by Ruchika Gothoskar
Doug Ford, Ontario’s new premier, has set out guidelines that give Ontario universities until Jan. 1, 2019 to develop a free speech policy on campus, a hot-button topic among the Progressive Conservative party after several high-profile incidents involving speakers with conservative views.
McMaster is no stranger to such engagements, after the highly contentious appearance of controversial psychology professor Jordan Peterson at McMaster in 2017, when his lecture was shut down by protestors.
The PC government made it clear that Ontario colleges and universities must come up with free speech policies that “include a definition of freedom of speech and adhere to principles based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression”.
The University of Chicago’s document currently states that colleges and university are places for open and free discussion, that institutions should not shield students from ideas they disagree with or find offensive and that university or college community members cannot obstruct the freedom of others to share their views. Should Ontario post-secondary institution fail to implement this policy, they risk facing major funding cuts.
The reality of this situation is that we have had this conversation before, many times. McMaster began creating an anti-disruption policy in 2017, a draft that outlines acceptable methods to protest appearances by polarizing figures. The document was created by the university's committee on protest and freedom of expression in response to an increasingly polarized political and social climate where protests on campus are becoming more common place.
The question now is not whether or not McMaster will adhere to Ford’s demands on free speech policies, simply because we know that McMaster’s already been eager to shut down disruptions and allow for “free discussion” from the jump. What needs to be thought about now is who this policy is hurting, and what kind of dog whistle is embedded in the creation of policies like these.
Implementing school wide policies that do not allow for things like trigger warnings or safe spaces are ultimately harmful for everyone involved. These content disclaimers and spaces allow for individuals to decide how or if they want to engage. For people who experience trauma, such as sexual assault or attempted suicide, unexpected re-exposure to traumatic events can provoke a strong negative emotional response, impeding on their ability to learn and interact appropriately.
Furthermore, the threat of cut funding is one that hits home for many. Playing around with an institution's funding is a bold declaration. Many, if not all, post secondary institutions admit students, hire staff and create boards on the sole and main expectation that they can honour employment contracts or periods of study. This makes non-compliance with the free speech policies high risk, putting not only students’ livelihoods at stake, but also administrators’ and educators’.
Realistically, when implemented, policies like these do nothing but reduce advocacy for minority groups and the left hand political spectrum, leave students without a voice and further silence those who already come from marginalized backgrounds. Activist and writer Nora Loreto says it best, “free speech is freedom from reprisals from the state. This [policy], instead, is a stunning attack on the free speech of anyone in the university of college community.”
Oftentimes, when individuals speak out on acts of oppression, such as sexism or ableism, they are told that they are being politically correct. This ultimately derails the conversation and forgoes an opportunity for a mutually beneficial learning experience, counterproductive to the nature of university. With political correctness and trigger warnings, we are still able to have difficult conversations. And we should; being uncomfortable is often necessary in learning as it means we are challenging what we know and critically engaging with what is presented to us. Adopting a politically correct perspective ensures that these conversations are constructive and that we recognize our words for what they are: impactful.
On June 30, the provincial government, under Doug Ford’s leadership, altered the Ontario Health Insurance Plan so that children and young adults with private health benefits are now no longer able to access OHIP+, the program which offered free prescriptions to those under 25.
There is a lot to be said about the Progressive Conservative Party that was recently elected, and with the speed at which they are changing things, it feels almost silly to focus on one change. But the recent changes to our pharmacare challenges the autonomy people, especially young people, ought to have over their bodies.
If you are a McMaster undergraduate student, you are probably on the McMaster Students Union health plan. It should noted, right away, that the MSU health plan is a fairly comprehensive one, offering both vision and dental care, coverage for 80 per cent of the cost for a huge selection of prescription drugs and only costs $106.00 for the entire year.
This plan is a good one, but like most private insurance, it only benefits someone in relatively good health. If a person needs multiple medications, dental care and vision care, then they are forced to either pay for multiple medications, opt out and receive the medications they need through OHIP+, or be out of dental and vision care, two types of health young people already neglect on a regular basis. All of these three options require one to compromise on their health in some regard.
For many individuals, it takes some trial and error before they land on the correct prescription drug; this is particularly true for those seeking birth control or antidepressants. It takes birth control about three months to see how it affects one’s body, and six to twelve weeks before knowing if an antidepressant is working effectively.
With this in mind, it would be hard to convince someone who needs medication to spend money on drugs which may not help until they find the exact combination that alleviates their pain. Young people already self-medicate all the time, whether it be through other recreational drugs or through health supplements.
Being able to exist with effective pain management is one of the surefire ways to improve student life. It helps young people learn how to take care of their bodies and builds a healthy relationship based on nourishing their body when it hurts. No amount of money saved from ‘cutting corners’ is worth sacrificing a generation of young people with poor mental or physical health.
Young people should not have to do this sort of calculus when it comes to their health. Ideally, no one would have to. The PC government is presenting this change as cutting corners, but what it really does is limit one’s ability to successfully navigate medical care.
As we move forward through the next four years, it is imperative that we keep an eye on what the provincial government is doing and keep critiquing, keep fighting back. A lot of the cuts that are coming will seem innocuous, but mean cutting necessities for others.
To those entering the school year, consider the pros and cons of opting out of the MSU health plan. For those who advocate on behalf of the student union, it is worth tripling your efforts given the speed at which legislation is occurring. In the meantime, it may be time to reconsider purchasing another order health supplements before the flu season kicks in.
