CMHR Director Faces Removal Debate over Nakba Exhibit
Dispute over the Canadian Museum for Human Rights leadership and the Nakba exhibit raises questions about statutory authority and board duties.
Key points
- An opinion piece in the National Post argues that CMHR director Isha Khan should be removed by the board.
- The Museums Act states the director is responsible to the board, which has the power to remove them with cabinet approval.
- Critics claim the Nakba exhibit was developed through a partisan process that ignored mainstream Jewish consultations.
A controversy surrounding the Canadian Museum for Human Rights has intensified, with an opinion piece in the National Post arguing that the museum’s director should be removed. The dispute centers on the authority of the board of directors and the handling of the museum’s recent exhibit titled “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present.”
According to the article, Isha Khan, the current director, told the board that it is not her boss, citing a reporting by The Globe and Mail. However, the opinion argues that this interpretation contradicts the Museums Act. The law stipulates that the director is responsible to the board and operates under its direction, a relationship the author believes has been misunderstood by the museum’s leadership.
Statutory Authority Defines Board Powers
The author contends that the legal framework is clear regarding who holds the power to hire and fire the director. Section 18(3) of the Museums Act places the responsibility for management and affairs on the board. While the director serves during the pleasure of the appointment, the board, with cabinet approval, holds the authority to remove the director. This is further supported by the Interpretation Act, which links the power of appointment with the power of removal.
The Financial Administration Act adds another layer of obligation, requiring directors of Crown corporations to act in good faith and with diligence. The opinion suggests that by failing to intervene in what it describes as a partisan advisory process, board members may be neglecting their statutory duties to ensure the museum fulfills its mandate of fostering mutual respect and accurate historical understanding.
Critics Cite Partisan Advisory Process
The exhibit was developed with the help of a Palestinian Content Advisory Network, a group created by museum staff rather than the board. One member of this network, Ramsey Zeid, has made public statements that the author and other critics view as extreme. The opinion piece argues that mainstream Jewish organizations were denied meaningful consultation, and that the resulting display distorts history rather than enlarging public understanding.
Historian Jeffrey Herf, writing for the National Post, described the exhibit as having a propagandistic essence. The author notes that the museum’s social media promotion of the exhibit, including resource guides, has amplified what is characterized as misinformation. The argument is that the board should have reviewed these processes and outcomes to ensure compliance with the museum’s legal mandate.
Leadership Confident Despite Board Reservations
Despite the criticism, Director Khan maintains that the board supports her. She claims that a majority of the board voted down motions to delay or restructure the display, indicating their confidence in her leadership. Khan asserts that she would have paused the exhibit if she did not have the board’s backing, suggesting that the current standoff is a matter of differing interpretations of governance rather than a lack of support.
The situation leaves the museum in a state of uncertainty regarding its governance structure. As the debate continues, the focus remains on the balance of power between the director and the board. The next steps will likely depend on whether the board chooses to assert its statutory authority or continue to support the current direction of the institution.
