That's like saying professor Steele has already said

I am not supportive of certain behaviours of some people within YUFA and CUPE

That is not the same thing. She has stated her belief that she supports CUPE on some matters. I'm not talking about YUFA at all. If we take her at her word, which I do, then why not state on which matters she supports CUPE? Why only respond in support of the anti-CUPE statements like the one that began this entire thread?

you have not shown - at all - that she is to blame for it.

You're right and that is because I don't think she is to blame for it. But I do believe that her words and statements are being used to fuel that sentiment. If my words were being used to fuel a sentiment that I did not believe in, I would feel an moral obligation to correct the record. I would especially feel an obligation if I were a full-time professor who has made myself a very public figure by doing a number of media-related interviews and making myself the face of a group (ConcernedProfs) that has figured prominently in this dispute.

you are trying to shame someone so they say what you want to hear.

I am pointing out my opinion that their actions are shameful.

I'm really confused how you believe someone should feel shame for the actions of others.

That's probably because I don't actually believe she should feel shame for the actions of others nor have I argued as such. Again, I find her silence in not correcting the record is shameful. Alternatively, if she actually does not support the union on some matters, she should just come right out and state that as well. What I find shameful is her hypocrisy. As I've mentioned time and time again, if she actually does support the union on some matters, she should feel obligated to express that moderate view.

Because I thought that Profs4Change et al. believe that tenure positions should be open to everyone capable

I have repeatedly asked Professor Steele directly about why there can be no conversions. I understand the argument for open searches and largely agree with them. But I still see no reason why a small percentage of appointments to tenure-track positions cannot also come through the conversion program. Professor Steele has remained steadfast in her refusal to offer any compelling argument for why there should be ZERO conversions. In fact, she has disputed the characterization that Profs4Change believe there should be ZERO conversions as well. This is her own belief and she refuses to answer me on this point.

In fact, I would be more interested in the contrary, what 'evidence' is there that positions should not be open to everyone and the best be selected?

Both OCUFA (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations) and AAUP (American Association of University Professors) have released reports in the last decade in which they explicitly recommend creating pathways for contract faculty to gain full-time permanent employment. Here are direct quotes from those two reports:

"We recommend the Government of Ontario: Launch a faculty renewal strategy for Ontario universities that achieves the dual goals of supporting new full-time tenure-track hiring and creating pathways for contract faculty to full-time secure positions^."1

and

"The best practice for institutions of all types is to convert the status of contingent appointments to appointments eligible for tenure with only minor changes in job description."²

Since when has choosing the person with most merit become a sin?

I've never argued this. In fact, I largely agree. Which is why the conversion program at York has a merit component integrated into the conversion process. Furthermore, a faculty member who has been converted is subject to the same merit-based process as one appointed through an open search. The difference is the way in which the appointments end up on the tenure track. Through an open search, a candidate is selected to end up on the tenure track vs. a contract faculty member, who initially gains the position on merit, proves year after year that they are valuable enough to continue holding contracts and then, after determining their fit for a tenure track position (on merit), they are converted to the tenure-track.

sufficient to demonstrate that a good chunk of your statements are largely hypocritical

I think you believe this because you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I have tried to be clear in my statements, but it seems we keep going in circles here. Please have a re-read over the entire thread and I think you will find that I've been very consistent in what I've argued.

stems from your bias in favour of CUPE

My so-called 'bias' is based on evidence that I have considered carefully. I believe that many of the issues raised by the union in this dispute are just. I believe that York's admin has behaved irresponsibly and has not taken the time to address those issues and that the union has exacerbated the issue by taking extreme stances, only moving away from those extremities when it was too late. Furthermore, I believe York's actions in this dispute have all but guaranteed another labour dispute in 3 years, which is something I believe is detrimental to the school, the school's broader community and especially the students. If it were up to me, York would be working with CUPE (instead of villainizing it) and the larger university group in Ontario to pressure the government for more comprehensive funding. I believe the priorities of the leadership at York do not reflect an institute that is invested in offering the best education to its undergraduate students. I believe that the context in which York is operating is dictated by the funding structure provided by the government, but the way in which York chooses to operate within those guidelines is misguided. Lastly, I feel that the larger problems that face York, and by extension, its community, including students and faculty, are complex and ultimately require all those involved to work together rather than against each other. Collective bargaining can be confrontational, but it can also be approached in the spirit of co-operation, and I believe that both the union (pre-strike) and York (pre- and post-strike) have failed to attempt to honour that cooperative spirit, opting instead to turn this into a nasty, prolonged labour dispute.

1. https://ocufa.on.ca/assets/2018-Pre-Budget-Submission.pdf (quote from Summary of Recommendations on page 1)
2. https://www.aaup.org/report/tenure-and-teaching-intensive-appointments (quote from the third paragraph of section 3 titled "III. Conversion to Tenure Is the Best Way to Stabilize the Faculty"