Introduction 

The objective of this project is to document and analyze the implications arising from the ties between university frameworks and influential non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in political advocacy, particularly relating to Israel. The interest in this interaction emerged from the casual observation regarding numerous joint programs, publications, faculty links, advocacy statements, and other forms of overlap between the two sets of actors. This dimension became very salient and contested in the context of the events of October 7, 2023 (the Hamas-led attack and atrocities) and Israel’s response. The growing evidence of systematic cooperation between activist NGOs and selected university programs resulted in undertaking this research. 

The case study in this report, which follows a previous analysis of Harvard,1 is the University of Toronto Law School, and specifically the quasi-academic and advocacy-focused International Human Rights Program (IHRP). 

In undertaking this analysis, we hope to shed light and encourage informed discussion on the highly problematic aspects of these close relationships, consisting of the inherently contrasting and inconsistent normative objectives and practices that characterize the academic and NGO advocacy domains. 

At least in theory, and in justifying public support, universities emphasize the advancement of knowledge, critical thought, and teaching of students based on empirical research, unfettered by ideological and political barriers. Furthermore, according to academic norms, research must be independently verifiable and reproducible, and publications ought to be subject to rigorous peer review. While the practice in many university activities often deviates from and violates these principles, including in the programs examined in this report, the principles have not been erased. 

In contrast, the ethos and objectives of NGOs operating in the realms of human rights and related issues are focused on advocacy, in which research is often a facade, and without debate or critical thought. NGOs (and, as demonstrated in this study, associated quasi-academic frameworks) do not search for truth – instead, they pre-select their targets and then claim to find evidence to support the accusations. The expertise attributed to NGO staff members is not based, even in theory, on verifiable and unbiased empirical research, and the reports and other outputs (videos, opinion essays, podcasts, social media posts) are not subject to any form of external and independent assessment, review, or oversight. 

In addition, many NGOs claiming to produce research and analysis in the realms of universal human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL), and to engage in advocacy, are increasingly understood to pursue highly biased political and ideological objectives, particularly in singling out and applying double standards regarding Israel. Such actions are cited as examples of antisemitism in the consensus working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.2 

The advocacy NGOs discussed in this report due to their links to the University of Toronto program and staff members cover a wide spectrum, including “superpowers” with wide international agendas, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists; local advocacy NGOs including Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR), the Community Justice Collective (CJC) and the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association; and groups focusing narrowly on promoting anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian agendas, such as Adalah; Al Haq, which is designated by Israel as a front for the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terror organization3; and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), whose staff and activities also demonstrate PFLP links.4 

Systematic analyses of the agendas and activities of the most influential and “highly respected” organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, clearly demonstrate that claims of neutrality, evenhandedness, and universality are inconsistent with the evidence from publications, pronouncements, and social media activity.5 

In parallel, NGO claims to produce independently verifiable research reports regarding Israel, as distinct from political tracts, have also been repeatedly criticized as unsubstantiated and misleading.6 This pattern has been repeated and amplified many times over in the post-October 2023 NGO reports claiming to “prove” that Israel is guilty of genocide, intentional starvation, and other monstrous crimes in Gaza, and almost entirely erasing the context of the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas and its allies.7 

As documented in the following research report, these highly toxic, one-sided and politicized reports, which are the antithesis of critical debate and independent thought, have been adopted and endorsed by faculty members, fellows, graduate students and others associated with the university frameworks. The agendas of the NGO network are core elements in a number of “projects,” student working groups, and submissions to international bodies that are undertaken under the auspices of the Law School at the University of Toronto. Such pseudo-academic partnerships and the classification of activists as “experts,” particularly in the realm of human rights and international humanitarian law, provides a widely used path for placing NGO political campaigners within university structures. 

These activities, in turn, contribute significantly to the campus antisemitism.8 They have also damaged academic integrity, credibility of higher education institutions in free societies, and the reputation of once-esteemed establishments. 

Therefore, we argue, the close cooperation between academic (or, in many cases, quasi-academic) programs and publications and prominent advocacy NGOs in the realms of human rights and IHL is inconsistent with, and in violation of, basic academic norms. As demonstrated, the specific NGOs that are associated with the university centers, programs, and faculties examined in this study systematically demonize Israel and call for its demise, blatantly violating the academic norms claimed by the university and its law faculty. 

It is important to note that in this preliminary publication, we focused on the NGO links of specific University of Toronto law school advocacy programs and anti-Israel bias associated with these frameworks – adding to our previous research on Harvard University. We did not attempt to examine similar activities and links in other university departments, and suggest such research for additional analysis. 

Notwithstanding these limits, we believe that the information presented in this report provides an important dimension for beginning a discussion of the implications of these issues, and for discussing possible measures that can address this departure from academic norms. 

 

Click Here for Full Report