Summary 
  of 
  the 
  fact-­‐finding 
  process 
  and 
  conclusions 
  regarding 
  
alleged 
  breaches 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom 
  and 
  other 
  university 
  policies 
  
at 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  British 
  Columbia

 
  

 
  

 
  
The 
  Honourable 
  Lynn 
  Smith, 
  Q.C. 
  
October 
  15, 
  2015 
  

 
  
 
  

 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   1 
  

  
  

 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  
A.

Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  and 
  Process 
  

The 
  parties 
  (UBC 
  and 
  the 
  Faculty 
  Association 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  of 
  British 
  Columbia 
  
(UBCFA)) 
  asked 
  me 
  to 
  conduct, 
  as 
  an 
  independent 
  fact 
  finder, 
  an 
  impartial, 
  full, 
  and 
  complete 
  
investigation 
  into 
  the 
  following 
  matter: 
  
 
  
Whether 
  Mr. 
  John 
  S. 
  Montalbano, 
  Chair 
  of 
  the 
  Board 
  of 
  Governors, 
  and/or 
  individuals 
  in 
  
the 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  identified 
  by 
  the 
  Faculty 
  Association, 
  conducted 
  themselves 
  in 
  
the 
  events 
  following 
  Professor 
  Jennifer 
  Berdahl’s 
  publication 
  of 
  her 
  blog 
  on 
  August 
  8, 
  
2015 
  in 
  a 
  manner 
  that 
  violated 
  any 
  provision 
  of 
  the 
  Collective 
  Agreement, 
  the 
  UBC 
  
Statement 
  on 
  Respectful 
  Environment, 
  or 
  any 
  applicable 
  University 
  policies 
  including 
  
whether 
  her 
  academic 
  freedom 
  is 
  or 
  was 
  interfered 
  with 
  in 
  any 
  way. 
  

 
  
The 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  may 
  be 
  found 
  as 
  a 
  pdf 
  online 
  at 
  the 
  UBCFA’s 
  website 
  at 
  
http://www.facultyassociation.ubc.ca/docs/Terms 
  of 
  reference 
  signed.pdf, 
  or 
  at 
  UBC’s 
  website 
  
at 
  http://president.ubc.ca/files/2015/08/tor_fact_finding.pdf. 
  
 
  
 
  
When 
  framing 
  the 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  the 
  parties 
  were 
  aware 
  that 
  this 
  had 
  become 
  a 
  
matter 
  in 
  which 
  there 
  was 
  considerable 
  public 
  interest. 
   
  At 
  the 
  same 
  time, 
  investigations 
  into 
  
employment-­‐related 
  matters 
  require 
  respect 
  for 
  privacy 
  rights. 
   
  The 
  parties 
  attempted 
  to 
  
design 
  a 
  process 
  that 
  carefully 
  balanced 
  the 
  need 
  for 
  transparency 
  in 
  the 
  public 
  interest 
  with 
  
confidentiality 
  in 
  recognition 
  of 
  those 
  privacy 
  rights. 
  
 
   
  
The 
  parties 
  provided 
  lists 
  of 
  individuals 
  whom 
  they 
  suggested 
  I 
  should 
  interview, 
  and 
  in 
  
addition 
  I 
  identified 
  four 
  others. 
   
  I 
  was 
  able 
  to 
  interview 
  every 
  person 
  on 
  the 
  parties’ 
  lists 
  and 
  
on 
  my 
  own 
  list. 
   
  I 
  interviewed 
  seventeen 
  people 
  in 
  total. 
   
  Three 
  persons 
  were 
  interviewed 
  on 
  
two 
  separate 
  occasions. 
   
  In 
  addition, 
  the 
  parties 
  each 
  produced 
  relevant 
  documents 
  and 
  
exchanged 
  them 
  in 
  advance. 
   
  I 
  reviewed 
  those 
  documents, 
  as 
  well 
  as 
  some 
  others 
  that 
  I 
  
requested. 
   
  I 
  received 
  full 
  cooperation 
  from 
  the 
  persons 
  I 
  interviewed 
  and 
  from 
  the 
  two 
  parties. 
   
   
  
 
  
The 
  interviews 
  were 
  conducted 
  in 
  private, 
  although 
  those 
  being 
  interviewed 
  were 
  
allowed 
  to 
  bring 
  a 
  representative 
  and 
  most 
  did. 
   
  The 
  interviews 
  were 
  conducted 
  in 
  a 
  context 
  of 
  
confidentiality, 
  with 
  the 
  assurance 
  to 
  the 
  interviewees 
  that 
  the 
  parties 
  intended 
  my 
  report 
  to 
  
them 
  to 
  be 
  kept 
  confidential. 
   
   
  
 
  
Despite 
  the 
  parties’ 
  desire 
  to 
  avoid 
  an 
  adversarial 
  process, 
  as 
  my 
  work 
  evolved 
  it 
  
seemed 
  important 
  for 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  to 
  know 
  what 
  position 
  
the 
  Faculty 
  Association 
  was 
  taking 
  about 
  the 
  events, 
  and 
  for 
  the 
  Faculty 
  Association 
  to 
  know 
  
what 
  positions 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  were 
  taking. 
   
  Accordingly, 
  I 
  asked 
  the 
  
Faculty 
  Association 
  to 
  specify 
  the 
  respects 
  in 
  which 
  academic 
  freedom 
  was 
  allegedly 
  
 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   2 
  

  
  
disrespected 
  or 
  university 
  policies 
  were 
  allegedly 
  infringed, 
  and 
  by 
  whom. 
   
