This story originally appeared in our September 26th 2018 issue.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nThe worry around the implementation of the Ford policy, says Alideeb, is that it threatens funding for public institutions.<\/p>\n
\u201cDifferent policies already exist to protect freedom of speech,\u201d she says. \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
In order to prevent freedom of speech from being used as a tool to oppress others, Alideeb says that it\u2019s important to clearly define what free speech means.<\/p>\n
\u201cObviously, people have defined hate speech and freedom of speech, but a lot of the time people blur the lines, saying, \u2018No, I\u2019m just voicing my concern,\u2019\u201d she says. \u201cI 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\u2019s actually really difficult to challenge hate speech on campus, or in society as a whole. People can say whatever they want, but that doesn\u2019t mean it comes without consequences. We don\u2019t 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked if there was any credence to the idea that the legislation would provide shelter for hate speech, Sibony says that\u2019s a non sequitur.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you listen to the actual policy,\u201d says Sibony, \u201cthe 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\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
For generations people have fought back to say that certain things cannot be debated, says Alideeb.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere have been a variety of instances where professors or individuals won\u2019t respect an individual\u2019s pronouns,\u201d says Alideeb. \u201cIt creates a power imbalance. Gender non-conforming, for example\u2014there are people who don\u2019t believe that it exists. That\u2019s where it creates problems, because we shouldn\u2019t 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, \u2018These are my pronouns.\u2019 What we don\u2019t 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cA variety of things are changing in our time,\u201d she says. \u201cIf we\u2019re not creating spaces where it\u2019s possible to have those conversations in a way that is controlled and safe, it can be really hurtful to people, and they won\u2019t want to engage in that. We don\u2019t want to create fear for people who want to be able to speak about their identities and lived experiences. We don\u2019t want to have people thinking that they can\u2019t have an honest conversation because they don\u2019t know if they are going to be penalized for it, or they are going to get harassed for it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The legislation has passed, but Alideeb says that the fight isn\u2019t over yet. The CFS-O has officially come out in opposition to the Ford free-speech policy.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t wait for things to get worse,\u201d says Alideeb, \u201cso 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\u2019s 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\u2019t going to impact our most marginalized communities at our institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Camosun College Student Society external executive Fillette Umulisa says that, ideally, speech shouldn\u2019t have to be regulated in an academic environment.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom my perspective, free speech allows everyone to voice their opinions,\u201d says Umulisa. \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
That being said, Umulisa says that there should be a level of respect shown in our choice of wording.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cI don\u2019t think freedom of speech should be used to attack people,\u201d says Umulisa. \u201cThe college should provide a safe space for students to express their opinions, and everything should be debated based on the merit of ideas.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nCamosun is doing a very good job, says Umulisa, of promoting healthy discussion and protecting the rights of students.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe believe that appropriate limits for free speech have been outlined by the government,\u201d says Umulisa. \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Camosun College Sociology instructor Peter Ove, the crux of the issue is really in how we define free speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs I thought about this legislation,\u201d says Ove, \u201cI thought about how Ford, and people like him, are thinking about free speech. Their definitions and ideas of free speech aren\u2019t necessarily the same as other people\u2019s ideas of free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is the whole argument around political correctness,\u201d says Ove. \u201cSome people think that they are being prevented from saying certain things, not because it\u2019s 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?\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem here, Ove says, is that this isn\u2019t a debate about political correctness or free speech; it comes down to ideology.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey are setting boundaries around certain political ideas,\u201d says Ove, \u201cand 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ove says that we don\u2019t have to look very hard to find the hypocrisy in Ford\u2019s message.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have seen Ford recently opening a tip line,\u201d say Ove, \u201cso 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\u2014the-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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ove thinks that campus free speech is a specious argument because most critical and progressive faculty do not want to curtail free speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think there is any progressive faculty out there saying that there are just certain things that we shouldn\u2019t talk about in class,\u201d says Ove. \u201cIt is a strawman argument, for lack of a better term, to say, \u2018You\u2019re denying free speech.\u2019 I don\u2019t think that\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t a black and white issue, says Ove; we don\u2019t live in a vacuum.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome people think that at a university, you should be able to say anything,\u201d says Ove. \u201cWe don\u2019t 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\u2026 the list goes on. That is the society we live in. There is a very particular historical context that we\u2019re in, and I think that is what\u2019s being left out of this debate. The standard of communication isn\u2019t about what comes out of my mouth; it\u2019s about how it\u2019s heard by you. Having policies around making sure things aren\u2019t censored is fine, but setting up a standard where anything that\u2019s not illegal is okay to be said, I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s where people really want to go, or where we should go as a society.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Camosun English instructor Kelly Pitman says that while free speech is absolutely necessary in a post-secondary setting, she doesn\u2019t feel that it\u2019s the government\u2019s role to pass legislation.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we\u2019re 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,\u201d says Pitman. \u201cIt is a place of free inquiry. It\u2019s the only place, really. It\u2019s also the only place for guided free inquiry. I think it\u2019s sad that there is a perception that we have come to such a place.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201980s. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cI understand the forces against people who\u2019ve been oppressed for their entire existence. It\u2019s 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\u2019t say this or you can\u2019t say that, anything can be on that list. That is what makes me uncomfortable. We become dependent on whoever is in charge.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we have lost some of our ability to make sound judgment around the validity of opinions,\u201d says Pitman. \u201cI 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\u2019t think that\u2019s true.\u201d<\/p>\n
