair treatment at the hands of a faculty member he must first communicate this feeling to the faculty member involved.

2) If this communication does not, in the opinion of the student bear fruitful results, he should then, in consultation with the chairman of the department involved make a last at- tempt to resolve the dispute in an un- official manner.

3) If neither course of action proves satisfactory, the student is then en- titled to lodge a formal complaint on a standard form provided by the Dean of Students’ Office.

4) If a member of the faculty wish- es to resolve a dispute between him- self and a student, he should first consult with a student appointed by the Students’ Association for this purpose and the chairman of the ap- propriate department.

5) In the event that these steps are unsuccessful, formal charges may be laid at the Dean of Students’ Office.

6) Disputes involving student and student, or the university and student should first attempt to be solved be- tween the two parties. If this should prove unsuccessful, formal charges can be laid at the Dean of Students’ office.

Continued on page 6

6 STATEMENT

Tuesday, January 28, 1969

Procedures

Continued from page 5

It should be pointed out that mem- bers of the University community might mutually desire to attempt to resolve their differences informally through the Dean of Students office as an initial step.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

Offenses:

1) All disciplinary offenses or infrac- tions should be defined in a code and no act or omission not so defined should constitute a disciplinary infraction.

2) Disciplinary infractions should be limited to those which interfere directly with the academic functions of the Univer- sity or with the rights and freedoms of the various members of the academic com- munity.

3) The conduct of students outside the university grounds or even on university grounds but which does not interfere with the academic functions or with other mem- bers of the academic community, no matter how reprehensible or objectionable, should not be included.

4) Criminal offenses committed on uni- versity property but which do not interfere with academic functions or with members of the academic community, fall solely with- in the jurisdiction of the Courts.

Penalties:

1) The range of penalties as well as the maximum penalty should be specified for each infraction.

2) The range of penalties should be flexible and comprise admonishment, re- primand, posting of security, fines, proba- tion, suspension and expulsion, either alone or in combination.

3) If a student is suspected of cheating at an examination and is prevented from finishing the examination, he has in fact been prejudged and prejudiced. A student suspected of cheating should be identified but permitted to terminate the examination which will then be corrected in the ordinary course but the validity of which will be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.

4) In the case of suspension or expulsion these penalties shall not come into effect unless ratified by the Appeal Board. As added protection these penalties should also be ratified by the Principal after the deci- sion of the Appeal Board.

5) The Principal or final disciplinary authority at the university should always be informed of all penalties and have a right of remission.

Jurisdiction:

1) An Appeal Board should have as its primary function the jurisdiction to hear only of appeals against conviction and the imposition of penalties. There should not be any appeal from an acquital.

Procedure:

1) All disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by a written and signed complaint submitted to the Office of the Dean of Stu- dents.

2) If a decision is made to give effect to the complaint the accused student or faculty member should be given a written notice specifying the name of the com- plainant, the details of the alleged offense

including all particulars thereof, the provi- sion of the disciplinary code which the ac- cused is alleged to have infringed, the maximum penalty to which the accused is exposed and time and place of the schedul- ed hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal.

3) A minimum delay of seven days should be provided.

4) Provisions should be made to permit the accused to plead guilty in order to avoid