  Near 
  the 
  end 
  of 
  the 
  
process 
  I 
  asked 
  each 
  of 
  the 
  representatives 
  to 
  sum 
  up 
  their 
  understanding 
  of 
  the 
  events 
  and 
  
the 
  issues, 
  and 
  gave 
  the 
  others 
  the 
  opportunity 
  to 
  know 
  what 
  was 
  said 
  and 
  to 
  respond 
  to 
  it. 
  
 
  
Pursuant 
  to 
  the 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference, 
  I 
  relied 
  on 
  the 
  evidence 
  that 
  was 
  provided 
  to 
  me 
  
through 
  interviews 
  and 
  through 
  documents. 
   
  In 
  assessing 
  and 
  weighing 
  the 
  evidence, 
  I 
  took 
  into 
  
account 
  whether 
  or 
  not 
  it 
  was 
  first-­‐hand 
  (i.e. 
  whether 
  it 
  would 
  have 
  been 
  objectionable 
  as 
  
hearsay 
  in 
  court). 
   
  I 
  also 
  took 
  into 
  account 
  surrounding 
  circumstances 
  bearing 
  on 
  the 
  weight 
  
and 
  reliability 
  of 
  evidence. 
  Pursuant 
  to 
  the 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference, 
  I 
  applied 
  the 
  balance 
  of 
  
probabilities 
  standard 
  in 
  finding 
  facts 
  and 
  reaching 
  conclusions. 
  
 
  
On 
  October 
  7, 
  2015, 
  I 
  provided 
  to 
  the 
  parties 
  a 
  detailed 
  report 
  setting 
  out 
  a 
  review 
  of 
  
the 
  principles 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom 
  and 
  of 
  the 
  pertinent 
  university 
  policies, 
  my 
  findings 
  of 
  fact 
  
and 
  my 
  conclusions 
  based 
  on 
  those 
  findings 
  of 
  fact. 
  
 
  
 
  
B.
Allegations 
  
The 
  UBCFA 
  alleged 
  that 
  specified 
  individuals 
  in 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  and 
  Mr. 
  
John 
  Montalbano, 
  Chair 
  of 
  the 
  UBC 
  Board 
  of 
  Governors, 
  had 
  interfered 
  with 
  the 
  academic 
  
freedom 
  of 
  Dr. 
  Jennifer 
  Berdahl. 
   
  It 
  also 
  alleged 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  or 
  specified 
  individuals 
  in 
  
the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  had 
  breached 
  certain 
  university 
  policies: 
   
  UBC 
  Statement 
  on 
  
Respectful 
  Environment 
  for 
  Students, 
  Faculty 
  and 
  Staff; 
  Policy 
  2: 
  Employment 
  Equity; 
  Policy 
  3: 
   
  
Discrimination 
  and 
  Harassment; 
  Policy 
  114: 
  Fundraising 
  and 
  Acceptance 
  of 
  Donations 
  and 
  
related 
  Policy 
  47: 
  Chair, 
  Professorship 
  and 
  Distinguished 
  Scholar 
  Honorifics; 
  and 
  Policy 
  97: 
  
Conflict 
  of 
  interest 
  and 
  Conflict 
  of 
  Commitment. 
  
 
  
 
  
C.
Summary 
  of 
  Conclusions 
  
My 
  conclusions 
  were: 
  
 
  
(1)
UBC 
  failed 
  in 
  its 
  obligation 
  to 
  protect 
  and 
  support 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl’s 
  academic 
  
freedom. 
   
  The 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  Preamble 
  creates 
  a 
  positive 
  obligation 
  to 
  
support 
  and 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
  Through 
  the 
  combined 
  acts 
  and 
  
omissions 
  of 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano, 
  the 
  named 
  individuals 
  in 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School, 
  and 
  
others, 
  UBC 
  as 
  an 
  institution 
  failed 
  to 
  meet 
  that 
  obligation 
  with 
  respect 
  to 
  Dr. 
  
Berdahl’s 
  academic 
  freedom. 
  
 
  
(2)
Mr. 
  Montalbano, 
  on 
  his 
  own, 
  did 
  not 
  infringe 
  any 
  provision 
  of 
  the 
  Collective 
  
Agreement, 
  the 
  UBC 
  Statement 
  on 
  Respectful 
  Environment, 
  or 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  
applicable 
  university 
  policies. 
  
 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   3 
  

  
  
(3)

 
  
D.

 
  

No 
  individual 
  in 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  identified 
  by 
  the 
  Faculty 
  
Association, 
  on 
  his 
  or 
  her 
  own, 
  infringed 
  any 
  provision 
  of 
  the 
  Collective 
  
Agreement, 
  the 
  UBC 
  Statement 
  on 
  Respectful 
  Environment, 
  or 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  
applicable 
  university 
  policies. 
   
  

Academic 
  Freedom 
  in 
  the 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  

Within 
  universities, 
  academic 
  freedom 
  is 
  a 
  cornerstone 
  of 
  the 
  culture, 
  an 
  “indispensable 
  
[condition] 
  for 
  the 
  performance 
  of 
  the 
  purposes 
  of 
  higher 
  education.”1 
   
  At 
  UBC, 
  this 
  is 
  reflected 
  
both 
  in 
  the 
  Academic 
  Calendar 
  and 
  in 
  the 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  between 
  UBC 
  and 
  UBCFA. 
   
