As law professors, we teach our students how to advocate for themselves and to use their skills to do so for others who cannot. We were, in fact, drawn to law in the first place because we wanted to be effective advocates.
The same is likely true for the more than 70 law students at Toronto Metropolitan University’s Lincoln Alexander School of Law, who learned a lesson on the costs of advocacy. After advocating for Palestinian human rights, they were confronted with the risk of expulsion and a stillborn legal career.
The students’ offence was signing a letter to the law school, leaked on Oct. 20, highlighting Israeli violations of international law, including apartheid, as the necessary context to the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7.
While the letter rightly characterized the killing of civilians as “war crimes,” it did not specifically mention the Israeli victims or hostages and ambiguously endorsed “all forms of Palestinian resistance.” Many people found this insensitive considering the pain that many people, including TMU students, were feeling as a result of the Hamas attack.
At the same time, what many others found insensitive was the lack of any meaningful acknowledgment by TMU of the mounting death toll in Gaza as Israel unleashed its disproportionate bombing campaign.
On Oct. 23, the law school released a statement unfairly discrediting the students. The administration purported to “unequivocally condemn the sentiments of antisemitism and intolerance expressed” in the students’ letter.
The school claimed to be “committed to upholding our values of inclusivity, dignity, and respect,” yet it would not extend the protection of these values to the signatories of the open letter. This instance of hypocrisy was another example of the Palestine exception to free speech.
The signatories were promptly blacklisted by several Toronto law firms. Ontario’s Attorney General took unprecedented steps to screen TMU students. Prospective hires were asked to confirm in writing that they had not supported the open letter, under threat of job offer revocation or dismissal. Even the judiciary allegedly participated in this reprisal scheme.
A group of 23 prominent lawyers falsely claimed that the students’ open letter was a “hate-filled incitement to violence against Israel and the Jewish people.” This group included a former appellate judge, law society benchers, heads of legal groups, law school adjunct instructors, and even a National Post columnist who used his column to further malign the students.
The group of prominent lawyers issued a dire warning: if the law school failed to mete out punishment, the “professional placements” required as part of the TMU curriculum for these students might not be forthcoming from the legal community.
TMU quickly announced that it was investigating the students and appointed retired Nova Scotia Chief Justice J. Michael MacDonald as the external reviewer.
Many of the students who signed the letter were subjected to online harassment, hate, and even death threats. As a result, they took the letter down from public view.
Last week, Justice MacDonald concluded that the signatories did not violate TMU’s Code of Conduct. He found the letter to be “greatly flawed” and noted there was a considerable gulf between the students’ genuine intentions of Palestinian solidarity and how the letter was perceived. He ultimately concluded that it was not antisemitic, pointing out that it clearly discussed Israel’s policies and actions, not Jewish people or Judaism.
The 169-page report noted that while the letter’s content was offensive to some, it was not intended as such and was, regardless, a protected exercise of free expression, vital in academic settings.
The prominent lawyers who have continued to incite reprisals against signatories to the letter should be reminded of their professional duty to be honourable, civil and non-discriminatory. TMU students are at the start of their careers and need mentorship. Many have no connections in professional networks. They did not deserve to have some of the most well connected and experienced members of Ontario’s legal community join forces to destroy their lives.
Justice MacDonald observed that the group of lawyers had done the very thing they accused the students of doing, such as speaking harshly, rushing to judgment, and not acknowledging opposing viewpoints. Those prominent lawyers “talked about the importance of civility and respectful dialogue, without extending those empathetic sentiments to the students involved …”
It is time for those prominent lawyers to make amends. They should retract their letter and apologize to the students.
