REPORT NUMBER 553 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2024
To the Governing Council,
University of Toronto,
Your Executive Committee reports that it held a meeting in the Chairs’ Boardroom, on Tuesday, December 3, 2024, with the following members present:
PRESENT: Anna Kennedy (Chair), Sandra Hanington (Vice-Chair), Meric Gertler (President), Donald Ainslie, Vikram Chadalawada, Robert Cooper, K. Sonu Gaind, Indi Gopinathan*, Mark Lautens, Joanne McNamara, Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Mary-Agnes Wilson
*remote attendance
REGRETS: Grace Westcott, Jovan Bursac
SECRETARIAT: Sheree Drummond (Secretary of the Governing Council); Miranda Edwards (Recording Secretary)
IN ATTENDANCE: Douglas McDougall (Chair, Academic Board); Ann Curran (Chair, UTM Campus Council), Rajiv Mathur (Chair, Business Board), Trevor Young (Vice-President and Provost), Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Vice President, People Strategy, Equity & Culture), Scott Mabury (Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships & Vice-Provost, Academic Operations), Kristin Taylor (University Counsel & Chief Legal Officer), Bryn MacPherson, (Assistant Vice-President, Office of the President & Chief of Protocol), Nadina Jamison (Chief Strategy Officer, Office of the President), Leora Jackson (Legal Counsel), Chris Lang (Director, Appeals, Discipline, and Faculty Grievances), Karen Bellinger (Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline, and Faculty Grievances)
Pursuant to sections 28 (e) and 38 of By-Law Number 2,
consideration of items 11 to 14 took place in camera.
CLOSED SESSION
- Chair’s Remarks
The Chair welcomed members, Board Chairs and members of the Senior Administration to the meeting. The Chair noted that a member had put forward a motion for consideration and that this would be considered under Item 10 – Other Business.
The Chair requested to move in camera to discuss a privileged matter.
The Committee moved In Camera.
The Committee returned to Closed Session. - Report of the President
University Rankings
The President began his report by sharing notable updates in recent university rankings. In the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy’s annual subject rankings, the University of Toronto ranked among the top 10 universities in the world for five subjects (Sociology, Medical Technology, Public Health, Finance, and Management), and ranked within the top 100 universities in 42 subjects. He noted that this accomplishment reflected the University’s breadth of academic excellence, as well as the effectiveness of institutional governance providing oversight of the academic mission.
In the Times Higher Education Global Employability Ranking, the University of Toronto ranked 1st in Canada and 14th in the world, and among public universities ranked 8th overall and 1st in North America.
The President also noted that the annual QS World University Rankings in Sustainability would be released next week and that the University was anticipating very good news regarding its placement this year. The President remarked that these latest rankings confirmed the university’s status as both a research and educational powerhouse.
Federal Matters
The President provided an update regarding the recent changes to the international student study permit process, which had led to fiscal challenges across the sector, including recent program and campus closures at Ontario colleges. The President confirmed that the university had fared considerably better than most peers, with just over 300 fewer international students, or a 5.9% decline, year over year. The President then invited the Provost to provide a brief update on the University’s budget.
The Provost informed the Committee that enrolment decreases had been offset by an increase of 733 domestic students, as well as better retention rates among students, and better than expected Returns on Investment. The Provost reported that the University had begun work on the academic budget review and was expecting a balanced budget with 2% annual growth. Further details would be reported to Governing Council later this year.
The President informed members that the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration had initiated an examination of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)’s changes to international student study permits. The President and CEO of the U15 had appeared before the committee last month, and spoke to the value of international students, as well as concerns regarding the study permit caps and the inclusion of doctoral students given their importance to Canada’s research enterprise. The President noted that the university expected IRCC to inform provinces of their Provincial Allocation Letter numbers soon.
The President reported that IRCC was considering launching the ‘Recognized Institutions Framework’, which would create an alternate pathway for processing study permit allocations for universities with a demonstrated track record of support for international students The university would continue to advocate for this framework being adopted.
Provincial Matters
The President reported that he had held a productive meeting with the new Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Honourable Nolan Quinn. Discussion topics included the sector’s long-term fiscal challenges, as well as opportunities for provincial investments for domestic students and STEM enrolments as a part of the fourth Strategic Mandate Agreement.
Recent Initiatives
The President invited the Provost to update the Committee on recent initiatives.
The Provost reported that the University had recently announced the establishment of the Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Discrimination Working Group (MAP-DWG). The Working Group was to be chaired by Professor Anver M. Emon, Director of the Institute of Islamic Studies and Canada Research Chair in Islamic Law & History. The Group was given a mandate to review programming and practices and make recommendations to the University before the end of 2025. Information regarding the process to nominate individuals for the working group would be posted on the UTogether website.