  In 
  
the 
  Collective 
  Agreement, 
  the 
  commitment 
  to 
  academic 
  freedom 
  is 
  stated 
  in 
  its 
  Preamble 
  this 
  
way: 
  
 
  
THE 
  UNIVERSITY 
  OF 
  BRITISH 
  COLUMBIA 
  and 
  the 
  FACULTY 
  ASSOCIATION 
  OF 
  THE 
  
UNIVERSITY 
  OF 
  BRITISH 
  COLUMBIA 
  

DESIRING 
  to 
  promote 
  fair 
  and 
  proper 
  economic 
  conditions 
  and 
  terms 
  of 
  appointment 
  
for 
  Faculty 
  Members, 
  Librarians, 
  and 
  Program 
  Directors 
  at 
  The 
  University 
  of 
  British 
  
Columbia; 
  
RECOGNIZING 
  that 
  the 
  University 
  is 
  a 
  community 
  of 
  scholars 
  whose 
  essential 
  functions 
  
are 
  the 
  pursuit 
  and 
  dissemination 
  of 
  knowledge 
  and 
  understanding 
  through 
  research 
  
and 
  teaching 
  and 
  that 
  academic 
  freedom 
  is 
  essential 
  to 
  carrying 
  out 
  these 
  functions; 
  
BEING 
  DETERMINED 
  not 
  to 
  interfere 
  with 
  that 
  academic 
  freedom; 
  
CONFIRM 
  THAT 
  the 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  enjoy 
  certain 
  rights 
  and 
  privileges 
  
essential 
  to 
  the 
  fulfillment 
  of 
  its 
  primary 
  functions: 
  instruction 
  and 
  the 
  pursuit 
  of 
  
knowledge. 
  Central 
  among 
  these 
  rights 
  is 
  the 
  freedom, 
  within 
  the 
  law, 
  to 
  pursue 
  what 
  
seems 
  to 
  them 
  as 
  fruitful 
  avenues 
  of 
  inquiry, 
  to 
  teach 
  and 
  to 
  learn 
  unhindered 
  by 
  
external 
  or 
  non-­‐academic 
  constraints, 
  to 
  engage 
  in 
  full 
  and 
  unrestricted 
  consideration 
  of 
  
any 
  opinion. 
  This 
  freedom 
  extends 
  not 
  only 
  to 
  the 
  regular 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  
but 
  to 
  all 
  who 
  are 
  invited 
  to 
  participate 
  in 
  its 
  forum. 
  Suppression 
  of 
  this 
  freedom, 
  
whether 
  by 
  institutions 
  of 
  the 
  state, 
  the 
  officers 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  or 
  the 
  actions 
  of 
  
private 
  individuals, 
  would 
  prevent 
  the 
  University 
  from 
  carrying 
  out 
  its 
  primary 
  functions. 
  
All 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  must 
  recognize 
  this 
  fundamental 
  principle 
  and 
  must 
  share 
  
responsibility 
  for 
  supporting, 
  safeguarding 
  and 
  preserving 
  this 
  central 
  freedom. 
  
Behaviour 
  which 
  obstructs 
  free 
  and 
  full 
  discussion, 
  not 
  only 
  of 
  ideas 
  which 
  are 
  safe 
  and 
  
accepted 
  but 
  of 
  those 
  which 
  may 
  be 
  unpopular 
  or 
  even 
  abhorrent, 
  vitally 
  threatens 
  the 
  
integrity 
  of 
  the 
  University's 
  forum. 
  Such 
  behaviour 
  cannot 
  be 
  tolerated[.] 
  

1

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  

 
  Vernon 
  Fowke 
  & 
  Bora 
  Laskin, 
  “Report 
  of 
  the 
  Investigation 
  by 
  the 
  Committee 
  of 
  the 
  Canadian 
  Association 
  of 
  
University 
  Teachers 
  into 
  the 
  Dismissal 
  of 
  Professor 
  H.S. 
  Crowe 
  by 
  United 
  College, 
  Winnipeg, 
  Manitoba" 
  (Winnipeg: 
  
October 
  6, 
  1958), 
  available 
  online 
  at 
  https://www.crowefoundation.ca/documents/CroweReport.pdf 
  [the 
  “Crowe 
  
Report”] 
  at 
  40. 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   4 
  

  
  
Virtually 
  identical 
  language 
  is 
  found 
  in 
  UBC’s 
  Academic 
  Calendar. 
   
  The 
  core 
  of 
  this 
  
statement 
  on 
  academic 
  freedom 
  can 
  be 
  located 
  within 
  the 
  single 
  sentence 
  which 
  defines 
  its 
  
substantive 
  content: 
  
 
  
 
  
Central 
  among 
  these 
  rights 
  is 
  the 
  freedom, 
  within 
  the 
  law, 
  to 
  pursue 
  what 
  seems 
  to 
  
them 
  as 
  fruitful 
  avenues 
  of 
  inquiry, 
  to 
  teach 
  and 
  to 
  learn 
  unhindered 
  by 
  external 
  or 
  non-­‐
academic 
  constraints, 
  to 
  engage 
  in 
  full 
  and 
  unrestricted 
  consideration 
  of 
  any 
  opinion. 
  

