All Posts Tagged With: "free speech"

New report ranks universities on ability to uphold freedom of expression

A new report released Thursday takes a critical look at the state of free speech at Canadian universities.

The 2011 Campus Freedom Index, published by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, measured the ability of 18 universities and student unions across Canada to uphold free speech on campus.

Each university and respective student union was ranked based on their policies and procedures regarding free speech, as well as their actions and practices when addressing freedom of expression issues on campus. While no university or student union received a perfect score, Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia, and University of New Brunswick received the best overall assessments. The University of Ottawa, Cartleton University, and the University of Calgary fared the worst.

Authors of the report contend that several schools have “turned a blind eye” to protestors physically or verbally disrupting speakers on campus. They argue that these universities have failed to uphold the rule of law, referring to Section 430 of the Criminal Code that prohibits individuals from obstructing or interfering with any person in lawful use of property.

The report is also accuses certain universities and student unions of censoring and discriminating against certain student clubs for promoting certain religious or ideological beliefs, citing Carleton and the University of Calgary as examples, for their handling of pro-life student groups on campus.

A student makes Jews look bad. But that’s a good thing.

Photo by wokka on Flickr

By Emma Teitel. Republished from Macleans.ca.

There’s an inside Yiddish expression used by Jews to describe other Jews behaving badly in the public sphere: “shanda for the goyim” — shanda meaning “shame” and goyim denoting “gentiles” (non-Jews). The phrase is most commonly employed by Semitic seniors, when the modern media informs them that Jews can in fact be lechers (Dominique Strauss-Kahn), alcoholics (Amy Winehouse); unsuspecting nudes (Scarlett Johansson); and now, thanks to one 22-year-old Toronto Jewish girl, dangerously obtuse.

The woman in question—with whom I share at least one mutual Facebook friend (I am also a 22-year-old Jewish girl and it’s very possible we crossed paths, maybe at B’nai Brith summer camp, or perhaps in the annual United Synagogue Youth Limousine Sukka Hop)—is a York University senior named Sarah Grunfeld, who last week made shanda-esque headlines when she put her social science professor’s career in jeopardy over an anti-Semitic remark that turned out to be—well—not. The statement “All Jews should be sterilized,” Professor Cameron Johnston explained in the introductory lecture to his class, was an example of an invalid and dangerous opinion; his point was that in academia especially, opinions must be reasonably qualified. Grunfeld failed to catch that qualifier, though, perhaps because before the prof had a chance to offer it, she had stormed out of class and enlisted the on-campus Israel-advocacy group, Hasbara (Hebrew for “Explanation”), to call for his immediate resignation.

Word of Johnston’s so-called racism exploded virally online by way of what National Post columnist Jonathan Kay has dubbed the “Bubbie-net” (Jewish grandparents frantically emailing their kin with fresh findings of alleged anti-Semitism); at the same time widely-respected Canadian Jewish civil rights association, B’nai Brith (Children of the Covenant), leaped in with equal gusto to champion Grunfeld’s claim. Then came the big reveal: Ms. Grunfeld had made a mistake. Not only was professor Johnston not an anti-Semite, he was a Jew. To borrow a more accessible Yiddish phrase, political correctness at York University had effectively schtupped itself. Not to mention Sarah Grunfeld.

The maligned university student has since “qualified” her accusations against Johnston with claims twice as ludicrous as the original. “The words, ‘Jews should be sterilized’,” she told the Toronto Star recently, “still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that’s pretty serious.”

A lot of Canadian Jews are embarrassed and ashamed by this kind of doublespeak, and so was I, until I re-examined the root of my disquiet. There’s a reason why this particular shanda—and not, let’s say, Woody Allen’s marriage to his adopted daughter, or Garth Drabinsky’s defrauding of his shareholders, or The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart’s changing his name from John Stewart Liebowitz—ignites such fierce indignation in the Jewish community: Because Grunfeld doesn’t simply make us look bad (like the guys above); she makes us look stupid, and in doing so debunks the cultural stereotypes of intellectual superiority that we sometimes not-so-secretly enjoy.

