montreal

A research associate who claims that racial discrimination by the University of Toronto led to his failure to win a tenure-track position was unfairly treated by the university, concludes a report by the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).

But the university has criticized the report as “deeply flawed”, and argues that its recommendations “are either unnecessary or offensive to academic values”. It says its own investigation into Kin-Yip Chun's case found no evidence of racial discrimination, and that, although it did find “irregularities and ambiguities” in his original appointment, it has “offered appropriate remedy” (see Nature 392, 638; 1998 ).

The CAUT report recommends that the university offer Chun “an opportunity to return to work at the university with genuine job security on a continuing basis at a rank and salary commensurate with his actual experience”.

It says that he should also be given a fair chance to compete for any position in seismology. If a negotiated settlement is not possible, the parties should submit the matter to binding arbitration, which would include the possibility of awarding Chun a tenure-track position.

Chun, a seismologist, was passed over four times in applications for tenure-track positions at the university, and in 1994 was escorted off the campus by a plain-clothes policeman and banned from the campus. The university says it has offered Chun a settlement “consistent with the CAUT recommendations” and “continues to propose a mediated settlement. Chun has persistently refused all offers.”

Although the CAUT report “found no evidence of direct discrimination”, it said it received “evidence of systemic discrimination on grounds of race or ethnic origin”. This included the “ethnic and gender composition” of the department to which Chun had applied for posts, which was “overwhelmingly white and male”.

The university rejects these “speculations”. It says it “will not award a tenure stream position as the result of arbitration, but only by peer adjudication through normal processes”.