September 30, 2013 Mamdouh Shoukri President and Vice-Chancellor Dear President Shoukri, Thank you for your

reply on September 20. We feel it necessary to address some of the points and misconceptions in your letter. In our meeting on August 7, we requested that you disclose the evidence of complaints regarding the alleged disruptions on March 27. You have failed to disclose the evidence, and you claimed that the complaints were documented via social media and by "primary witnesses". Not only do your actions express a dismal lack of transparency, but you have also shown a significant intellectual disrespect for your students, the public, and members of the York community by expecting them to accept the credibility of social media as a platform for evidence of disruptions. We also do not know who these "primary witnesses" are, whether they are credible, or whether they even exist. What we do know, however, is that the Local Adjudicator settled the noise complaint and stated that she did not find that there was a breach. Whether the adjudication process is independent of the decision to revoke club status and trespass an alumnus or not is irrelevant; the Local Adjudicators account is conflicting with your own, especially since your own suffers from a serious lack of transparency via your refusal to disclose the supposed evidence, which can only confirm the widely held view that the sanctions are politically motivated. It is false that the three email communications that were sent to us went unanswered. Please review your records. Let us now focus on your expressed view that freedom of assembly and freedom of expression cannot be assured at the expense of other students right to learn, to progress through their academic programs, and to graduate. This implies that our rally violated students right to learn, to progress through their academic programs, and to graduate. A two-hour, peaceful protest of a disruptive nature for universal human rights does not violate students right to learn, to progress through their academic programs, and to graduate. It is an inconvenience, at worst. But at the same time it is part of students wider learning that is expected to take place while at university. It is part of the process of becoming a citizen, a person who recognizes their duties to the communities they inhabit, including the local, provincial, national, and international community. Your inability to distinguish between a violation of a right and an inconvenience in the service of a right is a predicament commonly found among privileged persons in society. This predicament is consistent with your position on the academic boycott of Israel, where your privilege clouds your ability to distinguish between a violation of academic freedom and an inconvenience in the service of academic freedom for all.

SAIA members are required to take anti-oppression training, and some of us have dedicated our lives to anti-oppressive politics. And so we are well-versed in rights-discourse and better-positioned to recognize a violation of a right than the bureaucrats in your administration who have failed to even express concern regarding Yorks investments in defense contractor CACI, which supplied US interrogators and is accused of directing the torture at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Our view is consistent with the Canadian Civil Liberties Associations (CCLA) view, which we quoted several times in our replies to the administrations emails that you falsely claim went unanswered:
Substantial restrictions of freedom of expression and assembly are unbecoming of an institution of higher learning, which is otherwise uniquely placed to encourage critical thinking and questioning even when it takes a form that may result in some level of inconvenience or interference with the everyday workings of the University. Events that are simply noisy, disruptive, or cause some inconvenience are often still peaceful, and in many cases such disruption is a core component of the nature of the protest or the message being conveyed.[Emphasis added]

Most recently, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) sent you a letter expressing long-held concerns about the Senate Policy on Disruptive and/or Harassing Behaviour in Academic Situations, the Temporary Use of University Space policy, and the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The fact that CAUTs concerns are shared by us and by many other students and community members puts into question your conclusion that the policies fairly and effectively balance the many individual and group rights that are asserted within our community. One would reasonably assume that objections and concerns by the CCLA, Ontario CLA, CAUT, and many students and community members would prompt a more serious review and amendment process. But it appears that you have decided to maintain a rejectionist, anti-democratic stance. Lastly, while you claim respect for SAIAs mission, our mission is not simply to educate the Universitys learning community about Palestine, but to also further the Palestinian demand for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). Your attempt to omit BDS from the discussion will not make it go away. We will continue to push for BDS, and we will continue to resist repression against it. The path to moving forward is in working with us, in an environment more conducive to freedom of expression and assembly, to prevent Yorks investments from ending up in military companies and other companies with heinous human rights records involved in Palestine and elsewhere. We hope that you will follow up with your intent to work with us in furthering this goal. Until then, we will note that you have rejected meaningful dialogue and a positive relationship between SAIA and the York administration.

Sincerely,

Students Against Israeli Apartheid at York University