Concordia University president’s statement draws criticism
Activists raise concerns with Graham Carr’s statement following January’s BDS vote
Some student associations and organizations at Concordia University have raised concerns over a statement made by the university’s President Graham Carr on Jan.30.
The Carr statement was released following a special general meeting (SGM) where undergraduate students voted in favour of two Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) motions.
On Jan. 29, 885 undergraduate Concordia students voted in favour of two motions: for the Concordia Student Union (CSU) to adopt BDS demands and for the union to bring those demands to the Board of Governors. Only 58 students voted against the motions. The total turnout for the vote was more than twice the 450 student quorum—the number of people needed to validate the vote.
In the statement released on Jan. 30, Carr reiterated that Concordia’s position on “such boycott campaigns” has been consistent, writing, “Such campaigns are contrary to the value of academic freedom upon which all universities are founded.”
He continued, saying that reports from the meeting were “deeply troubling” due to “the presence of heavily masked individuals, complaints of discriminatory behaviour and the use of intimidation tactics.” He called the behaviour at the meeting unacceptable and said it contravened Concordia policies.
Following the release, the School of Community and Public Affairs Student Association (SCPASA) and four other student associations condemned the statement in a post on Instagram.
“Despite a clear, democratically obtained majority, Graham Carr incessantly seeks to silence pro-Palestine students, claiming the motions to be ‘contrary to the value of academic freedom,’” the post read.
SCPASA executive secretary Samuel Gold said that he takes issue with Carr’s statement because it showed an “attitude of distrust” for student democracy.
“I think it really just demonstrates that this administration is not in it for the students at all,” Gold said.
The CSU has also released a response to Carr’s statement on Instagram, stating, “Graham Carr’s statement draws upon existing anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiment to present the result of a democratic vote in favour of BDS [...] as illicit, hostile and non-binding.”
Concordia spokesperson Julie Fortier told The Link that Concordia is “troubled” that people have chosen to “misread” and “purposefully miscommunicate” Carr’s statement.
“President Carr’s statement does not say that the motions [...] are contrary to the value of academic freedom,” Fortier said. “President Carr reiterates what has been Concordia’s position for years and that is that boycott campaigns are contrary to the value of academic freedom upon which all universities are founded [italics in original].”
CSU academic and advocacy coordinator Vanessa Massot said they want to ask the administration if they believe academic freedom is a universal right.
“The entire point of us wanting to boycott, divest and sanction is the fact that people in Gaza, right now, do not even have shelter, food, medicine, let alone universities,” Massot said. “The entire point of what we're doing is for academic freedom and overall liberation.”
Michael Bueckert, interim president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), sent a letter to Carr to express grave concern over Carr’s comments.
In it, Bueckert listed several academic organizations in support of BDS, including the Middle East Studies Association and the American Studies Association. Bueckert also referred to the growing global concern that Israel is committing scholasticide in Gaza.
“When universities, students, and academic bodies hold Israel to account for its role in apartheid, this is an affirmation of the very values that underlie academic freedom, not an attack on it,” Bueckert wrote.
Director of media advocacy at CJPME Jason Toney also raised concerns with Carr’s statement and how it may make students fearful of advocating for Palestine.
“To use that kind of language that stifles debates and that stifles democratic expressions as it relates to a decision made by the CSU in a situation that seems to have followed all procedures and protocols,” Toney said, “it is extremely disappointing and highly concerning.”
This article originally appeared in Volume 45, Issue 9, published February 11, 2025.
