CAMPUS FREE SPEECH: WHY THE DEBATE MATTERS TO EMPLOYERS EVERYWHERE
HR managers must define parameters of ‘harassment,’ Howard Levitt writes.
It is the canary in the coal mine.
Campus Trends often migrate to broader society, and the values and expectations introduced in college and university also influences the next generation of employees. Some trends in academia are looking a little bleak right now.
Self-described “social justice warriors,” often consisting of “diversity and equity” campus administrators who rely on political correctness to maintain their employment, have cast a deep chill on campus free speech.
It is their hubris that permitted the inquisitory charade of the trio who invented a complaint over a video of psychology professor Jordan Peterson shown in class, then ruthlessly attacked teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd, threatening her position at Wilfrid Laurier University.
She had the foresight to record her inquisition and what had become acceptable on campuses, but largely ignored outside of it, was exposed to public gaze. The country virtually erupted in response. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the backlash against the political vision of Lindsay Sheppard’s inquisitors, exemplified by Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, will likely be responsible for the victory of the Progressive Conservatives in the upcoming provincial election.
This abuse of power and deception exercised by Sheppard’s interrogators would result in their quick dismissal for cause in most Canadian workplaces. Despite the public outcry, their employment seems intact. Shepherd has decided, so far, not to sue them or the university, her employer, whose president refused to denounce their actions until faced with donor revolt and declining student enrolment. She should reconsider.
When alumni dollars and enrolment became a factor, Wilfrid Laurier decided to part ways with the radical left and hurriedly cobbled together a task force, which just delivered a very refreshing report that includes the following passage: “Laurier challenges the idea that free expression and the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion must be at odds with one another. Instead, the university embraces the concept of ‘inclusive freedom’ which espouses a commitment to the robust protection of free expression and the assurance that all voices — including those who could be marginalized or excluded from full participation — have an opportunity to meaningfully engage in free expression, inquiry, and learning . ... It is not the role of the university to censor speech.”
The document goes on to say that the boundaries of free expression should be dictated by Canadian law, and that illegal forms of expression, such as defamatory, harassing or hate speech, will be restricted by the university. Civility alone, the document says, cannot be a justification for limiting free speech.
However, the battle is not won. The campus left at Wilfrid Laurier is fighting strenuously to ensure that this report is never adopted.
Meanwhile, the orthodoxy of political correctness has spread to other campuses.
Rick Mehta, a psychology professor at Acadian University in Wolfville, N.S., has spoken out on social media and in his classroom about controversial topics such as decolonization, immigration and gender politics, meeting with both support and condemnation. As well, he has challenged the prevailing trends toward “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” before students ever need be confronted with uncomfortable opinions.
For these actions, one of Acadia’s senior administrators, dean of arts Jeff Hennessy, wrote and distributed this inherently libellous tract to Acadia’s faculty and administration:
“I don’t want to debate these issues with you because I find your position on them, frankly, uninformed, unscholarly and backed only by your interpretations of scant research which seems to me, to support a confirmation bias. I find your assertion that our institutional goals to create a more diverse, equable and inclusive campus somehow impinges upon your academic freedom to be paranoid and misinformed. I can’t imagine many other organizations where you would get away with spreading your biases freely the way you have thereby and thereby causing such stress and anguish for your colleagues.”
My immediate query was why Mehta had not sued him. As the Wilfrid Laurier report notes, free speech does not protect you from defamation.
My second thought was that the vicious and public nature of this attack would never be seen, let alone tolerated, outside of academia. Hennessy would be fired if he wrote a letter like this to a more junior staff person and then widely circulated it, in virtually any corporation I can think of.
What does any of this have to do with employment law outside of the post-secondary arena? As university students bring these experiences into workplaces, they may be increasingly expecting the same type of protections against uncomfortable speech.
The occupational health and safety act in Ontario and some other provinces prohibit “harassment” and require policies to deal with it.
Human resource managers are increasingly having to deal with allegations of harassment that do not meet the test in human rights codes and most employers are unclear as to precisely what the line is between free speech, which might be uncomfortable for some, and tortious harassment.
Yet policies must be drafted. The Wilfrid Laurier report represents the law and makes an excellent start.