The Provost also announced that the draft Guide to Law and Policy regarding Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Discrimination at the University of Toronto had been posted on the UTogether website. This document provided clarity in defining antisemitism and anti-Israeli discrimination. It was created as a joint initiative between the Office of the Provost and the Division of People Strategy, Equity & Culture and in consultation with multiple U of T scholars and subject matter experts. The draft was posted for the purpose of inviting feedback from the University community between November 2024 and the end of January 2025.
In response to a member’s question, the Provost explained that the draft document, once completed, would be categorized as a Provostial Guideline and, as such, would not go to Governing Council for approval. However, he noted that the item would be shared for information and that Governors were welcome to participate in the consultation process.
In response to a member’s question, Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Vice President, People Strategy, Equity & Culture) noted that there was a “progress dashboard” on the Institutional Equity Commitments webpage. This dashboard provided updates on recommendations arising from the various EDI working groups, including the Antisemitism Working Group, and on actions taken. This work was regularly reported to the Business Board through the annual Equity Report. -
Revocation of the Policy with Respect to AIDS for the University of Toronto (1989)
The Chair indicated that the implementation of the Policy Management Framework included an ongoing process for reviewing policies. This involved identifying outdated policies requiring renewal or rescindment. The Policy with Respect to AIDS was an example of an outdated policy that needed to be rescinded.
At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Hannah-Moffat advised members that the Policy with Respect to AIDS contained outdated information about HIV/AIDS. She explained that accommodations and protections for people living with HIV/AIDS were more comprehensively covered by other existing policies and frameworks. Following consultation with multiple university units, external stakeholders, and University Counsel, it was being recommended that the Policy be rescinded.
In response to a member’s question about data on the use of this Policy, Professor Hannah-Moffat advised that her office had not been able to discover any cases where this policy had been applied or relied upon.
Further to a member’s question, Professor Hannah-Moffat and the Provost both explained that the University was committed to its ongoing policy review process to identify other existing outdated policies. The Provost stated that other policy revocations were expected to come forward to the Committee in future.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVED
THAT the following recommendation be endorsed and forwarded to the Governing Council:
THAT the Policy with Respect to AIDS for the University of Toronto be revoked, effective immediately.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Chair noted that Item 4 on the Consent Agenda was for approval. All other items were for information only.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVED
THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item 4, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.
- Report of the Previous Meeting of the Executive Committee – October 28, 2024
Report Number 552 of the Executive Committee from its meeting on October 28, 2024 was approved. - Minutes of the Governing Council Meeting – November 7, 2024
The Minutes of the Governing Council meeting were received as information. - Reports for Information
Members received the following Reports for information:- Review of Academic Programs and Units – Part 1 (Arising from Report Number 253 of the Academic Board - November 14, 2024)
- Follow-up Report from Previous Review: UTSC Specialist in Paramedicine (offered jointly with Centennial College) (Arising from Report Number 253 of the Academic Board - November 14, 2024)
- Report Number 66 of the UTSC Campus Council (November 12, 2024)
- Report Number 68 of the UTM Campus Council (November 13, 2024)
- Report Number 281 of the Business Board (November 27, 2024)
- Report Number 253 of the Academic Board (November 14, 2024)
- Report Number 243 of the University Affairs Board (November 21, 2024)
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
- Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting. - Date of Next Meeting – February 11, 2025, 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
The Chair advised members that the next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, February 11, 2024, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Chairs’ Boardroom. - Governing Council Meeting: Draft Agenda: December 19, 2024, 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
The Committee finalized the agenda and reviewed a speaking request for the Governing Council meeting. The Chair indicated that she would follow-up directly with the requester. - Other Business
The Chair invited the member who had brought forward a motion to be considered by the Committee for inclusion on the agenda of the next Governing Council meeting to speak briefly to the reasons for this request. The member responded to indicate that he was also giving notice of a motion to amend the By-Law. The Secretary noted that By-Law revisions were usually brought to the Governing Council following a governance review process. The Chair asked the member to speak to the motion that he had submitted in advance. The motion was as follows:
The Governing Council of the University of Toronto condemns the acts of antisemitism that occurred at the encampment as well as ongoing antisemitism on its campuses. We advise the administration to implement strategies to effectively protect students, faculty and staff from this form of discrimination.
The member stated that the Governing Council was responsible for policies of the University and for setting the tone of the University. The member indicated that a statement against antisemitism by the Governing Council would send a meaningful message to Jewish students, faculty and staff, and would set a tone for the broader University community. He said that while the University had been working on antisemitism, in his view the situation was only getting worse.
