Memorial to Change Controversial Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Hearing 

Memorial University is set to change a policy at the heart of a dispute between the post-secondary institution and a student activist who says he is being targeted for his criticism of the university’s administration.

What’s more, updates to Memorial’s Student Code of Conduct are partly in the hands of those accused by fourth year political science student Matthew Barter of discriminating against and vilifying him after he held a silent protest last year in opposition to university President Vianne Timmons’ leadership.

The student, blogger, and accessible education activist says proposed amendments to the policy—which deals with non-academic student behaviour—could further stifle student dissent.

Among the proposed changes outlined in a draft of the code—which itself is set to be renamed the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities—is a new section titled “Confidentiality and Privacy” that states “[a]ll persons involved in any process related to this Code are required to maintain confidentiality.”

Barter says the provision represents a “gag order” on students who may find themselves in situations like his.

“It would guarantee that MUN could run the entire Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities process against someone in complete secret,” he writes in a letter to the university’s policy office, which he posted to his blog in October. “The person would be accused, judged, and punished without anyone even knowing. It is worth noting that even after the entire process was over, the accused would never be able to mention what happened.”

Memorial spokesperson David Sorensen says the proposed changes are intended to “help ensure students can feel comfortable coming forward with concerns and participating in the process … without fear of publication,” and that it “does not prevent a person from sharing they are involved in the Code process but prevents sharing of information that may negatively impact others involved.”

Barter isn’t facing complaints from students, however. A small group of university administrators, including the president, have taken him to task over his activism.

Barter’s lawyer, Kyle Rees, says the Code is already problematic, given the university itself “can lay a charge against you, have it investigated and decided upon by its own employees,” and that efforts to restrict students who may be subjected to the policy from speaking out is “really concerning.”

While proceedings through labour boards, the province’s Human Rights Commission, and the courts are largely public, Rees is concerned that Memorial students could find themselves unable to speak freely about potentially oppressive situations.

“We take issue with secret courts in Canada because it leads to potential abuses of power,” he says. “And the idea that Memorial University is trying to insulate itself from any kind of public discussion over how it’s employing its Student Code of Conduct is troubling.”

Supreme Court asked to overturn Memorial decision

At a provincial government announcement on Memorial’s St. John’s campus last December, Barter protested Timmons’ leadership by silently holding up a sign that read “Stop Vianne” while the president delivered a speech.

The following day, he was notified by Student Conduct Officer Jennifer Browne that a complaint would be filed against him and that he was required to stay off campus except to attend classes. When he did arrive to attend classes, Barter was told he had to report to campus security. He was also instructed to stay away from Timmons and her staff.

The following week Browne told Barter in a letter that a complainant had “alleged intimidating and harassing behaviors” that violated the Student Code of Conduct. A day later, on Dec. 8, Barter received a letter from Memorial Chief Risk Officer Greg McDougall alleging unacceptable behaviour the previous week and a pattern of problematic behaviour dating back to 2018. 

Barter later learned that McDougall—who was not present at the Dec. 2 protest—was the complainant.

“The behaviour of jumping up in front of [Timmons] was alarming, and together with remaining in close proximity to her while she spoke, was a form of intimidation and harassment,” McDougall writes in his complaint, quoted in Horwood’s investigation report.

In a March 8, 2022 letter to Memorial responding to the report, Rees calls McDougall’s characterization of the student’s actions a “dramatic recounting of the event [that] is not borne out by the video evidence.” Video from an NTV story shows that Barter took about three seconds to affix his sign to the podium before stepping aside where he quietly held up his sign. In the video, Barter holds the piece of paper in front of his face and cannot be seen gesturing or even looking at Timmons while she speaks. 

Though Memorial’s Student Code makes an explicit exception for “silent and symbolic protest,” Horwood found Barter to have violated sections of the code that prohibit “disruption” and “bullying, intimidating or harassing another person.”

But Horwood also recommended that outstanding restrictions against Barter be lifted, and that he be directed “to refrain from personal attacks in his protests in the future,” and to “refrain from protesting inside any class, meeting, or event” in future.

Instead, Browne placed Barter on one-year non-academic probation and required him to attend a seminar on bullying and harassment.  

Barter appealed the decision internally but another administrator, then-Marine Institute Registrar Leslie Noftall, upheld Browne’s decisions.

In a judicial review brief filed with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in October, Rees argues the whole process was rife with errors, including Browne’s interim sanctions against Barter, Horwood’s investigation, Noftall’s review of the appeal, and Browne’s decision on final sanctions.

He and Barter are asking the court to quash and set aside Memorial’s sanctions and to compensate Barter for his legal expenses.

Leading Canadian civil liberties experts have called Memorial’s treatment of Barter “extreme” and “inappropriate,” saying the university may have violated his Charter rights.

Former Memorial Provost Noreen Golfman—herself a former subject of Barter’s protest—has also spoken out in Barter’s defense, calling the university’s actions against him a “real overreach.” Golfman has also disputed Memorial’s characterization of Barter as sexist or misogynistic.