Certain 
  aspects 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom 
  have 
  particular 
  relevance 
  to 
  the 
  matters 
  engaged 
  
by 
  the 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference. 
  
 
  
1.
What 
  is 
  meant 
  by 
  dissemination 
  of 
  knowledge 
  and 
  understanding? 
  
 
  
The 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  identifies 
  two 
  “essential 
  functions” 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  to 
  which 
  
academic 
  freedom 
  is 
  essential: 
  the 
  pursuit 
  of 
  knowledge 
  and 
  understanding, 
  and 
  the 
  
dissemination 
  of 
  knowledge 
  and 
  understanding. 
   
   
  The 
  means 
  by 
  which 
  scholarly 
  understanding 
  
is 
  disseminated 
  have 
  evolved, 
  and 
  electronic 
  publication 
  is 
  now 
  common, 
  including 
  through 
  
vehicles 
  such 
  as 
  blogs. 
   
  The 
  protections 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom 
  extend 
  to 
  the 
  dissemination 
  of 
  
scholarly 
  research 
  and 
  opinion 
  through 
  these 
  new 
  electronic 
  media. 
  
 
  
2.
The 
  responsibilities 
  that 
  accompany 
  academic 
  freedom 
  
 
  
The 
  protections 
  and 
  rights 
  associated 
  with 
  academic 
  freedom 
  at 
  UBC 
  exist 
  alongside 
  
concurrent 
  duties 
  and 
  responsibilities. 
   
  As 
  at 
  other 
  Canadian 
  universities, 
  legitimate 
  restrictions 
  
and 
  limitations 
  apply 
  to 
  the 
  academic 
  freedoms 
  of 
  individual 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  UBC 
  community. 
  
Included 
  in 
  these 
  responsibilities 
  are 
  the 
  obligations 
  to 
  obey 
  the 
  law, 
  to 
  create 
  and 
  maintain 
  a 
  
respectful 
  environment 
  at 
  UBC, 
  to 
  act 
  in 
  good 
  faith, 
  and 
  to 
  actively 
  support 
  and 
  protect 
  the 
  
exercise 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom. 
  
 
  
3.
Positive 
  obligations 
  to 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom 
  
 
  
Academic 
  freedom 
  at 
  UBC 
  is 
  recognized 
  through 
  providing 
  protections 
  and 
  
responsibilities, 
  and 
  through 
  creating 
  positive 
  obligations. 
   
  Both 
  the 
  Academic 
  Calendar 
  and 
  the 
  
Collective 
  Agreement 
  state 
  that 
  all 
  members 
  of 
  UBC, 
  including 
  senior 
  administrators, 
  have 
  
positive 
  obligations 
  with 
  respect 
  to 
  the 
  academic 
  freedoms 
  of 
  others: 
   
  “All 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  
University 
  must 
  recognize 
  this 
  fundamental 
  principle 
  [of 
  academic 
  freedom] 
  and 
  must 
  share 
  
responsibility 
  for 
  supporting, 
  safeguarding 
  and 
  preserving 
  this 
  central 
  freedom.” 
   
  This 
  means 
  
both 
  supporting 
  individual 
  members 
  in 
  the 
  exercise 
  of 
  their 
  academic 
  freedoms 
  and 
  rights, 
  and 
  
ensuring 
  those 
  protections 
  are 
  embedded 
  in 
  the 
  larger 
  governing 
  structure. 
   
  Because 
  of 
  the 
  
positive 
  obligation 
  to 
  support 
  and 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom, 
  academic 
  freedom 
  can 
  be 
  
threatened 
  not 
  only 
  by 
  acts, 
  but 
  also 
  by 
  failures 
  to 
  act. 
   
  Failures 
  to 
  meet 
  the 
  obligation 
  to 
  
support 
  and 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom 
  can 
  occur 
  both 
  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  individuals 
  and 
  at 
  a 
  
systemic 
  level 
  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  institution. 
   
   
  Further, 
  such 
  failures 
  can 
  arise 
  without 
  a 
  specific 
  
intention 
  to 
  interfere 
  with 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
   
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   5 
  

  
  
 
  
4.
Commenting 
  on 
  University 
  Governance 
  
 
  
Although 
  the 
  UBC 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  definition 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom 
  does 
  not 
  refer 
  
to 
  commentary 
  on 
  university 
  governance, 
  in 
  my 
  opinion 
  such 
  commentary 
  falls 
  within 
  its 
  ambit. 
   
  
This 
  follows 
  from 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  UBC 
  is 
  largely 
  a 
  self-­‐governing 
  institution, 
  and 
  from 
  the 
  positive 
  
obligation 
  on 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  university 
  community 
  to 
  support, 
  safeguard 
  and 
  preserve 
  
academic 
  freedom. 
   
  Thus, 
  in 
  my 
  view 
  the 
  freedom 
  “to 
  engage 
  in 
  full 
  and 
  unrestricted 
  
consideration 
  of 
  any 
  opinion” 
  referred 
  to 
  in 
  the 
  Collective 
  Agreement 
  and 
  the 
  Academic 
  
Calendar 
  must 
  extend 
  to 
  commentary 
  (whether 
  positive 
  or 
  negative) 
  by 
  members 
  of 
  UBC 
  on 
  
the 
  extent 
  to 
  which 
  the 
  central 
  functions 
  of 
  the 
  University 
  are 
  being 
  advanced 
  or 
  hindered 
  by 
  
decisions 
  or 
  initiatives 
  affecting 
  the 
  University. 
  (This 
  does 
  not 
  mean 
  that 
  faculty 
  members 
  who 
  
participate 
  in 
  governance, 
  either 
  in 
  representative 
  capacities 
  or 
  as 
  a 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  senior 
  
administration, 
  might 
  not 
  have 
  additional 
  responsibilities 
  and 
  obligations 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  those 
  
other 
  roles. 
  Those 
  role-­‐specific 
  responsibilities 
  and 
  obligations 
  might 
  serve 
  to 
  limit 
  their 
  
freedom 
  to 
  comment 
  on 
  university 
  affairs.) 
   
