Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of law.
The days leading up to a new academic year at a university are typically filled with a mix of excitement and anticipation for both faculty and students alike. Yet this year, it brought trepidation and even fear for many in the Jewish community. At my own university, faculty attended training sessions on coping with potential classroom intruders, including tips for de-escalation strategies and detailed security procedures. Students normally thinking about orientation programming were instead forced to ask themselves difficult questions about whether to conceal their religious or political beliefs, for fear of risking backlash or ostracization from fellow students and even faculty.
The source of this dread is no mystery as the stunning outbreak of antisemitism since Oct. 7 has been particularly pronounced on university campuses. Indeed, last spring, the presidents of four of Canada’s largest universities – the University of Toronto, UBC, McGill and Concordia – all conceded to the House of Commons justice committee that antisemitism was a significant problem on their campuses. And those admissions came just as encampments on university campuses across Canada were proliferating – encampments that exacerbated antisemitism concerns and remained active for months until court orders led to their removal.
The start of a new academic year requires a new commitment to combat antisemitism, and to ensure that all students and faculty are not targeted or harassed as a result of their religious or political beliefs. This requires at least three key steps from all Canadian universities.
First, codes of conduct must be respected and aggressively enforced. Policies on students’ rights and responsible conduct invariably provide that all students have the right “to be treated with respect and dignity and without harassment and discrimination,” as the University of Ottawa’s own code of conduct states. Enforcing campus codes is not about limiting freedom of expression or advocacy that is said to leave some uncomfortable. Rather, it is a response to the very real harassment targeting Jewish students and groups on campus, as well as addressing the threats and discrimination levied at those who support or identify with the Zionist ideals of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own homeland. These code violations would not be tolerated against any other group and must not be justified, excused or ignored when they involve Jewish students.
In the United States, New York University recently confirmed that excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, or applying a “no-Zionist” litmus test for participation in any NYU activity would violate its student code. That approach is consistent with a U.S. court order issued last month against UCLA, another leading American university, prohibiting the school from offering any ordinarily available program, activity or campus area to students if the event or space in question is not fully and equally accessible to Jewish students. Similar standards should be implemented at Canadian universities.
Second, better campus support networks are needed, including reporting mechanisms for incidents of antisemitism, and inclusion of the Jewish community within existing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The University of Ottawa recently established a new special adviser on antisemitism to provide guidance and advice on addressing systemic and specific cases of antisemitism on campus. The appointment sent a strong signal that campus safety for the Jewish community is taken seriously. It should also help to ensure that university policies can credibly address antisemitism. A positive step for universities across Canada would be to include the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism in their policies, which has already been adopted by the federal government and certain provincial governments in Canada.
Third, universities must preserve their position as neutral forums for discussion, debate and learning. Often referred to as institutional neutrality, the principle dates back to the 1960s and a University of Chicago report that concluded, “There is no mechanism by which it [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
In other words, institutional neutrality ensures that faculty members and students are free to express their opinions, but the institution itself should refrain from wading into political matters. That principle was undermined by the University of Windsor’s recent agreement with campus protesters, which included commitments to university advocacy and restrictions on academic partnerships that could undermine academic freedoms.
The proliferation of campus antisemitism may have caught some universities off guard last year. But this year, there are no surprises. Universities must rise to the challenge by prioritizing a safe environment for all students and faculty – one that lives up to their ideals of inclusion and non-discrimination.