
Letter to the Editor: President McCauley, it’s high time you listened
On May 9th, at the behest of our university’s leadership, police forcibly cleared a pro-Palestinian protest encampment on campus. They used tear gas and police batons, and a traumatic scene unfolded. Local news, first-person reports and the Students’ Union reported that protesters were injured, and the psychological fallout has been devastating: many students and faculty remain traumatized, overwhelmed and upset. Nine months later, our administration has yet to acknowledge these consequences, or even admit something went wrong.
There are research-based blueprints for how to help a community heal after such a crisis, but our administration seems unwilling to learn from those. And, even though the Students’ Union, TUCFA and the General Faculties Council all urgently requested an independent review of the incident, the administration rejected those requests and released a “third-party review” instead. While this might sound similar, third-party reviews are not at all independent – the people who do a third-party review are beholden to those who hired them, so there is little incentive to be neutral. Not surprisingly, the recently released “review” is inadequate in both methodology and scope. As a result, our community did not learn what it needed.
As one example: the “review” claims that the administration’s “efforts to engage with the various stakeholder groups after May 9 were from a place of ‘healing and moving forward’” (p. 13). To adequately back up such a claim, reviewers would have needed to speak with a broad range of stakeholders, determine healing steps identified by concerned stakeholders, and document evidence that leadership has been responsive. The third-party “review,” according to its own outlined methodology, could not have done these things: no protesters and virtually no critics were consulted. Yet, the reviewers did not hesitate to make this claim. That does not speak well for the review’s rigor or impartiality.
And is the claim true? Unfortunately, it contradicts the experiences of many. Our administration apparently has lacked the courage to ask, of its own community: what do you need so we can heal? There has not been a single public forum for community members to share perspectives. When hundreds wrote protesting the university’s actions, the administration promised “they’d be responding to the letter’s authors.” It never did. Since then, many have brought up concerns and/or outlined steps toward healing: repeatedly, these have received no meaningful response.
Indeed, the administration’s approach after May 9th has been nearly as damaging as its response that day. To describe such an approach as “healing and moving forward” is so misinformed that it comes across as gaslighting. Many other claims made about what happened that appear in the “review” are highly suspect as well, given its approach. In short, the third-party “review” is self-serving for the administration and provides no path forward for deeply affected community members.
It is high time leaders solicit a truly independent review with a more comprehensive scope, like people have been asking for. We know that the administration had various options before, during, and after the encampment. The community needs a chance to consider: Were the administration’s decisions strategically wise? Did decision-making reflect ethical relationality? Were alternate courses of action explored? There are at least six domains that need to be better understood, the majority of which were completely ignored in the third-party “review.”
A primary domain to be investigated is how the administration did, or more likely did not, set the stage for campus community members concerned about Israel’s war on Gaza – and the university’s financial ties to Israel – to be a part of a meaningful and respectful dialogue in which their concerns were meaningfully heard. Vital questions include: How has leadership treated Israel’s war on Gaza differently than other geopolitical issues (e.g., the war on Ukraine), for example, with respect to messaging, efforts to support community members of Palestinian origin, and suppression of discussion inside/outside the classroom? Did leadership work to build trust-based relationships with campus activist groups before May 9th? Did leadership proactively engage with concerns that students worldwide have expressed around Israel’s war on Gaza, well before the encampment? Were pro-Palestinian protesters invited into dialogue about their (not the leadership’s) concerns? Did protesters have reason to think that leadership would meaningfully engage with them in the absence of an encampment? Was leadership’s communication before, during, and after the encampment and aggressive police response transparent, fair, honest, and complete?
A second domain to be investigated is why force was used as a first resort, and why other alternatives apparently failed to be considered. Did leadership and/or campus security get preparation in productive negotiation, de-escalation strategies, recognizing trauma and responding to crisis in trauma-informed ways? Were such approaches utilized? Given that the vast majority of encampments worldwide have been peaceful, why clear the encampment immediately, without an injunction, and by force? Was leadership willing to consider alternative approaches used successfully at other institutions? Especially given serious previous allegations that Calgary police used excessive force on pro-Palestinian protesters, including children, did leadership seek to minimize use of force by police? Did leaders advocate for research-based de-escalation approaches considered more effective than what the police chose to do? Was the de facto punishment of the protesters (culminating in OC grenades and police batons) disproportionate to the offense of violating the leadership’s ban on encampments? Did the decision to have police clear the encampment, made in the name of safety, end up undermining that goal?
The third domain that must be investigated is the impact of the events of May 9th and its aftermath on stakeholders. How have decisions affected stakeholders? Who benefited? Who was harmed? Were some groups (e.g., Muslim students) disproportionately affected? A broad range of stakeholders should be invited to share experiences and outcomes, including physical injury; emotional injury, trauma, and sense of safety; trust toward leadership and campus security; intergroup relations (e.g., student trust in faculty); intragroup relations (e.g., faculty relationships with one another); and effects in relation to the wider world (e.g., a boycott by more than a thousand scholars).
Shared governance is the fourth domain that needs to be considered. The third-party “review” indicates that leadership deliberately avoided involving faculty or students in decision-making, and seems to think that is okay. It is not. The new review should examine how community members might have been brought into decision-making, as well as consequences of ignoring faculty and student voice.
A fifth domain concerns the rights of both protesters and the broader campus community to speak up on issues. Were protesters’ rights, guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, undermined? Why did leadership never dialogue with law faculty who indicated concerns about violations of community members’ legal and Charter rights? When community members have raised questions after the encampment, has leadership honored the university’s stated commitment to free expression? How many community members received warnings or reprimands for discussing issues related to the war on Gaza or the encampments, or for allowing discussion of these? To the extent that stakeholders fear exercising free speech, why is that?
The final domain to be considered is how the administration handled the aftermath of the violent police action on campus, including repair work and consideration of how to avoid having something like this happen again. After May 9th, did leadership voice concern to police about the amount of force used? Have any steps been taken since to build consensus on campus around policies on the use of force? Were varied perspectives and needs of stakeholders effectively invited and addressed after May 9th? What directives did central leadership provide to deans and other leaders on what they could and could not say/do? Did leaders systematically assemble and address feedback? What do stakeholders see as steps toward repair? Have any been taken? What policies and conversations would maximize the possibility of robust community and ethical decision-making moving forward?
Any administration serious about healing would itself be pursuing answers to these questions; such answers could help our community come to terms with what happened, and could shape future decision-making so trust can be rebuilt. Ours has ducked the questions instead. Indeed, neither the President nor the Chair of the Board of Governors has thus far provided substantive answers to the above-listed set of questions, which they received several weeks ago. The Board Chair has so far even refused to distribute the letter I sent with these questions to the full Board. Is this to shield President McCauley from Board accountability for his role in what happened?
The lack of response from leadership fits an alarming pattern: President McCauley and those around him refuse to hear what stakeholders are trying to say; they won’t consider changing course; they won’t involve their own community in decision-making. They even have the Orwellian nerve to call this ‘healing and moving forward.’ President McCauley, we would love to be healing and moving forward, and we are ready to work with you when you signal genuine willingness on your side. But no one will as long as you don’t stop and listen.
—Maren Aukerman, Werklund Research Professor, Werklund School of Education
Letters to the Editor published in the Gauntlet do not necessarily reflect the views of the Gauntlet editorial board. The Gauntlet retains the right to edit submissions for brevity and clarity.