How universities should approach hate

UofT's draft consultation statement on antisemitism is actually pretty good

The University of Toronto has released a draft statement (pdf) on law and policy around antisemitism, and it should arguably serve as a model for approaching hateful and discriminatory speech on university campuses.

The starting basis for a good approach, which the statement reflects, is to stick strictly to existing human rights and workplace law. Universities get themselves into deep trouble when they try to carve out new rules or approaches within the bounds of the law, censoring or punishing otherwise lawful speech.

The virtue of UofT’s draft statement is that it avoids doing that. It also explicitly avoids adopting a ‘special’ definition of antisemitism that draws on those like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) example, which has provisions that could be interpreted to treat certain criticisms of the state of Israel as antisemitism.

In adopting the principle of free expression as one of its stating points, the UofT draft statement turns to the relevant laws and policies of the institution to develop a concise framework for identifying unacceptable speech. Universities are not only public forums for free expression; they also have duties as employers, and further, must impose standards for the classroom, and for the education and evaluation of students. This can make assessing instances of ‘controversial’ speech challenging because there is more at stake than the litmus test of whether someone’s speech constitutes unlawful hate speech: speech that amounts to acts of discrimination, or evinces the intent of discriminating against particular classes of employees or students, is also impermissible.

When turning to examples of antisemitism, the draft statement does a pretty good job sticking to these lines. The first few examples involve clear efforts to exclude Jewish or Israeli employees/students from learning/career opportunities, or involvement in normal employment or campus activities on the basis of their identity. Other examples focus on the targeting of individuals (through obviously unacceptable behaviour like harassment, bullying, threats, or vandalism). Indeed, most of the examples listed would apply to behaviour directed at any class of people, not just those who are Jewish or Israeli. On specific antisemitic speech, the examples are generally limited to expression likely to fall afoul of Canadian hate speech laws, such as trading in blatantly antisemitic tropes or conspiracy theories, or harassing behaviour like the use of swastikas or telling people to “go back to Europe.”

The document does a remarkably good job of avoiding any reference to people’s feelings. This is not about offensive political, social, or moral language, but about expression (or acts of discrimination) that clearly infringe existing laws and workplace policies.

Nor does the document elevate antisemitism as a special category of hate. Although it is a specific response to a recent spate of antisemitism on UofT’s campus, it essentially articulates a template that could easily be transposed for a statement on racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc.

The one ‘special’ element it does include is the explicit caution that “Using ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zionism’ as a proxy for ‘Jewish’ or ‘Judaism’ does not excuse discriminatory or harassing actions described in the examples below.” Importantly, this does not mean that people cannot criticize Zionist ideology, but instead that if someone engages in genuinely antisemitic speech they cannot get away with it by trying to use critiques of Zionism as cover. Importantly, the statement adds: “This proxy usage is distinct from criticisms of the government of Israel and its policies, or of Zionism as an ideology.”

The UofT draft statement is open for public consultation until January 31, 2025. I hope it is not subject to any major amendments. It seems perfectly in line with the approach we articulated at the University of Waterloo in our Report of the Task Force on Freedom of Expression and Inclusive Engagement. It’s nice to see a university ‘getting it right’ in the free expression space for once.