Golfman told The Independent in May that Horwood had reached out to her about an interview as part of the investigation into Barter’s conduct, but that she never heard from her again.

Barter is on the autism spectrum and believes some see him as an “easy target”—somebody who “wouldn’t be able to stand up for themselves.”

University “backfilling” its policy, says Barter

Another proposed amendment to the Student Code allows for disciplinary action against a complainant in the event a complaint is found to have been “frivolous or vexatious.” 

The Independent asked Memorial if the provision would offer a student recourse in a case where the university itself could be found to have launched a frivolous or vexatious complaint—so that the student would not have to hire a lawyer at their own expense.

In an emailed statement, Sorensen said that “[p]art of the process allows judicial review of the decision,” and that “a student is welcome to hire a lawyer if they feel the process was unfair.” 

“Also, there is a very high standard to prove a complaint is frivolous or vexatious.”

Barter believes Memorial is embarrassed by the attention his case has received and is working to minimize the likelihood of another similar scenario.

“Basically, what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to backfill the policy,” he says. “They’re trying to add in amendments that make life more comfortable for them.”

Newfoundland author and filmmaker Kenneth Harvey is making a documentary about the controversy. Barter was also recently nominated for the NL Human Rights Commission’s annual Human Rights Award. The commission notes on its website that Barter’s “protesting and activism have put him at risk academically, emotionally, and financially,” and that he “continues to advocate for accessible education.”

Admins involved in Barter case leading policy changes

The final section of the current iteration of the Student Code says the policy “will be reviewed annually by a committee of not less than five (5) people appointed by the Deputy Provost,” and that the committee “shall include at least two (2) students.” It also says this committee “may make recommendations to the Board of Regents for amendments to the Code.”

But The Independent has learned a different committee has been leading a review of the policy since 2020—Memorial’s Continuous Improvement Committee, which has less student representation and includes McDougall, who filed the complaint against Barter, and Browne, who chose Barter’s sanctions.

Between May and July of 2020, that committee completed an “environmental scan” of similar university policies and came up with 37 recommendations it then presented to another, smaller committee in charge of incorporating recommendations into the draft Student Code before moving the document to a public consultation stage.

That four-person committee includes Browne and the Student Conduct Officers from Memorial’s Marine Institute and Grenfell campuses, as well as St. John’s Campus Student Code of Conduct Coordinator Heather Tobin. Sorensen says this committee incorporated “some suggestions” from the 37 put forth by the Continuous Improvement Committee.

Tobin did not answer questions from The Independent and instead forwarded them to Sorensen.

In November, Memorial said it may disclose the 37 recommendations provided to Browne and her colleagues once the public consultation phase ended on December 2. On Tuesday, Sorensen told The Independent that the recommendations may contain personal information and said the university would “prefer” that an access to information request be filed. Under provincial laws, such requests could take 20 business days or more.

Executives with Memorial’s student union and faculty association told The Independent they will have more to say on the proposed amendments soon. In the meantime the faculty association’s Labour Relations Manager Dale Humphries said that union has “concerns” with the policy’s impacts on academic freedom “and the implications of instituting what appears to be a means of disciplining [academic staff members] outside of the collective agreement.”

On December 2 MUNSU led a protest during Timmons’ annual Report to the Community held at Memorial’s Signal Hill campus in St. John’s. They peacefully demonstrated at the event, holding up a large “pink slip” with Timmons’ name on it and the words “you’re fired” in red stamp-like text. MUNSU cites Memorial’s failure to secure sufficient public funding, misspending and administrative bloat, exploitation of international students via differential fees, “saddling students with insurmountable student debt,” and failure to ensure accessible education for all as reasons for the symbolic firing of Timmons.

MUNSU says university administrators ended the event—which virtually connected satellite campuses in Corner Brook, Labrador, and Harlow, England—early because of the protest.

In a video taken by Jacob Laybolt for The Muse, McDougall appears to accost student activists following the event, saying while the university supports student protest, the students were “silencing other students’ voices of success,” and that the protest “was not a positive way forward.”

“Student leaders were threatened to be removed from decision-making bodies and told we have ‘ruined the relationship’ we have with the administration,” MUNSU Executive Director of Campaigns Isabel Ojeda said in a statement following the incident. “The relationship has been ruined for decades as they continue to increase fees and student debt in exchange for administrative bloat and office renovations.”

“Students have been failed time and time again by Memorial and now they are here clutching their pearls because we held a sign,” Ojeda continued. “We have asked nicely, shared our concerns and been exponentially clear on the ways they are harming us. The only way to

make real change is direct action, it has won for us before and it will again.”

It’s not clear if the university will be filing a complaint against any of the students involved. Sorensen said “complaints through the code are confidential” but that any person facing a complaint “would be aware.”

Memorial’s Board of Regents must approve any policy changes before they are implemented. The board’s next scheduled meeting is set for March 9, 2023.

Barter’s hearing in the province’s Supreme Court is scheduled for March 16, 2023.

Did you enjoy this article? Fund more like it, and support the future of journalism in Newfoundland and Labrador.