The important parts of this analysis have been excerpted below. First, MacRae summarizes why the decision is being send back to the Arbitrator (GN is the Labour Board chair and DPJ is the Arbitrator).
Then MacRae states how GN [the Labour Board Chair] is instructing DPJ [the Abritrator] “to provide reasonable justification”. If this is not done, according to MacRae, the Mount Royal Faculty Association (Widdowson’s union) can “appeal again and ask the ALRB to judge whether DPJ’s alleged justification *is* a justification”.
One of MacRae’s main arguments is that the unreasonableness of the decision not to reinstate is due to the fact that the place of academic freedom has not been properly considered. This is because “MRU, and to some extent, incredibly, the MRFA, have been insisting that the case is not essentially about academic freedom; that it is really about workplace conduct and safety and especially harassment”. This alludes to a very important circumstance – that MRU and the MRFA have been intentionally or unintentionally working together to prevent Widdowson from being reinstated (due to the fact that they have both been captured by Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Ideology).
MacRae notes that, in the Merits Decision, DPJ makes no attempt to distinguish between whether the inability to reinstate Widdowson is due to the views that she holds or if she is putting forward those views in a “harassing” manner.
MacRae points out that GN uses DPJ’s “Reason 3” for why Widdowson can’t be reinstated – colleagues who don’t want to work with Widdowson. In discussing this, GN uses the case of Renae Watchman and investigator Geoff Hope’s analysis that Watchman doesn’t believe that Widdowson should be able to criticize Indigenization.
There is also the example of “Reason 5” for why Widdowson can’t be reinstated – her comments on her blogs and websites that are a continuation of expressing her concerns about how MRU and the MRFA are not protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression because they have been captured by Equity, Diveristy and Inclusion ideology. If Widdowson was allowed to make these arguments when she was employed as a professor, why would making them post-termination constitute a reason for why she can’t be reinstated?
In a footnote, MacRae also makes the following comment:
For those who are interested in whether Widdowson’s actions were “harassing”, they can watch some of her videos on the subject. The most significant one is provided below. The most important areas are at 9:00 (talking about the harassment findings not being appealed by the Mount Royal Faculty Association) and 13:25 (the nine Tweets found to be “harassing”).
This video discusses the posts Widdowson made here :
https://wokeacademy.info/mrus-january-16-2024-case-against-frances-widdowson/
Very good! What’s next? I know Frances has stated in the past that nothing but reinstatement will suffice.
The Labour Board Vice-chair (not the Chair, according to the ALRB website) offered a solid piece of analysis and a stinging rebuke to the Arbitrator’s original conclusion in denying reinstatement. There’s hope.
I hope your right. So many of us feel beyond hopeless.