The University of Toronto - the Institution Where Israel Apartheid Week Was Born
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of Toronto is one of most highly regarded academic institutions in Canada. A coalition of anti-Israel groups initially used university campus as a launching pad for what has become an annual series of events that take place in dozens of cities around world. Protesters call for a one-state solution, crippling divestment from Israel, and heavy sanctions. Parallels are drawn between Israel and apartheid system as it existed in South Africa. Thus thousands of students are exposed to this campaign of disinformation. The University of Toronto administration allows event organizers to use campus facilities and has never taken action against event, nor responded to objections of Jewish human rights organizations and student groups that feel threatened when legitimate criticism turns into thinly veiled anti-Semitism. The Jewish community of Toronto, although highly organized, has failed to combat campaign, and soft advocacy on behalf of Israel has merely led to empowerment and continuation of this state of affairs. The annual Israel Apartheid Week1 (IAW) touts itself as an international series of events. Its origins can be traced back to University of Toronto (U of T) in 2004, when student groups sympathetic to Palestinian cause sought to delegitimize democratic State of Israel. By early 2005, university's Arab Students Collective (ASC) had initiated its first annual event. Authorized by University of Toronto administration, IAW has since developed into an annual international occurrence targeting Israel and Zionists with malevolent and grossly misrepresentative accusations. The ASC has been joined by a variety of planning partners, including Coalition Against Israel Apartheid, and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights. As chief mouthpiece for anti-Zionism in university world, organizers of IAW seek to shape opinions of future leaders of Western society and industry by distributing information which portrays Israel as an undemocratic state that tramples on rights of its own citizens and disrupts lives of its neighbors. Israel is presented as an illegal occupier of land, and a failed experiment in Jewish nationhood which must be terminated. The organizers strive to encourage a global campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Jewish state. The University's Stance The University of Toronto's early and largely unchanged approach to IAW can be found in Vice-Provost's Students' Report (2004-05), as presented to University Affairs Board. The key statement in article upholds IAW's right to operate on campus: Upon review of group's plans, administration determined that it had no reason to believe that events would exceed boundaries for free speech as articulated in Statement on Freedom of Speech and other relevant University policies. Furthermore, administration continues to believe that it is critically important for University to uphold fundamental principles of open dialogue and tolerance within its community. The ability to question, examine and comment on issues of day, even when such commentary may be repugnant to some, is central to mission of University2 The Statement on Freedom of Speech3 mentioned in report is a University publication issued in 1992. It provides a comprehensive outline of acceptable and unacceptable expression on campus. It continues to be implemented by University. In a more recent pronouncement regarding freedom of speech on campus, University President David Naylor addressed issue in February 2006, when a statement was published on President's website a week before that year's IAW events. He reiterated that the university is very deeply committed to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.4 The President ensured that it was known that: ...all members of our community are bound by Criminal Code of Canada as regards hate crimes and by provincial law as regards human rights, and they are expected to respect our policies as they relate to maintenance of an environment that is inclusive and that is free of discrimination and harassment on basis of individual attributes such as religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation or gender identity. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".