Post-secondary institutions should be a place for free expression and the open exchange of ideas. That’s an idea that has spanned civilizations. In a global community, with information at our fingertips around the clock, why is that concept in question?
Days before the current semester began, Ontario premier Doug Ford announced that funding for post-secondary institutions across Ontario would be directly linked to free-speech policies that meet the standards of the Chicago Statement on principles of free speech. Institutions will be given until January 1, 2019 to comply.
Noam Sibony is a third year Biophysics student at York University and the president of Students in Support of Free Speech (SSFS) at York. Sibony says that on August 30, he sat at a roundtable meeting with Ford to discuss how the government could help protect free speech on campuses across Ontario.
“We ended up meeting with the premier and a bunch of delegates from free-speech clubs at universities across the province to talk about the climate around free speech on campuses in Ontario,” Sibony says. “Shortly after we had that conversation, the Ford government announced the policy, which we hadn’t really known about prior to the announcement.”
Sibony says that he has been a free-speech activist for about two years; he, along with a few other students, created the SSFS chapter at York. SSFS started up following a rally in support of Jordan Peterson, the controversial University of Toronto psychology instructor.
“It seems that we were affecting the cultural climate around freedom of speech,” says Sibony. “Fast forward to 2018, we, along with other free-speech organizations around Ontario, were eager to speak with the newly elected government with regards to the promises that they had made around freedom of speech, to see what we could do together to help promote freedom of speech on campus.”
Sibony says that there isn’t a comprehensive description of what the Ford government’s policy is.
“What Ford has said, to my knowledge,” says Sibony, “is that universities across Ontario are being encouraged to add policies directly addressing freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus. It’s suggested that policies should resemble the Chicago Statement on free expression. The premier has also mentioned potential funding cuts if the universities don’t meet the requirements.”
Sibony says that, when it comes to free-spech policies, post-secondary students often find themselves at odds with university administration and, to a greater degree, with student governments.
“As I see it,” Sibony says, “the problem is in how they enforce rules around what sort of speech is allowed, and what sort of speech should be protested and shut down. For instance, at York University, at our last AGM, our student government passed a motion to shut down ‘far-right speakers,’ which was loosely defined and not far right at all.”
The biggest threat to free speech, Sibony says, is student governments taking advantage of their power over students to enforce one point of view and one perspective.
“Students with differing views often find themselves powerless; student governments have cemented their position at the universities,” he says. “Student bodies sometimes go to the administration to try to build policies that are antithetical to freedom of speech, and then administrations often don’t want to step on the toes of student government.”
Sibony says that there have been countless examples across North America of university administrations not complying with student desires and needs with respect to freedom of speech, so something had to be done.
“In Canada, the government is a huge stakeholder in the universities,” Sibony says. “They aren’t entirely private here in Canada. It makes sense to me that if the issue isn’t being addressed by the administrations, there should be some incentive from the government. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s a positive thing.”
Sibony says that the Chicago principles are very reasonable when it comes to protecting civil liberties and fostering healthy intellectual discussion on campus.
“The government didn’t say anything about any individual’s identity,” Sibony says. “They are trying to foster a healthy discussion on campus where it really doesn’t exist. At the end of the day, I think that talking about and respecting people’s identities is a completely separate conversation that should be had, but it is not relevant to this. I think a lot of people are misidentifying this policy as something authoritative, when in reality all it is doing is further enforcing the values that we hold as Canadians [and] that already exist in the Charter. Overall, I think we are moving in a positive direction for free speech.”
Not everyone thinks the free-speech policy is positive. Nour Alideeb is an Economics major at the University of Toronto; she is currently sitting in her second term as the chairperson for the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (CFS-O). The CFS-O is at the centre of the discussion around free speech on campus, and Alideeb says that the federation supports freedom of speech because it is fundamental to academics.
“It’s important to have open exchange of ideas,” says Alideeb, “as well as creative and critical thinking, because that’s how our society progresses. However, what we have noticed is that freedom of speech has been co-opted to try and justify a lot of hateful remarks, ideology, and speech, and sort of put it under the guise of ‘freedom of speech.’”
Alideeb says that the CFS-O wants to ensure that the government isn’t protecting individuals who want to debate people’s identities or individuals’ lived experiences.
“We want to ensure that we can continue to have public institutions that create a controlled and safe space to debate ideas,” says Alideeb, “but not in a way that gives room for problematic behaviour like racism, transphobia, and Islamophobia. Unfortunately, we’ve seen a number of instances on campuses across the province where we’ve seen marginalized students and faculty really be attacked and insulted by individuals who are openly racist or transphobic, and are trying to say it is freedom of speech to be that way.”
The worry around the implementation of the Ford policy, says Alideeb, is that it threatens funding for public institutions.
“Different policies already exist to protect freedom of speech,” she says. “I am confident that we can accomplish this goal without threatening funding, and without threatening student groups and student unions that do not want to follow a policy that the government is trying to implement.”
In order to prevent freedom of speech from being used as a tool to oppress others, Alideeb says that it’s important to clearly define what free speech means.
“Obviously, people have defined hate speech and freedom of speech, but a lot of the time people blur the lines, saying, ‘No, I’m just voicing my concern,’” she says. “I think we need to go back and look at what freedom of speech is, and what hate speech is, and be really clear on what those issues are. When there is a power imbalance, it’s actually really difficult to challenge hate speech on campus, or in society as a whole. People can say whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it comes without consequences. We don’t want this to be another tool to clamp down on the actual fight against hate speech, the fight against racism, transphobia, homophobia. These problems still exist on campuses.”
Asked if there was any credence to the idea that the legislation would provide shelter for hate speech, Sibony says that’s a non sequitur.
“If you listen to the actual policy,” says Sibony, “the government made it incredibly clear that they are not going to protect speech that is illegal under the Human Rights Act. To suggest that this will be used to protect hate speech seems very unlikely, because it’s clearly noted that they are following the law. That suggestion is a bit of a reach. That is definitely not what the government is trying to do.”
For generations people have fought back to say that certain things cannot be debated, says Alideeb.
“There have been a variety of instances where professors or individuals won’t respect an individual’s pronouns,” says Alideeb. “It creates a power imbalance. Gender non-conforming, for example—there are people who don’t believe that it exists. That’s where it creates problems, because we shouldn’t be creating spaces where we are going to put that up for debate again. There is research that proves that these identities are valid, and that they exist, and that it should be enough for a person to say, ‘These are my pronouns.’ What we don’t want to see happen at an institution is, for example, people being transphobic but we let it happen because of this freedom of speech policy.”
We need to be able to have the difficult conversations in a way that is respectful and caring, says Alideeb, who thinks that respect sometimes goes missing when we have conversations around cultures and identities.
“A variety of things are changing in our time,” she says. “If we’re not creating spaces where it’s possible to have those conversations in a way that is controlled and safe, it can be really hurtful to people, and they won’t want to engage in that. We don’t want to create fear for people who want to be able to speak about their identities and lived experiences. We don’t want to have people thinking that they can’t have an honest conversation because they don’t know if they are going to be penalized for it, or they are going to get harassed for it.”
The legislation has passed, but Alideeb says that the fight isn’t over yet. The CFS-O has officially come out in opposition to the Ford free-speech policy.
“We can’t wait for things to get worse,” says Alideeb, “so we are going to watch closely and see what happens over the next few weeks. Even though the election is over and done with, and the government has decided to move forward on this issue, we still need to ensure that people’s feedback is provided so that it is comprehensive, and that there is still an avenue for dissent, there is still an avenue for academic freedom, and there is still an avenue to have these conversations in a way that isn’t going to impact our most marginalized communities at our institutions.”
