@UBCprovost, the Investigations Policy says you must investigate all complaints. You should have taken “Your program has no pedagogy” seriously as “and it abuses academic freedom.” As a UBC officer who should have valued excellence almost as much as academic freedom, you went with: Our method doesn’t need to work and shut up about academic freedom.
And the entire UBC was supposed to be able to look over his shoulder, see what he was clearly doing by ignoring his blatant conflict of interest and gently correct his actions. A nice person from the training department would just have to open the Investigations’ Policy in front of him to the “must” statement in the “if complaint isn’t covered under x, y or z policy, the provost must investigate.” They would be embarrassed to remind him that must means must on a controlled document.
And the Provost would have to sign off that the reason he made such an awkward mistake was that he had mistakenly believed there was some leeway between what he must do according to his office in the institution and what he wanted to do to not make it public that he put in writing that the program he is “defending” can only work if academic freedom was crushed to make it fit the “pedagogy”.
And he’d sign more paperwork saying he wouldn’t make that kind of mistake again. And then he’d probably open the conflict of interest policy and scour it for any leeway that gave him any opportunity to not have to say “oops, we fucked up.” Had he a legal counsel who understood their professional conduct binds the advice they can give to a very narrow focus for the good of the institution only, they would have had to report his attempt to avoid declaring his conflict of interest to his superiors for having even attempted it.
I used to call UBC a bizarro-land. It isn’t.
The UBC is a Looney Tunes-verse where Wily. E. @UBCProvost can’t fall down until he sees for himself that nothing has been supporting his arguments since he first stepped off the ledge of what the power of his office *legally* gave him.