Motion to Faculty Council re: Trinity Western University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion to Faculty Council\nMoved by: Mary Jane Mossman Seconded by: Douglas Judson\nFaculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School endorses the following statement with respect to the approval by the Federation of Law Societies of the law school at Trinity Western University: \nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School is committed to the principle that diversity among faculty, students and staff is integral to an open and vibrant environment for teaching and learning law;\nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School is committed to continual scrutiny and improvement in our practices of inclusion, and respect for the equality and human rights of all persons involved in teaching and learning about the law; and\nWHEREAS Osgoode Hall Law School acknowledges, with profound regret, discriminatory practices in the legal profession and in legal education in Canada, by which some persons have been excluded from the practice of law on grounds such as gender, race, religion and dis/ability. \nIN THIS CONTEXT, the Faculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School respectfully requests Trinity Western University to eliminate the discriminatory language and content in its “Community Covenant” 1 on the basis that: \nThe “Community Covenant” at Trinity Western University constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status in relation to LGBTQ faculty, staff and students, by proscribing same-sex intimacy within or outside marriage (and opposite sex intimacy outside marriage); and that this discrimination will disproportionately affect faculty, staff and students who are members of some Christian communities; and\nThe “Community Covenant” at Trinity Western University will result in a disproportionate reduction in the relative proportion of places for the study of law in Canada - for students and potential students seeking to study law who are within the group excluded from Trinity Western University’s law school (particularly LGBTQ students); and that this disproportionate reduction in access to legal education in Canada constitutes discrimination and a denial of equality and access to justice for excluded persons. \nIN ADDITION, and in a spirit of welcoming diversity and embracing equality at Osgoode Hall Law School, Faculty Council requests the Dean and staff, in consultation with faculty and students, to make best efforts to: \nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to LGBTQ students by establishing and awarding annually a prize for the best law student essay on the subject of law, sexual orientation/sexual identity, and human rights/equality;\nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to teaching and learning that is respectful of religious values and religious persons by establishing and awarding annually a prize for the best law student essay on the subject of law, religion and human rights/equality; and \nReaffirm Osgoode Hall Law School’s commitment to potential LGBTQ students by establishing a scholarship or bursary for an LGBTQ student in financial need.\nIN PASSING THIS MOTION, Faculty Council of Osgoode Hall Law School agrees that: \nThe Chair of Faculty Council will forward this motion to Trinity Western University; and\nThe motion may be circulated by members of Faculty Council and the Osgoode community to other interested parties. \n1. Trinity Western University is a private, faith-based university affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of Canada, in which faculty, staff and students are required to sign an annual faith statement, a “Community Covenant,” which creates a code of conduct. The “Community Covenant” (section 3) commits persons at Trinity Western University, inter alia, to “treat all persons with respect and dignity” and to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” The “Community Covenant” (penultimate para) also states that signatories “become an ambassador of this community and the ideals it represents.” ↩
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.658 | 0.459 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".