  
 
  
 
  
E.
Conclusions 
  
1.
Academic 
  Freedom 
  
 
  
Having 
  conducted 
  the 
  extensive 
  review 
  described 
  above, 
  I 
  concluded 
  that 
  UBC 
  did 
  not 
  
live 
  up 
  to 
  its 
  responsibility 
  to 
  protect 
  and 
  support 
  the 
  academic 
  freedom 
  of 
  one 
  of 
  its 
  faculty 
  
members, 
  Dr. 
  Jennifer 
  Berdahl. 
   
   
  
 
  
When 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  published 
  a 
  blog 
  post 
  on 
  August 
  8, 
  2015, 
  commenting 
  on 
  the 
  
resignation 
  of 
  Dr. 
  Arvind 
  Gupta 
  as 
  President 
  of 
  UBC, 
  she 
  was 
  doing 
  so 
  as 
  a 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  UBC 
  
faculty, 
  drawing 
  on 
  her 
  research. 
   
  Members 
  of 
  UBC 
  faculty 
  must 
  be 
  able 
  to 
  comment 
  on 
  topical 
  
matters, 
  especially 
  when 
  they 
  are 
  drawing 
  directly 
  on 
  their 
  research, 
  and 
  even 
  where 
  the 
  topic 
  
is 
  university 
  governance. 
   
  The 
  blog 
  post 
  was 
  clearly 
  an 
  exercise 
  of 
  her 
  right 
  as 
  a 
  faculty 
  member 
  
to 
  disseminate 
  her 
  knowledge 
  and 
  research, 
  including 
  through 
  commentary 
  on 
  current 
  events 
  
in 
  a 
  blog. 
   
   
  
 
  
In 
  the 
  chain 
  of 
  events 
  that 
  followed 
  her 
  publication 
  of 
  the 
  blog 
  post 
  there 
  were 
  several 
  
moments 
  where 
  individuals 
  (Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  and 
  some 
  members 
  of 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  
Business) 
  could 
  have 
  acted 
  differently 
  and 
  in 
  a 
  manner 
  more 
  consistent 
  with 
  UBC’s 
  obligation 
  
to 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom, 
  or 
  where 
  surrounding 
  circumstances 
  contributed 
  to 
  its 
  failure 
  to 
  
uphold 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
   
  
 
  
I 
  concluded 
  that 
  no 
  individual 
  intended 
  to 
  interfere 
  with 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl’s 
  academic 
  
freedom, 
  or 
  made 
  a 
  direct 
  attempt 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  However, 
  sometimes 
  several 
  relatively 
  small 
  
mistakes 
  can 
  lead 
  to 
  a 
  failure 
  of 
  the 
  larger 
  system. 
   
  The 
  systemic 
  failure 
  in 
  this 
  case 
  resulted 
  
from 
  a 
  cascading 
  series 
  of 
  events 
  in 
  which 
  there 
  were 
  some 
  errors 
  of 
  judgment 
  by 
  Mr. 
  
 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   6 
  

  
  
Montalbano 
  and 
  some 
  individuals 
  at 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School, 
  and 
  some 
  unlucky 
  circumstances. 
   
  As 
  a 
  
result, 
  the 
  institution 
  failed 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  and 
  missed 
  an 
  important 
  opportunity 
  to 
  vindicate 
  the 
  
principle 
  of 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
  
 
  
The 
  key 
  points 
  at 
  which 
  I 
  found 
  failures 
  were: 
  
 
  
1. In 
  the 
  short 
  period 
  just 
  after 
  the 
  resignation 
  of 
  President 
  Gupta, 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  and 
  
Chancellor 
  Lindsay 
  Gordon 
  worked 
  with 
  UBC 
  staff 
  on 
  the 
  communication 
  of 
  responses 
  
to 
  the 
  flood 
  of 
  inquiries 
  and 
  commentary 
  from 
  the 
  university 
  community 
  and 
  the 
  media, 
  
without 
  bringing 
  in 
  the 
  academic 
  leadership 
  of 
  the 
  University. 
   
  Partly 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  the 
  
absence 
  of 
  UBC 
  academic 
  leaders 
  from 
  that 
  conversation, 
  no-­‐one 
  thought 
  to 
  advise 
  Mr. 
  
Montalbano 
  against 
  telephoning 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  when 
  he 
  said 
  that 
  he 
  intended 
  to 
  do 
  so. 
   
  
When 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  called 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  and 
  told 
  her 
  about 
  his 
  deep 
  concerns 
  with 
  
respect 
  to 
  her 
  blog 
  post, 
  he 
  was 
  mindful 
  of 
  the 
  need 
  to 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom 
  and 
  
did 
  not 
  intend 
  to 
  interfere 
  with 
  it. 
   
  He 
  made 
  the 
  call 
  in 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  a 
  pre-­‐existing 
  
positive 
  relationship 
  with 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl. 
   
  However, 
  even 
  though 
  he 
  was 
  not 
  warned 
  
against 
  it, 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  should 
  have 
  reflected 
  on 
  whether 
  to 
  call 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl. 
   
  Such 
  a 
  
call 
  from 
  the 
  Chair 
  of 
  the 
  Board 
  of 
  Governors 
  to 
  a 
  faculty 
  member 
  was 
  unprecedented 
  
and 
  unwise. 
   
  The 
  call 
  set 
  up 
  the 
  ensuing 
  chain 
  of 
  events. 
   
   
   
  
 
  
2. As 
  it 
  happened, 
  the 
  Dean 
  of 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  was 
  away 
  and 
  only 
  
intermittently 
  in 
  touch 
  when 
  Dr. 
  Berdhal’s 
  blog 
  post 
  and 
  the 
  Georgia 
  Straight 
  story 
  
appeared. 
   
  The 
  Dean’s 
  Office 
  in 
  Vancouver 
  was 
  aware 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  found 
  the 
  
blog 
  post 
  offensive 
  and 
  that 
  he 
  had 
  telephoned 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl. 
   
  Concerned 
  about 
  Mr. 
  
Montalbano, 
  Sauder’s 
  reputation 
  and 
  future 
  fundraising 
  prospects, 
  the 
  Dean’s 
  Office 
  
conveyed 
  a 
  message 
  about 
  those 
  concerns 
  to 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl. 
   
  At 
  the 
  same 
  time, 
  it 
  failed 
  to 
  
elicit 
  her 
  point 
  of 
  view 
  or 
  state 
  support 
  for 
  her 
  in 
  the 
  exercise 
  of 
  her 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
  
In 
  the 
  context 
  of 
  the 
  call 
  she 
  had 
  received 
  from 
  the 
  Chair 
  of 
  the 
  Board 
  of 
  Governors, 
  Dr. 
  
Berdahl 
  should 
  have 
  been 
  told 
  by 
  the 
  Dean’s 
  Office 
  that 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  understood 
  
its 
  positive 
  obligation 
  to 
  support 
  and 
  protect 
  her 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
   
   
  
 
  
3. Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  reasonably 
  felt 
  reprimanded, 
  silenced 
  and 
  isolated. 
   
  The 
  events 
  had 
  a 
  
significant 
  negative 
  impact 
  on 
  her. 
   
   
  
 
  
 
  
2.
Other 
  University 
  Policies 
   
  
 
  
With 
  respect 
  to 
  the 
  alleged 
  infringements 
  of 
  several 
  UBC 
  policies, 
  I 
  did 
  not 
  find 
  that 
  they 
  
were 
  established 
  on 
  the 
  facts 
  of 
  this 
  case, 
  for 
  the 
  reasons 
  set 
  out 
  below. 
   
  (The 
  full 
  text 
  of 
  all 
  
University 
  policies 
  can 
  be 
  found 
  online 
  at 
  http://universitycounsel.ubc.ca/policies/index/.) 
  
 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   7 
  

  
  
(a)

UBC 
  Statement 
  on 
  Respectful 
  Environment 
  for 
  Students, 
  Faculty 
  and 
  Staff 
   
  

Generally 
  speaking, 
  the 
  “Statement 
  on 
  Respectful 
  Environment” 
  prohibits 
  “activities 
  
harmful 
  to 
  a 
  respectful 
  environment” 
  because 
  they 
  are 
  “not 
  only 
  a 
  direct 
  attack 
  on 
  the 
  dignity 
  
and 
  worth 
  of 
  the 
  individual 
  or 
  group” 
  at 
  whom 
  they 
  are 
  directed, 
  but 
  they 
  also 
  undermine 
  “the 
  
freedoms 
  of 
  the 
  whole 
  community”. 
   
   
  It 
  is 
  aimed 
  at 
  matters 
  such 
  as 
  bullying 
  and 
  harassing 
  
behaviour. 
   
  I 
  did 
  not 
  find 
  that 
  the 
  persons 
  referred 
  to 
  in 
  the 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  had 
  been 
  
responsible 
  for 
  such 
  behaviour 
  or 
  for 
  acting 
  inconsistently 
  with 
  the 
  UBC 
  Statement 
  on 
  
Respectful 
  Environment 
  in 
  any 
  respect. 
  
 
  
(b)
Policy 
  3, 
  “Discrimination 
  and 
  Harassment” 
   
  
The 
  Policy’s 
  “fundamental 
  objectives 
  … 
  are 
  to 
  prevent 
  Discrimination 
  and 
  Harassment 
  
on 
  grounds 
  protected 
  by 
  the 
  B.C. 
  Human 
  Rights 
  Code, 
  and 
  to 
  provide 
  procedures 
  for 
  handling 
  
complaints, 
  remedying 
  situations, 
  and 
  imposing 
  discipline 
  when 
  such 
  Discrimination 
  or 
  
Harassment 
  does 
  occur.” 
   
  The 
  grounds 
  protected 
  by 
  the 
  Human 
  Rights 
  Code 
  are 
  (actual 
  or 
  
perceived) 
  age, 
  ancestry, 
  colour, 
  family 
  status, 
  marital 
  status, 
  physical 
  or 
  mental 
  disability, 
  
place 
  of 
  origin, 
  political 
  belief, 
  race, 
  relation, 
  sex, 
  sexual 
  orientation 
  and 
  criminal 
  conviction 
  
unrelated 
  to 
  employment. 
   