Camosun College Student Society external executive Fillette Umulisa says that, ideally, speech shouldn’t have to be regulated in an academic environment.
“From my perspective, free speech allows everyone to voice their opinions,” says Umulisa. “I think this is very important for us at the student society. We believe that an academic environment should ensure that students, faculty, and staff are free to express their views, debate all points, and express their merits.”
That being said, Umulisa says that there should be a level of respect shown in our choice of wording.
“I don’t think freedom of speech should be used to attack people,” says Umulisa. “The college should provide a safe space for students to express their opinions, and everything should be debated based on the merit of ideas.”
Camosun is doing a very good job, says Umulisa, of promoting healthy discussion and protecting the rights of students.
“We believe that appropriate limits for free speech have been outlined by the government,” says Umulisa. “It has been outlined in law, and Camosun does a good job making sure that it is a safe place and that the law is upheld.”
According to Camosun College Sociology instructor Peter Ove, the crux of the issue is really in how we define free speech.
“As I thought about this legislation,” says Ove, “I thought about how Ford, and people like him, are thinking about free speech. Their definitions and ideas of free speech aren’t necessarily the same as other people’s ideas of free speech.”
When we think of free speech, says Ove, we tend to think of individuals being able to say whatever they want, but there are two things that prevent this. First off, Ove says that there is legal framework that sets limits around hate speech, slander, or harassment, for example. Then there is what, in sociological terms, Ove says we would call a discursive framework, or what cultural norms and upbringing would lead people to think and say.
“This is the whole argument around political correctness,” says Ove. “Some people think that they are being prevented from saying certain things, not because it’s illegal, but because it is unacceptable, or rude, socially. When we talk about free speech, do we mean that we should ignore social boundaries around what we say?”
The problem here, Ove says, is that this isn’t a debate about political correctness or free speech; it comes down to ideology.
“They are setting boundaries around certain political ideas,” says Ove, “and framing it as a fight over free speech. The boundaries that they are drawing are very clear political boundaries between conservative and progressive ideas. By using the label of free speech, they are invoking some ideas of freedom and getting people upset about censorship when, really, there is an underlying political message here.”
Ove says that we don’t have to look very hard to find the hypocrisy in Ford’s message.
“We have seen Ford recently opening a tip line,” say Ove, “so parents can call in and report a teacher if they say anything from the sex-ed curriculum that was repealed. The Liberals put through a wide-ranging sex-ed curriculum in 2015 that includes things like trans rights and same-sex families. Ford has repealed that and put this tip line in place. That is the same issue—the-free speech issue. I think what is missing is an understanding of what free speech is, and what constrained speech is. Part of that comes, fundamentally, from people taking an individualist view of the world.”
Ove thinks that campus free speech is a specious argument because most critical and progressive faculty do not want to curtail free speech.
“I don’t think there is any progressive faculty out there saying that there are just certain things that we shouldn’t talk about in class,” says Ove. “It is a strawman argument, for lack of a better term, to say, ‘You’re denying free speech.’ I don’t think that’s what it is. I think there is a fundamental disagreement about what it means to discuss an issue in an unbiased way, or a way of sharing ideas where we get to the heart of it.”
This isn’t a black and white issue, says Ove; we don’t live in a vacuum.
“Some people think that at a university, you should be able to say anything,” says Ove. “We don’t live in a theoretical society. We live in a society where very particular things have happened, and those things need to be addressed. It was illegal to be gay; First Nations children were experimented upon through lack of dental care… the list goes on. That is the society we live in. There is a very particular historical context that we’re in, and I think that is what’s being left out of this debate. The standard of communication isn’t about what comes out of my mouth; it’s about how it’s heard by you. Having policies around making sure things aren’t censored is fine, but setting up a standard where anything that’s not illegal is okay to be said, I don’t know if that’s where people really want to go, or where we should go as a society.”
