Professor George Nader’s academic freedom was infringed by the imposition of the Trent University administration’s reprimands in 2000 and by a subsequent and consequent refusal to reappoint him as principal of Peter Robinson College according to a CAUT report.

"There can be no doubt his was an academic position, that advocacy was a part of his responsibility, and that he suffered negative consequences for the exercise of his right to speak out. ... In the circumstances, we consider that the university administration should apologize to Nader for infringing his academic freedom. We leave it to CAUT to consider whether sanctions against Trent University should be taken if an apology is not forthcoming."

Nader was the principal of Peter Robinson College (PRC) at Trent University who spoke publicly against the university's plans to close the college and who was allegedly denied reappointment as principal because he did so. A CAUT Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee was formed to investigate the matter of "Trent University & the Denial of Professor George Nader’s Reappointment". The Committee's Report was released publicly in March 2007.

The Report's introduction succinctly summarizes the matter;

In 2001, Professor George Nader was denied reappointment as principal or “master” of Peter Robinson College. The search committee had recommended by a six-one plurality, with two abstentions, to name Nader to the post, and he had stated his willingness to serve.

This event followed a period of controversy during which the survival of Peter Robinson College was in question. Over the preceding two years, Nader did what he could to persuade the university not to close the college. Along with others, he acquired the support of the university’s senate, faculty association, students, staff and members of the public. Further, he worked to ensure a judicial review of the college’s closure, once the decision had been ratified by Trent’s board of governors. In short, he criticized the policy of the Trent administration.

In late 2000, Trent university president Bonnie Patterson and vice-president Graham Taylor reprimanded Nader for his activities as a public critic of the administration’s policy. In the summer of 2001, Nader’s reappointment as principal was refused. There was a prima facie case that Nader’s academic freedom had been abridged, as his criticism of the Trent administration looked to have been a contributing, if not the chief factor in the decision to refuse reappointment.

Nader simply had a well researched interpretation of the financial implications of the board's Capital Development Strategy, involving closing the town colleges of PRC and Traill and consolidating all operations at the main suburban campus, that was opposite to the administration interpretation. Nader's analysis of the plan demonstrated it would threaten Trent's financial viability or create a financial crisis. The administration was pursuing large provincial grants and may have found Nader's findings to be embarrassing. But the report clearly states that Nader in no way hindered or prevented the administration from pursuing, and indeed obtaining, those grants and the closing of PRC.

The Report finds that Nader was reprimanded and the conditions of his employment were altered even though his position did not strip him of his academic freedom nor his right to criticize administration policies without fear of reprimand or punitive changes in conditions of employment.

Nader’s academic freedom was infringed by the imposition of the administration’s reprimands in 2000 and by a subsequent and consequent refusal to reappoint him as principal of Peter Robinson College.

The Report concludes that the administration should issue an apology to Nader as the most appropriate remedy for having infringed upon his academic freedom:

5.8 Should there be a remedy for Nader?

We reiterate that Nader’s academic freedom was infringed by the university’s actions in this case. The question of his possession of academic freedom is much clearer than that for university officials higher in the hierarchy. There can be no doubt his was an academic position, that advocacy was a part of his responsibility, and that he suffered negative consequences for the exercise of his right to speak out. We accept, however, that passage of time and closure of Peter Robinson College make Nader’s reinstatement as principal impossible.

In the circumstances, we consider that the university administration should apologize to Nader for infringing his academic freedom. We leave it to CAUT to consider whether sanctions against Trent University should be taken if an apology is not forthcoming.

The Trent administration has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and problematic human resources management and is not known for admitting error and apologies are not its normal currency.

Of the senior administrators involved only president Bonnie Patterson remains. Graham Taylor was removed from his position of vice-president (academic) around July 2003.

Patterson's response to CAUT has so far been dismissive and is included in Appendix M. of the Report;

President Patterson’s reply on reading the report (April 24, 2006)

Dear Dr. Turk,
I am replying to your letter of March 23, 2006 with respect to CAUT’s Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee. As I indicated in my letter of November 12, 2003, Trent considers such action to be inappropriate and in no way useful. Consequently, the university has no comment on CAUT’s findings or report.

Yours sincerely,
Bonnie M. Patterson, President & Vice-Chancellor

cc:Ken Field, Acting President, Trent University Faculty Association

It will be interesting to see if the administration offers a further response now that the Report has been published.

References:

• Trent University & the Denial of Professor George Nader’s Reappointment
  CAUT Ad Hoc Investigatory Committee Report - March 2007
• Critic of Trent administration denied reappointment
  OurTrent article - November, 30, 2003
• Trent apologizes to professors, grievance settled
  OurTrent article - April 10, 2007