Despite what the Crosbie-Cronies “think”, no policy gives the UBC University Counsel permission to decide which definition of improper conduct “counts” and which definitions don’t. Once the UBC Policies define improper conduct as violating the law OR violating policies OR advising others to violate policy, any time it mentions “improper conduct” again, all three definitions are included.
No lawyer can provide a “get out of (policy) jail free” card for their officers to ignore policy if they wanna that any ombudsperson will respect. There is such a thing as exemptions and emergency exemptions, of course, but those are filed through a competent training department.
The UBC is obligated to act should a UBC Person commit improper conduct. Policies are written in plain language and in the present tense because of what the policies say will happen will happen or else.
There’s a reason why policies are not legally enforceable. UBC Persons are responsible for their own actions at the UBC. If a member of a policy-mandated institution commits improper conduct and the institution does not act on it, the institution is held at fault. Institutions cannot be arrested.
They can only pay restitution.
So, say, a university student tries to file a harassment complaint against their director for getting thrown out of class for asking a question on a dark aspect of a work that felt out of place in the work in question. Any professionally-minded critique group that cared about publication would have asked the same question, but I’d been an insomniac for five days at that point due to a medical condition and had forgotten I wasn’t in a professionally-minded critique group.
It was so bad that a current UBC director said to me that what I had said wasn’t bad, but that I had reacted “too poorly” for getting thrown out of class for no reason. “Reacted too poorly” meant “insisting the director at the time follow their policies by actually hearing both sides of the story instead of just kicking a student out of class near-instantly despite UBC’s academic freedom protecting the act of freely commenting.”
So when I finally got a good night’s sleep, I reported her ass. But because the Crosbie-Cronies got there first and had advised the Director that the only policy they have to care about is the bottom half of the discrimination code that talks about protected characteristics, my complaint wasn’t even heard. The Respectful Environment Statment, the Scholarly Integrity Policy and the Retailation Policy meant nothing because, as the Director of Equity and Inclusion told me, those policies weren’t legally enforceable.
What the Crosbie-Cronies meant was that the Director of my program was not going to get arrested for her actions. I was aware of that. I was using the Respectful Environment Statement definition for personal harassment. But because a judge would not convict someone based on that policy, no student was legally obligated to have a respectful environment.
So it could be removed. Without proper policy training, the University Counsel wasn’t aware that “protected” is a protected term on controlled documents and could not be removed. Even if the only institution that was to protect that protected activity was the University of British Columbia, the University of British Columbia had a policy-mandated obligation to protect it.
But the Crosbie-Cronies believed they could unprotect academic freedom without asking the board of governors’ permission to unprotect academic freedom. That would have taken a risk assessment of the threat against the academic institution’s reputation if they’d gone the only route to change what a controlled document says. Instead, they believed their law degree gave them the right to decide which policies or parts of policies mattered and which (they believed) could be ignored and have absolutely no institutional consequences.
Then they assisted a UBC Person in getting away with having declared his intention to serve his conflict of interest instead of the institution’s. They should have reported UBC Person’s ask for a “legal” way to violate a student’s freedom to criticize the program as per their own professional code of conduct.
But instead, here’s how my tuition dollars were wasted: Mark Crosbie-Cronies used their very expensive work-hours to look into whether criminal or civil law said an academic institution could remove academic freedom from a student.
Academic freedom is only a freedom that institutions that need academic freedom require. There’s no actual law on the books that mention it. And the Crosbie-Croniess seized on that fact and wrote AS AN OFFICIAL LEGAL OPINION if:
A) no law says they can’t remove academic freedom
B) The University of British Columbia only has to follow the law
C) The University of British Columbia can remove academic freedom.
I took a Logic 10X class in my first year of my undergraduate. I know that if any of the premises of a conclusion is incorrect, then the conclusion is incorrect. Only the University of British Columbia University Counsel believes that the University of British Columbia only has to follow the law.
Everyone else, from a minister to a Law Society, all assumed that when the University of British Columbia told them that the student had no case, they assumed the University of British Columbia had followed its policies to the letter.
It’s why they thought they could dismiss me out of hand. They assumed the University of British Columbia’s University Counsel knew that the University of British Columbia Persons could not commit improper conduct.
But the UBC had the Crosbie-Cronies, who assumed that if improper conduct wasn’t against the law outside of the institution, it couldn’t be improper conduct inside of an institution either. In part two, I’ll break down the difference between internal errors, external errors and live errors.
The good news is that UBC has not committed any internal errors!
The bad news is that internal errors are the least bad kind.