 Table of Contents |
U of S : Communications : OCN : Nov 28, 1997
|
- Mik Bickis - Gerald Harrison |
I must take issue, however, with her seating me at the "white patriarchal table." I don't deny my privileged status. Holding an academic appointment in an industrialized democratic country with clean air and pure water, I enjoy many advantages that are denied most of the inhabitants of this planet.
But whether these advantages are unearned or not, they are not due to my race or sex. The table at which I sit has faces of many colors, and they are not all male.
It is fatuous for Professor Relke to insinuate that she or Professor Li must be content with fallen crumbs when in fact they sit at the same table as I. Equity is not advanced when the victimhood of the genuinely disadvantaged is usurped by the comfortable.
Professor Relke is also mistaken in her speculation that I might refer to "defeminization" as the "siamese twin" of deracialization. Talk of "defeminization" suggests that it is the feminine itself rather than the devaluation of the feminine that is the root of sexism, an opinion that I find abhorent. I would not expect that a professor of women's studies would endorse elimination of the feminine.
There is little justification for labelling sexism a "siamese twin" of racism (even if one ignores the inherent racism of that metaphor).
One of the habitual errors of the equity industry is its tendency to paint all its concerns with the same brush.
Is Professor Relke suggesting that the distinctions of sex have no more biological basis than the distinctions of race, that our separation into male and female is just an arbitrary, culturally-based cutpoint along a continuum?
The problems and solutions of gender equity appear to me intrinsically different from those of racism. Professor Relke might better appreciate my perspective by meditating on why she feels justified in classifying me as a "white male". After all, at least half of my ancestors were not white males.
- Mik Bickis, Mathematics & Statistics
In the 1970s, law professor Doug Schmeiser's article on "The Justice of the Peace Problem" in the north warned of potential abuse of power when a single person served as arresting officer, judge, jury, and jailer in isolation from any effective outside scrutiny.
In 1982, a Canadian Human Rights Foundation seminar at the U of S focused upon The Protection of Human Rights from the Abuse of Administrative Authority. Law professor Gene Anne Smith's submission on "Natural Justice and the Duty to Act Fairly" discussed procedural fairness obligations, the duty to act fairly, and the principle of natural justice - principles well-established in case law and meant to prevent administrative malpractice.
Expanding upon Smith's paper, (then) ombudsman David Tickell stated: "The issue is not whether there is a need for procedural safeguards, but rather how to bring about such safeguards." In his view, "much abuse of administrative power is due to inadvertence and the absence of process." He maintained that "the only appropriate mechanism likely to be effective in applying the duty of fairness is legislation." (emphasis mine)
Law professor Howard McConnell's comments upon the University's action against Professor Michael Murphy, (Nov. 14 OCN) also speak to the wider issue of administrative exercise of power, as he notes that fairness often falls victim to secretive proceedings that ignore due process.
If adjudicators lacking legal training deserve our sympathy, they also deserve our censure for failing to consult obvious remedial resources. Since many of the current law faculty have written effectively in support of human rights, it is inexcusable for the administration to ignore their expertise.
Most administrative law books feature a discussion of natural justice, which is cited as a fundamental requirement of proper adjudication and for processing complaints. In essence, natural justice requires that any administrative process must be fair and must be seen to be fair by all parties and lays out the minimum requirements of reasonable due process in an administrative setting.
Examination of three of the 11 components of natural justice or fair procedure discussed in F.A. Laux's The Administrative Process suggests a corrective for the secretiveness and arbitrariness that Professor McConnell mentions:
One way to ensure due process within a university bureaucracy is to hire an independent procedural fairness officer - an ombudsperson - to ensure that the University establishes and abides by procedures that do not offend human rights.
While such procedures should be formal and transparent to prevent abuse, they need not be overly legalistic. Ideally, like the provincial ombudsman, the procedural fairness officer would report directly to the provincial cabinet.
Council chair John Conway's concern (Nov. 14 OCN) about the "average taxpayer's" perception of the University's behavior is well founded. Let us hope that Professor McConnell's comments alert others to the need to examine the use of power on this campus.
- Gerald Harrison
Editor's note: Harrison is a former sessional lecturer at the U of S. Also see Dr. Ivany's discussion of this matter in his November 20 newsletter.
Table of Contents |