The Department of Law and Legal Studies Urges Carleton University to Reject the Proposed Institutional Impartiality Policy

The statement below was drafted and signed by members of the Department of Law and Legal Studies in response to Carleton University’s proposed impartiality policy. Although the administration has since issued a revised draft, the language, intent, and enforcement mechanisms remain, in our view, too vague to withstand legal scrutiny. We therefore consider the analysis and concerns in this letter fully applicable to the current version. We also note that, at a recent General Faculty Board meeting, members passed a motion urging the University Senate to recommend that the Board of Governors reject this impartiality policy and refrain from pursuing any other such policy.

****

Dear Members of the University Governance Secretariat and Senior Administration,

We, as members of the Department of Law and Legal Studies, are compelled to respond to the proposed policy on “Institutional Impartiality” by asserting that this policy, as currently written, is legally incoherent, unenforceable, and needlessly provocative. We are particularly concerned that it:

(1) rests on a confused and unsustainable distinction between “impartiality” and “neutrality,” and defines “partisan” speech so vaguely and broadly that ordinary scholarly analysis of law, power, and public controversy could be treated as prohibited.

(2) wrongly restricts any unauthorized statement that could be “reasonably seen” to be made on behalf of the University; in fact, we speak from, not for, Carleton. While the President, Provost, and Chancellor represent the public face of the University and their statements might be reasonably interpreted as representing University policy, collective statements by units on important public issues can only be interpreted correctly as falling within the context of academic freedom. Any concern about “the University’s position” should be addressed by clarifying the role and conduct of senior administration, not by policing faculty.

(3) will be enforced unevenly, falling hardest on Law, the social sciences, and the humanities, and especially on new and untenured scholars whose research tackles contentious issues and powerful institutions.

(4) uses vague language that hands administrators arbitrary power to discipline lawful political expression on and off campus, a power incompatible with a public university operating under the rule of law in a constitutional democracy.

If this policy is passed by the University, we see two inevitable effects: (1) protected political speech will be silenced, and/or (2) our colleagues across the University will be forced to disregard this policy, potentially setting up an endless series of direct and legally justified confrontations with the upper administration. We believe both of these outcomes are undesirable and unnecessary, and we urge the Administration to quickly reject this ill-conceived policy.

List of signatories:

• Zeina Bou-Zeid
• Doris Buss
• Michael Christensen
• Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny
• Jane Dickson
• Stacy Douglas
• Megan Gaucher
• Sheryl Hamilton
• Mohammad Mahmud Hasan
• Atiya Husain
• Nadine Ijaz
• Philip Kaisary
• Gulay Kilicaslan
• Hollis Moore
• Umut Özsu
• Sean Richmond
• George Rigakos
• Alberto Salazar
• Dale Spencer
• Steve Tasson
• Christiane Wilke
• Ania Zbyszewska