Executive Summary
Jewish Academic Alliance of BC (JAABC) has substantial criticisms of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) “Report on Academic Freedom in Canada after October 7, 2023”, which fails to acknowledge the serious problem of suppression of mainstream Jewish and Israeli perspectives in academia and suffers from a lack of methodological rigour. Furthermore, JAABC condemns the amendment to this report and the follow-up motion (which mandates the formation of a committee for further study of these issues) for their blatant anti-Israel bias. We call on CAUT to uphold scholarly standards, its commitment to equity, and its mandate to protect and foster academic freedom by withdrawing the report (including the amendment) and instead conducting a careful study of the issues at hand with input from a diversity of voices.
Background
According to CAUT’s by-law, the organization’s purposes are to “promote the interests of Academic staff, including, but not limited to, professors, professional librarians and researchers, to advance the standards of their professions, and to seek to improve the quality of post-secondary education in Canada”. Its core functions include the “academic freedom, tenure, equality and human rights” of Canadian faculty members and providing “collective bargaining services for the support and assistance of Faculty Associations”.
CAUT published the “Report on Academic Freedom in Canada after October 7, 2023” in March 2025. On May 9, 2025, members of CAUT voted to amend this report to add anti-Israel language (such as the “war waged by Israel on Gaza, now widely considered genocidal in both intent and practice”) as “context” and to “strike a Committee of 3, including a scholar who researches Palestine issues, to oversee a survey across Canada of the experiences of Palestinian scholars and academics who have supported Palestine, akin to the 2024 Survey of Indigenous academics”.
Criticisms of the Report
The report shows a disturbing lack of methodological rigour. Especially given the sensitivity of the subject in question, CAUT should have conducted a properly designed survey to learn about the experiences of the entirety of its membership. The incidents that were “brought to the attention of CAUT” (which form the basis of the report) are not a random sample of incidents across Canada and may not adequately reflect the overall climate on Canadian campuses. Moreover, a serious report should account for the fact that Jews, Israelis, and non-Jews/non-Israelis whose work includes mainstream Jewish/Israeli perspectives (henceforth called “affiliated scholars”) are a small minority, for example by reporting per capita incidents.
Certainly, the report, which describes almost exclusively alleged incidents of suppression of pro-Palestinian viewpoints, is inconsistent with our experiences on BC campuses. In particular, we have witnessed many incidents of attempted and actual suppression of Zionist viewpoints, leading to the underrepresentation of the voices of mainstream Jewish, Israeli, and affiliated scholars. For example:
- A workshop on ancient Christianity at UBC was targeted with anti-Israel graffiti and vandalism, moved, and then disrupted by protesters because of its inclusion of scholars from Israeli universities. The conference organizer was subsequently doxxed by an anti-Israel student group with support from UBC faculty.
- Professional security has been recommended or required at Jewish-related events (at our expense) and even some courses on Judaism at UBC. For example, UBC’s Campus Security recommended on-site security for a speaker simply because of his Israeli name and citizenship (his topic was uncontroversial and had no bearing on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). Although the event proceeded without incident, a need for security could be intimidating for both speakers and hosts — and illustrates the climate faced by Jewish, Israeli, and affiliated scholars.
- At UBC, there have been public and ongoing attempts to intimidate an Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies faculty member, including by protesting at his office building, blocking the entrance. Other tactics included pressuring the faculty member’s colleagues and department as a whole to terminate his teaching and research projects. Such actions constitute a clear threat to his academic freedom.
- There is an ongoing campaign to cancel a UBC course that involves an archaeological dig in the State of Israel, threatening the academic freedom of the instructor.
- The UBC-Okanagan Senate issued an anti-Israel resolution, and 18 UBC-Vancouver Senators submitted a motion seeking the “cutting or suspending [of] academic ties with Israeli government entities (including public universities)”. Such activities create a chilling effect on discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and potentially dissuade individuals with opposing views from applying to UBC. Moreover, had it passed, the motion would have violated the academic freedom of some faculty members who require institutional support for ongoing teaching and research projects with Israeli institutions.
- Pro-Palestinian protestors occupied the UBC MacInnes Field and the SFU Belzberg Library (the latter at which they blocked out the name of the Jewish donors) and prohibited Zionists from entering, thus limiting their freedom to work on campus.
- At SFU, bringing in speakers with backgrounds in Jewish studies has been difficult. For example, a colleague from UBC was invited to speak at SFU but declined after being warned by an SFU colleague that he would likely face protests and possible security threats. Campus security vetoed a second proposed Zionist speaker. In fact, no mainstream Jewish, Israeli, or Zionist voices have been featured in official events on Israel/Palestine. Meanwhile, since October 7, 2023, SFU has hosted over 50 formal events on Israel/Palestine featuring only anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian voices (which, to our knowledge, have occurred without incident). Pro-Palestinian perspectives are not suppressed but in fact are vastly overrepresented in BC universities.
- Numerous UBC and SFU departments and groups have made statements condemning Israel’s role in the current Israel-Hamas war, chilling dissent among current members and discouraging prospective members with dissenting viewpoints from applying.
We are also dismayed by the framing of the massacre on October 7, 2023, as a “ground attack”. The assault was, in fact, the single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. Approximately 1,200 people, mostly Jewish civilians (including children), were brutally murdered; approximately 250 people, mostly Jewish civilians (including children), were taken hostage; and many Jewish women were raped. “Ground attack” grossly minimizes the horror of the assault.
Criticisms of the Amendment to the Report
The first paragraph of the amended report, in an attempt to “acknowledge the larger context in which the report is situated”, will include blatant anti-Israel language such as “the Occupation of Palestinian Territory as well as the ensuing 18 months of war waged by Israel on Gaza, now widely considered genocidal in both intent and practice”. Including such political commentary calls into question the motivation of the report, CAUT’s ability to represent academics with diverse viewpoints, and CAUT’s commitment to academic freedom.
Criticisms of the Planned Further Study on Academic Freedom
JAABC fully supports academic freedom — and CAUT’s investigation into violations of academic freedom in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as long as it is conducted with academic rigour and without taking a stance on the conflict. However, the committee charged with conducting this study will be required to include one faculty member who “researches on Palestine” — but will not be required to include a faculty member whose research features mainstream Jewish or Israeli perspectives. Given this structural bias — and the serious methodological flaws and anti-Israel bent of the first report — we have no confidence that CAUT will be able to produce a fair, scholarly report.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In light of the questionable study methods and exclusion of the experiences of the voices of mainstream Jewish, Israeli, and affiliated scholars, we call on CAUT to withdraw the report (including the amendment). To maintain its credibility as an organization that represents scholars and protects and fosters academic freedom, every CAUT study should be based on carefully collected data and presented impartially. Otherwise, CAUT risks contributing to misinformation and the chilling of dissenting viewpoints.
We also call on CAUT, when conducting the follow-up study on academic freedom, to seek assistance from faculty members with expertise in survey designs and in mainstream Jewish and Israeli studies. The new report must be based on solid methodology and input from a diversity of voices. We further ask that CAUT recognize that Jewish, Israeli, and affiliated scholars are a small minority and prevent these voices from being drowned out by the majority — just as it makes an effort to amplify the voices of other minorities. Likewise, we ask CAUT not to minimize the experiences of the Jewish people — including the profound, ongoing grief and terror resulting from the October 7 assault.
Finally, we call on the CAUT leadership to reflect on their responsibilities to their entire membership, including Jewish, Israeli, and affiliated scholars whose academic freedom and safety is being threatened and sometimes violated in the current climate. By ignoring the violations of these faculty members’ rights, CAUT is reinforcing the conditions that are enabling said violations.