Academic freedom at McGill called into question

MONTREAL • McGill University’s handling of Andrew Potter’s resignation is potentially “one of the most significant academic freedom cases in recent decades,” the Canadian Association of University Teachers said Monday in demanding more answers from the school.

In a letter to McGill principal Suzanne Fortier, CAUT executive director David Robinson questioned whether any government officials — federal, provincial or municipal — or any donors raised concerns with the university about Potter’s article, published March 20 in Maclean’s.

The article, “How a snowstorm exposed Quebec’s real problem: social malaise” labelled Quebec “an almost pathologically alienated and low-trust society.” It immediately drew fire from Quebec pundits and politicians, and Potter apologized before resigning last Thursday as director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

Robinson writes that Fortier’s explanation to date has raised more questions than it answered.

“You have asserted that Professor Potter was not forced to resign, and yet you have stated that his resignation was necessary. This leaves open the question of whether there was pressure exerted by you or others in the McGill administration for him to volunteer his resignation,” he wrote.

In an interview, Robinson said the association has received information from within McGill alleging “that there was political pressure placed on the institution to get rid of Professor Potter. And one of the core principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy is that universities should resist that external pressure.”

Carole Graveline, McGill’s senior director of media relations, said Fortier is not available this week. Messages to members of the institute’s board of trustees were not returned Monday.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail Sunday, Fortier said Potter overstepped his role with his provocative article.

“It is not a role to provoke, but to promote good discussion,” she said of the directorship.

Fortier said she “did not receive a single call from government” over Potter’s article. But she allowed that in discussions with the institute’s trustees, she mentioned the angry political reaction, noting “that it was unusual for politicians to talk about an issue like this.”

She suggested to the Globe that politicians would not be happy attending Institute events run by Potter following publication of his critique.

Unless Fortier is able to alleviate its concerns, the CAUT plans to launch an investigation to determine if academic freedom was violated. The association represents about 70,000 academic staff.

“Academic freedom is central to a university’s mission in a democratic society,” the letter to Fortier says. “It includes the right of academics to raise deeply disturbing questions and provocative challenges to received wisdom without censorship or reprisal.”

The uncertainty around Potter’s resignation has already had a chilling effect at McGill. In a post Monday on the blog In Due Course, Daniel Weinstock, who said he is a friend of Potter, said that as director of McGill’s Institute for Health and Social Policy, he is called on to tackle controversial ethical issues.

“Do the events of the last days make me a little bit more reticent to chart a course for the Institute into troubled and controversial policy arenas, ones about which politicians may feel equally strongly as they did about the Potter op-ed, knowing that in so doing, I may be jeopardizing the careers of my un-tenured charges, and perhaps even my own?” Weinstock asked.

“You bet it does.”