So, Laurier is set to host another speaker who espouses bigoted views, this time a prof who believes that cultural genocide is "essential to human survival" (Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry 25). I want to talk about the questions this raises & Laurier's repsonse
First off, the speaker last published on the subject of indigenous people in Canada in her co-authored 2008 book "Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry." Here's a summary of the implicit & explicit racism that undergirds the text (from Leanne Simpson's review of the book in question) 
Unlike the previous bigot brought to campus--a discredited journalist--the speaker/author, Frances Widdowson, is employed at a university. She has published on the subject in question & expresses her views that indigenous ppl are 'savage,' backwards ppl in an academic vernacular
There are no brazenly racist tweets or interviews, just "a complete lack of methodology, research, and disregard for scholarship," as Simpson puts it. In other words, while it is technically scholarship, it is poorly executed & deeply flawed while also exacerbating prejudices
Clearly any community or community member with a conscience would not invite such a speaker to their campus. Scholarship founded on false premises is, de facto, flawed scholarship, in the same vein as an article that erroneously correlates vaccines w autism is flawed & harmful
However, what remains unclear--and what those of us who do not subscribe to free speech absolutism need to address--is what, if any, mechanism do we have to evaluate the merits of a guest speaker? How do you set forth such a policy in a way that it won't be misused or abused?
I think what many want is, essentially, some form of peer review for guest speakers, a bare minimum of scholarly rigor. After all, speaking at a university implies that the ideas being promoted are credible even if they're not (that's the power of the platform).
In all honesty, I have no idea what that policy looks like & I don't know how you would craft such a statement such that it couldn't be used to suppress radical, challenging ideas (it's not uncommon for peer review to filter out material that disrupts the status quo).
I firmly believe that 'vetting' speakers is a path no one working at a university *wants* to go down. It seems antithetical to our very institution and we may very well have to simply rely on the goodwill of students & faculty to not invite such ppl into our communities
At the same time, I completely reject admin's stance on this. In a message from our president sent today about this event we were told "Laurier should be a space where diverse views can have dialogue and test ideas." Are we...are we testing the idea of cultural genocide?
Are we testing the hypothesis that indigenous ppl are inherently backwards? Are we testing the notion that residential schools were simply good ideas poorly executed? Are all ideas--no matter how reprehensible, dangerous, or prejudicial--fit for testing on campus?
The email cont: "That two divergent events — one that questions Indigenization and the other that celebrates it — can occur on our university campus on the same day demonstrates Laurier’s full commitment to academic freedom, freedom of expression, and diversity and inclusion."
It's frustrating to have to actually vocalize this, but a commitment to diversity & inclusion means *excluding* those who promote racism & bigotry. That's the price you have to pay for claiming that allegiance
Perhaps that exclusion isn't a physical one (i.e. no platforming/de-platforming) but a socio-cultural one (i.e. clearly hailing racist material as racist & discouraging ppl from being taken in by its framing). Either way we *must* practice what we preach re: diversity & inclusion
The email concludes: "In an increasingly polarized environment, universities have an important role in supporting the expression and exchange of a broad range of ideas." There's no mention here that such ideas need to be rooted in facts & evidence, no sense of responsibility..
..no obligation to the truth. However we respond to these speakers who promote prejudice, the above cannot be the ground we stand on. It's simply unstable.
Higher ed exists on a foundation supported by facts, evidence, & an obligation to learn from the past. Take that away, & what are we left with?
