CAUT has called on McMaster University to reverse one of its policies that threatens academic freedom. The policy, adopted by the McMaster senate in 2003, prohibits academic staff from referring to their affiliation to McMaster when expressing an opinion to the media that is unrelated to their area of "academic or professional expertise."

CAUT's action is based on the report of an ad hoc investigatory committee formed in December 2003 to examine the McMaster guidelines. The report, authored by William Bruneau, professor emeritus of educational theory at the University of British Columbia and Ted Hannah, professor of psychology at Memorial University of Newfoundland, says the McMaster policy "would be seen as an unacceptable restraint on academic freedom in any other university or college in Canada."

The report maintains that academics have a duty and a responsibility to engage actively and vigorously in public debate. "Credibility is important in debate and a professor's university affiliation is one aspect of his or her credibility as a public intellectual," says the report. "Mention of one's affiliation is at all times possible, and often desirable."

CAUT executive director James Turk says the only limitation CAUT has long supported is that academic staff not purport to speak on behalf of the institution without being explicitly authorized to do so. He says that has not been an issue in the McMaster case.

Although McMaster officials told the investigatory committee they could not conceive of a case where the university policy would apply, they insisted on the importance of its retention.

Several McMaster faculty members have expressed strong concern to CAUT about the policy since its adoption.

Professor David Hitchcock reported receiving a letter from the administration advising him to take heed of the policy. University officials noted that in a message to residents of his city ward during the November 2003 municipal election, Hitchcock included among other affiliations his position as a professor of philosophy at McMaster.

"A letter from the vice-provost, however neutrally worded, will be received with anxiety," the report notes. "However 'modest' in scope or implication, a document of this kind is a threat to academic freedom, especially if it causes a person to 'think twice' about what he or she is writing or saying."

Although the offending provision in the McMaster policy is followed by the statement that it "in no way is meant to restrict the academic freedom or freedom of speech of any member of the university community," the report says the effect of the limitation could be precisely such a restriction.

The committee report makes three recommendations. It urges the McMaster senate to excise the offending provision from its guidelines in dealings with the media. It also urges the administration and the faculty association to undertake a campaign of public information "to assure all academic members of (the McMaster University) community that they enjoy the full protection of academic freedom in their public lives as communicators to/with the media and to/with the broader society which McMaster serves."

The final recommendation is that CAUT publicize the committee's findings and arguments so as to discourage other institutions from adopting similar policies.