Camosun English instructor Kelly Pitman says that while free speech is absolutely necessary in a post-secondary setting, she doesn’t feel that it’s the government’s role to pass legislation.
“If we’re at the stage where the government is telling universities that they need to have a policy to protect free speech, then the universities have lost sight of their mandate, and they should internally review their role in the culture,” says Pitman. “It is a place of free inquiry. It’s the only place, really. It’s also the only place for guided free inquiry. I think it’s sad that there is a perception that we have come to such a place.”
Pitman says that she has been a social activist most of her life, adding that freedom of speech and expression shaped her experience as a university student in the ’80s.
“I understand the forces against people who’ve been oppressed for their entire existence. It’s absolutely logical for them to question authority, because it has never done them any good. I am also very aware that repression of free speech could have been used to keep me from articulating the feminist principles that have been so important to me all my life. It cuts both ways. Once you restrict speech, where you can’t say this or you can’t say that, anything can be on that list. That is what makes me uncomfortable. We become dependent on whoever is in charge.”
The world has changed significantly in recent years, and Pitman says that in her role as an instructor she has had to find a way to keep up. Pitman says that in a world of free information and easy self-promotion, students have shifted toward thinking that all opinions are equal.
“I think we have lost some of our ability to make sound judgment around the validity of opinions,” says Pitman. “I teach people how to sort out competing arguments, and I feel like I am pushing increasingly against an obstacle that all arguments are equal, and I don’t think that’s true.”
While she respects the desire of schools to welcome people and be inclusive, Pitman says that the results depend on how we define “safe space.” Pitman says that if “safe space” means a place where no one ever hears anything that is opposed to the dominant opinion, that is the antithesis of free speech. Pitman says that her ultimate goal is to create a classroom where people can talk openly.
“I have compassion for people who find certain material difficult,” says Pitman. “I have no problem with trigger warnings, but I have a problem with trying to create a trigger-free learning environment, because I think it’s inimical to learning. I haven’t felt a lot of official pressure to do that, but there is that general cultural pressure. I do know teachers who think carefully about what works they are going to teach, and what topics they might address. I’m not one of them. I think about it, but I don’t veto things because they might upset people. I don’t think that, when we’re trying to avoid conflict, that we’re actually dealing with the problem. We have lost the ability to handle conflict well. That is where our emphasis should be—teaching people to respectfully disagree. If we can do that, then we do have a safe space, so there is no need to create one.”
There is a range of student experiences, according to Pitman, who says that she has seen everything from students who fear saying anything at all to students making upsetting and unfortunate comments that any reasonable person would say are racist. At times it is quite hard to negotiate, Pitman says.
“I try to create a community inside the classroom so that people have enough feeling for each other to say things respectfully,” says Pitman. “Sometimes I’ll warn people that we are going to have vastly different opinions on things, but that’s the best way to learn what you believe, value, or prioritize. I think maybe people are overstating things. We are in a sheltered community, but I think people are curious about each other. Maybe I’m just idealistic.”
Camosun vice president of student experience Joan Yates says that while there is no formal policy around free speech at the college, it’s very important as a post-secondary institution to have an open forum.
“Students or an instructor may bring in points that are controversial,” says Yates. “People need to understand what different viewpoints are out there, especially if they are different from their own. In forums there will be people who introduce a controversial frame of thought. The point of it is to bring in elements of discourse and to understand the issue, not to simply follow popular belief. We have done that for decades as an organization with minimal concern, because of that context.”
Yates says that concerns do exist, so, of course, there are limits.
“Where we may get a little bit more concerned,” says Yates, “is if somebody expresses or provides context that is outside of the law, or outside of Camosun values, [for example] expressing hate speech. We wouldn’t allow that. We are currently drafting an equity, diversity, and inclusion policy that will address some of this.”
Yates says that this is an issue that has flown under the radar at Camosun, but suggests that that may be a sign of success.