Jewish American author Michael Chabon explored the seductiveness of this stereotype to Jews themselves in the New York Times last year in considering the calibre of the discussion following Israel’s botched raid of the Gaza bound Turkish flotilla, Mavi Marmara, in which nine activists died at the hands of Jewish soldiers (a debacle Diaspora Jews had trouble reconciling with our supposed “cultural” cleverness):

“I would look around the Passover table, say, at the members of my family, and remark on the presence of a number of highly intelligent, quick-witted, shrewd, well-educated people filled to bursting with information, explanations and opinions on a diverse range of topics. In my tractable and vainglorious eagerness to confirm the People of Einstein theory, my gaze would skip right over—God love them—any counterexamples present at that year’s Seder.”

Sarah Grunfeld—God love her—is one such counterexample. But we’d be wrong to let our gaze skip right over her, because there’s another, more disturbing lesson to be drawn from the Grunfeld affair and it’s this: as Jews, we hold the moral high ground to call out anti-Semitism. That’s why, in part, Grunfeld’s accusation had the legs it did, and why, perhaps, it got the backing from the Jewish infrastructure organizations such as B’nai Brith, which still hasn’t distanced itself from Grunfeld or denounced her fallacious claim, but has instead published her unapologetic letter blasting Professor Johnston for a sin he didn’t commit, with a logic even more addled than before. And there lies the biggest shanda of all: Grunfeld’s false allegations and the group’s uninformed decision to support her are bad mistakes, but both parties’ inability to own up to those mistakes renders them inexcusable. Because when we cry wolf —especially on one of our own—serious apologies are in order.

But it’s doubtful that apologies of any kind will be made, and B’nai Brith will continue sniffing out anti-Semitism where there may not be any, all the while undermining cases where there is. If anything good does come from this debacle, however, it’s that our enemies and unsolicited friends (Glenn Beck comes to mind) may think twice before attributing all things grave and glorious to the “People of Einstein.” Because if public representatives of the Jewish faith continue to make exceedingly stupid mistakes, then the various calumnies the conspiracy theorists like to heap on all of us—the blood libel, the plague, AIDS, the Iraq War, and our obvious plans to take over everything from Saturday night TV to the World Bank—start to ring kind of hollow. After all, with Sarah Grunfeld leading the way, for what exactly can they blame us?

Prof’s lecture on “The Case for Boycotts…” cancelled

By Cigdem Iltan

The University of Regina was buzzing this month with talk of academic muzzling off-campus. Emily Eaton, an assistant professor of geography, was a week away from presenting “Solidarity with Palestine: The Case for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions Against Israel,” the second of 12 lunchtime talks scheduled over the summer in Regina’s Victoria Park, when she says the coordinator of the series told her the topic was under scrutiny and asked to know more about it. The lecture series, titled “Profs in the Park,” was to be produced in partnership with the Regina Downtown Business Improvement District (RDBID). The next day, she says, the university told her the RDBID had cancelled her event. “This is a clear case of a city-level administration stepping in and saying what its citizens should and shouldn’t be able to hear, and therefore defining the terrain of public debate,” says Eaton. All the professors scheduled to present—on everything from “Gardening with Native Plants” to “Current Trends in Policing”—withdrew from the series. “The profs and the dean collectively decided we’d rather pull all the presentations than be subject to censorship,” says Eaton. (The lecture series has since taken on a new name, “Profs in the City,” and has been relocated to a private space: Neutral Ground Contemporary Art Forum. Eaton presented her lecture to a packed house on June 14.)

Judith Veresuk, executive director of the RDBID, says her organization isn’t to blame for pulling the plug on the original series. She claims that RDBID contacted the university to clarify the content of the talk after the city and her organization received complaints about its subject matter. And instead of providing more info, says Veresuk, the university pulled the lecture. “The next thing I know,” she says, “the university is crying censorship and cancelled the series.”

Students in Toronto, Calgary are proving that authority still rests with the governed

This has been a good year for students wielding power over their administrations. A high school student in Toronto, suspended for speaking his mind to the administration, got the school and local media on his side and had his record cleared. Two students at the University of Calgary criticized a professor online, but a court cleared them.

It hardly even matters what the students at the University of Calgary were speaking out about. As it has it, the kick-off was a relatively childish Facebook group about a disliked professor. But it quickly turned into a story about a university pushing its students around arbitrarily without regard for their rights or due process. The students saw this and asked a court to side with them. On Oct. 12, 2010, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench saw fit to do so, ruling that the students’ Charter rights had been infringed.

In Toronto, the situation never escalated quite as far, but was no less dramatic. After a 17-year-old soccer player voiced his concerns about support for the school’s teams at an assembly, his school banned him from athletic activities and suspended him for two days. The heavy-handed and blatant act of censorship did not go unchallenged. Parents, fellow students and media outlets across the city quickly rose to his defence. Inside of two weeks the school’s administration backed down, reinstating the student’s privileges and allowing him to return to class.

He’s now trying to expunge the suspension from his record as he prepares to apply to university, and it seems he has support on his side again. While his principal has said it won’t be an easy feat, if precedence is any indicator, I don’t think he’ll have a problem realizing his latest ambition.

In a year where we’ve heard much about heavy-handed government from WikiLeaks, G20 abuses and corporate scandal, that the power of the people can still be wielded, and wielded with courage, is itself encouraging.

These are students who showed incredible courage and wisdom. They recognized that they had been wronged, and recognized the most effective avenues for correcting those wrongs. But what these examples demonstrated most effectively was the power of the people when they come together.

When media outlets and hundreds of supporters rally behind a cause, it cannot be ignored. A mentor of Russell Crowe’s Gladiator said it best: “Win the crowd and you will win your freedom.”

Even Barbie in this summer’s Toy Story 3 was on to this idea. “Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from threat of force!” she declares in the film.

And while there is much to be sorrowful in this world, as 2010 nears its end we can be thankful that it is still our consent that is required above all else in government. And we are still free to withdraw that consent, whenever we see fit, so long as we have a few friends to stand with us.

Christie Blatchford is returning to UWaterloo on December 7

Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford is making a second attempt to speak at the University of Waterloo after her first go was thwarted by a few protesters with bike locks around their necks.

Blatchford was scheduled to speak about her new book, Helpless: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, when some individuals decided that her “racist propaganda” was not to be given a public forum. The group of five successfully prevented Blatchford from taking the stage.

After the country became privy to the news that bike locks were suddenly sophisticated tools of political negotiation, the university released a statement apologizing for its embarrassing inaction:

The university considers Friday’s events as an attack on its presence as a place where issues are explored, discussed and at times debated. The freedom to speak and to learn is fundamental to the institution.

Protester Dan Kellar nevertheless remained committed to his heroic efforts to silence debate on campus. “[It's a] sad day when universities are used as a space to allow racists and nazi-apologizers to speak,” Kellar posted on his Twitter feed. “blatchford work is not academic”(sic).

Kellar, a maybe-PhD candidate at UW, appears to have failed to do some academic research of his own before unleashing his anti-Blatchford slander. In a reflective column about the charade, Blatchford responds to Kellar’s accusation that she is a “Nazi-apologist” for supposedly glorifying neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel by pointing out that she has mentioned Zundel’s name a mere five times in 35 years of daily journalism, and “mostly peripherally.” In the one piece she wrote about him, Blatchford simply defended his right to free speech. Maybe someone should send Kellar that column.

The other obvious qualm with Kellar’s position is that Blatchford’s hack-journalism, as he calls it, is inherently anti-native. Blatchford’s book, as anyone who has read just scantly beyond the title can attest, is sharply critical of the way the government has handled the Caledonia occupation. While she doesn’t come off as particularly sympathetic to the aboriginal position, her denunciation of government concessions is a far cry from being anti-native.

Still, even if Blatchford was a racist, ageist, neocolonial capitalist Nazi-sympathizer with misogynistic tendencies, Kellar and his clan shouldn’t be able to stop her from speaking simply by stomping their feet. Believe it or not, being a meanie is not illegal in this country! Nor is holding controversial opinions or expressing prejudice. You’re even allowed to be wrong! Fancy that, huh? These freedoms allow George Galloway, Ann Coulter, and Christie Blatchford to say what they want, even on university campuses, and even if we don’t like it. That is, as long as certain people leave the bike locks outside.

Will the controversial speaker be warmly received?

Who can forget the embarrassing debacle that occurred in March when Ann Coulter embarked on her Canadian university tour? And no, I’m not just talking about what she said. Students and community members gathered outside of the University of Ottawa to protest the right wing pundit’s planned address, and effectively had the event shut down. Coulter went on to speak at the University of Calgary, but the fiasco left a black eye on Canadian Universities’ reputation for tolerance of free speech.

Now, the University of Western Ontario, which was the first school to host Coulter back in March, is set to welcome another controversial speaker: Mark Steyn. Perhaps best known for his contentious views on the nature of Islam, Steyn was originally supposed to speak on Western’s campus as coordinated by the Campus Coalition for Democracy. However, due to capacity constraints, the venue had to be moved.

Then, yesterday, the new venue—the London Convention Centre—denied the Steyn camp its room rental request. StrictlyRight.com, one of the organizers of the event, called foul, saying that the denial amounts to censorship at a city-owned facility, adding that the centre was caving to pressure from local Islamic groups. The centre’s general manager countered the allegation, saying that the decision to deny the request was business-driven—not politically.

In any case, the venue has been moved yet again and it seems as thought Steyn will take to the podium as planned on November 1. And even though it’s to be held off campus, students are still talking about implications of the contentious speaker’s arrival. According to the Western Gazette, the Muslim Students’ Association has already expressed concern to UWO’s administration about Steyn promoting Islamophobia on campus, though president Selma Tobah said there are better ways to oppose Steyn’s beliefs than boycott or protest. And Ryan Ruppert, president of the Campus Coalition for Democracy, told the Gazette he is hoping for “backlash through intelligent questioning.”

Who knows–maybe this time, things will go off without a hitch?

Landmark ruling involving Facebook criticism confirms university actions are government actions

How universities deal with their students may never be the same after an Alberta judge ruled that at least some of their policies and actions can be subject to Charter review. The case involved a challenge from twin brothers, Keith and Steven Pridgen, who were reprimanded in 2008 under the University of Calgary’s student  code of conduct for creating  a Facebook group that the university says was defamatory towards Aruna Mitra, a former law instructor in the interdisciplinary department of communication and culture.

The students, who were placed on six months probation, took the case to Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench in the spring, arguing that the university violated their Charter right to free expression. On Wednesday, Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf agreed with that assertion. “I cannot accept that expression in the form of criticism of one’s professor must be restricted in order to accomplish the objective of maintaining an appropriate learning environment,” she wrote in her 39 page ruling.

At the Judicial review university lawyer, Kevin Barr reiterated U of C’s position that the comments were defamatory. “It is simply outrageous to suggest that the publication of defamatory statements by a student, directed at a professor over the Internet, does not amount to non-academic misconduct by any standard,” he said.

The Facebook group titled “I no longer fear Hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra,” contained comments from at least 10 other students, one of whom compared Mitra to a shoe. Another comment said that Mitra “got lazy and gave everybody a 65.” Yet another alleged the instructor said that the Magna Carta was signed in 1700 when it was signed in 1215. After Mitra, who had discovered the Facebook page, informed the dean, the brothers were placed on probation. The university lifted the requirement that the students write an apology letter after they refused to do so.

What is precedent setting in the judgement is that Strekaf ruled that the  U of C’s actions regarding discipline constitute government action, and, are therefore subject to Charter review. Universities have long held that their actions cannot attract Charter scrutiny because they are autonomous entities with their own decision making bodies. A 1990 Supreme Court case, involving a challenge to the University of Guelph’s mandatory retirement policy ruled that university decisions are not government decisions.

While Strekaf did not dispute that earlier judgment, at least when dealing with university staff, she added that because educating students constitutes a core government directed mandate, as outlined in Alberta’s Post-Secondary Learning Act, that policies related to dealing with students beyond day-to-day operations are subject to Charter scrutiny. While the U of C argued that its disciplinary policies were a part of independent contracts between students and the university, Strekaf argued that such policies cannot be clearly separated from the mandate of educating students.

