U of T could have fired him if insubordination was the issue. They didn't, because he might have sued for wrongful termination. Instead they are burning taxpayer dollars so that he couldn't claim constructive dismissal, which again would allow him to sue. Any suit would have exposed the facts. U of T is paying a lot to keep those facts hidden, which it wouldn't have to do if it had a tenable claim of insubordination.
That's not an accurate take. The question isn't whether there was a tangible claim of insubordination. You can almost guarantee there was. The question is to what extent an insubordination claim may, in the enacting, challenge academic freedom. A ruling on that in favor of academic freedom would set a precedent aligned with the initial question You responded to, insulation from reasonable conditions of employment for one special class.
Yes, university administrators must put up with a high degree of "insubordination" from faculty, because you cannot govern a university without a high degree of faculty participation. It really is not exactly like other workplaces. Administrators who are thin-skinned about this, and cope with it via burning public money in the manner described here, are not handling the demands of their role well.
If this guy was abusive to colleagues, just conduct whatever disciplinary hearings are in the faculty guidebook -- there are procedures in place for that. Punishing him by keeping him off campus with endless leave paid for with public money is an abuse of administrative power.
That's absurd. Employers must accept insubordination from their employees? On what basis? Who else has any similar protection?
U of T could have fired him if insubordination was the issue. They didn't, because he might have sued for wrongful termination. Instead they are burning taxpayer dollars so that he couldn't claim constructive dismissal, which again would allow him to sue. Any suit would have exposed the facts. U of T is paying a lot to keep those facts hidden, which it wouldn't have to do if it had a tenable claim of insubordination.
That's not an accurate take. The question isn't whether there was a tangible claim of insubordination. You can almost guarantee there was. The question is to what extent an insubordination claim may, in the enacting, challenge academic freedom. A ruling on that in favor of academic freedom would set a precedent aligned with the initial question You responded to, insulation from reasonable conditions of employment for one special class.
I'm skeptical, but thanks for the response. I'll put a tickler on the topic and see what, if anything, develops.
Yes, university administrators must put up with a high degree of "insubordination" from faculty, because you cannot govern a university without a high degree of faculty participation. It really is not exactly like other workplaces. Administrators who are thin-skinned about this, and cope with it via burning public money in the manner described here, are not handling the demands of their role well.
If this guy was abusive to colleagues, just conduct whatever disciplinary hearings are in the faculty guidebook -- there are procedures in place for that. Punishing him by keeping him off campus with endless leave paid for with public money is an abuse of administrative power.
At least he’s getting a paid vacation while the admins try to keep from addressing the supposed issues.
Sounds like skullduggery going on there.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship