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.
Earlier this year, McMaster released an initial draft of guidelines highlighting their commitment to freedom of expression and what could be defined as acceptable limits to protest, prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on Protest and Freedom of Expression.
The report and guidelines generated a diverse range of feedback, which was collected by the University Secretariat. After formal review, the University administration released an updated set of guidelines for event organizers and protestors.
The document is intended to ensure that all voices within the McMaster community have the opportunity to be heard, expecting to set a tone that is respectful and inclusive of the entire campus community.
It is also in place to ensure that dissenting or opposing views can be expressed, outlining various responsibilities for event organizers when planning a potentially controversial event.
“As an academic institution, McMaster has an obligation to ensure that the regular academic and administrative business of the University (regularly scheduled lectures, classes, exams, administrative meetings, etc.) continues unhindered,” the document reads.
“The University will accordingly take such steps as are necessary to ensure appropriate conditions to enable a conducive learning, working and living environment, and that academic and general facilities, property and equipment are available for use for their regular purposes as part of the ongoing academic and administrative business of the University.”
Event organizers are encouraged to consider the potential impact of their event on other community members and to work with the University so that any necessary measures or supports can be put in place.
The updated guidance document now includes clearly defined roles and responsibilities of various groups on campus, a revised fundamental commitment section to include specific acknowledgement of the power imbalance that exists within our community, tightened language surrounding discrimination and harassment to be more consistent with Canadian law and further information surrounding support services available within the university.
Several organizers and activists on campus are unhappy with these new guidelines, claiming that these guidelines limit expression from marginalized groups.
“Organizers and activists on campus feel that the guidelines are way to silence those who are resisting institutional repression.,” said an organizer who wished to remain anonymous.
“The university favours free speech but at the expense of marginalized students. Where as our dissent isn’t granted that same protection. The university can’t stop students from protesting, but what they can do is create vague guidelines that hold absolutely no weight.”
The guidance document lists examples of what the university would deem acceptable and unacceptable forms of protests, generally listing any behaviour that would impede on an event’s progression as unacceptable. This includes blocking the audience’s view, inciting violence or hatred against an individual or group, or causing damage to property.
In the case of unacceptable forms of dissent or protest from audience members, the event organizer or any moderator/facilitator should first notify the relevant individual or group that their behaviour is not acceptable, and is interfering with the event.
If the behaviour continues, relevant individuals should be asked to leave and the assistance of Security Services can be sought in the event that individuals fail to leave when asked to do so.
If an individual is concerned that conduct at an event violates or appears to violate any laws, University policies or codes of conduct, they are encouraged to notify the relevant University office so that conduct can be investigated and addressed in accordance with the University’s usual process or policies.
By: Jack Leila
We all know our rights and freedoms. We have the freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to our own political ideologies based on section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Those few rights are just the beginning of what our rights and freedoms entail. So why are certain people silenced? Why are human rights groups at McMaster marginalized? Why do they have to be careful of who they offend when they should be worried about the people they are fighting for?
Protests at McMaster are rarely ever covered by the media. When they are, the articles are not about the positive effects of the protest, but rather police intervention and the different ways the groups were forced to leave campus.
This not only threatens the fundamental freedom of expression given to all Canadians by the Canadian government, but also what McMaster calls the freedom of expression it gives to its students.
Political correctness is important but only to a certain level. If someone is afraid to fight for a marginalized group, what kind of freedom is that?
McMaster University is made up of students with diverse voices and opinions. It is meant to support freedom of expression, but there can’t be expression without allowing students to speak out against the inequalities occurring at McMaster and around the world?
McMaster advocates equality and a good education for all students but when it comes down to it, lines blur between the school and organizations who just want to advocate equality.
This not only threatens the fundamental freedom of expression given to all Canadians by the Canadian government, but also what McMaster calls the freedom of expression it gives to its students.
Where freedom of speech is taken away from human rights groups, it is given somewhere else, perhaps in a place where it should never be.
Recently, McMaster put out freedom of expression guidelines saying, “there are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event”.
