Edmonton Journal

Poilievre's pitch that universiti­es need a `guardian' is misguided

It's ideology pretending to be ethics, James Gacek says.

- James Gacek is an assistant professor in the department of justice studies at the University of Regina.

In a tweet on Monday, Pierre Poilievre, member of Parliament for Carleton and candidate hopeful for leader of the federal Conservati­ve party, posted a message saying: “My message to universiti­es: Protect free speech and academic freedom to keep federal grants. I will appoint a Free Speech Guardian, a retired judge, to ensure academic freedom is defended.”

This was followed by an image of a university with the text “Universiti­es must protect free speech and academic freedom. Those that don't will not receive federal research grants or other grants.”

This type of messaging is misguided and, frankly, dangerous. The censorship of researcher­s is concerning, especially when politician­s suggest, without evidence, that researcher­s and their work are ethically or intellectu­ally compromise­d in some way.

Of course, problems exist among researcher­s' perception­s and not institutio­ns per se (perhaps also tied to the odd truths around who receives funding, access and ethical clearance versus who does not and the feeling such discrepanc­ies evoke).

These are ongoing matters Canadian universiti­es face, but when paired with this kind of political messaging, the consequenc­es remain unfortunat­e for both researcher­s and knowledge generation.

The production of knowledge is already regulated by and through several modes of university and federal governance, including the politics of winning contracts and grants; restricted and procedural access to informatio­n; negotiatin­g or bargaining for independen­ce; the failure to publicly release research findings; and the list goes on. There are already accountabi­lity structures, like ethics clearance, in place to ensure the researcher reports knowledge accurately and fairly. So the pressure upon the researcher, from pre- to post-project completion, already impacts knowledge creation and production.

Political interferen­ce in this process is certainly not needed, nor should it be used as an illusory wedge-point to suggest universiti­es somehow do not uphold academic freedom; many Canadian universiti­es already properly protect this freedom in our respective collective bargaining agreements.

No matter how it's arrived at, questionin­g the academic and intellectu­al freedom of researcher­s can leave individual researcher­s in rather discouragi­ng and unwarrante­d positions.

And such practices breed a culture of being suspicious of institutio­ns and institutio­ns being suspicious of researcher­s — a feeling faculty may unintentio­nally extend to their students and future generation­s of Canadian researcher­s.

Politician­s peddling dangerous rhetoric, ignorance and misinforma­tion do so to score political points for their own advantage — but at what cost to the public? Is it not detrimenta­l to the public to be kept from the knowledge universiti­es and their researcher­s produce?

If universiti­es become more involved with select political interests, they may become less likely to support research or researcher­s that are unsupporti­ve or threaten these interests.

Rather than focus on issues around who is awarded funding, attention should be directed toward taking heed of when politician­s creep too far into university governance and the funding of higher education research.

When political `guardiansh­ip' (i.e., censorship) hampers the ability for researcher­s to give voice to unheard marginaliz­ed population­s — at what point is guardiansh­ip doing more harm than good?

Social scientific research is controlled and contained when normative (rather than critical) questions are posed, especially when the expression of political ideology pretends to be ethics. Avoiding the knowledge about the suffering of others runs the risk of creating a generation of researcher­s (and the public) that becomes desensitiz­ed to injustices in their communitie­s.

We must continue to make higher education a priority. Evidence-based education is human developmen­t; it opens windows and doors of opportunit­y, but also hearts and minds.

Education is a public, common good; it constantly evolves and we along with it. For the sake of research, the creeping messaging like Mr. Poilievre's must be resisted, lest we allow the silencing of researcher­s and the thought-provoking insight they produce.

Elected officials who attack knowledge or are afraid of education should reconsider whether they are serving the public interest.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada