The limits of academic freedom
By: Anna Goshua
“The incoming in Vancouver of Asians and Chinese was too fast, too quick. So essentially, we had a situation in which within a matter of a few years, a very British city, a beautiful British city, took on a strongly Asian character.”
This comment is one of many that characterize the views of Ricardo Duchesne, a sociology professor at the University of New Brunswick, on Canadian multiculturalism. This issue first emerged last summer, when Duchesne wrote a blog post concerning white guilt.
Within, he accused Kerry Jang and other members of the Vancouver city council of taking advantage of white guilt in order to gain support for motions such as getting rid of old land titles stating that, “no Asians can own a home in Vancouver.” Eventually, Jang and other city councilors of Asian heritage began receiving hate mail, including threats.
“At that point I also decided to write the university and say, you know, I’m quite worried that you have a professor at the University of New Brunswick who is expressing his personal views, using his title as a cover-up,” said Jang.
UNB is defending Duchesne on the basis of promoting academic freedom. On the one hand, I am supportive of freedom of speech and grateful for the ability to express a dissenting opinion. However, it is important to recognize that the fact that we have these freedoms holds us accountable for what we do with them. Not everything that is said is acceptable, and that is especially relevant to those working as educators.
I am not critiquing Duchesne for expressing a view that is “out of the ordinary.” There really isn’t anything unique or innovative in the belief that Duchesne expressed; critiques of multiculturalism have existed since the inception of the policy. For instance, it can be argued that multiculturalism hinders the nation in establishing a cohesive identity.
There is a difference, however, between critically examining a policy and the proliferation of blatant ignorance. Chinese-Canadians have made significant contributions to virtually all aspects of Canadian society, from the intensive labour dedicated to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway to literature, civil rights, politics, and more.
It would seem to me that neglecting to discuss all the ways in which Chinese immigration contributed to the development and function of Canadian society is a considerable shortcoming on the part of a sociology professor. Furthermore, Duchesne’s statements are not structured in any semblance of a coherent argument. A more appropriate comment could have been to the effect of whether or not multiculturalism has caused the devaluing of previously upheld social values.
That would have made for a discussion grounded within a sociological framework. Duchesne’s comments, on the other hand, constitute heavily biased opinions, which he makes no effort to support with formal evidence. It is also strange to me that his statements touch upon the cultural transformation instigated by Asian immigration, but do not refer to the arrival of the Europeans and the consequent marginalization of First Nations’ cultures.
“Academic freedom is a foundational principal of university life. Often, such academic debate expresses views that may be perceived as controversial and unpopular,” Robert MacKinnon, vice president, UNB Saint John, said in a statement.
Controversial and unpopular aren’t the issue. The problem is when said views are academically unsound. This has nothing to do with academic freedom. This is a case of a professor who did a disservice to his students and the subject that he teaches by expressing biased and narrow-minded opinions.
The heroic guise of defending academic freedom does not excuse the University of New Brunswick from reprimanding a professor that failed to respect and uphold professional standards.