This may have been a reuslt of the Jordan Peterson incident, where a controversial psychology professor for the University of Toronto was invited to speak at McMaster, who has claimed that he “does not recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns he uses to address them.
For marginalized communities who have struggled to have their right to identifying themselves, allowing someone like Peterson to speak on campus is oppressive.
Given that choosing to identify yourself as you please is a legal right in Canada, it should definitely be supported on campus.
Though there are a number of student-run groups that do so, McMaster as a university should be more considerate of this in terms of indirect associations and possible interference.
I’m not in any way condoning violence. I am questioning why a person who violates the McMaster values was invited to speak at an event.
Nothing about Peterson emulates what McMaster is supposed to stand for. What he advocated for in his lecture at McMaster was despicable, rude and politically incorrect. There is a line between types of protest: protest for human rights and protests that do not support human rights activism. McMaster needs to decide where it stands and what it supports.
The protests surrounding Peterson’s visit would have never happened if he was not allowed to speak at our university.
I hope that McMaster changes the way it approaches student protests because we, the students, are those who should represent McMaster.
Does our university want to be known as the one who encourages the silencing of student voices?
McMaster needs to reconsider what it places importance on. What is more important, the press rights of someone who speaks of traditional, politically incorrect ways or the press rights of someone who wants to change our campus into a safe environment, where students can express themselves freely?
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
McMaster has released the first public draft of its guidelines on protest and free speech on campus, in which it outlines what the university considers acceptable forms of protest at campus events. The university released two documents: a report of their own findings and a guideline draft.
In the report released from the ad hoc committee on protest and freedom of expression, McMaster laid out the rationale behind recommending the creation of a statement from the university on freedom of expression.
The report argues that the university needs a formalized process to address issues that arise as the political climate becomes more polarized and is meant to address the conflict the right to expression may have with commitments to equity, diversity and inclusion.
In addition to recommending a formalized protest policy, the report also recommends the university create an online lecture series on topics such as free speech and activism to better inform the public and develop resources for instructors who teach controversial or potentially challenging material.
According to the guidelines document, The rules and recommendations laid out are meant to commit McMaster to creating an environment that harbours a free exchange of ideas and respectful debate. In its current form, the guidelines would be applied to all members of the McMaster community and any invited guests. According to the report from the ad hoc committee and stated in the guidelines draft, events will only be shut down in extreme cases where student safety is at risk.
“The temptation to ‘shut down’ or prevent events from occurring is troubling. Censorship is not an option. There are very narrow grounds under which McMaster should restrict or stop a speaker or an event, essentially those dealt with in federal and provincial laws governing harassment, libel, slander and hate speech,” the report stated.
The guidelines lists examples of what it deems acceptable and unacceptable dissent, meant to guide those curious on what behaviours are acceptable. For example, the guidelines lists picketing as acceptable, so long as it does not impede on the access to the event.
In addition, the guidelines address the manner in which events should occur and encourage event organizers to include question and answer periods, encourage open lines of communication with dissenting groups before and throughout the event, arrange formal responses from dissenting groups in advance if deemed appropriate and use non-partisan moderators in the case that the subject matter is particularly controversial.
The guidelines also advise event organizers to ensure their events are safe and accessible by working with the Environmental & Occupational Health Support Services and McMaster Security Services.
The guidelines list using or threatening violence either the audience or speaker, inciting violence or hatred either verbally or through visuals, physical intimidating audiences or speakers, endangering safety and causing damage to property as unacceptable behaviour.
If dissenters are found to violate these recommendations, event organizers are encouraged to first ask individuals to stop and then ask them to leave before getting McMaster Security Services involved. The guidelines state that those who violate or appear to violate laws or university policies will be investigated in accordance to the university’s usual processes.
For those who wish to submit feedback to the guidelines, the university encourages the McMaster community to email the university secretariat ([email protected]) by Mar. 30, 2018.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Nov. 13, an article published in the Hamilton Spectator highlighted McMaster’s development of an anti-disruption policy aimed at barring students from disrupting future speakers on campus.
