On Aug. 30, the Progressive Conservative provincial government announced a new directive mandating all Ontario universities to “develop, implement and comply” with formal free speech policies by January 2019. According to the official statement, if a university is not compliant, the particular institution may be subject to a reduction in operating grant funding.
In June, McMaster released updated freedom of expression guidelines for event organizers and participants following an ad-hoc committee report and first draft. As of now, it is unclear whether these guidelines qualify as a policy under the new directive.
“We are hopeful that this guidance document will meet the needs of the government,” said McMaster director of communications Gord Arbeau. “We are waiting to hear back from the province about the specifics around that directive that was issued a few weeks ago.”
Both the McMaster Student Union and Canadian Union of Public Employees 3906 which represents sessional faculty, post-doc fellows and teaching assistants, have objected to the Ford government’s mandate and McMaster’s current stance on the issue of freedom of expression.
In particular, MSU president Ikram Farah stated that she acknowledges concerns from students who feel that the directive for a mandatory free speech policy could suppress the voices of marginalized communities.
“What I have heard from marginalized and racialized students is that there is a fear that free speech legislation will be used to further limit the ability to call attention to truths,” said Farah.
Nathan Todd, CUPE 3906 recording secretary, also expresses concern with the province-mandated policy. In particular, CUPE 3906 stands with the official CUPE 3906 stance that the free speech policy could negatively affect marginalized communities and actually prevent freedom of expression.
“Our main concern is that it could give the university too much power to prevent things like organizing and mobilizing,” said Todd.
CUPE 3906 is specifically worried that the current McMaster free speech guidelines and any future policy will limit protest.
“We released a response to that policy and our policy is essentially the same for this one for Doug Ford, which is that it is actually quite anti-free speech in a lot of ways and hasn't been developed or implemented responsibly or democratically,” said Todd.
The Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion in June stipulating that the MSU “advocate to the university that continuous revisions be made” to the freedom of expression guidelines.
At the Sept. 23 SRA meeting, Farah urged SRA caucus members to actively gather student feedback on the issue.
“Should it be a policy, at least let it be the best guidance document possible that is reflective of the students who will be affected by it most,” said Farah.
CUPE 3906 has been taking action by coordinating with its union members to establish a formal response to the new policy.
Despite the MSU and CUPE 3906’s objections to the university’s stance on free expression, McMaster stands by its guidelines and commitment to “open and civil discourse.” Nevertheless, the university is willing to hear out different sides on the matter and even amend the current guiding document.
“If someone came forward with other ways of improving that document or with suggestions on how that document could be better understood or positioned, then absolutely we would be open to considering that,” said Arbeau.
For now, the university is waiting to hear back from the provincial government. By imposing a firm directive and a short timeline, the Ford government has brought the subject of free speech back front and centre at McMaster and across Ontario.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Rachel and Megan Goodland/ WGEN
We often hear that our society is becoming too “politically correct”, or “PC.” It is true, that it is not uncommon to see trigger warnings on potentially upsetting content, and in many communities we see the elimination of oppressive language from everyday conversation. This has inspired a confusing amount of rage from people that feel that we are becoming too “sensitive” or “weak” as a culture — especially us young folk. As two people who are trying to uphold this “PC-ness,” we would like to apologize to all of those reading who feel bothered by this new social standard of caring.
Actually, we’re not sorry at all.
Take a second to bear in mind that changing our language to be inclusive is not, in reality, difficult. Why is it that the second we ask people to check themselves when saying “gay” or “whore” in a negative context, they look at us as if we have asked them to aspire to sainthood? If we can exchange one degrading word we use to make people around us feel more comfortable, then why wouldn’t we? And to be honest, if you don’t care about making the people around you feel at ease, then may we suggest you consider speaking less in general.
We know what you are thinking: “I have the right to free speech so I can say whatever.” Very good, that is a valid argument, and to that we will respond that free speech does not protect you from facing the consequences of the things you say.
Freedom of speech does not mean you can bypass the critical backlash you may encounter if your words are hateful. So if you say, “I have a right be offensive,” then we could respond in turn, “I have a right to be offended and make it known that I am offended.” You see the interesting cyclical pattern here? We do admit that considering your words more carefully may be slightly inconvenient, it may even involve reflective critical thought (a horrendous task). No one can change their language in a day — it involves making many mistakes along the way. But we promise you that it’s worth it.
We would like to present an example of one phrase in particular that is popular in Western vernacular. Have you ever heard someone refer to a woman as a “crazy bitch”? The answer is almost definitely a resounding yes. There are a few major issues with this phrase. When a woman is called a crazy bitch she is left to question the relevance or importance of her own words and feelings. In many cases, a man will call a woman crazy because he does not want to acknowledge that she is upset for a legitimate reason.
If you don’t care about making the people around you feel at ease, then may we suggest you consider speaking less in general.
Another issue with calling someone crazy? It involves the use of a word that calls into question mental stability, therefore making one feel that their opinions are less important as a result. There are words, such as “mad” or “crazy”, that are problematic. They are open for reclaiming by many communities — as delightfully demonstrated by the Hamilton Mad Students Collective — but using them in an insulting context to bring someone down perpetuates stereotypes about the mentally ill and is not a way to get a point across. We argue that this is nothing more than a thoughtless way to shut someone up and make them question the validity of their feelings, in lieu of taking the time to consider and address their concerns.
So here we are, in this new standard of “checking ourselves” before we speak. Does it involve effort? Just a bit. Are we being sensitive? Sure. But does it make a difference? More than you know. If your right to casually use oppressive words and phrases is something that is very important to you, perhaps the small shift in language is not the real problem here.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
