School president a culprit as truth gets trumped at Laurier.

On July 31, the Globe and Mail published an op-ed by Deborah Maclatchy, president of Wilfrid Laurier University, titled “Not merely free speech, but better speech needs to be protected on campus.”

Like many Globe and Mail commenters, I wonder who gets to judge what qualifies as “better” speech? Free speech advocates at Laurier, like myself, reject authoritarian control over speech. In order to determine what is “better” or “worse” we need to exchange ideas freely, not avoid subjects because they are perceived to be disempowering and to disrespect the dignity of oppressed identities.

Despite trying to appear even-handed, Maclatchy’s op-ed consistently supports her version of social justice over the pursuit of truth.

She warns that we must combat language that threatens the humanity of the students. This is a variation on the empirically false claim that speech can deny an identity, that speech is violence. In the wake of a free speech demonstration, many at Laurier argued that the campus was unsafe due to the ideas being discussed. The administration announced its commitment to campus safety.

This is nonsense. Violence is action. To redefine language as violence is a political ploy intended to give the alleged victims control of speech. To concede this argument is to concede truth in favour of a radical leftist ideology.

Maclatchy says the solution is “inclusive freedom.” This concept is an unworkable contradiction.

Consider the Lindsay Shepherd affair. Shepherd showed a clip of Jordan Peterson arguing that changes to the human rights acts implied legally compelled speech. Transgender students argued the display and discussion of the video excluded them. It did not exclude them. It offended them. But freedom of speech will always offend somebody. There is no human right not to be offended.

Key to this notion of “better speech,” according to Maclatchy’s piece, is that “we can confront controversial views with intellectually rigorous and constructive dialogue.” Protests have not been rigorous or constructive, yet this administration indulges them. On campus in March, a controversial speaker was cancelled because the fire alarm was pulled, a violation of the student code of conduct that the University failed to enforce. It has yet to publicly condemn the act. More worryingly, the university did nothing about the presence of masked ANTIFA thugs at the protest. Bill C-309 prevents persons from concealing their identity during unlawful assemblies. By not publicly condemning those tactics, the university privileges social justice activism over free speech.

Maclatchy declares that it is not the role of a university to censor speech. Yet the administration is an active and biased censor.

In May, a free speech club invited Dr. Frances Widdowson of Mount Royal University to speak about Indigenous issues. A week before, the University announced a new policy that requires hosts of controversial speakers to pay safety and security costs. The club had to pay $5,331 to avoid a cancellation. A similar policy at the University of Alberta is the subject of a lawsuit. In that case, the aggrieved student group argues that the security fees are a form of censorship, which violate their charter rights to free speech.

Security fee policies are biased. Recent research shows that the vast majority of extreme event disruptions come from groups and protesters with views to the left of the speaker. Thus, security fee policies will overwhelmingly silence those espousing conservative and libertarian viewpoints. Knowing this, one must infer an intent to censor those viewpoints from an administration that adopts such a policy.

But the security fees weren’t the end of the president’s efforts to undermine the Widdowson talk. Prior to the talk, the president sent a university-wide email reiterating the university’s commitment to the goals and objectives of indigenization and announcing a competing event — a “Gathering of Good Minds pipe ceremony” at the same time, financed by the university. Without a hint of irony, the president’s email celebrated the mutually exclusive event as evidence of the university’s commitment to free speech and inclusion.

Finally, Maclatchy puts great weight on subjective “experience,” upholding it as equal to evidence. She states, “The real exchange of ideas takes place in an atmosphere that both respects experiences and is grounded in evidence …” This is a dog whistle to post-modern disciplines that privilege “lived experience,” reject reason as a white, patriarchal construct, reject the scientific method and, ultimately, reject the notion of truth.

In my opinion, Wilfrid Laurier should pursue truth but, in her op-ed, the president embraces social justice. This is a disservice to the many excellent academics at Laurier who do pursue truth. Students, faculty, alumni, parents and taxpayers must urge President Maclatchy to refocus Laurier on its motto: truth conquers all.

(WILFRID LAURIER) IS AN ACTIVE AND BIASED CENSOR. — WILLIAM MCNALLY