Reading the #Laurier draft statement on freedom of expression. Some thoughts. 1/
Full statement is here: wlu.ca/about/values-v…
The statement mentions "thought" multiple times, incl as "critical thought" and "diversity of thought." But "knowledge" and its production not so much. Yet, I would say, the central goal of a university is knowledge production. 2/
The statement mentions "thought" multiple times, incl as "critical thought" and "diversity of thought." But "knowledge" and its production not so much. Yet, I would say, the central goal of a university is knowledge production. 2/
The draft statement says, for instance, that @Laurier as an institution is "committed to advancing intellectual excellence rooted in diversity of thought and opinion in an inclusive learning environment." Let's ponder that for a bit. 3/ 
It seems a benefit that the members of the task force managed to add the words "diversity" or "inclusive" or "incl. those who have been marginalized" each time "freedom of thought" or a related concept is mentioned. 4/
But it's always second. And neither of these concepts are tied to a shared goal like the production of knowledge. Not every opinion produces knowledge. Not every dialogue between opinions produces knowledge. Anyone who fights alt-right trolls on the internet knows that. 5/
#Laurier's statements says many times that there will be disagreement. There will be "profound differences of opinion among scholars, legislators, the judiciary, journalists, & members of the public." Community members will dissent over a speaker's merit in advancing inquiry. 6/
I'm not so sure. I don't actually see dissent among uni members over the merit of someone like Faith Goldy "advancing intellectual enquiry or critical discourse & dialogue." A few extreme fringe academic voices might argue that, fascists outside unis might argue that. 7/
But academics, students enrolled in our programs? They argue instead over whether Faith Goldy should be allowed to speak; because that is all you can argue in her favour. There's not a credible argument that says her talks advance intellectual enquiry & knowledge production. 8/
#Laurier draft statement on #freespeech emphasizes, & emphasizes again, that there are disagreements. That there's struggle. That POWER is involved (excellent point). And then? IT THROWS UP ITS HANDS. It shrugs. Repeatedly shrugs. "What can you do, right?!," it seems to say. 9/
Early on, in the first paragraph, the statement has the beautiful sentences screen capped below on "challenging the improper use of power."
Thing is, once you acknowledge improper use of power, you need to decide how to react to it once it happens. That's where this falters. 10/
Thing is, once you acknowledge improper use of power, you need to decide how to react to it once it happens. That's where this falters. 10/
And before I go on, we must acknowledge here that these task force discussions were difficult, that this statement is a hard-won compromise, that those on the task force who spoke from the need to stem racist, fascist, & white supremacist incursions did important work. 11/
Here's the part that worries me. This is the part where I gasp. 12/
First, universities make momentous decisions on a daily basis--decisions MUCH MORE pivotal than preventing someone from speaking. Hiring. Granting tenure. Disciplining misconduct. Approving grants. Universities have processes in place to make and contest such decisions. 13/
We're experts at not only making those decisions, but also at building processes to make such decisions with plenty of safeguards to them. We use those processes each day. But suddenly we think we're incapable of fairly deciding when not to let a fascist speak in our space? 14/
I don't buy that. 15/
I don't buy that one bit. 16/
Second (this is what makes me gasp): the draft statement acknowledges that abuses of power happen and some sort of law needs to be laid out to deal with them, BUT then it says we can't trust future university members to adhere to the purpose and spirit of that law. 17/
That is . . . Sad? Self-defeating? Nihilistic? A-historical?
Is this risk not present for every law, process, and procedure that Canadian society has created? Does such pre-emptive avoidance ever count as a good reason not to create good law, process, and procedure? 18/
Is this risk not present for every law, process, and procedure that Canadian society has created? Does such pre-emptive avoidance ever count as a good reason not to create good law, process, and procedure? 18/
