Free speech policy is total gobbledygook

Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd was guilty before she was even tried. We’re not referring to the disturbing kangaroo court process between Shepherd and her supervisor that she wisely caught on tape. Although that was obviously a sham from the get-go.

No, it looks like she’s going to be guilty in the eyes of the task force WLU has put together to navigate both Shepherd’s situation and the broader problem of free speech on campus.

That is if the university stays true to a very policy that they recently implemented. WLU has a Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy, introduced in the wake of Ontario’s Bill 132 passed last year that required universities to develop just such a policy.

The WLU policy though goes much further than the law compels, as Andrew M. Robinson, an associate professor of human rights and human diversity at Wilfrid Laurier University, explains in a recent column published in The Toronto Star.

The GSVP policy defines this sort of forbidden violence as: “An act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm. This violence includes sexism, gender discrimination, gender harassment, biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism, intimate partner violence, and forms of Sexual Violence. This violence can take place on any communication platform (for example: graffiti, online environments, and through the use of phones).”

Let’s cut to the chase: This is nothing but activist gobbledygook that can easily be twisted to punish someone for pretty much any comment that touches upon a comment related to sexual or gender issues. That’s wrong. This definition is a total crock and any credible institute should be embarrassed to enshrine something like this.

Instead, they should be backing something like the Chicago principles, which universities are signing onto as a way to show their commitment to intellectual diversity and free speech.

These principles, first ratified by the University of Chicago in 2014, hold that “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

It’s become crystal clear that academia is due for a course correction that pivots their priorities from those of fringe indoctrination to academic freedom and liberty.