She also stated that the students’ actions on Facebook constitute a part of the learning process. “The commentary may assist future students in course selection as well as provide feedback to existing students and perhaps reassurance that one is not alone in finding that they are having difficulty appreciating instruction in a particular course,” Strekaf wrote. Update: Though she did allow that some of the comments made on the page by the Pridgens may have “reflected a lack of maturity.”

The Calgary Herald quoted the students’ lawyer who was clearly excited.  “Henceforth, the university should be a little slow to say the charter doesn’t apply to them,” he said.

The case could have implications for protest groups that have been denied access to university space, including a U of C pro-life club that has in the past been charged with trespassing for holding demonstrations on campus.

U of L’s media coordinator of globalization studies says diagnosis is a ‘boon to humanity’

When U.S. right-wing pundit Ann Coulter attempted to speak at the University of Ottawa in March, protesters gathered outside the lecture hall and effectively shut down the event. The crowd boasted signs branded with “Love,” “Respect,” and  “Free Speech Stops at Hate Speech,” and chanted “Ann go home!” until police and security advised Coulter to cancel her speech in the interest of her safety. The demonstration came after University of Ottawa vice-president academic and provost Francois Houle sent Coulter a letter advising her to “educate [her]self as to what is acceptable in Canada” and to “weigh [her] words with respect and civility in mind.”

Now, I cite this example in hopes that the security personnel at the University of Lethbridge will be adequately prepared for what I expect to be another vehement uproar. Indeed, I’ll bet those same demonstrative individuals are already making their way west to protest yet another exploitative exercise of expression. “Free speech stops at hate speech!” Yup  . . . any day now . . .

Well, maybe they just haven’t heard yet. Joshua Blakeney, media coordinator of globalization studies at the University of Lethbridge, has written a piece for the alternative e-weekly The Canadian Charger where he gleefully rejoices in Christopher Hitchens’ recent throat cancer diagnosis. Hitchens, a journalist and pundit, is known for his stanch views on religion and unapologetic support for the war in Iraq. Contentious as his politics may be, it’s hard to deny he’s a brilliant speaker with a quick wit, a reputation he managed to uphold during a recent interview with Anderson Cooper where Hitchens discusses his impending death.

But for Blakeney writing in The Canadian Charger, it seems “impending” can’t come soon enough. The cancer is “something to be celebrated,” writes Blakeney, a U of L Masters student, “because it deprives the war propaganda machine of one of its most erudite apologists.”

“As I was contemplating this revelation, I couldn’t help feeling that the neoconservative armchair warrior was getting his just desserts,” Blakeney continues.

Then, after toting some 9/11 “truths” (Blakeney studies under prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist Prof. Anthony J. Hall) and other wisdom about Iran and Israel, Blakeney concludes his “Hitchens deserves to die” thesis:

“It is fair to say that if cancer is good enough for babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and soon Iran, then it is good enough for [Hitchens].”

Ironically, The Canadian Charger originated as an outlet to counter “hateful” messages printed in Maclean’s magazine, which were brought to (and later dismissed from) human rights commissions. Yet curiously, here beholds a piece where the terminal illness of someone is rejoiced because of his political beliefs.

“I wouldn’t rejoice in someone’s sickness unless it was someone as ghastly as Christopher Hitchens,” Blakeney told the National Post. His inability to write “could well reduce cancer rates,” he continued. “He is a dangerous demagogue who made a career out of selling aggressive wars that cause cancer. . . . I haven’t stooped to his level.”

Okay everyone; are we all ready with our placards? “Love,” “Respect,” “Free speech stops at hate speech!”

No?

Of course not. Blakeney’s not entertaining in hate speech. Fallacious and vile cheap shots, but not hate speech. But then again, neither was Coulter. So I’m wondering where the student unions are on this one. Where’s the protest to ensure a “safe space” for Iraq war supporters on campus?  After all, if we have the so-called “right to not be offended” in one case, aren’t we going to uphold it in another?

Students placed on probation for criticizing a professor on Facebook are asking a judge to review the case

Twin brothers, both students at the University of Calgary, were in court Friday asking a Court of Queen’s Bench judge to affirm their right to publicly criticize a professor. Keith and Steven Pridgen were reprimanded in 2008 under the University of Calgary’s student  code of conduct for creating  a Facebook group that the university says was defamatory towards Aruna Mitra, a former law instructor in the interdisciplinary department of communication and culture.

