Guided by these findings means something institutionally:
The faculty asked the Honourable Smith to objectively investigate whether the institution violated academic freedom, the prof’s respectful environment and any other policies:
UBC attacked my academic freedom systematically through its program’s methodology. It violated my academic freedom when I could not criticise my Director’s actions. It absolutely violated my academic freedom when it chose to violate the academic freedom of a student so the Provost’s alternate facts could slide right through the system.
It had no idea the damage it did to the public sector by putting the University of British Columbia’s reputation on the line behind the Provost’s lies. It shouldn’t not have mattered what one Decision Maker decided my complaint was. Each institution involved was required to make an independent decision on the facts at hand.
But no officer — regardless of their institution believed they had to even question the institution’s reputation when they were required to investigate my complaint against it as they would have any other complaint against any other institution.
On the other hand, if it hadn’t, the fact that the Ministry was unaware it had to administrate the whole policy wouldn’t have come to light. The fact that the Law Society will bend around its protocols and Law Society Rules if it thinks it doesn’t even have to be polite to members of the public asking it to fulfill its mandate.
And the Ombuds would have continued to pump out Fairness Guides while believing institutions would never lie on letterhead or make policy errors that made it believe it hadn’t done anything wrong to do so.
This was known in 2015. The Institution had five years to establish a training procedure to ensure its community members knew they must act the next time academic freedom was threatened. Instead, multiple officers assisted in the attack on academic freedom.
Academic freedom wasn’t even written with whiteboard marker:
Reaffirming its confidence in whats-his-name was one of the reasons the institution required itself to hire an academic freedom specialist:
No matter what office a person in any institution holds, no officer with access to private information may access it if they do not have a reason to. Anyone with access to a database that holds private information must sign off they cannot violate someone’s privacy. Any officer has the ethical obligation not to look up the information required to better threaten an institution member with
Great leaders don’t violate the rights of their institution’s Persons.
“Impartial” must have been important, once:
Then how did the Honourable Smith decide an institutional loophole granting visitors unfettered academic freedom with no obligation to respect the regular members of the institution’s freedom of expression as anything but a policy error?:
The institution once knew a complete investigation was required any time academic freedom was potentially threatened:
The institution was to follow their interim president’s decision ensure academic freedom is never violated again because the community did not know it had a positive obligation to defend academic freedom or that a lack of action violates academic freedom as much as an act that violates it does:
The institution believed it could decide the nature of a student’s complaint if it didn’t want to officially hear complaints against staff members and then gave itself permission to have the final say as to what their decision was by deleting the appeals process. The University Act states a Senate must decide on all matters regarding academic discipline. The internal policy states that students have the right to have any decision regarding their academic standing appealed:
The institution understood the burden of proof institutional harassment has occurred is:
It explicitly removes the right of the Person at Risk to a lawyer:
Documentation is supposed to be read during a valid investigation. It feels ridiculous to even have to type that out but not even the Law Society of BC understood that:
Wow, only a three-month wait to have closure, one way or the other. It must be nice to be a faculty member and have your academic freedom attacked by the entire institution: