To
Dr. Melanie Spence-Ariemma — Vice-Provost and Chief Academic Officer, University of Guelph-Humber
melanie.spence-ariemma@guelphhumber.ca
Dr. George Bragues — Associate Vice-Provost, Academic, University of Guelph-Humber
george.bragues@guelphhumber.ca
Dr. Ann Marie Vaughan — President and CEO, Humber Polytechnic
AnnMarie.Vaughan@humber.ca
Kathryn Edgett-Emirzian — Human Rights, Harassment & Employment Equity, Humber Polytechnic
Kathryn.Edgett@humber.ca
Indira Naidoo-Harris — Associate Vice-President, Diversity and Human Rights, University of Guelph
inaidooh@uoguelph.ca
Dr. Cindy Gouveia — President and Vice Chancellor, Sheridan College
cindy.gouveia@sheridancollege.ca
Dr. Rene Van Acker — President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Guelph
president@uoguelph.ca
Dr. Bill Rosehart — President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Waterloo
president@uwaterloo.ca
David Walmsley — Editor-in-Chief, The Globe and Mail
Newsroom@globeandmail.com
Ezra Levant — Publisher, Rebel News
ezra@rebelnews.com
Rob Roberts — Editor-in-Chief, National Post
letters@nationalpost.com
Nicole MacIntyre — Editor-in-Chief, Toronto Star
newstips@thestar.ca
Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
info@cija.ca
Dear all,
I am writing to request an independent review of the handling of reported antisemitism complaints involving the University of Guelph-Humber and Humber Polytechnic, and an explanation of how the institutions responded to the evidence brought to their attention.
According to the complainant’s account, every recipient of this email has already been sent the substantive information and supporting materials repeatedly. These concerns are therefore being raised again after extensive prior correspondence. Each recipient should explain what information they received, when they received it, and what action they took.
The reported circumstances raise serious questions about institutional accountability: three human-rights complaints concerning a lecturer, an investigation that characterized filing one complaint as reprisal, and the subsequent dismissal of the complainant.
THE ALLEGATIONS REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE
The evidence compilations reportedly identify material attributed to or reposted by Sheridan / University of Guelph-Humber professor Wael Ramadan, including:
A video allegedly describing Jews as “sub-human” and “Satanists.”
A conspiracy narrative blaming “Jewish Bolsheviks” collectively for historical mass murder.
Material claiming “Zionists worship Satan.”
An allegation that Jews skin human beings.
Reposts comparing Israeli soldiers with Nazi officers and Gaza with the Holocaust.
The evidence itself — the posts themselves, and the video — is collected in the Public Evidence Brief, here:
These are allegations requiring authentication and fair assessment. Whether someone authored, reposted, or merely appeared near material in a screenshot matters. Criticism of the Israeli government does not, by itself, establish discrimination or a criminal offence.
The institutions should explain what steps they took to authenticate the original posts, videos, account ownership and context, and how they assessed the evidence under their human-rights and harassment policies.
THE COMPLAINT AND DISMISSAL REQUIRE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
According to the account provided, the external investigation report concluded that the complainant engaged in reprisal by filing a human-rights complaint against Ramadan.
Humber’s termination letter dated July 11, 2025, signed by Dr. George Bragues, relied on the finding of reprisal — that the complainant engaged in misconduct by filing a human-rights complaint — as one of the grounds for terminating his employment for cause.
Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits reprisal against a person because he has claimed or enforced his rights under the Code. To discipline or dismiss an employee for filing a human-rights complaint is a violation of s. 8. On the institutions’ own documents, that is what occurred here: the filing of the complaint was treated as misconduct, and the reprisal finding was relied on in the dismissal. It requires a clear explanation and independent scrutiny.
The complainant also reports that the outcome was announced before the process had run its course. On the first day of his suspension — weeks before the complaint was even delivered to him — senior administration at Guelph Humber said he would be fired no matter what. And four months before the dismissal, Dr. Van Acker told a visiting rabbi that the complainant had better start looking for a new job.
WHAT DID EACH RECIPIENT KNOW AND DO?
The complainant reports repeatedly sending these concerns and supporting materials to everyone addressed in this email. Dr. Rosehart was notified of them during his tenure as Provost at the University of Guelph. He knows.
Dr. Rosehart is addressed here in relation to his previous role at Guelph and the correspondence reportedly sent to him in that capacity.
Receipt of information and responsibility for a particular decision are distinct questions. Each recipient should account for their own knowledge, involvement and responsibilities. An independent review should examine the correspondence record alongside the investigation and disciplinary decisions.
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
What correspondence and supporting materials did you receive, and when?
What action did you take after receiving them?
Were the three reported complaints examined fairly, and were the original social-media sources and videos authenticated?
Were affected Jewish students or staff consulted, and what assessment was made of the work and learning environment?
What factual and policy basis supported treating the filing of the complaint as reprisal?
What information did the relevant decision-makers consider before the dismissal?
Will the responsible institutions commission an independent review conducted by someone uninvolved in the original investigation and decisions?
Sheridan should explain what correspondence or evidence it received concerning Ramadan, whether it assessed that material, and what action followed. This letter does not assert that a formal complaint was filed through Sheridan’s own human-rights office or that any particular outcome occurred there.
Where confidentiality limits disclosure, please identify the limitation and answer the remaining questions.
I am requesting accountability, a substantive written response, and an independent examination of how the institutions applied their standards.
Sincerely,
[Sender’s name]
Additional posts by Ramadan
I understand what you’re going through; I was canceled too, with no accountability from academic leadership.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship
https://indepnews.org/en/what-the-laval-case-shows-about-academic-freedom/
https://www.unbekoming.com/p/the-human-instability-principle
Sent!