The group titled “I no longer fear Hell, I took a course with Aruna Mitra,” contained comments from at least 10 other students, one of whom compared Mitra to a shoe. Another comment said that Mitra “got lazy and gave everybody a 65.” Yet another alleged the instructor said that the Magna Carta was signed in 1700 when it was signed in 1215.

After Mitra, who had discovered the Facebook page, informed the dean, the brothers were placed on six-months probation. The university lifted the requirement that the students write an apology letter after they refused to do so.

The brothers are viewing the case as a fight for their constitutional right to free expression. “I’m happy to fight for what I believe in is right,” Pridgen (Keith) was quoted as saying by the CBC. In asking the court to review their case, Pridgen said he wants to ensure no other students find themselves in a similar situation. “The injustice that was done to us, first in having to bear with this specific professor in the class . . . all the way through to having to bear with the different issues all the way along, the appeals process, the denials, the delays . . . for that to not be forced onto another student, that’s what I think would be right is the solution.”

The Pridgen’s lawyer argued on Friday that while the university believes the Facebook group was defamatory the Pridgen’s should have been given the opportunity to demonstrate that the comments on the site were justifiable under the truth and fair-comment defenses permitted in defamation cases. However, because the students were only reprimanded with probation, the university said that there was no obligation that an appeal be heard.

She’s relevant because we are making her relevant

Until this week I knew very little about Ann Coulter and I liked it that way. I was vaguely aware of her as a deliberately provocative, talking-head right-winger. I had the sense that she was good at antagonizing people. That was about it. I had about as much interest in following her “work” as I do in Rush Limbauch’s oeuvre.

This week I can’t hide from her. She’s everywhere. Elections just ended at U of T with the usual accusations and counter-accusations, students at UTSC just approved an unprecedented and massive levy to fund a world-class athletics facility for use in the 2015 Pan-Am Games, wrestling continues unabated over the fate and status of First Nations University of Canada, and all I can bloody well hear about is this screwball American provocateur who has just about nothing relevant to say to Canadians and nothing informed to say to anyone. Someone please tell me why I’m supposed to care?

The freedom of expression angle I get. It’s important to pause once in a while to reflect on the importance of free speech and also on the occasional limits necessarily imposed on it. But honestly, can’t we have that debate in context of someone who is at least relevant? Ezra Levant is a home-grown topic of debate, speaking to and about Canadian issues. Ann Coulter is just a traveling gong show promoting nothing other than her own celebrity. And we let her! We even help her! Every line I’m writing this very moment gives her more of the commodity she’s so successfully selling — her own profile. She doesn’t care if we like her or what we say about her just as long as we keep listening and paying attention. And we sure are doing that.

The fact that this is playing out on our university campuses is no coincidence. Students make fantastic reactionaries. There’s a whole lot of good intentions there but not a lot of direction. So with very little of their own to say, student activists simply argue about what someone else is saying. Coulter opens her mouth and gets the whole thing rolling for us. She says something outrageous, some students argue she shouldn’t be allowed to say it, others defend her right to say it, and all of a sudden that’s the whole debate. Students aren’t saying anything at all–or at least nothing of their own. They’re just arguing over what Coulter said. And that’s just sad.

Maybe I’m bitter because the spat of Ann Coulter articles here are the biggest thing for On Campus in ages. Even the strike at York didn’t attract this much attention or this many comments. Students do have a lot of power and can set the agenda for discussion of post-secondary issues if they want to. But taking on real and complex topics is difficult. Getting all outraged about Coulter–or alternatively, getting all outraged over the suppression of Coulter–is easy. And as long as we keep getting distracted by every circus sideshow that comes to campus, it’s going to remain that much harder to bring attention to the real issues affecting post-secondary students in Canada today.

But hey, in the spirit of giving everyone what they want, here’s a video of Coulter saying outrageous things. Enjoy.

—-

Questions are welcome at jeff.rybak@utoronto.ca. You can also follow me on Twitter.