In the discussion that followed, a member acknowledged the work being done by the University to combat antisemitism but expressed concern about the characterization of governors in the press as antisemitic. The member indicated support for the motion as it would allow the Governing Council to publicly affirm its rejection of antisemitism. Other members commented that while they were also disturbed by the characterizations in the media, they did not share the view that the way to address this was through a statement of the Governing Council. In their view, doing so would be superfluous in light of the statements condemning antisemitism that had already been issued by the University. There was broad consensus that the Committee should uphold the mandate of Governing Council as an oversight body and that as such it should hold the University to account. It was noted that the motion passed by the Executive Committee at its last meeting reflected this approach as it had required reporting by the administration on its activities and initiatives to combat antisemitism.
In response to a member’s question about the practical effect of the motion on the actions of the administration, the President emphasized that combatting antisemitism was already a high priority. The Provost reiterated that the University administration held itself accountable to governance oversight and had committed to increasing its reporting on antidiscrimination programs to this Committee and to Governing Council. He also acknowledged that there was still more to be done to combat antisemitism.
In response to the President and Provost’s remarks, most members agreed that the motion would have little to no practical effect. Several members stated that the motion seemed performative and that it was disrespectful to the administration and to other members who had addressed the matter previously. A member also expressed concern about making a statement that only addressed one aspect of a complex matter and that this was not appropriate in light of the University’s diverse community. There was general agreement that the University’s existing antidiscrimination initiatives demonstrated that the University was already committed to addressing this issue.
The President acknowledged that coming out of the experience of the encampment, the University was working to ensure that people felt U of T was welcoming to everyone. He noted that while the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had ruled that the case had not been made that the behaviour engaged in by individual members of the encampment was antisemitic, it was clear that many community members had experienced antisemitism in proximity to, or as a result of, the encampment. The University acknowledged this harm and its responsibility to address it. He pointed to the most recent step of developing a draft Guide to Law and Policy regarding Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Discrimination at the University of Toronto, to help better recognize and respond to these issues on campus, and that this was one of the many actions being taken. He emphasized that as the Chief Executive Officer he stood resolutely against antisemitism, that he had repeatedly condemned it and would continue to do so, and that the University would continue to take clear actions to address it.
A member commented that he was opposed to hate against any group and that he was disgusted by actions of violence and hateful language, and that those who crossed the line should feel the full force of the law. He further added that in his view the University had been correct in not acting on the encampment until it had received a court injunction. He said that other institutions had looked to the University’s injunction for guidance with their own encampments.
Another member expressed the view that governors’ fiduciary duty was not in line with the motion, noting that his constituency did not have a single view and that while he would expect that there would be broad support that antisemitism should be rejected, the broader matter was more complex. He said the focus should be on awareness of the actions that were being taken by the University. A member further added that these actions were more effective than a motion or making any other statement. Throughout the discussion, members repeatedly condemned antisemitism and expressed concern and empathy for Jewish members of the University community.
In her concluding remarks, the Chair acknowledged the personal importance of combatting antisemitism to the member who had brought forward the motion, and the importance of this to the University. She observed that while members acknowledged the importance of addressing antisemitism, based on the discussion there was broad consensus that the motion should not be brought forward to the Governing Council. She said that it was the responsibility of the Governing Council to ensure that the University had the appropriate policies and procedures in place, that it had initiatives ongoing or underway to address and combat antisemitism, and that the Council should monitor the progress of these. She emphasized her own categorical rejection of antisemitism. She also noted that members had been clear in their condemnation of antisemitism, had expressed their support for the University’s antidiscrimination efforts, and had confirmed the importance of Governing Council’s oversight role of this important work. She said that the lack of support for placing the motion on the agenda should not be misunderstood.
The member who had brought forward the motion requested that the motion be put to a vote.
The motion was duly moved and seconded.
That the following motion be endorsed and forwarded to the Governing Council:
The Governing Council of the University of Toronto condemns the acts of antisemitism that occurred at the encampment as well as ongoing antisemitism on its campuses. We advise the administration to implement strategies to effectively protect students, faculty and staff from this form of discrimination.
There were two votes in support and ten votes in opposition. The motion was defeated.
The Committee moved In Camera.
IN CAMERA SESSION
- Recommendation for Expulsion
The Committee approved the President’s recommendation for expulsion, as outlined in the memorandum and supporting documentation provided to Committee members. - Report Number 68 of the Committee for Honorary Degrees
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVED
THAT the following motion be endorsed and forwarded to the Governing Council:
THAT the recommendations contained in Report Number 68 of the Committee for Honorary Degrees be approved;
THAT the Chancellor and the President be empowered to determine the degree to be conferred on each candidate and the date of the conferral; and
THAT, pursuant to sections 38 and 40 of By-Law Number 2, the Governing Council consider this item in camera. -
Committee Members with the President
Members of the Executive Committee, with Board and Campus Council Chairs, met with the President. No matters were raised. - Committee Members alone
Members of the Executive Committee, with Board and Campus Council Chairs, met privately. No matters were raised.
The Committee returned to closed session.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
December 17, 2024