By: Anastasia Gaykalova
On Nov. 14, students and other members of the McMaster community met at TwelvEighty to join McMaster Students Union president Ikram Farah, McMaster University president Patrick Deane and associate vice president (Equity and Inclusion) Arig al Shaibah in a discussion about how the university is responding to Ontario premier Doug Ford’s free-speech policy directive.
The mandate was promised during Ford’s campaign and calls on post-secondary institutions across Ontario to establish a “free-speech policy” that includes a definition of free speech and embodies principles based on the University of Chicago “Statement on Principles of Free Expression,” which states that schools should not “shield students from ideas or opinions that they disagree with or find offensive.”
According to Ford, if universities do not comply with the directive, they will face funding cuts.
[spacer height="20px"]Nevertheless, most of the MSU’s town hall event focused on the topic of free speech more broadly, not the nuances of Ford’s recently promised directive.
According to Deane, the university is seeking to ensure that it is a healthy place for disagreement. He cited the Socrates Project as an example of a project that exemplifies the university’s commitment to free expression.
Deane explained at Ford’s directive does not ask universities to include the freedom to protest in their free speech policies, which to Deane makes the directive incomplete. Deane affirmed that the university needs to comply with the government while staying true to the beliefs of the university, which recognizes the right to protest.
Deane says the university’s own “free expression guidelines” serve this function.
At the event, Shaibah stressed the importance of dissent. Some attendees were concerned with how the university will ensure the safety of participants and speakers in the event of protest at events. Deane explained that a large part of it will lie in the actions undertaken prior to an event.
[spacer height="20px"]For instance, it is the responsibility of the organizers of a particular event to recognize how controversial the speaker they are inviting is and make accommodations, such as the addition of a mediator, accordingly. He explained that the use of force should be a last resort.
Deane said that protesters are allowed to disagree, but they cannot strip rights from others, particularly speakers. He stressed the need balance rights and ensure that force is not the answer.
Some attendees also brought up Jordan Peterson, whose lecture at McMaster in March 2017 was disrupted by campus activists. These students asked how safety will be maintained should the university host a controversial figure like Peterson again.
According to Farah, students on both sides were harmed and threatened by Peterson then, creating an even larger issue than the protest of the event itself.
Deane said students wishing to protest are encouraged to look at the guidance document, which ensures protest is peaceful and allows for debate.
This conversation turned into a discussion about the de-platforming of speakers. Some attendees argued that expression of opinion is a right but being granted a platform is not. According to Deane, the university will only engage in de-platforming if the opinions voiced violate the law.
Overall, McMaster will aim to comply with Ford’s policy, but also seek to preserve students’ right to “acceptable” forms of protest. The university will be submitting a statement on the recognition of the right to protest to the province.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Earlier this year, McMaster released an initial draft of guidelines highlighting their commitment to freedom of expression and what could be defined as acceptable limits to protest, prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Protest and Freedom of Expression.
The report and guidelines generated a diverse range of feedback, which was collected by the University Secretariat. After formal review, the University administration released an updated set of guidelines for event organizers and protestors.
The document is intended to ensure that all voices within the McMaster community have the opportunity to be heard, expecting to set a tone that is respectful and inclusive of the entire campus community.
It is also in place to ensure that dissenting or opposing views can be expressed, outlining various responsibilities for event organizers when planning a potentially controversial event.
“As an academic institution, McMaster has an obligation to ensure that the regular academic and administrative business of the University (regularly scheduled lectures, classes, exams, administrative meetings, etc.) continues unhindered,” the document reads.
“The University will accordingly take such steps as are necessary to ensure appropriate conditions to enable a conducive learning, working and living environment, and that academic and general facilities, property and equipment are available for use for their regular purposes as part of the ongoing academic and administrative business of the University.”
Event organizers are encouraged to consider the potential impact of their event on other community members and to work with the University so that any necessary measures or supports can be put in place.
The updated guidance document now includes clearly defined roles and responsibilities of various groups on campus, a revised fundamental commitment section to include specific acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists within our community, tightened language surrounding discrimination and harassment to be more consistent with Canadian law and further information surrounding support services available within the university.
Several organizers and activists on campus are unhappy with these new guidelines, claiming that these guidelines limit expression from marginalized groups.
“Organizers and activists on campus feel that the guidelines are way to silence those who are resisting institutional repression.,” said an organizer who wished to remain anonymous.
“The university favours free speech but at the expense of marginalized students. Where as our dissent isn’t granted that same protection. The university can’t stop students from protesting, but what they can do is create vague guidelines that hold absolutely no weight.”
The guidance document lists examples of what the university would deem acceptable and unacceptable forms of protests, generally listing any behaviour that would impede on an event’s progression as unacceptable. This includes blocking the audience’s view, inciting violence or hatred against an individual or group, or causing damage to property.
In the case of unacceptable forms of dissent or protest from audience members, the event organizer or any moderator/facilitator should first notify the relevant individual or group that their behaviour is not acceptable, and is interfering with the event.
If the behaviour continues, relevant individuals should be asked to leave and the assistance of Security Services can be sought in the event that individuals fail to leave when asked to do so.
If an individual is concerned that conduct at an event violates or appears to violate any laws, University policies or codes of conduct, they are encouraged to notify the relevant University office so that conduct can be investigated and addressed in accordance with the University’s usual process or policies.
In this week’s feature article, we examined a topic that has been a long time coming—the Learning Portfolio. Features Editor Christina Vietinghoff takes you through the basis for its establishment, the prevailing attitudes on the tool, and some of the issues with it.
While it’s certainly an interesting read, what’s more interesting is the part that we couldn’t write.
Over the course of the investigation for this piece, we came across many people with good intentions. They wanted to help us out and give their perspectives—but they couldn’t. We talked to students, to administrators, and to faculty, many of whom were ready to speak in casual contexts about the problems they saw with the Learning Portfolio: how they’d tried it with their class and had simply given up on using it because it wasn’t worth the complaints from frustrated students, how they found it to be slow and awkward and a poor choice of platform, or how it was not at all the tool they knew it was intended to be.
But as soon as we asked them to speak on record, people we knew to have strong opinions on the matter had nothing but positive things to say about what is an ultimately disappointing university initiative. They did this for fear of saying something that might jeopardize their jobs, their relationships at Mac, or their reputations. They watered down their ideas because the general climate of the university is an all-out promotion of this tool, bolstered by the untouchable message of Forward With Integrity.
I wish I could say I was surprised by this situation, but unfortunately it is all too familiar to us here at the Sil.
The goal of our news and features sections is to address and investigate issues relevant to the McMaster community. We try to bring to light the problems that remain unaddressed. We try, in our capacity as a team of (student) journalists, to hold the university to account.
But I don’t think this is a job just for the campus newspaper. If there’s anything I’ve learned from my years at Mac, it’s that the people here truly care about this place where they dedicate so much of their time. And they have a lot of opinions on our university’s operations. What I wish for McMaster, though, is that this dedication to the community extended to action. I wish that everyone would, in their own way, hold the university’s authority to account and give a healthy amount of dissent.
It’s often easier to let the university run in the way it’s been designed to, where many of the big decisions are made behind closed doors and the results just come down the pipeline for us to accept. We can continue to let it be a place where asking any kind of controversial question just means you’re redirected to a trained PR professional.
But sometimes stirring up a bit of trouble produces better results than just leaving the status quo.
We’ll keep trying to dig into issues we identify as problems—if you have any, be sure to let us know—but I hope we won’t be the only ones.
