“I acknowledge that the words I used caused pain and distress to many of my colleagues, who experienced them as insults.”
Last June, my opponent publicly criticized a group of UTFA members based on their political beliefs and group identity, using language widely considered to be bigoted. In remarks made in her role as UTFA President, my opponent blamed “an entitled powerful Zionist minority” for engaging in “psychological warfare” against advocates of the CAUT censure of the University of Toronto. Without offering any evidence, my opponent claimed that these Zionists “felt that any criticisms of Cromwell or anyone else could be met with accusations of antisemitism” [Cromwell was the independent author of the report reviewing the hiring process at the Faculty of Law that led to the controversy].
After months of repeated pleas for an apology, an acknowledgement of harm by her office or the association, including both private and public calls to do so by me, the President of UTFA issued a public apology in response to an effort led by Professor Daniel Frances, acknowledging that the words she used “caused pain and distress.” Professor Frances graciously accepted her apology.
Sadly, the issue today is not whether the apology was sufficient or not. The issue today is whether the apology is still valid. The incumbent’s re-election webpage currently includes an endorsement which says that criticism of my opponents’ statements as being antisemitic are “false, manipulative, unethical, and disingenuous.” It includes a link to an article published before the apology that my opponent shared on social media that claims that charges of antisemitism against her over her remarks “have no substance.”
The statement contained in my opponent’s apology, and the statement my opponent has published on her website, cannot both be truth. The two statements are contradictory. Either there is an acknowledgement of harm, and a recognition that what was said could be reasonably construed to be evocative of antisemitic tropes, or the accusations that what she said was antisemitic are false and lack substance. Publishing accusations that critics are “manipulative, unethical and disingenuous” in claiming that the remarks were insensitive and offensive towards Jews cannot be reconciled with my opponent’s statement acknowledging that people experienced her phrasing as an insult.
Since the comments on my opponents’ website come months after the apology, it is reasonable to conclude that the later remarks negate or nullify the earlier, apologetic, pronouncement.
This is a problem of leadership. Even the most effective leaders make mistakes. Ethical leadership responds to mistakes by acknowledging harm, issuing apologies, and rectifying the problem. In contrast, my opponent publishes and promotes statements attacking members of our association who raised concerns and asked for an apology. My opponent talks about her extensive experience, but her record includes this episode where she offends a group of members, takes nearly five months to issue an apology (during which time she posts denials of any harm on social media), and then nullifies the apology in her campaign.
It is time for a fresh, pragmatic approach to leadership at UTFA, one that respects our diversity and our members’ concerns. As President of UTFA, I know that I will make errors and mistakes. In know from my experience, and from lessons instilled by my mother, that when I make mistakes, I must apologize. That is what experienced, ethical and effective leaders do.
Comments