To: Office of the President, Concordia University Office of the Provost and Vice-President, Academic Office of Rights and Responsibilities (ORR) Dean, Faculty of Arts and Science

Subject: Affirming Academic Freedom and Resisting the Silencing of Anti-War Voices

Introduction: A Note of Appreciation

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to Concordia University for its long-standing and constant stewardship of critical thought. In an era where complex global issues are often reduced to polarized rhetoric, the university’s commitment to providing a sanctuary for rigorous, challenging, and decolonial inquiry is vital for a healthy democratic society.

Background: The Mechanism of Silencing

We, the undersigned, affirm that Dr. Nassim Noroozi is a respected scholar in the field of decolonial thought and ethics of resistance. Her public engagements have had a huge impact on advancing thinking about ethical resistances against oppression, making her work essential to our understanding of global power dynamics. Recently, Dr. Noroozi has been the target of a coordinated smear campaign seeking a “formal review” of her public commentary. We recognize these attacks for what they are: deflected messages. It is incredibly hypocritical that they excluded the quote that Dr. Noroozi was translating, and they only included the Persian part to deliberately confuse her non-Iranian colleagues into thinking she has said something controversial. 

Rather than engaging with the substance of her research, detractors have used mischaracterizations to divert attention from her critical stance. This is a targeted effort by pro-war activists aiming to silence every academic who calls against war and questions the ethics of military intervention. 

Why We Support Dr. Nassim Noroozi

1. Resisting the Silencing of Anti-War Scholarship

 History has shown that during times of heightened geopolitical tension, academics who question the march toward war are often the first to be targeted. The calls to investigate Dr. Noroozi are part of a broader, dangerous trend where pro-war activists aim to silence scholarly voices who advocate for diplomacy and highlight the human cost of external intervention.

2. Smears as Deflected Messages

 The allegations brought against Dr. Noroozi serve as a deflection. Her work does not minimize violence; rather, it provides a sophisticated analysis of how state and external violence are often co-opted. To punish her for this analysis is to punish the very essence of critical pedagogy and the study of ethical resistance.

3. Upholding the University as a Space for "Critical Thought"

If the university bows to the pressure of online petitions and political smears, it ceases to be a space for critical thought. Academic freedom is not just about protecting "safe" ideas; it is about protecting scholars like Dr. Noroozi who challenge the prevailing narratives of empire and intervention.

4. Rejecting the Co-optation of Human Rights

We stand against the weaponization of human rights language to facilitate censorship. True inclusion requires that we protect the rights of educators to speak truth to power, even when that "truth" complicates the goals of those calling for military solutions to political problems.

We Call On Concordia University To:

Reject all calls to investigate or discipline Dr. Noroozi, recognizing these petitions as ideologically motivated attacks on anti-war scholarship.

Continue its role as a steward of critical thought, ensuring that faculty members are protected from external political pressure and "cancel culture" tactics.

Identify the use of "deflected messages" that misinterpret scholarly work to fit a pro-war political agenda.

Conclusion

The strength of an academic institution is measured by its refusal to compromise in the face of political intimidation. Dr. Nassim Noroozi’s voice is an essential component of the diverse intellectual fabric at Concordia. We urge the administration to stand firm in defense of her right—and the right of all academics—to speak out against war and for a more nuanced, ethical world.

References:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/1/31/appropriating-the-death-count-manufacturing-consent-for-an-attack-on-iran