This message was sent to students at the St. George campus (the downtown branch) of the University of Toronto. The message doesn’t stand out insofar as college actions or capitulation to protestors’ demands, goes, but it does combine two of my favorite subjects: college free speech and indigenous knowledge. Only in two places—Canada and New Zealand—could you find such a mixture.
The students at St. George apparently had an encampment, and students were informed that occupying Tent City (Ville de Tentes) constituted trespassing and they were asked to leave, but the University says it’s also determined to end the encampment peacefully. Since the students aren’t leaving, the encampment continues.
Click on the headline to read, but go to the May 16 update—the latest one. The ceremonial fire is in the forth paragraph:
Here’s the message:
Dear U of T community,
University representatives met again yesterday with students representing those at the encampment. This meeting is the latest in a series of discussions that have taken place.
The discussion was constructive and productive. Much of the focus at the meeting was on discussing the students’ demands.
The University and student representatives have worked together to mitigate the prior concerns regarding sanitation. Moreover, the ceremonial fire inside the encampment is burning under the careful supervision of experienced Indigenous Firekeepers in a manner that suits the unique conditions of the site. We continue to discuss signs and language and emphasize how important it is that they be consistent with the spirit of peaceful protest.
We aim to reconvene soon. We recognize that our entire community has a stake in this matter. Our next community update will be sent early next week, and all updates continue to be posted on the UTogether site.
Our goal remains the same: to find a peaceful and sustainable conclusion to the encampment on Front Campus as soon as possible, in line with University principles and policies.
Sincerely,
Christine Szustaczek
Vice President Communications
There’s a ceremonial fire! Well, it’s better than some acts of the entented, including violence and defacing buildings. Let’s hope the Indigenous Firekeepers are sufficiently experienced and that the tents aren’t flammable.
As of the next day, the encampment remained; here’s a news video from May 17. The encampment (on the St. George campus) appears to be surrounded by a sturdy fence, which means entry is controlled and there’s a part of campus where non-protesters aren’t allowed or welcome.
The President of the University of Toronto had previously responded to protestors’ demands, but the response was basically “no”: the U of T refused the demands to boycott and break off contacts with Israeli Universities, and also refused to divest from Israeli companies because it adheres to a Kalven-esque principle of institutional neutrality in investing:
. . . . . the University’s Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to University Divestment notes in its opening Preamble that “As a general matter, the University does not take positions on social or political issues apart from those directly pertinent to higher education and academic research.” Accordingly, “the University will not consider proposals for restrictions on its investments that require the institution to take sides in matters that are properly the subject of ongoing academic inquiry and debate.” It further notes, as a corollary, that the University’s response to any requests for divestment “must be governed by the fundamental place of diversity of opinion within its community. Except in those situations in which the University must settle on an answer to controversial questions about how best to achieve its academic mission, the University risks abandoning its core values if it takes sides in ongoing debates and is perceived to be advancing a specific political or social position.”
That’s an admirable policy. If only the University of Toronto had the same kind of institutional neutrality for speech and official university policy and announcements! There are a few more points about investing, like the one below, but they’re above my pay grade.
Notwithstanding the above fundamental points, let me make clear that the investment of the University’s endowment, which is comprised of endowed gifts to the University, is managed by the University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation (UTAM), and does not hold any direct investments in companies. The Expendable Funds Investment Pool (EFIP), consisting of expendable gifts and working capital, holds direct investments in fixed-income products, but not in company securities.
The video above reports that the U of T is pondering creating an institute of Palestinian Studies (a form of bias that may be illegal) and creating two faculty chairs in Palestinian studies. My guess is that these demands won’t be met, though the protesters have given the University a June 30 deadline to meet their demand (or what?)
*************
Note as well that meeting protestors’ demands, including academic boycotts, can be dangerous to one’s career (and, I suspect, will give birth to many lawsuits):
The president of Sonoma State University in California was placed on an indefinite leave of absence two days after he sent an email to the university community announcing that he had acceded to campus encampment organizers’ anti-Israel demands.
Ming-Tung “Mike” Lee issued a statement on Tuesday informing SSU students, faculty, and staff that, after standing for 19 days, the anti-Israel encampment on the university’s lawn had achieved at least one of its goals: an academic boycott of Israel.
He went on to address the new academic boycott:
SSU will not pursue or engage in any study abroad programs, faculty exchanges, or other formal collaborations that are sponsored by, or represent, the Israeli state academic and research institutions. SSU also commits to immediately updating any SSU pamphlets and SSU-hosted websites that may still be circulating or searchable and to remove hosting or linking to any pamphlets, flyers, or brochures advertising the study abroad program where students are encouraged to study abroad in Israel. SSU will make it clear to any students that any such programs are terminated until further notice and not simply suspended.
. . . . California State University chancellor Mildred García, who oversees the state’s public university system, wrote in a statement on Wednesday that Lee’s decision to accede to protesters’ demands had not been approved by any entity with authority over the school.
