Client Update: Untenable tenure: discrimination complaint from Indigenous professor dismissed
An Indigenous law professor filed a human rights complaint against the University of British Columbia claiming the university discriminated against her in failing to consider her less traditional scholarly work as akin to traditional peer-reviewed scholarly work.
Ms. McCue argued that the concept of “peer review” had no application to her as an Indigenous female scholar and the university had an obligation to consider her work which was oral in nature and which included service to her Indigenous community, when considering whether to grant her tenure.
The Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ultimately dismissed the claim, holding that the work had to be capable of assessment by conventional peer review.
In McCue v. The University of British Columbia, an Indigenous professor, Lorna June McCue, made a complaint to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission against her employer, UBC, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and sex after UBC denied her tenure, promotion, performance salary adjustments (“PSA”) and merit pay.
Four years after being placed on tenure track at the rank of Assistant Professor, the Dean wrote to Ms. McCue and cautioned her that she had not yet published peer-reviewed contributions at the expected rate to be granted tenure. In order to assist Ms. McCue in this regard, the Dean removed her administrative responsibilities and reduced her teaching load. The Dean wrote several more letters over the years and repeatedly reminded Ms. McCue that she needed to focus on her publishing efforts in order to be considered for promotion and tenure. During this time, Ms. McCue repeatedly assured the Dean that she was working on articles for publication. At no time did she raise any human rights issues and she never requested any accommodations.
Ms. McCue filed a human rights complaint after her application for tenure was denied.
The Complainant’s position
Ms. McCue claimed that UBC’s approach to assessing her scholarly work was based on “preconceived, mischaracterized, and unilateral ideas” concerning her personal characteristics as an Indigenous female law scholar. She argued that the metrics UBC used to measure her work were “culturally inappropriate” and led to discrimination in that UBC failed to attach sufficient weight to her Indigenous scholarship, teaching, and community service. She insisted on a broad interpretation of the Collective Agreement so that her oral conference presentations would be considered scholarly activity equal to written peer-reviewed publications.
The university’s position
UBC argued that Ms. McCue was not entitled to challenge the standard set out under the Collective Agreement and further argued that each time Ms. McCue was reminded about the expectations under the Collective Agreement, she told UBC that she was working on publications. At no time did she ever suggest that her Indigeneity was a barrier to her work performance until the parties were engaged in the tenure candidacy evaluation process which was 6 years after the Dean first warned Ms. McCue about the publication expectations.
UBC argued that that it evaluated all the work Ms. McCue submitted – but it could not assess her oral work because it was not recorded in any way. Further, the work it could assess did not meet the high standard of quality and significance required for tenure.
The Tribunal held that did not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of UBC’s tenure and promotion process or to review UBC ’s academic decisions. The Tribunal’s sole task was to determine whether the process resulted in discrimination against Ms. McCue contrary to the provisions of the Human Rights Code. In other words, were Ms. McCue’s Indigeneity and/or sex factors in UBC’s denials of tenure, promotion, PSA, and merit pay?
While Ms. McCue alleged that UBC did not consider her scholarly activity, the evidence showed otherwise. The Tribunal found that UBC took a broad approach under the Collective Agreement and searched for evidence of scholarly activity in all of the work that Ms. McCue put forward.
The problem was that the material Ms. McCue provided to UBC for review was largely incapable of evaluation. The majority of the content of her CV consisted of a list of invited presentations, conferences, and a small selection of non-refereed publications. This provided no information regarding the quality or quantity of work. The Tribunal also noted that the space for peer-reviewed publication was empty in Ms. McCue’s CV.
The Tribunal rejected Ms. McCue’s suggestion that UBC had a duty to inquire into her cultural traits in order to explore why her behaviour was at odds with their expectations. Given the fact that Ms. McCue repeatedly told UBC that she was working on publications, this reinforced UBC’s expectations that she was working toward traditional scholarship.
The Tribunal held that Ms. McCue did not raise the issue in a timely manner. If she had raised this issue earlier, there would have been time to explore different approaches to Indigenous scholarship. UBC would have been obligated to work with Ms. McCue if she had informed UBC that she was pursuing scholarship by oral tradition.
The Tribunal found that there was no nexus between Ms. McCue’s Indigeneity or sex and UBC’s decision to deny her tenure or promotion. For that reason, the Tribunal dismissed Ms. McCue’s complaint in its entirety.
What this means for colleges and universities
This case examines cultural issues within the context of academic tenure and promotion. Based on the Tribunal’s comments regarding less traditional forms of scholarship and Indigeneity, colleges and universities may have to consider alternate forms of scholarly work in the peer review process when assessing professors of Indigenous heritage. There were specific reasons why that did not happen in Ms. McCue’s case. In the future, colleges and universities should be prepared for the possibility that some Indigenous faculty members may request accommodations and/or consideration in the tenure process based on non-traditional forms of scholarly work.
Health Group, Christopher Goodridge, Matthew Jacobs The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in a decision released on May 15, 2019 that doctors must provide an ‘effective referral’ where they are unwilling to provide care on…Read More
Level Chan and Dante Manna The Province of Nova Scotia is soliciting stakeholder input on significant regulatory changes to the Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”) and Pension Benefits Regulations (“PBR”). The solicitation is accompanied by a…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry, Divya Subramanian and Matthew Jacobs The main asset of innovation is Intellectual Property. Applicants looking to participate in the Innovation Superclusters Initiative must be vigilant of their Intellectual Property. This article…Read More
Kevin Landry Health Canada has announced changes to the cannabis licensing regime. These changes come ahead of the release of the cannabis edibles, extracts, and topicals amendments to the Cannabis Regulations expected to be released…Read More
Grant Machum Last week’s Nova Scotia Court of Appeal’s decision in Halifax Herald Limited v. Clarke, 2019 NSCA 31, is good news for employers. The Court overturned the trial judge’s determinations that an employee had…Read More
Rick Dunlop On April 24, 2019, the Nova Scotia Government created the Trade Union Act General Regulations so that the Labour Board will no longer consider a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday as the date of…Read More
Rodney Zdebiak and Anthony Granville On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature passed a number of changes to the Automobile Insurance Act (“Act”) stating that the intent is to help stabilize insurance rates,…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs The Canadian government has placed itself in the “global innovation race”. In response to the demands for innovation, the Canadian government has established the Innovation Superclusters Initiative which…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs Canada’s Ocean Supercluster is a co-investment initiative between Canada’s federal government and the private sector that is part of the Innovation Superclusters Initiative. As we wrote about in…Read More
Andrea Shakespeare, Kevin Landry and Matthew Jacobs As we discuss in our article, No compass needed – Ocean Supercluster activities explained, there are many ways to participate in the Ocean Supercluster and the Innovation Superclusters…Read More