The University of Windsor this week reached agreement with protesters in a campus encampment that raises serious concerns of antisemitism and infringement on academic freedom. While most universities across Canada were relying on the University of Toronto court ruling that the encampments were unlawful trespass to clear their encampments, the University of Windsor instead reached agreement that has sparked alarm among many groups. Indeed, given evidence at the House of Common Justice committee of harassment, antisemitism, and hate speech on the Windsor campus, it is astonishing that the university has ignored those threats and instead concluded a discriminatory agreement that fuels fears that Jews are no longer welcome on campus.

There is much to criticize in the agreement, notably including one-sided political statements that sacrifice the university’s position as a neutral forum for discussion, debate and learning. But it is the creation of unique double standards for Israeli institutional agreements when compared to other countries that constitutes textbook example of antisemitism according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition that has been adopted by both the federal and Ontario governments. The provision in the Windsor agreement states:

The University does not hold any active institutional academic partnerships with Israeli institutions. Because of the challenging environment for academic collaboration the University agrees to not pursue any institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities until the right of Palestinian self-determination has been realized, as determined by the United Nations, unless supported by Senate. This does not prevent individual academics at the University of Windsor from working (or collaborating) with academics in Israel.

The agreement makes the following additional commitments on university partnerships:

1. The University is committed to ensuring that its relationships with other academic institutions and its institutional research partnerships are based upon scholarly principles which include the following:

• Research security
• Human rights and international law
• Respect for academic freedom
• Sound academic ethical practices
• Transparency in agreements
• Decolonialization and anti-racism
• Sustainable development
• Contributing to the mitigation and/or resolution of global problems

2. The University commits to a comprehensive review process to ensure that all of its academic and research relationships and partnerships comply with these principles. It will actively consult with the University of Windsor community, including students and faculty, in conducting the review process. Present or future institutional relationships or partnerships which do not comply with these principles will be ended or not pursued.

As Jeffrey Sachs notes in his informative Twitter thread on the issue, the full list of current Windsor academic partnerships can be found here. The university has five active exchange partnerships with Chinese institutions alone. While some are on hold, does it plan to end all of the exchanges based on the standards it identifies? Does it plan to cancel its exchanges with Turkey or India, which have also faced concerns on some of these issues? Further, in considering whether to conclude or cancel an agreement, there is only one country that it now identifies as requiring specific United Nations-approved determinations: Israel. No other country faces similar requirements, a double standard that falls within the examples provided by the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

In addition to the institutional double standards, the agreement raises serious academic freedom concerns for both students and faculty. From a student perspective, the law faculty has featured social justice internships with multiple Israeli NGOs that serve Arab-Israeli communities, including Adalah, Al-Marsad, and ICAHD. Will these be terminated? Will students be prohibited from these internships if they require an institutional commitment? Beyond the law school, Windsor hosts a campus of Western’s Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry. Western has exchange programs with Israeli institutions. Will there be restrictions on Windsor students that do not apply to Western ones?

The implications for faculty academic freedoms are potentially even more extensive. The agreement states that “this does not prevent individual academics at the University of Windsor from working (or collaborating) with academics in Israel.” But academic collaboration often requires institutional support whether joint research grant applications, onboarding post-docs, inviting classroom speakers or other academic work. Enabling academics to work with Israeli academics while potentially blocking institutional support or collaboration may severely limit academic freedoms. In fact, there are also grant opportunities – the Joint Canada-Israel Health Research Program that involves government agency support from both Canada and Israel comes to mind – the directly require institutional support. Will Windsor academics be precluded from applying for these grants? How are these restrictions not a limitation on academic freedom?

These are just some of the risks created by an ill-advised agreement with provisions that could affect students and faculty from both countries and from all religions, backgrounds and political perspectives. This requires at least three immediate actions. First, the Windsor Board of Governors and Senate did not give approval to the agreement and both should demand a reconsideration, particularly given reports of limited, if any, community consultation. Second, given the adoption of the IHRA definition by both the federal and provincial governments, the agreement must be reviewed to determine whether it violates their anti-racism standards since public money should not be used to support programming or policies that do no comply with those standards. Third, the faculty and student unions at both the local and national levels must engage on potentially serious threats to academic freedom. To do otherwise, would represent yet another shameful double standard.