In his article for the Spectator, Andrew Dreschel praises McMaster president Patrick Deane’s prioritization of an anti-disruption policy and his commitment to free speech. He argues McMaster does not currently protect free speech sufficiently, citing low scores from organizations such as the Campus Freedom Index as evidence.
Deane, however, has expressed interest in clarifying the new guidelines being developed since the article’s release.
“The university is engaged in developing guidelines around the limits to acceptable protest intended to assist event organizers and participants, as well as those seeking to engage in protest, rather than an anti-disruption policy,” said Deane in an email interview.
The university’s efforts come in the wake of the disruption that Jordan Peterson experienced when he came to deliver a lecture at McMaster last March.
In particular, after being disrupted by student protestors, Peterson was forced to leave the room and complete his lecture outside.
Following the protest, both the Revolutionary Student Movement (Hamilton) and the McMaster Womanists put out statements on their social media stating they were verbally and physically accosted while protesting the event.
Deane wrote a letter that defended Peterson’s right to speak on campus, citing the university’s commitment to academic freedom.
According to Dreschel, Deane has already “established a committee of academics to talk about what the ethical frame for [the guidelines] should be.”
“Once complete, [the guidelines] will, of course, be made widely available to members of the McMaster community,” said Deane.
Campus activists are concerned with the university’s anti-disruption efforts, arguing McMaster does not adequately protect marginalized groups on campus. All activists who spoke wished to remain anonymous out of fear of violence.
“Protest is the only way powerless people can give themselves a voice,” said one student activist. “Any university that tries to protect free speech by threatening marginalized students with punishment if they protest is a university where a single institutional perspective dominates,” they added.
The campus activist explained that the university’s commitment to free speech is eroded by the fact that it is endorsing a policy aimed at constraining activism.
Another campus activist believes that the policy will allow right-wing groups to evade accountability when inviting and condoning bigoted speakers in the future.
“It gives them a way to hold politically incorrect events without fear of being shut down,” she said. “When students spoke out about their concerns with having Peterson speak, the school actively ignored those concerns. The only way students were able to get their message across was through disrupting the event to protect the LGBTQ community on campus.”
The exact guidelines will likely be completed early 2018.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Hundreds of protestors gathered in Gore Park on Nov. 7 to protest the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline and stand in solidarity with water protectors at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a proposed, 1,886 km long underground oil pipeline project that is planned to begin in the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, traveling through to Patoka, Illinois. The pipeline is set to cross beneath the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and part of Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
A camp, set up at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation earlier this spring, sees several groups of environmentalists, concerned citizens and Indigenous folk from across North America protesting this project. To date, hundreds of people have been arrested and members of over two hundred Indigenous groups across North America are actively supporting the protests.
Hamilton’s rally was organized in response to these protests by Hamilton350, a local chapter of 350.org, which advocates internationally for a clean and safe climate. The main focus of the rally was to create public awareness and keep the solidarity movement growing.
“We felt it was extremely crucial that we respond to the international call-out that the Standing Rock Sioux put out,” said Robyn Sifton, social media coordinator for Hamilton350. “We have to respond. This is a matter of urgency, it’s a matter of right here, right now. It’s happening down there but it’s also up here.”
Hamilton’s protest was also organized to raise awareness of the funding that the Dakota Access Pipeline is receiving from Canadian banks. TD Securities is financing $365 million dollars toward the construction of the pipeline, while RBC and Scotiabank are investing millions of dollars respectively toward energy companies who are partial owners of the pipeline project.
“[The rally] was about creating awareness, because you know, everyone has a bank account, everyone has a job, or is trying to get a job, so it’s important to be aware of where your money is going,” said Sifton. “That transcends past banks into corporations too; where is your money going? Who is it benefiting? What inhumane activities are going on that you may or may not be aware of that your money is contributing to?”
You can find out more about what Hamilton350 is working on here.
