After a lengthy probe, staff at the Ontario Human Rights Commission investigating allegations of racial discrimination at the University of Toronto have recommended a hearing by a board of inquiry.

In 1992, world-renowned Chinese-Canadian geophysicist Kin-Yip Chun filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination on the part of the university. Professor Chun, a physicist at the University of Toronto from 1985 until his termination in 1994, said he was wrongfully denied tenure track positions in the department of physics.

In a 26-page report dated Feb. 1, the commission staff conclude: "The totality of the evidence corroborates the complainant's allegations on a prima facie basis that his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin were factors in his failure to obtain an academic appointment and that he was subject to a series of reprisals culminating in his dismissal." The report refers to an "old boys network" and to "cronyism" that work against minority applicants.

In a press conference held at the university on Feb. 7, Chun said he feels completely vindicated by the report. "Had I not persisted in seeking justice, the systemic racism so prevalent at U of T would never have come to light." Raj Anand, Chun's lawyer, said approximately 5 per cent of investigations end in a recommendation for a public hearing at the OHRC board of inquiry.

Patrick O'Neill, chairperson of CAUT's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, told reporters an AF&T committee report published a year ago had come to essentially the same conclusions as the commission's investigators. "The AF&T committee investigating the treatment of Dr. Chun found he had been unfairly treated and that there was a prima facie case of systemic discrimination. The committee recommended binding arbitration to resolve the matter."

He said that over the years every investigation into the Chun affair, including an internal report commissioned by the university, found Chun had been unfairly treated.

The commission staff interviewed 41 witnesses and reviewed "voluminous documentation." But the report also describes how investigators were not able to review some potentially important documents concerning competitions in which Chun was a candidate due to incomplete documentation and "shredding of records."

At the press conference, Chun was highly critical of the university for shredding documents that would have obvious importance in a case involving discrimination in hiring procedures.

University officials, relying heavily on an internal report by dean of medicine Cecil Yip, deny systemic racism played a role in the hiring process. Yip noted that while Chun was "exploited" by the university, he could find no evidence of racial discrimination.

The commission staff said, however, that the Yip report was flawed. "It focused on finding individual intent or a motive to discriminate against Dr. Chun. This approach is no longer in keeping with the prevailing substantive theory of discrimination." The report also noted Yip examined each incident separately instead of looking at the entire picture "and therefore missed the pattern that sewed the scenario together."

The university argued that Chun's contract was terminated because of his "increasing unsuitability as a colleague." But the report cites how Chun's reactions must be considered in the context of his belief and perception of unfair treatment. "An employee's angry reaction to discrimination does not justify the termination of an employee."

O'Neill said what the university administration doesn't like about Chun is that he drew attention to his case in every way he could: "He refused to just go away."

When asked about the possibility of a negotiated settlement, Anand said Chun made an offer of settlement to the university two months ago; "we have not even had an answer."

O'Neill says systemic discrimination requires a systemic solution. "Redressing the wrong done to Professor Chun would be part of a solution, but it would not be the whole solution."

He said if the university does not seriously address the problem, but waits for more reports to pile up, its reputation will "die the death of a thousand cuts."

The parties will have an opportunity to respond to the report before the commission decides whether to uphold the staff recommendation for the case to be brought before an independent tribunal.