While she respects the desire of schools to welcome people and be inclusive, Pitman says that the results depend on how we define \u201csafe space.\u201d Pitman says that if \u201csafe space\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have compassion for people who find certain material difficult,\u201d says Pitman. \u201cI have no problem with trigger warnings, but I have a problem with trying to create a trigger-free learning environment, because I think it\u2019s inimical to learning. I haven\u2019t 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\u2019m not one of them. I think about it, but I don\u2019t veto things because they might upset people. I don\u2019t think that, when we\u2019re trying to avoid conflict, that we\u2019re actually dealing with the problem. We have lost the ability to handle conflict well. That is where our emphasis should be\u2014teaching people to respectfully disagree. If we can do that, then we do have a safe space, so there is no need to create one.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cI try to create a community inside the classroom so that people have enough feeling for each other to say things respectfully,\u201d says Pitman. \u201cSometimes I\u2019ll warn people that we are going to have vastly different opinions on things, but that\u2019s 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\u2019m just idealistic.\u201d<\/p>\n
Camosun vice president of student experience Joan Yates says that while there is no formal policy around free speech at the college, it\u2019s very important as a post-secondary institution to have an open forum.<\/p>\n
\u201cStudents or an instructor may bring in points that are controversial,\u201d says Yates. \u201cPeople 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.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nYates says that concerns do exist, so, of course, there are limits.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere we may get a little bit more concerned,\u201d says Yates, \u201cis if somebody expresses or provides context that is outside of the law, or outside of Camosun values, [for example] expressing hate speech. We wouldn\u2019t allow that. We are currently drafting an equity, diversity, and inclusion policy that will address some of this.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nYates says that this is an issue that has flown under the radar at Camosun, but suggests that that may be a sign of success.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have never been challenged on this,\u201d says Yates, \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Camosun is a public space, and Yates says that the college does have to use discretion when booking private events.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will make sure that individuals clearly bill themselves, they aren\u2019t selling anything, and they aren\u2019t including ideas that are against our values,\u201d Yates says. \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mohammed Chaudhry is a third year Camosun Human Resources student; in no uncertain terms, Chaudhry says that he is totally for free speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo we have free speech?\u201d says Chaudhry. \u201cIt 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\u2019m 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\u2019m all for it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Chaudhry says that we make advances in society by talking about the difficult subjects.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cIf we don\u2019t talk about it, how are we going to bridge those gaps? Sometimes we have a void between communities where people are left saying, \u2018I don\u2019t know how this looks.\u2019 If we don\u2019t talk about our differences, problems are perpetuated,\u201d he says. \u201cI understand trigger warnings. On a personal note, my generation is a bunch of softies. Me too; I\u2019m included in this. We want to be catered to, but comfort is not where ideas grow.\u201d<\/p>\n
With regard to legislation, Chaudhry says that he would have to look into the detailed definition of the terminology before agreeing to any rules.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we are able to abide by them, then, yes, by all means,\u201d he says. \u201cAn 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\u2019s a different story.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the program I\u2019m a part of, I feel like it\u2019s integral that we disclose a lot of things, but I feel like there is an element of confidentiality that is really helpful,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n
Harm is at the discretion of the individual, says Cournoyer, so we need to be careful with what we say.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it is important that we protect certain groups,\u201d says Cournoyer. \u201cFree speech is really broad. You can use free speech to say things that are really nasty. Sometimes it\u2019s disrespectful, and some things should be off limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
First-year University Transfer student Sarah Jopp says that it\u2019s important to have limits to make sure everyone at the college is accommodated.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt Camosun there are so many different groups, culturally,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n
After hearing a brief synopsis of the Chicago Statement, Jopp says that it sounds like it would work, but she doesn\u2019t see the need for a change at Camosun.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo be honest,\u201d says Jopp, \u201cI think Camosun is balancing it pretty well.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cSociety needs to make some really hard decisions about education and what we teach people,\u201d he says. \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe government has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer,\u201d says Finkleman. \u201cHow 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\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Post-secondary institutions should be a place for free expression and the open exchange of ideas. That\u2019s 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":16432,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,219],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-features","category-september-26-2018"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16433"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16434,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16433\/revisions\/16434"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16432"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/NEXUS-29-3-COVER-FOR-WEB-4.png\")
<\/a>