McGill University has confirmed through its own records, but, as of publication, issued no statement, that Professor William Clare Roberts no longer holds his seat as co chair of the Committee on Student Discipline. Earlier this year he was named in that vice chair role with a mandate until 2026. Now the slot is marked vacant on the official roster. The change followed intense pressure from Jewish organizations after posts attributed to Roberts appeared online calling for “full economic and military support for Hamas and Hezbollah.”
CIJA and Federation CJA issued a joint statement applauding the move. They said clearly: “Professors at a high ranking university like McGill should be supporting their students not terrorists.” That statement captured the outrage. A professor entrusted with judging students was publicly cheering for groups Canada designates as terrorist organizations. McGill acted by stripping him of his role in student discipline.
But the obvious question remains. If a professor can be removed from a committee for praising Hamas and Hezbollah, why is he still a professor at McGill. If his conduct disqualifies him from serving on a committee charged with enforcing rules and protecting students, why does it not disqualify him from teaching students in the first place.
The Criminal Code is also clear. It is an offence to “participate in or contribute to the activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing its ability to carry out terrorist activity.” The law states that “every person who does so is guilty and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years.” Roberts’ post, as captured in screenshots, said: “I used to think BDS was a good idea. I have come around though. Nothing short of full economic and military support for Hamas and Hezbollah is appropriate.” Those words go beyond abstract political debate. They describe direct support for listed terrorist entities.
McGill’s decision to erase his name from a committee is not the end of this story. It is the beginning. The university has to explain why he is still in a classroom and on the payroll. And law enforcement has to decide whether those words meet the threshold set out in Canadian law. Removing him from one committee is a symbolic step. The larger question of accountability remains unanswered.