“On Tuesday evening, Sonoma State University President Mike Lee sent a campuswide message concerning an agreement with campus protesters. That message was sent without the appropriate approvals,” García wrote. “The Board’s leadership and I are actively reviewing the matter and will provide additional details in the near future. For now, because of this insubordination and consequences it has brought upon the system, President Lee has been placed on administrative leave.”
Insubordination!
Vice President Communications: “ceremonial fire inside the encampment”
They are normalizing “encampment” and “fire”. These things are normal for campgrounds and camping.
Neither are normal conditions of civil society.
This is deliberate – making encampments and fire normal expectations in civil society.
Good to see that the ceremonial fire is being tended to by trustworthy experts (sarcasm). I wonder what the university will do when the fire-tenders decide to conduct a ceremonial burn inside one of the buildings.
And, thank Ceiling Cat, acts of stupidity still have consequences. President Ming Tung “Mike” Lee, mentioned above, has decided to “retire.” See here: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-17/sonoma-state-president-retires-after-placed-on-leave-for-supporting-anti-israel-boycott
I could be overthinking this, but Lee has served for 28 years… He may have taken a calculated “risk” in conceding to the protesters demands (one of the demands, that is). He was probably nearing the end of his stint, anyway. And, not to put too fine a point on things, what about fire regulations?
The fence at U of T was erected by the university to protect the Front Campus from disruption and damage by anticipated demonstrations. The large lawn plays a key role in graduation exercises. However the demonstrators including a large contingent of non-student labour-union organizers broke through the fence to set up the encampment inside. So now, courtesy of the university’s own fence, they control the entire Front Campus, which after nearby Queen’s Park on which the provincial legislature sits is the next largest green space in downtown Toronto.
Because it is not strictly necessary to cross the grass of the Front Campus to get around from building to building, the university’s essential operations aren’t being obstructed in a way that might convince a Court to grant an injunction against the occupiers, without which the city police won’t act, especially with the presence of indigenous sacred illegal fire-burners, which makes the whole scene a political third rail. It is really “just” a case of trespassers occupying university property and denying its use for its intended purpose, unlawfully limiting access to the ideologically pure and “safe”. The university has no pressing need to have the encampment dismantled—it is not in a position to impose a deadline in any case— and could just wait for the denizens to get dysentery, but for one thing:
The fence was supplied by a fence-rental company, presumably on a contract to remove it just before Graduation was to start. But will the occupiers allow the company’s workers to dismantle what is now their defensive perimeter? Will the company (under solidarity pressure from its unions) refuse even to approach the site, instead suing the university for breach of contract? This is a lot of fence, which the company will now not be able rent to other fence-needers this summer.
And what happens after the occupiers’ deadline of June 30 when the university will surely not have met their demands? Occupation of buildings? Sacred fires burning in the roadways? A general strike? (Remember this is a communist protest on “stolen land.” The pro-Hamas queers and foreign visa students are just useful fools.)
Back in the halcyon era known as “the sixties”, there was a legend that Univ. of Toronto students held a demonstration protesting the injustice that they had nothing to protest against. I wonder if, back in those days, such a demo would have included Indigenous Firekeepers.
I was wondering how hot does it get in Toronto during the summer? Also, any hope for violent thunderstorms?
A dispute over the company taking down the fence that they own may be reason for police involvement, since to me it then becomes a case of theft of the fence.
It can get very hot, mid-30s C. Summer deluges have become more common. As for protests, when I was a grad student at U of T in the early ’70s, the great cause for demonstration was stopping the proposed Spadina Expressway, which would have cut the west side of the city in two, ruining some charming neighbourhoods for the benefit of commuters. The nominally Conservative government of Bill Davis listened, and stopped it. Would not happen now, I think. Of course, we had Jane Jacobs on our side.
“experienced Indigenous Firekeepers,” what the hell?
Some new thing. In the 60s indigenous wasn’t yet cool.
I find the indigenous firekeepers novel and perhaps a little more fitting than running around in Palestinian dress up like a bunch of try hards.
You find the implied threat of arson novel and fitting? It’s not as if arson in the cause of indigenous activism doesn’t happen here. Beheadings we haven’t had.
I was watching one of the marches yesterday, and saw it as a lost opportunity, from a military perspective.
When I was engaged in fighting such people, they never obliged us by massing in the middle of the road and holding signs announcing their affiliation. Nor did they collect in open squares where we might strike them with artillery, doing minimal damage to surrounding structures.
Yes, I realize that this is not how we do things here. However, I imagine a great many combat veterans look on these encampments and see them, at least subconsciously, as tactical problems.
Provided they’re not obstructing other students, damaging property, and what not, I’d be inclined to just leave these guys in their tent cities and ignore them.
No negotiations whatsover.
It ain’t pleasant living in a tent for any prolonged period. They’ll soon get bored and, if not, can suffer for nothing. I imagine they’ll be well gone before a Canadian winter…but I also suspect a long time before that.
I see Norm beat me to it, but I was going to mention that the president of CSU Sonoma is not just suspended, he’s out completely– “retired”. Whether he retired voluntarily on his own, or as part of a bargain to get rid of him quietly, or was forced out, is yet to be seen. (Or maybe not– if it’s a way to get rid of him quietly, he’ll insist it was voluntary.)
GCM