On Oct. 10, McGill Principal and Vice-Chancellor Heather Munroe-Blum announced the release of Dean of Arts Christopher Manfredi’s Report on the Open Forum on Free Expression and Peaceful Assembly. Manfredi’s concluding recommendations include the clarification of several clauses in the Code of Student Conduct, the revision of the provisional protocol, and a review of McGill Security’s training program.

Munroe-Blum mandated the series of open fora following Dean of Law Daniel Jutras’ report on the events of Nov. 10, 2011, when an occupation of the James Administration Building ended with riot police dispersing and pepper-spraying students on campus.

The open fora were intended to provide students, faculty, non-academic staff, and senior administration with an opportunity to engage in dialogue about campus issues, including freedom of assembly on campus, and the limits of this freedom. Four Open Forum sessions took place between March 1 and May 2 of this year.

Manfredi’s report on the Open Forum, which can be accessed online through the Open Forum blog, described the key issues that constituted the focus of the discussions—as well as the different opinions expressed regarding these issues.

Early in his report, Manfredi compared McGill’s policies, protections, and regulations to several Canadian and American universities and institutions. The points of comparison include student codes of conduct, freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and the disruption of meetings.

Manfredi found that several of the institutions possess specific policies regarding freedom of speech and expression, and that the code of student conduct for each institution defines “prohibited behaviour” and establishes “disciplinary procedures for investigating … and sanctioning behaviour contrary to the Code.”

“Universities place limits on the rights to assembly and expression,” Manfredi concluded. “Assemblies and demonstrations must be ‘peaceful’ or ‘lawful’ to enjoy any protection at all.  Beyond this, even assemblies or demonstrations that fall within ordinary definitions of these qualifying terms are usually prohibited if they otherwise disrupt normal institutional activities.”

In his section on free expression, Manfredi stated that there was much debate about “expressive activities” such as protests, demonstrations, and occupations, and that many participants commented on the limited responsiveness of the McGill administration to “dissenting voices.”

With regards to peaceful assembly, Manfredi said that much of the discussion involved “the question of how much, where, and with what consequences disruptive activity can legitimately take place.” Manfredi noted that all participants in the Open Forum agreed that McGill should be a violence-free zone. However, other opinions ranged from the belief that peaceful assembly is a form of disruption—even in the absence of violence—and should not be tolerated, to the view that disruptions on campus should be allowed in all circumstances.

“The Open Forum discussions indicate that the university community accepts the necessity of limits, and that most recognize that the peaceful/non-peaceful line is more complicated than a simple distinction between violent and non-violent,” Manfredi concluded. “McGill’s Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures and its Charter of Student Rights currently inadequately define the limits to acceptable protest.”

Manfredi closed his report with three specific recommendations.

“The Code of Student Conduct should be clarified with regard to section 5, 6 and 10 of the Code, namely ‘disruption,’ ‘unauthorized entry and/or presence’ and ‘unauthorized or fraudulent use of university facilities, equipment or services,’ ” his first recommendation read.

The second recommendation dealt with the James Protocol, a provisional security protocol governing access to the James Administration building issued after students occupied the building’s 6th floor in February for six days. Manfredi recommended that the protocol be “revised or reconsidered with a view towards adopting a less restrictive approach to access and security.”

Manfredi’s final recommendation concerned McGill Security Services, which came under criticism last year for what some students at the forum called the increased “securitization of campus.” Manfredi emphasized the importance of training security personnel for disruptive situations.

“McGill Security should review their training program … in order to ensure accuracy and integrity in the case of incident reports and disciplinary proceedings,” he wrote.

In an email to the McGill community on Oct. 10, Munroe-Blum confirmed that she has accepted Manfredi’s three recommendations, and is ready to undertake the necessary measures needed to fulfill them.

“My colleagues and I are committed to addressing directly the matters identified in the report,” Munroe-Blum wrote. “In some cases work is already under way to deal with [these issues]; in others I’ve asked those responsible for substance and process to consider appropriate next steps and report back to me by November 15, 2012.”

Manfredi said he believes his second and third recommendations can be implemented relatively quickly without much additional consultation from the McGill community, however, he admitted that this might not be the case in regards to the Student Code of Conduct.

“Modifications to the Student Code of Conduct are undoubtedly more complicated,” Manfredi said in an email to the Tribune. “However, there is already a Code revision process under way.”

Josh Redel, president of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), said that the SSMU executive team is unable to comment on the report at this time.

In her email, Munroe-Blum stated she will reserve her comments on the report for the Senate meeting scheduled for Oct. 17, as well as the next meeting of the Board of Governors.