Update: McGill Responds to the Robinson Issue

by Gil Troy

May 11, 2004

Hi! Another mass update and mass thank you for the letters – to me, to the Gazette, and to the administration – my impression (no solid evidence, beyond the steady anti-Robinson letters in the Gazette, and rumors at McGill) is that by the end of last week, both McGill and the Gazette were receiving far more anti-Robinson than pro-Robinson missives –and that the focus, finally, thankfully, was on the real issues – Mary Robinson’s failure and the debacle at Durban, not me. Even if you didn’t have a letter published in the Gazette, the act of writing was nevertheless important, as it helped get others letters published and changed the terms of public debate. Also, most surprisingly, a columnist in the National Post picked up the story – what was most gratifying to me about Gillian Cosgrove’s column, was not all the flattering – and too positive – words. Rather, she rendered my argument accurately – understanding (unlike some of my colleagues) that I was tackling the complicated issue of a leader’s responsibility to squelch anti-Semitism and not calling her an anti-Semite. (although, having read Tom Lantos’s assessment of Mary Robinson’s behavior, I’m more than ever convinced I was too soft on her – she fed the problems at key moments during the various conferences building up to Durban, and if we’re going to speak World War II, was more Quisling than Chamberlain.

(see www.house.gov/international_relations/ democratic/Durban_Debacle.pdf -)

Below, I produce the relevant letters in the Gazette from Friday, Saturday and Monday, including McGill’s first official statement – done as a “letter to the editor.” I note one colleague’s incisive critique of the McGill letter, that “diversity” isn’t enough, universities should be more than mere forums for airing out any ideas, there is an element of judgment, of seeking the truth, involved in our mandate. Still, I was gratified that despite the toxic environment generated by the intolerance of some of the supposed forces of tolerance in this city, the Principal and the Dean devoted 2 of 8 paragraphs to emphasizing the importance of vigorous debate -- and called for "respect" of “provocative” points of view. I interpret this as an admonition directed toward the most hostile critics. I also noted that the letter, somewhat defensively, emphasized that the issue went back to 1994, and that, in listing Mary Robinson’s achievements, they skip over Durban – would they have skipped over Durban a few months ago? I doubt it.

I can't say I'm surprised that the Honorary degree is going forth, but I'm gratified that people are taking the issues I and others raised seriously: that is what university life should be all about.

So, it’s great to ask for the rescinding of the degree, but even more important is the request that when Mary Robinson comes to town she make time to meet with her critics, especially the law students, in an open and respectful forum, so they can learn from each other and address these difficult issues intelligently, constructively. We should also demand that she take the opportunity during her convocation address to deliver a clear, unequivocal, no holds barred denunciation of the New Anti-Semitism we have seen bubbling up in the world today -- most especially, but alas, not exclusively, at Durban.

I also hope that Mary Robinson and her supporters will rethink the legacy of Durban, which to many human rights supporters stands as a lowpoint in the march toward civility and equality for all.

Finally, I continue to have no regrets about my own contribution to the debate, and stand by every word I have written and spoken.

Gil Troy

Professor of History
McGill University


Degree honours Robinson's remarkable achievements

Friday May 7, 2004

McGill University's decision to confer an honorary degree upon Mary Robinson next month has generated controversy in recent days.

We believe that the honorary degree, conferred by the Faculty of Law with its longstanding history of teaching and research in social diversity, civil liberties and human rights, is both appropriate and timely. The process to grant an honorary degree to Robinson began in 1994 and the McGill Senate has approved the decision.

The honorary degree recognizes Robinson's remarkable and distinguished achievements as an academic, practising lawyer, political leader, international public servant and as a voice for the cause of human rights in her own country and around the world.

She has argued landmark cases before the European Court of Human Rights as well as in Irish courts and at the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg.

As president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997, she was recognized as a nonsectarian presence in a country dominated by a history of strife. She served from 1997 to 2002 as United Nations high commissioner for human rights.

She has received honorary degrees from such distinguished universities as Cambridge, Columbia and Harvard, as well such honours and awards as the Winston Churchill Medal Britain and the Fulbright Prize for International Understanding in the United States.

As members of the university community, we must respect the freedom of all people to take positions, including those that are controversial or provocative.

We welcome debate, including on such issues as the responsibilities that accompany the freedoms we hold dear, and encourage lively academic exchange as a means of enhancing understanding and promoting knowledge.

Heather Munroe-Blum
Principal and vice-chancellor

Nicholas Kasirer
Dean, Faculty of Law

McGill University

© Author 2004


Gil Troy's accusers miss the point

May 7, 2004

With all their indignation toward Gil Troy's article (and, lamentably, the author himself) concerning McGill University's intention to award Mary Robinson an honorary degree (Insightful, May 2, ''Degree of dishonour.''), none of the letters actually address Troy's central argument, that is, Robinson's implicit endorsement of rabid anti-Semitism at the United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban.

The letters point to Robinson's many accomplishments, which no one has any interest in undermining. But they are all immaterial to Durban.

Robinson had both the authority and the responsibility to condemn the widespread abuse and misuse of the platform which the United Nations granted these 100 states.

The conference became a stage for the demonization of one element only: the Jewish State. So dismayed were the United States and Canada by this usurpation, they downgraded their delegations and, ultimately, left prematurely.

Where Mary Robinson failed was to unequivocally condemn the intolerable events of Durban. She chose rather to fete the conference as a "success.''

Raymond Singer

Mont Royal

© Author 2004

Robinson refused to see and hear

Letter May 8, 2004

Gil Troy's article (Insightful, May 2, ''Degree of dishonour'') should have been stimulus to a debate about the UN's role in human rights, with Durban as one of many disturbing signposts, and about Mary Robinson's actual performance as a high-profile commissioner.

Ironically, your article (Gazette, May 3) ''UN welcomes rights violators'' puts this issue in even greater relief. Troy does not call Robinson an anti-Semite, nor even allude to her harbouring such feelings.

Rather, he takes her to task for a very Chamberlain-like behaviour, refusing to see and hear the blatant Jew-hatred festering around her at Durban, where the Middle East debate quickly crossed the line from politics into a pre-planned and orchestrated vicious abusing of the Jewish people.

She not only did nothing to counteract this venom in her public statements, but pretended as if it didn't exist. This is clearly unacceptable for someone in her elevated and highly-visible position of responsibility to the human rights community in particular and to humanity in general.

The world was watching her, especially after the travesty of the UN's behaviour in Rwanda and Kosovo, and she failed at the most important level of moral leadership.

This is a matter worthy of reasoned debate, but I am particularly disheartened by the personal attacks on Troy, a colleague of unquestioned intellectual rigour and honesty.

Harry Parnass

Adjunct professor McGill University


Robinson's past is shameful

Letter, April 10,

As a Jewish student at McGill University, I am very disappointed that McGill has chosen to honour Mary Robinson with an honorary degree. In an era when anti-Semitism is on the rise at McGill and in Canada as a whole, someone with Robinson's shameful past should not be honoured by any reputable institution. Her refusal to condemn the anti-Jewish hate-fest that occurred in Durban is shameful and repugnant.

I am an engineering student, and have had to stare at anti-Semitic graffiti on desks and washroom stalls in the McConnell and McDonald buildings for the past two years. If McGill were serious about fighting this new wave of intolerance, presenting the likes of Robinson with an honorary degree is certainly not a step in the right direction.

I am confident that this new wave of hate can be conquered but only by being steadfast and consistent in our policies .

Ariel Lallouz

Mechanical Engineering U3

McGill University

© Author 2004

Gillian Cosgrove, “National Diary,” National Post, 7 May 2004, A9

“Leaders like Mary Robinson should be extra vigilant…’”

Gil Troy, McGill Professor

McGill honorary degree rewards cowardice

UN’s Robinson presided at 2001 world conference hijacked by anti-Semites Late in August, 2001, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson of Ireland, presided at the World Conference Against Racism in South Africa. She allowed these proceedings, just before the terrorist outrage of 9/11, to be hijacked by anti-Semites. They bullied Jewish delegates. They distributed cartoons of hook-nosed Jews. Josef Goebbels himself would have been proud to have been ringmaster of this demented circus. After this conference had gleefully demonized Jews, Mrs. Robinson ended it by gloating: "We ... succeeded!"

Fast Forward to McGill University, 2004. It is awarding an honorary degree to Mary Robinson – for services rendered to the cause of inhumanity, no doubt. That she stood by, supine, in the face of racial hatred in Durban is irrelevant to McGill authorities.

But Gil Troy, a McGill history professor, has the courage to speak out. He says McGill is awarding Robinson a "degree of dishonour." In the Montreal Gazette on Sunday he wrote: "In a world of ever-coarsening anti-Semitism and despicable rationalizations for suicide bombings, in a city which has just endured the burning of a Jewish children’s school library, at a university where vandals scratched 'Heil Hitler' into the bathroom of the Bronfman Building and defaced the exterior of the Hillel Jewish Student Centre, honouring Mary Robinson sends a terrible message.

On Monday, his point hit home when another bout of anti-Semitism grabbed headlines. In a cemetery in north-end Montreal, Nazi slogans and swastikas were scrawled on tombstones and graves vandalized.

"Leaders like Mary Robinson – and my McGill colleagues who distribute honorary doctorates – should be extra vigilant to weed out this hatred, rather than standing silently by and watching it grow," Mr. Troy said. He, of course, has been denigrated by his politically correct faculty peers for daring to question the idiotic wisdom of McGill’s administrators.

"In fighting modern anti-Semitism, the moral neutrality of the politically correct – which often masks moral sloppiness or even outright bias – is a particularly insidious problem. We need Winston Churchills, and Mary Robinson is a Neville Chamberlain."

Thus does the history of the 1930s repeat itself as tragic farce. Thus does your correspondent retch in disgust for those who would reward cowardice in the face of evil with an honorary degree. Let’s hope it’s a "doctorate of inhumanities."