January 2011
Usually, ordinary Canadians have little
exposure to the snake pit that is faculty-lounge politics. But every so often, a
university scandal becomes so big that it bursts out into the real world of
lawyers and human-rights commissions and front-page he-said/she-said media
reports. Such is the case with the story of Emily Carasco, a University of
Windsor law professor who is convinced that foul play by white males sunk her
campaign to become law school dean.
The details of her case are
difficult to summarize briefly. Suffice it to say that she is a woman of
colour who has spent her entire career fighting obsessively for more affirmative
action on campus, and railing against the alleged bigotry of her own
university’s White-Male-ocracy — and now she is convinced that she has become
its latest victim.
Her complaint also includes a complex
sub-plot involving allegations (which she denies) that she plagiarized an
academic publication many years back � allegations now being advanced by the
husband of one of her collaborators. Adding tangent upon tangent, Ms. Carasco
goes on for pages in her human-rights complaint about how that same publication
was edited in a racist way, with all of her claims about Canada’s racistness
being racistly edited out. All in all, Ms. Carasco’s human rights complaint is
48 pages long — longer than many academic articles. It must have taken her a
whole semester to write the thing. The word "racist" and its various synonyms
appears many, many times.
On paper, at least, Ms. Carasco must have
been considered a viable applicant for law school dean: Before the allegations
of plagiarism emerged, she apparently was one of two candidates still remaining
on the school’s short list. But given her obsession with racism and affirmative
action, it’s hard to see how this one-issue activist could handle the
position–in which she’d be required to deftly balance the interests of 100
different squabbling professors. This would be especially true if–after all
this brouhaha — she was put into the position of law school dean by state fiat,
which is what her human rights complaint demands (along with $75,000 and, of
course, a whole slew of new sensitivity programs to teach everyone
at the University of Windsor how very racist they are).
The most bizarre part of the story is that, as Joseph Brean reported in the National
Post last week, an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) really could put this
woman into the dean’s office — even if the university picks another dean while
her case is being heard: "The appointment of a new dean does not preclude the
option of a remedial order instating [Ms. Carasco] to the position of dean
should [she] succeed in her [complaint]," declared the HRT in an interim ruling.
"It is true that the presence of an incumbent may be a factor influencing the
tribunal’s decision of whether this is an appropriate remedy, but it is too
early at this stage to gauge the significance of this factor against all of
the other potentially relevant considerations."
Think about that for a second: A human
rights mandarin — someone who may or may not have any experience in academia;
or even the firm legal grounding in labour law and constitutional free-speech
principles that we expect of real judges — gets to decide who runs one of
Canada’s law schools … all based on a sheaf of paper submitted by an
identity-politics activist who’s angry she didn’t get the job.
Then again, why stop at deciding the
deanship? Section 45.2 of the Ontario Human Rights Code is very broad in
defining the remedies that a human rights tribunal can prescribe. Financial
restitution is just one of the options available. The HRT also can provide: "An
order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion
of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act".
Which means the sky’s the limit. The HRT could theoretically disband the whole
law school, or force it to stop hiring white people.
Till now, watchdogs of Canadian human
rights commissions have focused mainly on the threat that these star chambers
pose to free speech. But as this case makes clear, their powers must be reined
in across the board.
In a way, it might be a good thing if Ms.
Carasco gets exactly what she wants in this case. When that happens, the people
who rebel against the system and demand reform won’t just be angry editorial
board pundits: They will be the very same establishment legal minds who set up
the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and its counterpart kangaroo courts across
Canada in the first place.
National Post, Monday, October 4, 2010.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