“We have never been challenged on this,” says Yates, “I think largely because people on campus are interested in hearing different ideas and points of view, as we should at a post-secondary. We have not had an issue.”
Camosun is a public space, and Yates says that the college does have to use discretion when booking private events.
“We will make sure that individuals clearly bill themselves, they aren’t selling anything, and they aren’t including ideas that are against our values,” Yates says. “We have said no to bookings as a result, because the ideas, or what is being proposed, is inconsistent with what we value as an organization.”
Mohammed Chaudhry is a third year Camosun Human Resources student; in no uncertain terms, Chaudhry says that he is totally for free speech.
“Do we have free speech?” says Chaudhry. “It seems like we have free speech with certain topics, but there are definitely areas where society limits speech. There are conflicting views, and sometimes allowing or restricting speech can be used as a weapon. People need to be able to share ideas. I’m not necessarily going to agree with the ideas or actions of an individual, but I may be able to find out why they do what they do. If an individual wants to talk about religion, politics, or sexual orientation, I’m all for it.”
Chaudhry says that we make advances in society by talking about the difficult subjects.
“If we don’t talk about it, how are we going to bridge those gaps? Sometimes we have a void between communities where people are left saying, ‘I don’t know how this looks.’ If we don’t talk about our differences, problems are perpetuated,” he says. “I understand trigger warnings. On a personal note, my generation is a bunch of softies. Me too; I’m included in this. We want to be catered to, but comfort is not where ideas grow.”
With regard to legislation, Chaudhry says that he would have to look into the detailed definition of the terminology before agreeing to any rules.
“If we are able to abide by them, then, yes, by all means,” he says. “An important question that comes to mind is, at what point does free speech become hate speech? Where do we draw the line? At what point does free speech become something that hurts people? We do that all the time, but where do we draw the line, and how do you even monitor that? In a college setting, I can understand that desire, but in the real world it’s a different story.”
Community, Family, and Child Studies student Anne-Sophie Cournoyer says that of course we need to speak openly as students, but there has to be limits.
“In the program I’m a part of, I feel like it’s integral that we disclose a lot of things, but I feel like there is an element of confidentiality that is really helpful,” she says.
Harm is at the discretion of the individual, says Cournoyer, so we need to be careful with what we say.
“I think it is important that we protect certain groups,” says Cournoyer. “Free speech is really broad. You can use free speech to say things that are really nasty. Sometimes it’s disrespectful, and some things should be off limits.”
First-year University Transfer student Sarah Jopp says that it’s important to have limits to make sure everyone at the college is accommodated.
“At Camosun there are so many different groups, culturally,” she says.
After hearing a brief synopsis of the Chicago Statement, Jopp says that it sounds like it would work, but she doesn’t see the need for a change at Camosun.
“To be honest,” says Jopp, “I think Camosun is balancing it pretty well.”
Comics and Graphic Novels student Joseph Finkleman says that, from a philosophical position, of course we should have free speech, but adds that the theory provides insulation from the consequences.
“Society needs to make some really hard decisions about education and what we teach people,” he says. “We need a free exchange of ideas if we hope to grow, but that concept lends itself to abuse by irresponsible people; it lends itself to abuse by people with contrary opinions, and, depending on the situation, any policy could be disastrous, where intentions were really good. My thoughts on that are somewhat conflicted. On the purely philosophical side, I believe that all knowledge should be open. In fact, nothing like censorship should exist. However, I can easily see the abuse of open policy. I wish I knew the answer.”
Ideally, these kinds of philosophical questions are left to the post-secondary institutions to ask and to answer, says Finkleman, but he points out that that tends to get messy once you partner with the government.
“The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer,” says Finkleman. “How do they maintain a certain amount of autonomy so that universities can make their own decisions? The government is involved the moment they give them one dollar. The government is responsible to the taxpayers because it’s their money. Once you have that relationship of dependence from the institution on the funding, you now have a responsibility to answer to your funders.”