   
  I 
  did 
  not 
  find 
  on 
  the 
  balance 
  of 
  probabilities 
  that 
  actions 
  regarding 
  
Dr. 
  Berdahl 
  were 
  related 
  to 
  any 
  of 
  those 
  grounds. 
   
  Further, 
  Policy 
  3 
  is 
  limited 
  in 
  its 
  application 
  
to 
  students, 
  members 
  of 
  faculty, 
  or 
  a 
  member 
  of 
  staff, 
  and 
  therefore 
  does 
  not, 
  in 
  any 
  event, 
  
apply 
  to 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano. 
   
   
  
 
  
(c)
Policy 
  2: 
   
  Employment 
  Equity 
  
I 
  did 
  not 
  find 
  that 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  named 
  individuals 
  violated 
  Policy 
  2, 
  which 
  is 
  directed 
  
towards 
  equal 
  opportunity 
  in 
  employment 
  matters, 
  ensuring 
  that 
  “[b]oth 
  current 
  and 
  
prospective 
  faculty 
  and 
  staff 
  will 
  receive 
  equitable 
  treatment 
  in 
  hiring, 
  training, 
  and 
  promotion 
  
procedures.” 
   
  There 
  was 
  no 
  evidence 
  establishing 
  that 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl’s 
  employment 
  or 
  promotion 
  
prospects 
  at 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business, 
  or 
  at 
  UBC 
  generally, 
  have 
  been 
  affected. 
   
  She 
  
remains 
  a 
  tenured 
  Full 
  Professor. 
  
 
  
(d)
Policy 
   114: 
   Fundraising 
   and 
   Acceptance 
   of 
   Donations 
   (and 
   related 
   Policy 
   47, 
  
“Chair, 
  Professorship 
  and 
  Distinguished 
  Scholar 
  Honorifics”) 
  
Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  donated 
  $2,000,000 
  to 
  UBC 
  to 
  establish 
  an 
  endowment 
  fund, 
  now 
  
called 
  the 
  “Montalbano 
  Professorship 
  in 
  Leadership 
  Studies: 
  Gender 
  and 
  Diversity” 
  (the 
  
“Montalbano 
  Gift”). 
   
   
  
 
  
Policy 
  114 
  “is 
  intended 
  to 
  guide 
  all 
  UBC’s 
  fundraising 
  activities 
  and 
  the 
  acceptance 
  of 
  
donations 
  on 
  behalf 
  of 
  UBC”. 
   
  With 
  respect 
  to 
  donor 
  involvement, 
  Policy 
  114 
  states 
  that 
  “UBC 
  
recognizes 
  that 
  donors 
  may 
  wish 
  to 
  be 
  actively 
  engaged 
  with 
  UBC 
  beyond 
  making 
  a 
  financial 
  
contribution. 
  UBC 
  supports 
  donor 
  engagement 
  that 
  is 
  consistent 
  with 
  section 
  2.2 
  of 
  this 
  Policy.” 
   
   
  
 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   8 
  

  
  
Section 
  2.2 
  of 
  Policy 
  114, 
  in 
  turn, 
  states 
  that 
  “UBC 
  values 
  and 
  will 
  protect 
  its 
  integrity, 
  
autonomy 
  and 
  academic 
  freedom, 
  and 
  will 
  not 
  accept 
  donations 
  when 
  a 
  condition 
  of 
  such 
  
acceptance 
  would 
  compromise 
  these 
  fundamental 
  principles.” 
   
  
 
  
The 
  purpose 
  of 
  Policy 
  47 
  is 
  to 
  encourage 
  the 
  creation 
  of 
  Honorifics, 
  which 
  “are 
  
conferred 
  by 
  UBC 
  to 
  reward 
  excellence 
  in 
  research 
  and 
  teaching”, 
  and 
  “to 
  establish 
  the 
  
academic, 
  financial 
  and 
  accountability 
  criteria 
  for 
  these 
  Honorifics.” 
   
  Accountability 
  is 
  achieved 
  
in 
  part 
  through 
  regular 
  reports 
  which 
  the 
  holder 
  makes 
  to 
  UBC, 
  which 
  then 
  shares 
  those 
  
reports 
  with 
  the 
  donor. 
   
  For 
  example, 
  in 
  the 
  case 
  of 
  the 
  Montalbano 
  Gift, 
  the 
  Gift 
  Agreement 
  
states 
  that 
  UBC 
  “will 
  provide 
  the 
  Donor 
  with 
  confirmation 
  regarding 
  the 
  impact 
  and 
  
performance 
  of 
  the 
  Gift.” 
  
 
  
The 
  UBCFA 
  alleges 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano’s 
  involvement 
  in 
  the 
  events 
  following 
  Professor 
  
Jennifer 
  Berdahl’s 
  publication 
  of 
  her 
  blog 
  on 
  August 
  8, 
  2015 
  violated 
  the 
  terms 
  or 
  conditions 
  of 
  
the 
  Gift, 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  academic 
  leaders 
  of 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  had 
  a 
  duty 
  under 
  
Policy 
  114 
  to 
  manage 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano’s 
  involvement 
  as 
  donor, 
  which 
  they 
  failed 
  to 
  satisfy. 
  