C/O Kim Herod-Gromadzski
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
On Thursday, Sept. 17, hundreds of women-identified individuals walked away from sexual violence and towards safety in the annual Take Back the Night march. The march began as a protest against sexual violence against women. The annual tradition encourages women to reclaim their right to safety in their communities, day and night.
For this reason, the Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton and Area (SACHA), the event’s organizing group, requested that the march remain limited to women-identified individuals. Male allies were encouraged to voice their support from the sidelines, commending those that came out for knowing when to engage in active support and when to let others take the lead.
The march began in front of the Hamilton City Hall, looped around to King Street and back. Despite being a march in resistance of power imbalance and abuse, it was far from a negative space. Instead, the night was filled with buzzing noise and a vibrant crowd—both in colour and demeanour.
As the dusk settled around City Hall, the crowd covered the square, and with it grew the noise: the fanfare, the drumbeats, the anticipatory chatter and triumphant yelling. White balloons danced above the crowd and sparkles from poster embellishments floated in the air.
Signs reading “Yes I am angry” and “We believe survivors” waved amidst chants of “A dress is not a yes.” Women of all ages took pictures together, belted out Beyoncé’s “Survivor” and reveled in the sound of their voices echoing around every street corner.
The spread of the march, the signs, the volunteers and the staff made it clear that organizing this event was not a walk in the park. Sponsor lists covered an entire page of SACHA’s pamphlet, the City Hall square was scattered with booths of organizations backing SACHA, and volunteers new and old ensured the night ran smoothly.
Erin Crickett, the Public Education Coordinator for SACHA, was one of the planners for Take Back the Night and took a break from running around to explain how monumental the night was for female empowerment.
“Working against rape culture can be really isolating and lonely… When you’re speaking out against dominant culture, you get so many messages saying you’re wrong. Every year is super reaffirming to be surrounded by joyous, vibrant, loving people who are [recognizing] that this is an issue in Hamilton.”
Take Back the Night drew out many faces from McMaster including both women joining in the march and volunteers giving their time to the cause.
“There has been a renewed surge in campus based activism since the “No Means No” campaign in 1990… It is really nice to see all three postsecondary institutions taking this issue very seriously… and the provincial government giving them a nudge with the Sexual Violence Action Plan that was released in March.”
While the recent conversation surrounding sexual violence in programs like Welcome Week Rep training is a step in the right direction, the dialogue should continue year-round and needs to reach past those in leadership positions and onto the general student body.
Estimates of crowd turnout ranged between five hundred to one thousand supporters, with a noted surge in the number of younger women dedicated to the cause. Yet Crickett has a different measure for success.
“I don’t judge the success of an event by the number of people that show up, I judge it by something that is immeasurable, which is how much did we change the culture of Hamilton and did participants have a good experience.”
Participants can post their reasons for marching on blog.sacha.ca under the series “Why I Come to Take Back the Night.” While responses are equally moving as they are chilling, there is a general consensus that the annual march is an incredibly empowering space for women from all walks of life.
On Nov. 6, pro-choice protestors disrupted a session hosted by McMaster Lifeline, a pro-life club on campus.
The talk, titled “Abortion: Reproductive or Human Rights?” invited Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform representative Maaike Rosendal to present a scientific case for the pro-life perspective. However, before the presentation began, pro-choice protestors interrupted the session with various prepared dialogues, ranging from comments on abortion in animals to unrelated facts.
Rafaella Shammas, president of McMaster Lifeline, expressed her disappointment in a statement to The Silhouette.
“The purpose of the event was to raise awareness about the humanity of the pre-born and the inhumane nature of abortion... while we expected some opposition at the presentation, we were disappointed that many of those who call themselves pro-choice seemed to have no problem with taking the choices of others away,” she said.
Protestors also brought cowbells and harassed attendees with silly string, many of whom were pro-choice advocates. Campus police initially arrived half an hour after the event start time, but left after being ignored by the protestors. Although several protestors dispersed before the police returned, the most disruptive individuals were escorted out around an hour after the presentation had been scheduled to begin.
