By: Corbett Gildersleve, News Writer

On September 9, 2024, president Joy Johnson released a statement explaining why SFU abstains from commenting on “partisan political matters and current events.” This statement came after sustained pressure from students and faculty for SFU to take a stance on Israel’s ongoing genocide of the occupied Palestinian territories. According to the statement, “universities need to be a place where people can freely engage in academic inquiry, share ideas, learn from each other, disagree constructively, and peacefully protest.” Apparently, taking a stance would violate section 66 of the University Act, requiring universities to be “non-sectarian [non-religious] and non-political in principle.” 

What Johnson failed to acknowledge is that politics is not just opinion, but the application of opinion through a wide variety of means. She’s yet to acknowledge that the university has already taken its stance on Palestine, by investing $7.2 million in companies that supply arms to Israel, including BAE systems, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CAE Inc. SFU must take accountability for how their actions are political.

Section 66 of the Act has been raised again with a recent petition filed in the BC Supreme Court on April 7, against UBC by four professors and one graduate student. In this case, their targets are the university’s land acknowledgments, EDI statements in the hiring process, and resolutions passed by faculty and administration in support of Gaza. They argue that these items are either political or are still being hotly debated in academia. In their view, these things are violating university members’ academic freedom to freely engage in “controversial” topics. 

The administrative work of the university is political. It doesn’t suddenly become political once the communications department posts a public statement.

As the BC Civil Liberties Association called it, this petition is a “perverse interpretation of the University Act.” Section 66 exists to ensure universities do not become “tools of indoctrination for state-sponsored religions or ideologies.” The issue is that the Act doesn’t define “non-political.” Looking at its history, the Act was first passed in 1908 and has had amendments throughout the years. Both the 1908 and 1963 versions only spoke to universities being non-secretarian. This has always been part of the Act and prevents universities from being religious schools. It also regulates university involvement with theological colleges. It wasn’t until 1974 when the Act was revised significantly, that the words “and non-political in principle” were added.

Both universities and churches in Canada are charities, and similarly, the advancement of education and the advancement of religion are classified as charitable purposes. The Canada Revenue Agency restricts charities’ political engagement, banning them from supporting a party or candidate (being partisan). However, engaging in public policy dialogue and development activities (PPDDA) is allowed. PPDDAs generally involve efforts to influence laws, policies, or decisions of a government. Additionally, there’s no limit on the amount of resources a charity can devote to this work, as long as that activity furthers the charity’s purposes. The university, through its administration, is free to engage in public policy discussions and development. The very work of a university is to advance education and advocate for students, staff, faculty, and administrators. They have a responsibility to provide them support in times of political crisis, such as the ongoing genocide, or for marginalized identities. They also must take accountability for how they respond to their political environment.   

The petition and Johnson’s statement want to limit the university administration’s public statements to only being directly related to the university’s business. This business would include research produced, courses being taught, and other activities specific to their mission. The fundamental problem with this is that the administrative work of the university is also political. This includes decisions made by the Senate, the Board of Governors, the deans, directors, and their relevant committees. It doesn’t suddenly become political once the communications department posts a public statement. 

Politics is not just an opinion on taxes, laws, or whether Indigenous sovereignty exists; it’s the actions and activities to implement those opinions.

Politics is not just an opinion on taxes, laws, or whether Indigenous sovereignty exists; it’s the actions and activities to implement those opinions. By making and voting on policies, budgets, and plans, the university decides what research gets funded, who receives bursaries and scholarships, what department gets additional support staff, who goes into a new building, what programs get created or cut, and so on. These actions are not neutral. The university does not just create a place to “freely engage in academic inquiry [ . . . ] where people can have robust conversations” when they literally determine not only if there is a stage, but who gets to stand on it, and who gets to attend. 

The petition also cites section 47 of the University Act, which instructs universities to pursue “all branches of knowledge.” This is overly simple. These branches imply a tree with a central, unmoving trunk rooted in the ground, supporting all this work. A more accurate metaphor would be that a university is a forest in all its biodiversity, supporting not only the growth of different trees, bushes, and plants, but also animals, insects, and creatures that live within it. As some areas of knowledge are found to be incorrect (like the flat earth theory), those plants wither away. As such, there is no fixed center to the forest, instead, it shifts as the forest changes and grows. The administration, as the forest’s caretakers, have a responsibility to use this knowledge gained through scholarly work, to move along with it. 

All “partisan matters and world events” are the business of the university. President Johnson had that opportunity and instead, she has abdicated her responsibility and chosen silence forevermore.