Tribunal can appoint faculty deans

UWindsor can still search for a new Dean of Law, but Human Rights Tribunal may intervene

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has affirmed its authority to choose faculty deans. The ruling was made Monday in reference to allegations that racism and sexism kept a women professor from taking the top post at the University of Windsor’s faculty of law. However, for the time being, the Tribunal also ruled that the university can continue its dean selection process.

In an application filed Sept 10, Emily Carasco had asked the Tribunal to order Windsor’s dean selection committee to stop its search, and install her in the position. She had initially filed a complaint in July alleging sexism and racism played a role in her being denied the post. Carasco is seeking $60,000 from the university and an additional $15,000 from law professor Richard Moon who accused Carasco of plagiarism. Carasco was one of two top candidates being considered for the position, but both were rejected in the spring.

Although the dean selection process will continue, Tribunal vice-chair Sherry Liang did not rule out the possibility that the Tribunal could eventually install Carasco into the post, even if it is filled in the interim. “The appointment of a new dean does not preclude the option of a remedial order instating the applicant to the position of dean should the applicant (Carasco) succeed in her application,” Liang wrote in her ruling.

Outgoing dean Bruce Elman will stay in the position until it has been filled. The university denies any wrongdoing and is preparing its response.

Related: Should HRCs pick your faculty dean

- Photo by Joe Gratz




Browse

Tribunal can appoint faculty deans

  1. Discussed this with a lawyer friend lately. Although my gutcheck reaction to this story is similar to that of many (that faculty hiring is somehow different) the fact is that hiring decisions in a university aren’t so different from anywhere else. If there genuinely is racism or discrimination in the process (I have no idea if that’s true in this case) then a remedial order is appropriate. What else could be?

    Note also, of course, that while the Tribunal can order whatever it wants it can’t actually impose damages. The employer – in this case the university – can still simply ignore the order and end up paying damages instead. And that’s entirely appropriate.

  2. Pingback: Canadian Human Rights Commission Regimes are at it Again | NewsReal Blog

  3. Just one more indication of “extreme social engineering” underway by the various left-leaning human rights commissions across the world.

    They have become a law unto themselves and especially in their own mind.

    Governments seem powerless to stop them. Where is mark Steyn now that we need him the most to denormalize (Ezra Levant’s term)them all?

  4. This is the most blatant example of a left wing extremist agency/Stasi completely out of control.

    Oddly enough, neither Harper nor McSquinnty have the brass to intervene.

    As Ezra said “Fire Them ALL”

  5. Observer, if you want to be taken seriously on this blog or in life generally, I recommend not likening a human rights tribunal considering labour relations in light of employment discrimination issues to East German secret police. Last I checked, the Stasi haven’t existed for 20 years either. Surely you have some more current laughably over-the-top rhetoric to employ?

  6. Well Josh,

    I must have hit a special interest nerve. The silly labour relations issue and pronounced dominance over a University hiring and firing is CHILLING. The background of most human rights apparatchiks and commissars is far far left.

    You can look at other CHRC /CHRT and their provincial sidekicks persecutions (dog allergies, latex gloves, Christian pastor, comedians etc, etc and the relative impunity they have had in questionable investigative methods, tainted testimony, and so on then tell me they are a not secret Stasi-like force all unto themselves.

    Don’t believe me – ask Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant. Better yet read some of the MacLeans back issues.

  7. What’s secret about them? Like most people, I have better things to do than to read Steyn or – especially – Levant.

  8. I suppose us ordinary people are now prepared to let the various human rights commissions appoint our MPs and senators as well as Judges to the Supreme court?

  9. With respect, I find it impossible to take anyone seriously on this topic who can’t start from the basic understanding that while the Tribunal may debate whether or not someone should have got a particular job, they cannot actually impose the result that anyone hire them. If you don’t understand that – and if you insist on making reference to the Tribunal “appointing” anyone – then you just haven’t understood this debate.

    The Tribunal is trying to decide if someone was denied a position they should have received. Complex topic, no doubt. And if they decide that person should have received it … well, the value of what that person missed out on is going to be measured against the position in question. True, the employer has the option of just coming up with it. But far more likely is simply some kind of damages in lieu. It’s up to the employer.

    You may view this as reasonable or unreasonable. You may consider it appropriate or inappropriate. But if you think the Tribunal has the power to actually appoint someone then you simply haven’t understood the topic.

  10. Well Jeff, perhaps you didn’t read the first paragraph:

    “The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has affirmed its authority to choose faculty deans. The ruling was made Monday in reference to allegations that racism and sexism kept a women professor from taking the top post at the University of Windsor’s faculty of law”.

  11. Really wonderful visual appeal on this web site , I’d value it 10 10.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *