Students were injured when an off-campus gathering organized by a Jewish group at Toronto Metropolitan University was broken into by anti-Israel protesters on Nov. 5, 2025. Photo by Ernest Doroszuk / Postmedia/File

 

"I will tell anyone, with great sorrow, anyone in the Jewish community, not to have their children apply to TMU. Can you imagine that? I love this university and I've worked here for [over a decade]."

"It's given me my entire professional life. Now I tell friends not to let their children go here because they'll be harassed and mistreated and bullied and potentially assaulted."

"And I say Send them to McGill, or Western, or U of T, or to the U.S. or somewhere else'. They are all better."

Unnamed tenured Toronto Metropolitan University professor  

If, as the anonymous and obviously disturbed professor states, those other Canadian universities where attendance for Jewish students is preferential to that of the former Ryerson Collegiate Institute -- now Toronto Metropolitan University -- that improvement would be strictly marginal. The truth is all academic institutions in Canada, to greater or lesser degree have been  hijacked by Critical Race Theoried-DEI constructs of social progressivism. They all host student bodies and faculty hostile to Israel and dismissive of Jewish identity that equates with Zionism. Selecting any one of them is holding to a low standard of approval. 

"Some administrators and University leaders expressed concern that certain faculty members may be encouraging, incentivizing, or intensifying student activism in ways they viewed as inappropriate or inconsistent with professional boundaries."

"[This review] was also given multiple examples of statements reportedly made in classrooms, faculty-led seminars and educational spaces that many Jewish participants experienced as antisemitic, dehumanizing, or normalizing hostility toward Jewish people."

"Administrators, some faculty, Jewish student and faculty representatives, and event organizers frequently described conduct they experienced as crossing from protest into intimidation, harassment, or attempts to silence participation."

"Interviewees in this group pointed to repeated event disruptions, aggressive confrontations, social media targeting, doxxing, hostile language, and personal accusations directed at identifiable individuals."

TMU Report 

Former Ontario Appeal Court Justice Mary Lou Benotto has recently released her report on the simmering antisemitism that has turned Toronto Metropolitan University into a hellhole for Jewish students and faculty members. The report lists such incidents taking place as that of Jewish students being spat on, sour milk thrown at them; intimidation, harassment, threats. Leaving them living in trepidation over attending the university in pursuing their academic education within the confines of a university failing to come to grips with antisemitism's scourge of the civil social contract. 

 

Some of the statements sufficiently notable to be included in the Benotto review included denial of or minimizing the Holocaust (that Adolf Hitler was guilty of 'discrimination', not conducting a genocide). Statements such as "academic power is rooted in Jewish supremacism" which needs to be "rooted out of academia", as well as holding discussions relating to "how much violence we are willing to engage in". 

 

The inmates that have contrived control of the asylum just happen to be students and faculty members of Palestinian Arab, Muslim origin, bolstered by a large contingent of pro-Palestinian participants whose intrinsic hatred of Jews has given them a common denominator of identification of the world's conflicts summed up by volunteering Israel and diaspora Jews living in the world community as the cause and focus of world strife. Yet the report makes note that these same vectors of rampant antisemitism expressed fear, exclusion and marginalization; so very typical of the permanent self-imposed state of victimization of Palestinians.

On Feb. 23, an unidentified person threw an open carton of past-dated milk at a group of Jews and Israelis participating in a student tabling event at Toronto Metropolitan University for Students Supporting Israel in partnership with StandWithUs Canada. Photo by Handout/Ethan

 

"Several described grief and trauma connected to events in Gaza, frustration with institutional neutrality, and concern that criticism of Israel was too readily conflated with antisemitism", notes the report. This is the fixed mindset of Palestinians with their visceral hatred that is so uniquely communicated like the disease it is, to others receptive of the message of Jew-as-agent of evil. Wherever Palestinians settle in through their scattering out of the Territories, they simmer and fester and violently lash out in aggravated frustration over their lot as the world's permanent victims. This is the reason that no country in the Middle East allows them space. But the West does, out of pity for their plaintive mewlings.

 

At the university, that pattern played itself out, with senior university administrators followed, filmed, verbally abused, and violently assaulted. "Protesters repeatedly followed the University President to the parking garage and surrounded his vehicle and then posted a video of the event with disparaging remarks", noted the report. Senior university administrators, including the president vice-provost and chief financial officers were featured in posters placed around the university campus along with the phrase: "Wanted for Genocide".

 

The Benotto review was initially an investigation into several incidents -- where in September of 2025 Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted a Democracy Forum event featuring AI Minister Evan Solomon, shouting "war criminal" and "baby killer", causing the event's cancellation. It is the very Liberal government of which Solomon is a Minister that contrived their entry as immigrants, refugees and migrants into Canada. Two months later the same group pushed and shoved into an off-campus meeting of a Students Supporting Israel speaking event featuring an IDF serviceman, forcing that meeting also to be cancelled. 

 

The report's introduction notes "The Review is based on the foundational principle that universities are meant to foster inquiry, debate, and democratic engagement". The report made it clear that those behind the pro-Palestinian/anti-Jewish protests were so vehemently incensed with the  university, with the presence of Jews in any capacity, that no debate and discussion could ever be possible. 

 

"TMU effectively permitted a 'heckler's veto' whereby the threat of disruption determines who is permitted to speak." The review morphed into "a broader institutional issue: a deeply polarized campus environment shaped by the aftermath of October 7, 2023, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Review concludes that the two incidents under review were symptoms of a deteriorating campus climate that, absent decisive institutional action are likely to recur". The university, pointed out former Justice Mary Lou Benotto, has the tools required within its Code of Conduct. The solution lies in a "consistent and principled" enforcement.

 

In response to a recent report, Toronto Metropolitan University president Mohamed Lachemi announced the launch of a task force on campus expression, antisemitism and community safety. (Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press)

Student Social Issues Intimidation on Canadian Campuses

"Inescapable from our study is the recognition that classroom discussions on controversial topics on university campuses fail to reflect the actual cross-section of opinions of students in the classroom."

"[Of 760 university students surveyed, 48.1 percent expressed reluctance to reveal their opinions on a] controversial political issue." 

"The data reveal that the students most comfortable sharing their views at Canadian universities identify as follows: liberal, secular, racialized, homosexual, gender-nonconforming."

"On each controversial issue, the majority of students are uncomfortable -- often very reluctant -- thinking through their views out loud." 

Researchers, Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy 

For university students, fear of speaking out changes drastically based on their identity, a new survey found. Photo by Taehoon Kim/Bloomberg/File

 

According to a comprehensive survey newly published by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, close to fifty percent of all Canadian university students actively conceal their opinions with respect to controversial matters, in fear of being sanctioned or suffering mistreatment. As a result, 48.1 percent of 760 university students in the survey expressed reluctance in revealing an opinion on a "controversial political issue"; 27.5 percent were somewhat reluctant, and 20.6 percent were very reluctant. 

 

On the other hand, when respondents were asked about issuing their views on a "non-controversial" issue, 93.4 percent claimed it was not a problem. A student's identity was critical with respect to apprehensions over speaking out. Campus environments where all opinions or views could be expressed without consequence were described by some groups, while others felt campuses have become places where a lack of self-censorship risked poor grades, peer rejection and even campus authority investigation. 

 

Identifying as either "non-binary" or a non-specified third gender, respondents expressed greater confidence than any other cohort airing their views without consequences. One survey question asked respondents to discuss a "controversial gender issue" in class, restraining themselves for fear of being reported to campus authorities for expressing hate or discrimination. Non-binary and third-gender respondents expressed 87.1 percent confidence this would never fall to them.

 

On the other hand, male and female respondents were guarded, with only 31.4 percent of men and 47.7 percent of women feeling they could speak candidly without risk of backlash. When respondents were questioned whether their gender opinions would result in punishment with a lower grade, 71 percent of non-binary and third-gender respondents said they had no concerns, while 32.7 percent of men and 48.8 percent of women had similar reactions.

 

Of white and Hispanic students, 50 percent of Hispanic and 46 percent of white students preferred to remain out of class discussions on hot-button issues. This survey is one of several Canadian polls to recently reveal campus environments increasingly unwelcoming for Jewish students. The question, if a "controversial religious issue" was discussed in class, elicited a 69 percent Jewish response of reluctance to speak. Of Muslim students, only 36 percent would be reticent about speaking. 

 

Interestingly, the Aristotle survey concluded that moderate or conservative opinions represent at the present time, the plurality of students' political views on Canadian campuses. 38.7 percent of respondents reported "moderate", "conservative" or "libertarian" opinions, as opposed to 37 percent who reported liberal sentiments. The Aristotle survey respondents were disproportionately non-white and women, historically tending to lean left in political views. And although moderates and conservatives represent a plurality, it was they who felt most besieged for their political views.

 

46.2 percent of students were found by the survey to state they were badly treated or treated unfairly as a result of their political views, while 6.6 percent said they have become targets weekly. For this survey, the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy touched base with 760 students from 34 Canadian universities, with the use of a questionnaire based on the Heterodox Academy's Campus Expression survey.  

"The disparity in perceived freedom to express one’s views among students holding differing views is not limited to political views but was also observed in other areas such as religion. Despite religious students outnumbering non-religious students two to one, it is the non-religious who are considerably more comfortable in a university classroom discussing controversial issues about faith and religion. The data reveals particular concerns around the experience of Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish students, with the latter reporting considerable mistreatment in their university experience. Jewish students participating in our study are four times more likely than the average student to be “very reluctant” to speak up and share their views on religion in class discussions. This fear of expressing their viewpoints correlates to a concerning outcome in the study, whereby 15 percent of Jewish students reported experiencing daily abuse on campus for being Jewish, and 84 percent reported experiencing antisemitism at university at least once a year. By contrast, 90 percent of agnostics, 86.6 percent of atheists, and 75.5 percent of students who elected not to disclose their religious affiliation reported never being treated badly or unfairly, as a university student, because of their religious views. In other words, an agnostic or atheist student from our study population is six times more likely than a Jewish student to report never being treated badly or unfairly for their views on religion. Not a single agnostic, atheist, or “prefer not to say” participant in our study reported daily mistreatment."  

Aristotle Foundation 

 

"Gender and sexuality are the most polarizing topics. On one end, they have the largest share of respondents who expressed that they were “very comfortable” (32%) sharing their honest views on a controversial matter in class; yet, gender and sexuality also have the largest share who expressed that they were “very reluctant” (22%). Like race, the gender and sexuality findings are mixed. Those who rarely experience any mistreatment for their gender or sexual orientation—heterosexual males—are, by far, the least likely to feel at liberty to share their views on those issues. Whereas, despite experiencing more frequent mistreatment—90 percent of students who identify as gay, non-binary, or third gender reported experiencing poor or unfair treatment because of their gender at least once a year—gender-nonconforming and non-heterosexual students are the most comfortable sharing their views on controversial gender and sexuality issues in class."

Aristotle Foundation   

 

Academic Qualifications DePrioritized at Canadian Universities

"In other words, 98 percent of academic postings ... directly or indirectly discriminated against non-minorities."

"Only two percent of vacancy postings did not contain any form of DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] ideology." 

"Our index measures the prevalence of exclusionary potential, but it does not prove for certain if discrimination has technically occurred."

"Should Canadian taxpayers fund public institutions that claim to serve the public interest but favour one race over another?" 

Aristotle Foundation report

 

What is scholarship all about? To favour the advance of the academically gifted, to credit their brilliance and bring a light to the world of knowledge? That, without doubt, speaks to the origins of institutes of higher learning; their original authentic search for the questing minds, to nurture and imbue them with the exposure their minds flourish within to the greater benefit of humanity in their natural inclination to guide the world to a better, more informed and empathetic place of civilized harmony under the canopy of refined intelligence. 

 

So, then,  how to explain, how to justify shutting the most qualified and academically gifted out with the contentious movement of racist empowerment in academia?

 

Receiving applicants who aspire yet lack the intellectual wherewithal to reach the heights of knowledge available to those whose thinking prowess is far superior, yet deliberately overlooked and shunned because they may belong to the perceived entitled class, to an ethnic/cultural grouping known for their logical and interpretive curiosity in the gaining of knowledge. Favouring instead those whose tradition, culture, heritage and genetic endowments are less generous in the learning virtues of academic inspiration.

 

A report has just been issued based on a study whose purpose was to define how many universities in Canada advertise employment in a number of categories which seek to fulfill 'diversity' quotas with the intention of bypassing the convention of hiring the most qualified candidates to fill advertised positions. Aristotle Foundation researchers selected 489 job positions posted by ten of Canada's universities. Of the total postings a mere dozen failed to contain some element of the search prioritizing candidates based on race, gender or sexual identity.

 

Since 2017, it appears that an acceleration of the prioritized diversity sought in faculty and staff has assumed greater emphasis with the policy more explicit; identity quotas established in all zones, from student admissions to hiring, to the granting of awards. Each and every applicant to University of Toronto, from maintenance technician to academic positions must complete a "diversity survey" to be considered. Race and "ethnocultural identities, gender identity, visible and invisible disabilities and sexual orientation", all under critical consideration. 

Universities have taken to restricting positions to specific identity groups; a 2024 computer science position, as example, at the University of Waterloo was open specifically to candidates "of a racialized minority". Following the guidance, as it were, of federal mandates under the Trudeau Liberal government which mandates federally funded Canada Research Chairs subject to stern identity quotas: 22 percent of positions must be chosen from among visible minorities; 50.9 percent must select scholars identifying as women, while 7.5 percent must go to candidates with disabilities. 

Samples for the research were based on ten Canadian universities, one representing each of the provinces. From 2023 forward, 50 sequential job postings from each institute resulted in 489 job posts -- from a health sciences librarian at University of Saskatchewan, to an assistant professor of economics at University of Toronto. Some area of the posting making reference to "diversity, equity and inclusion" was universal. Some of the university postings had minimal such requirements.

 

On the other hand, each posting by the University of Manitoba included the school's commitment "to the principles of equity, diversity & inclusion and to promoting opportunities in hiring, promotion and tenure for systemically marginalized groups". In other postings applicants were required to fill out a diversity survey explicitly stating that diversity characteristics were an "asset", or requiring an essay outlining the candidate's commitment to DEI.

 

Four universities posted at least one job making no mention of DEI; University of British Columbia, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia) and the University of Prince Edward Island. The report by the Aristotle Foundation spoke of the findings as a "reality check" on Canadian universities, with the warning that DEI policies were harming "individual merit, academic freedom and equality of opportunity". 

"The problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion, and this attempt to make everything exactly equal at the end and discriminate at the front end to do that, is you’re not looking at merit and qualifications the way that universities claim they are. Instead, you’re basically banning people from the position who don’t fit some irrelevant, non-changeable category."

"Now, 100 years ago, there was systemic racism. If you were Chinese, for example, you could not get into a white hospital. They had to set up their own hospital. The same with Jewish people in Toronto, which is why Mount Sinai Hospital was set up. But that was 100 years ago. Systemic racism has been outlawed in Canada since the 1950s. You still find individual cases of prejudice, but systemic racism as a policy, as a law, began to be abolished in places like Ontario in the early 1950s".

Mark Milke, founder/president, Aristotle Foundation on Public Policy