Thread: Laurier has released a draft of their Freedom of Expression statement and it's disappointing, to say the least. You can read the full draft statement here: wlu.ca/about/values-v…
FYI: the purpose of this statement is to clarify where the university stands on issues of academic freedom & freedom of expression; it will provide guidance on how the university responds in the future to a range of issues, incl. the promotion of hate & bigotry on campus
As a document, it was crafted by a 13 member committee. Their goal was to write a statement that expresses the university's stance on freedom of expression that speaks not only to the current cultural climate but future climates as well. Not an easy task.
The central issue with this document is its tone. I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to also read the University of British Columbia's own Freedom of Expression statement academic.ubc.ca/freedom-of-exp…
Note the difference in tone? Here's how they both conclude (Laurier on the left, UBC on the right): 
Both statements try and assuage different audiences. UBC is concerned w freedom of expression vis a vis those marginalized on & off campus, while Laurier is concerned with freedom of expression vis a vis freedom of expression (i.e. free speech absolutists)
The former recognizes that freedom of expression should not be used as a shield to deflect legitimate grievances w the subject matter, while the latter seems unwilling to acknowledge that this is a tactic that can be used in bad faith (as it is currently by the alt-right)
And this leads into a second standout issue with this document: it assumes all persons are engaging in good faith. There appears to be no recognition whatsoever that, say, a speaker could be brought on campus w the intended purpose of dividing communities & fomenting hate
Instead we have this patronizing language about 'debate' and 'the free exchange of ideas' when the most imminent application of this document is to a neo-Nazi Islamophobe giving a talk about how 'too many brown people are coming to Canada.'
I feel very strongly that the institution has a responsibility to mitigate the burden of refuting and debunking discrimination as this almost always falls on those already enduring such prejudices. This document seems wholly unconcerned with that.
So we're poised to host ppl who promote race-based discrimination & the mechanism that the university has chosen for responding to this is for the very community discriminated against (& their allies) to take on this additional burden, to justify their humanity bc others deny it
It's simply not possible to reconcile that particular view of freedom of expression w a genuine commitment to diversity & equity.
