The McGill Senate convened for its second meeting of the academic year on Oct. 16 to discuss the new Deputy Chancellor, the student demonstrations of Oct. 7, and Bill 74.
First on the agenda were memorial tributes for Professor Emeritus of Surgery Harvey Sigman, Professor Emeritus of Animal Sciences Sherman Touchburn, and Professor Emeritus of French Literature Genevieve Leidelinger. McGill President, Vice-Chancellor, and Senate Chair Deep Saini offered a motion of condolence to the family of each professor.
Senators then reviewed the Report of the Senate Steering Committee and the Sept. 18 meeting minutes, opening the floor to questions and amendments. Senator Margaret Levey mentioned an inclusion to the section on the discussions between Senate members during an open discussion on evaluating the Statement of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.
“In the part of the minutes that reports back on the discussions we had in breakout groups […] I noted that, for instance, two groups both underscored that feeling uncomfortable does not equal feeling unsafe, but that’s nowhere in the minutes, and I think that that’s an important point that should be reflected,” Levey said.
Saini accepted the amendment. Senator Ipek Türeli also requested they add a note about the purpose of the open debate, and Saini agreed it should be included as a preamble. With that, the motion was carried. The Senate also approved the Meeting Minutes from the Sept. 18 meeting.
Saini began his Chair’s Remarks by recounting that the Board of Governors (BoG) has appointed Governor Emerita Cynthia Price Verreault as the university’s first Deputy Chancellor, who will notably provide strategic advice and support to the Chancellor and President and Vice-Chancellor. He then proceeded to comment on the campus climate during the week of Oct. 7. That Monday, hundreds of protestors rallied in solidarity with Palestine throughout downtown Montreal and McGill’s campus. The protest dispersed when the police used tear gas after individuals smashed windows of the Sylvan Adams Sports Science Institute. McGill sought an injunction against Solidarity for Palestine’s Honour and Resistance (SPHR) at McGill. On Oct. 8, the Superior Court of Québec granted a provisional ten-day injunction, effectively limiting protest activities in and around campus, and preventing “disturbances” of McGill activities and community members.
Saini stated that the university’s actions seek to uphold McGill’s academic mission, and stressed the importance of ensuring staff and students’ rights to freedom of assembly and expression.
He went on to describe McGill’s preparation for the week and the university’s method of determining the course of action.
“In the weeks leading up to Oct. 7 […] McGill worked with external stakeholders including the city, the [Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal], the provincial government and other universities to determine how best to plan to ensure the stability of our campus,” Saini said. “University leaders also met with community groups internal to McGill who are those most affected by the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and their aftermath.”
Given the more than 13,600 midterms scheduled for that week and the alleged information the administration received about planned disruptions on campus, Saini expressed that the only reasonable option was to activate the Emergency Operations Centre in accordance with the Emergency Management Policy. He also noted that McGill did not receive information suggesting that the personal safety of community members would be at risk, but he stressed that there was a “clear risk” of property damage and disruption of academic activities.
“Because we were prepared, the damage and injury that did occur was relatively minor compared to what could have, and in my opinion would have, happened,” Saini said.
Saini then turned to the injunction.
“Let me emphasize that the right to expression including protests through peaceful assembly remains,” Saini said. “What is not allowed is intimidating people, damaging property, and/or interfering with student’s right to learn and colleagues’ right to work. Senators will hopefully agree that these boundaries on protests are permissible and indeed necessary.”
He claimed that Oct. 7 also saw many peaceful processions, which occurred in consultation with the McGill administration.
During questioning, Senator Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli asked about the changes in McGill’s mode of instruction implemented on the week of Oct 7.
“The language of the communications that the faculty received were at best unclear, and from the conversations I have had with colleagues in different faculties, many feel were deliberately misleading, by suggesting at certain points in contradictory language that classes were or were not to be held online,” Muñiz-Fraticelli said. “It seems to me that a change in the method of instruction is within the exclusive purview of Senate, and that Senate should have at least been consulted at the meeting of Sept. 18, where I presume the university was aware that some measures would have to be taken several weeks later.”
Muñiz-Fraticelli then explained the consequences of McGill’s failure to consult with the Senate or the professoriate.
“This led to the implementation of measures where students were not able to access classes in many cases, because after being cleared for access to campus […] they were locked out of buildings where classes were held,” Muñiz-Fraticelli said. “All of which could [have been] avoided, both in terms of the rights of Senate but also in terms of implementation, by appropriate consultation of the body that should determine the mode of instruction in the university.”
Interim Deputy Provost (Student Life & Learning) Angela Campbell responded, arguing that all students with IDs had access to buildings. In regards to mishandled academic instruction during the week, she said that the administration was making “difficult decisions” working with “incomplete and imperfect information” on scheduled protests. She took exception to the notion that communication was deliberately misleading.
Senator Campbell also noted that she consulted several student groups including Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian communities at McGill about Oct. 7, without mentioning any directly, to ask what they had planned for the week and attempt to work together on events.
“We invited all groups to […] let us know if they were planning anything around the date of Oct. 7 and if so, how we could work with them,” Campbell said. “So some groups did work with us and they had their events and they went off smoothly but there was a lot of worry during the planning period with regard to whether or not events could be carried out safely and even in those conversations for the reasons I outlined earlier it wasn’t clear what the limitations on access to campus would even be.”
Closing his Chair remarks, Saini also touched briefly on Quebec’s tabling of Bill 74, which proposes to give the province new immigration powers to reduce the number of international students. The bill would allow the provincial government to prioritize certain regions, programs and levels of education. Saini reiterated that McGill is analyzing the potential impacts of the bill and will request to participate in future consultations between universities and the government.
At the end of the public part of the meeting, Research Integrity Officer and Associate Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology Craig Mandato gave the annual report on the investigation of research misconduct. Mandato began by explaining the process by which complaints of research misconduct are investigated, describing how dossiers are created and pursued. He also explained that the Research Integrity Office reports its findings to several other entities, including McGill’s Office of the Vice-President, Research + Innovation, the Senate, the BoG, and the Secretariat of Responsible Research in Ottawa.
Mandato also expressed concern over a growing number of anonymous allegations submitted online. He noted that of the seven ongoing investigations of research misconduct at McGill, two came from within the university, two came from external community members, and three were anonymously submitted through PubPeer, an online journal club.
“Across Canada, research integrity officers are wondering what are we going to do with these online allegations […] regulations say we have to take them,” Mandato said. “We had three in May, and this is just the tip of the iceberg [….] It’s not just me who’s not sure what to do with it, there’s a lot of chatter with other research integrity officers across the country that this will be a real issue in the future.”
Following Mandato’s report and a brief question period, the public part of the meeting closed.
Moment of the meeting:
While Craig Mandato discussed the research misconduct reports, he stressed the problems in both volume and quality of allegations arriving from PubPeer. He noted that these reports often involve outdated cases, such as one from 20 years ago asking if the author had high-resolution images, which Mandato emphasized was not a proper allegation. With over 40 such reports, received in July, Mandato explained that although some cases may have substantial merit, many are outdated and simply drain resources for research integrity officers across Canada.
Soundbite:
“I just wanted to know if central admin is aware of the fact that not all students have ID cards, and that personally, I dealt with many students […] who didn’t have ID cards and who were quite stressed out at not being able to get into the building […] to write their midterm exam. It’s nice that you say that every student could get in, but they couldn’t.” — Senator Levey on the academic issues posed by McGill’s security measures the week of Oct. 7.
