Sir

I would like to respond to your News article “Fight hots up over Toronto racial discrimination claim”, which gives an incomplete account of the facts of the case and misrepresents some of the issues in this dispute (Nature 392, 638; 1998).

Kin-Yip Chun was one of many unsuccessful applicants for the two tenure-track positions filled in geophysics over the past decade by the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto. Your report gives credence to a claim that the two candidates actually hired “were less qualified than he was”, a statement that would, among others, surprise the British university that had previously placed our first appointee as chair of its geophysics department.

Chun was hired by the Department of Physics in 1985 as a grant-funded research associate for a limited term of two years. Your statement that Chun “was told there were no funds to pay him” is untrue; this research associateship was fully funded.

Chun was employed as a research associate for his nine years with the university. In 1989, he was awarded a status-only appointment as an assistant professor so he could act as a principal investigator and a supervisor for graduate students. Although he claims that “he was obliged to work as a professor”, his academic duties were modest.

In December 1992, Chun insisted on continuing his research, but refused to sign a renewal of his contract. In November 1994, the university was forced to seek a campus police escort for Chun after he refused to consider all employment options offered to him and refused to vacate his office. Your article states that “no reason was given at the time”. This is again false.

During his period as a research associate, Chun competed in 1987 and 1992 for two tenure-stream positions in the Department of Physics. Although you quote his claim that he “had been passed over for tenure”, in fact he never held a position eligible for tenure. After the 1992 competition, Chun alleged that racial bias was a factor in his not being offered a tenure-stream position. To respond to these allegations, the university conducted several investigations. None of these, including one performed by vice-dean Cecil Yip, found any evidence to substantiate racial bias.

Finally, although you note the statement in Yip's report that the 1987 appointment could hypothetically have been made to “keep Chun out of the job”, you omit to add that Yip found no evidence to support this.

The accusation of exploitation develops from the blurring of roles that Chun faced once he was given the opportunity to be a principal investigator in seismological research in 1989. Yip's finding that Chun was placed in an exploitative situation has been accepted by the university. Consequently, the university has made a series of offers to Chun intended to remedy any harm that its actions may have had on his research and career.

Chun so far has rejected all these offers and insists that the only remedy is an academic appointment for a period of time equivalent to a de facto tenure-stream position. His demand contravenes the university's regulations on tenure, as well as the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the university faculty association's strongly held views.

Chun has more recently relaxed this demand, but other issues still remain unresolved. The University of Toronto continues to seek a negotiated settlement.

We accept the specific corrections of statements made by Nature in the article, and apologize for any misleading impression that those errors may have caused. — Editor, Nature