Fired on a trumped-up charge of anti-semitism, Prof. Tony Hall has now been cleared, and reinstated.
Click the links for his jaw-dropping story. MCM
From Cat McGuire:
In a win for academic freedom, Tony Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies, was reinstated to his position at the University of Lethbridge where he had been suspended by the university on outrageous, bogus charges of antisemitism.
In a nutshell, a reprehensible, concocted post about Jewish people was planted on Tony’s Facebook page without his knowlege on August 26, 2016, and then in a one-two punch, was leveraged via a malicious publicity campaign by B’nai Brith Canada to pressure the university to fire Tony. Read the details here.
Having been shunned far and wide by virtually the entire mainstream media, a brave Lethbridge Herald editor recently allowed Tony to finally tell his side of the story, in 5 parts no less.
We know the neo-McCarthy witchhunt continues, Tony, but a hearty congratulations for having gotten reinstated and now getting a somewhat public day in court with this newspaper series.
I support Tony 100% in the struggle to stop the rampant censorship of intellectual inquiry and free speech.
Lethbridge Herald – “Hall tells his side of story” – June 2018
Photo of front page story
Letter to the Editor
by Kurt Schlachter, Chair, Lethbridge University Board of Governors
Tony’s response to the Schlachter letter (as yet unpublished)
11 June, 2018
To the Editor of the Lethbridge Herald;
In a his June 6 response in the Lethbridge Herald, University of Lethbridge Board of Governors Chair, Kurt E. Schlachter, voiced criticism of the newspaper and its City Editor, Nick Kuhl, for publishing the recent five-part series titled, “Hall tells his side of the story.”
Mr. Schlachter asserted that the LH “did not apply any journalistic standards in publishing the articles.” He also indicated that these articles went to print “without research” and without “fact checking” to address “the burden of proof.”
On the contrary, Mr. Kuhl did much behind-the-scenes preparation for the series. Before our exchanges “on the record,” Mr. Kuhl devoted much of his time in our preliminary discussions to careful readings of the precise texts of many official documents. As we moved through these primary sources, the City Editor sought answers from me to many questions arising from his study of the documentary evidence.
The five-part series introduced much new information into the public domain. Many of the fresh disclosures establish points of reference vital to establishing the factual foundations necessary for a proper and balanced discussion of this ongoing case.
By publishing this previously concealed information, Mr. Kuhl and the Lethbridge Herald fulfilled the highest standards of professional journalism. Mr. Kuhl’s decision to illuminate rather than obfuscate some of the core dynamics of this controversy promises to enable more informed public discourse on the future of higher education in Alberta and beyond.
Many documents that Mr. Kuhl examined came in response to Freedom of Information and Privacy (FOIP) requests directed to the appropriate authorities. The communications brought forward were authored by official sources in the provincial government, university administration and in agencies of the political lobby that has played such an intrusive role in this matter.
Mr. Schlachter advances the case that the dispute at issue here is “inherently confidential.” This comment fails to acknowledge that the University Administration was instrumental in helping to orchestrate a very public media smear campaign directed against my person and reputation. This trial by media was conducted inside and outside the University in ways that were anything but confidential.
This matter only entered its current phase following a court ruling by Judge Glen H. Poelman on 15 Sept. of 2017. In his ruling Judge Poelman conveyed to the Board of Governors that it would need to take part in a properly-constituted investigation within the terms of the U of L’s collective agreement. The Judge made it clear that Board of Governors could not indefinitely favour the external lobby by sidelining ULFA from its rightful role as a primary party in this labour relations dispute. It remains to be seen if the “procedural fairness” provisions referred to in the collective agreement and in the tripartite contract of Oct. 30 2017 will be adhered to in the present stage of this ongoing process.
To summarize, more than a year and a half had elapsed before I was given an opportunity to publish in a mainstream media venue an account highlighting my understanding of this matter. This departure from past practice occurred because Mr. Kuhl took an initiative on behalf of his newspaper to introduce more balance and equity into the slanted media coverage that commenced in June of 2016.
Only now is this matter coming within the procedures outlined in the U of L’s collective agreement. Only now am I able to contribute to public awareness by relating on the record my side of the story. This timing should indicate for the attentive that all previous judgments were premature. Nevertheless, I have no choice but to bear the heavy professional damage already wrought by the onslaught of negative publicity attending the Facebook deception followed by my illegal suspension. Put plainly, because of the University Administration’s aggressions to date, I can never return to the same conditions of employment that prevailed before the intertwined chain of events unfolded between late August and early and early October of 2016. The essence of this initial salvo on my reputation resulted in my being pronounced guilty until proven innocent. Has anything changed in the current process to reverse this perversion of natural justice?
Mr. Schlachter argues that the series “does not meet the basic standards of respectable journalism and encourages conflict and controversy rather than responsible and respectable discourse.” Where was the opening for “responsible discourse” when U of L President Mike Mahon failed to seek out my side of the story amidst all the negative publicity attending the Facebook deception, the manufactured crisis that created the public environment for my subsequent suspension?
Even now, where are the venues for this “responsible and respectable discourse” on the academic freedom case currently unfolding at the University of Lethbridge? Does Mr. Schlachter’s response to the five-part series embody precisely the kind of “encouragement” to “conflict and controversy” that he wrongfully attributes to the officers of the Lethbridge Herald?
Anthony James Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge