UBC draft policy on free speech to be revised after facing criticism
A proposed University of B.C. statement that attempts to take into account all sides of the freespeech debate has pleased precious few.
UBC officials are back to the drawing board after receiving 200 responses, and many criticisms, of a working group’s draft policy on free expression. A new statement is expected in the spring, says Prof. Neil Guppy, senior adviser on academic freedom.
Critics say UBC’s draft statement failed to reconcile two irreconcilable values — the right to free expression and the right to be protected from remarks that someone, especially members of “marginalized” groups, might interpret as offensive or psychologically harmful.
Critics predicted endless future conflict if UBC adopted a statement that they argue threatens the open exchange of ideas, in part because it included the sentence: “One person’s freedom of expression cannot be allowed to trample the freedom and well-being of others.”
The statement, put together in light of a high-profile dispute at UBC, echoes similar debates at many North American universities, where social justice advocates have been assertively shutting down speech they consider “unsafe,” potentially injurious to vulnerable people.
The most high-profile case in Canada this year had Wilfrid Laurier University supervisors denouncing a teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd, as transphobic and worse for showing a short clip of a discussion by University of Toronto Prof. Jordan Peterson on transgender pronouns. That was followed by black activist Vicky Mochama using racial terminology on CBC to belittle Shepherd as “just a young crying white girl.”
In another case, at Dalhousie University, 25 law professors defended student leader Masuma Khan’s right to say, “White fragility can kiss my ass. Your white tears aren’t sacred.”
In late summer at UBC, which has 61,000 students, many people on campus maligned philosophy student Frank Kurtzke for distributing flyers criticizing “socialjustice warriors” for being overprotective and silencing people with unorthodox ideas.
To clarify its position on free speech, UBC president Santa Ono and others convened a working group last year of academics from all sides of the issue to draft a statement on free expression, which was posted online in the name of transparency.
Across the city at Simon Fraser University, the free-speech debate has failed to reach the same high pitch. Communications official Marianne Meadahl said free-expression issues at the 35,000-student university are largely governed by a statement made in 2011 by president Andrew Petter.
Petter firmly emphasized “erring on the side of tolerating free speech. … The expression of provocative, uninformed or distasteful views must be tolerated so their inadequacies can be debated and exposed.”
Most attacks on UBC’s draft statement, many of which university officials posted online, argue it doesn’t go far enough to protect free speech from people who would try to shut it down out of fear someone might be offended.
“The draft statement … is the work of a committee that seeks to reconcile what are ultimately irreconcilable values,” said UBC political scientist emeritus Philip Resnick. “While I can understand the need to curb speech which would be a direct incitement to violence … the proposed code goes far beyond this. It would be like a sword of Damocles over the heads of faculty, teaching assistants and students.”
Elizabeth Hodgson, a professor of English, suggested the draft statement makes the mistake of trying to turn “an otherwise-laudable” campus program against harassment into an attempt to ban unenforceable concepts, such as speech that is “disrespectful” or “uncivil.”
UBC law professor Emma Cunliffe maintained the draft statement does not set out the university’s responsibilities.
“Unconventional ideas and controversial opinions” deserve special protection in higher education, Cunliffe said. Faculty “who study or teach controversial or sensitive topics should be defended by university administrators against unfair criticism.”
Martin Shultz, of the Sauder School of Business, said: “Why do we have an avalanche of rules and statements at UBC that combine conspicuous virtue-signalling with potentially harsh constraints of our freedoms?”
UBC’s draft statement on freedom of expression includes phrases, Shultz said, that “look and feel like propaganda that is aimed at gaining support for silencing diverse ideas and views.”
UBC philosophy Prof. Paul Russell, who had earlier publicly defended Kurtzke, called UBC’s draft statement a vague “feeble and troubling document … that gives lip service to the value of free speech and moves directly on to place heavy emphasis on the need for restricting it.”
Asked whether UBC has a policy on free expression that has legal standing, Guppy referred to a strong 1976 statement by UBC’s senate.
“Behaviour which obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas which are safe and accepted but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent, vitally threatens the integrity of the university’s forum,” says the Senate motion.
Asked what kind of status any new statement from Ono will have, Guppy suggested it will be seen as “aspirational” — similar to remarks made in 2009 by former UBC president Stephen Toope.
At the time Toope declared firmly: “Anything that detracts from the free expression of ideas is just not acceptable.”
The expression of provocative, uninformed or distasteful views must be tolerated so their inadequacies can be debated and exposed.