Thread: Yesterday I followed through on an invitation from Laurier's president and sat down w Dr. MacLatchy & Dr. Gordon (VP Research/Chair of the Task Force on Freedom of Expression), to discuss concerns I've raised w Laurier hosting a white supremacist. Here are my thoughts:
Firstly, I can only speak for myself & in no way should this be read as official positions from others in attendance. Furthermore, w/e position the university pursues will be subject to a senate vote & so neither attendee had the authority to speak to what can/is likely to happen
That said, as an outspoken critic of how this issue has been handled, I left the meeting reasonably confident that the university is interested in safeguarding campus from events/speakers who foment hate & discrimination.
My understanding is that without a clear policy on the matter, there was reluctance to take action. Hence, the freedom of expression task force, which is creating a draft statement that will clarify where the institution stands & create a common ground for further steps
To date, I've viewed this forthcoming statement with suspicion. In part b/c it seemed likely to bolster the current position but also because there is a member of the task force who is themselves sympathetic to the white nationalist ideology
However, in preparing I came across UBC's draft statement on freedom of expression &, at least by its conclusion, it strikes the right tone for an educational institution. Namely, it predicates freedom of expression on a commitment to diversity & equity academic.ubc.ca/freedom-of-exp…
I was pleased to learn that inspiration for our letter was being drawn from UBC & I do hope that our final draft looks similar. We can't commit to free speech absolutism & diversity and equity at the same time. As an educational institution, our first priority seems clear to me
The meeting was somewhat challenging, though, as my main goal was to clarify if we (as an institution) intend to practice what we preach re: diversity & equity. But b/c the official position will ultimately be a democratic one, it simply wasn't possible for assurances on this
But folks, I tried. I asked questions from every angle I could think of as this is the crux of the matter for me. Platitudes about diversity & equity mean nothing if we don't decline to facilitate the dissemination of speech that undermines those principles.
I feel strongly that those in attendance understand this and that the ambition is to be a leader on this front. How that gets translated through committees & senate votes, however, remains beyond any one individual's control.
As for my participation, I had three goals for the meeting: outline free speech fallacies exploited by the alt-right, affirm our responsibilities as an educational institution, and present a potential, feasible solution to the situation. Below are the fallacies I singled out: 
This material was very well received & a digital copy of my 4 pages of notes was requested. I sincerely felt listened to & my concerns were treated w respect & consideration. tl;dr I really do think we're headed in the right direction but the wheels of the academy move slowly
Misc.: I flatly stated that it is "*unconscionable*" to offload the responsibility & labour of combating these hateful ideas onto the very marginalized communities that such speech discriminates against. As an institution, I argued, we have a responsibility to take on that burden
I also called out the official statements from the university. I said it was offensive and wrong to ask people to engage in 'civil discourse' w those who deny their basic human rights and such statements did more harm than good.
My preferred solution, & the one I presented, was simply to enforce existing rules & policies. Specifically our 'Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination' policy. This was/is the sole sticking point for me. It was clear that such polices are seen as insufficient & I disagree
Last misc. thought: I'm very grateful for the meeting & I sincerely appreciated the opportunity. I was encouraged to continue speaking out on the issue and to vocalize my criticisms of the process & the draft statement. I'd say my faith has been restored, but you know, phrasing..