“We are certainly aware that the issues we bring to light on campus are often sensitive and even controversial, but we believe that a university, the so-called marketplace of ideas, is where we ought to be able to engage each other on important topics such as abortion,” Shammas said.
Hannah Zou, a third-year Health Sciences student and pro-choice supporter, attended the event after having had previous discussions with Shammas at their table in the Student Centre.
“They really wanted to see the other side without being attacked, and still have their point of view listened to,” said Zou.
“At first, there was a full room of people, and I thought, ‘oh gosh, I’m going to be overwhelmed by all these pro-life people,’ but there were a lot of protesters there,” she continued. “There was a [pro-choice] poster next to me, and I thought, ‘hey, people are actually open to come to these presentations and see what the other side is about, and I was really proud of that.”
As a pro-choice supporter, Zou expressed her frustration with the protestors when she was trying to listen.
“It kind of pissed me off,” she said. “We’re trying to have a discussion, because that’s how you solve problems; what they did, I don’t think it did anything whatsoever for their cause.”
The presentation was eventually able to continue, and both Zou and Shammas said it was a respectful discussion among the remaining audience members. However, as the second of two protests that day, the question remains as to what students are and aren’t allowed to do.
Cathy O’Donnell, Senior Manager and Staff Sergeant with McMaster Security Services, explained the protocol.
“Our approach is always to have free speech, for both sides. But we also want people to be able to speak their own opinions without being interrupted,” she said.
“[When] it’s disruptive to the other group or disrespectful to the other group, then we really need to start looking at students’ rights and conduct for community living, to make sure we can all live in the same area.”
[adrotate banner="6"]
By: Amber Faith Miller
To begin, you should know that I'm a third year student studying English and Theatre and Film. While I enjoy my program for the most part, some of my classes make me feel uncomfortable.
In mandatory film classes, I've been assaulted by disgusting images without warning. I had no way to protect myself from visual and emotional disturbances brought on by razor blades and guttural screaming. What would possess a professor to actually force students to experience this? My professors use these films as examples of contemporary art. In other words, I have to sit through the good or bad gruesome scenes for the sake of higher learning. I'm sure you could think of a time when an idea, image or activity in class made you feel uneasy. How do we deal with course content that we don't like but cannot avoid?
Sometimes, when faced with an image or idea that they don't like, some people choose to protest, and that's good. The great thing about university is that varying opinions can coexist peacefully, and even interact respectfully.
How does one engage in productive discourse with an argument that they don't approve of? It starts with acknowledging the person before judging their opinion. Imagine how dignified our debates would be if we actually listened to understand our opponent, instead of cutting them down while trying to have the last word. We are losing our ability to debate with friends, and our ability to stay friends with people whose ideas differ from our own.
"What do you think about abortion?" I genuinely want to know. It's okay if your opinion differs from mine; the important thing is that we respect each other, while holding firm to our core values.
This past Thursday Oct. 9, McMaster Lifeline's information table was set up in hopes of sparking a good conversation. Pro-choice advocates began to protest at the table beside us, which generated even more buzz. We engaged passers-by in interesting discussions focused on basic biology and human rights. Unfortunately, not all the protesters were willing to engage in any discussion about abortion. Instead, they summed up their views in four-word phrases and had some choice words to speak about the pro-lifers next to them, including the phrase "f--- these people."
"They have fetuses!" You probably don't hear this phrase very often, unless you're a medical student. As a group advocating for human rights, we show plastic models of humans in their earliest stages of development, from blastocyst to embryo to fetus. These 3D models by no means depict a gruesome image, but are a tool for learning how the pre-born develop in the uterus over the span of nine months.
If any of the pro-choice protestors wanted to know where we got these models, we gladly would have told them. Yet, they refused to speak with us, or even look at the images they were protesting. This makes me wonder whether these protestors wished to teach us or shame us.
You may disagree with some or all of the things I said in this article, but thank you for reading it regardless. I heard once that "everyone [in Canada] has the freedom of speech, but that doesn't give one the right to be heard." Expression of opinions and active listening are invaluable tools for expanding our horizons as students, and making our campus a true medium for free speech.