 
  
The 
  provisions 
  and 
  procedures 
  set 
  out 
  in 
  Policy 
  114 
  clearly 
  apply 
  to 
  the 
  period 
  of 
  time 
  
when 
  terms 
  and 
  conditions 
  in 
  the 
  gift 
  agreement 
  are 
  negotiated 
  and 
  agreed, 
  up 
  to 
  UBC’s 
  
acceptance 
  of 
  the 
  donation. 
   
  Thus, 
  if 
  a 
  donor 
  insisted 
  on 
  conditions 
  for 
  a 
  gift 
  that 
  would 
  
constitute 
  a 
  breach 
  of 
  or 
  threat 
  to 
  academic 
  freedom, 
  Policy 
  114 
  requires 
  the 
  gift 
  to 
  be 
  
declined. 
   
   
  Policy 
  114 
  does 
  not 
  on 
  its 
  face 
  apply 
  to 
  the 
  ongoing 
  management 
  of 
  the 
  relationship 
  
between 
  the 
  donor 
  and 
  UBC 
  after 
  the 
  gift 
  is 
  in 
  place. 
   
  
However, 
  Section 
  6.1 
  of 
  the 
  policy 
  may 
  contemplate 
  an 
  ongoing 
  role. 
  It 
  states: 
  
 
  

UBC 
  recognizes 
  that 
  donors 
  may 
  wish 
  to 
  be 
  actively 
  engaged 
  with 
  UBC 
  beyond 
  making 
  a 
  
financial 
  contribution. 
  UBC 
  supports 
  donor 
  engagement 
  that 
  is 
  consistent 
  with 
  section 
  2.2 
  of 
  
this 
  Policy. 
  

 
  
It 
  is 
  possible 
  to 
  read 
  Section 
  6.1 
  as 
  aimed 
  only 
  at 
  describing 
  permissible 
  donor 
  
engagement 
  parameters 
  incorporated 
  into 
  the 
  terms 
  and 
  conditions 
  of 
  the 
  gift 
  before 
  its 
  
acceptance. 
  If 
  so, 
  then 
  Policy 
  114 
  has 
  no 
  application 
  in 
  this 
  case. 
  
 
  
If 
  Section 
  6.1 
  is 
  meant 
  to 
  have 
  broader 
  application, 
  extending 
  to 
  a 
  donor’s 
  activities 
  
after 
  the 
  gift 
  has 
  been 
  made, 
  the 
  question 
  is 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  that 
  raised 
  in 
  the 
  allegations 
  regarding 
  
infringement 
  or 
  failure 
  to 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
  With 
  respect 
  to 
  those 
  contentions, 
  I 
  
concluded 
  that 
  UBC 
  failed 
  to 
  protect 
  or 
  uphold 
  Dr. 
  Berdahl’s 
  academic 
  freedom. 
   
  In 
  my 
  view, 
  
Policy 
  114 
  does 
  not 
  add 
  anything 
  further 
  to 
  that 
  analysis. 
  
 
  
(e)
Policy 
  97, 
  “Conflict 
  of 
  Interest 
  and 
  Conflict 
  of 
  Commitment” 
   
  
This 
  Policy 
  recognizes 
  that 
  “[o]ccasionally 
  and 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  normal 
  and 
  productive 
  
engagements 
  inside 
  and 
  outside 
  the 
  University, 
  Faculty 
  Members, 
  staff 
  and 
  students 
  may 
  find 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   9 
  

  
  
themselves 
  in 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  commitment, 
  an 
  actual 
  or 
  potential 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest, 
  or 
  in 
  a 
  
situation 
  where 
  there 
  is 
  a 
  perception 
  of 
  a 
  conflict 
  of 
  interest.” 
  It 
  also 
  provides 
  procedures 
  for 
  
determining 
  if, 
  when, 
  and 
  how 
  such 
  conflicts 
  can 
  be 
  managed. 
  
 
  
My 
  Terms 
  of 
  Reference 
  do 
  not 
  require 
  me 
  to 
  determine 
  whether 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano 
  was 
  
in 
  breach 
  of 
  Policy 
  97. 
   
  
 
  
The 
  UBCFA 
  alleges 
  that 
  academic 
  leaders 
  in 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School 
  of 
  Business 
  failed 
  to 
  
appropriately 
  manage 
  the 
  real 
  and 
  perceived 
  conflicts 
  of 
  interest 
  inherent 
  in 
  Mr. 
  Montalbano’s 
  
various 
  roles 
  at 
  the 
  University 
  and 
  within 
  the 
  Sauder 
  School. 
   
  
 
  
In 
  my 
  view, 
  it 
  is 
  not 
  clear 
  that 
  a 
  Dean 
  or 
  Associate 
  Dean 
  can 
  be 
  in 
  breach 
  of 
  the 
  conflict 
  
of 
  interest 
  policy 
  through 
  failing 
  to 
  manage 
  the 
  conflicts 
  of 
  an 
  individual 
  who 
  does 
  not 
  report 
  to 
  
that 
  Dean 
  or 
  Faculty. 
   
  In 
  any 
  event, 
  I 
  think 
  that 
  this 
  allegation 
  is 
  subsumed 
  in 
  the 
  allegation 
  that 
  
there 
  was 
  a 
  failure 
  to 
  protect 
  academic 
  freedom, 
  which 
  I 
  have 
  discussed 
  above. 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  

 
  

-­‐ 
   
  -­‐ 
   10