BY JOHN K. WILSON
The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS), a Canadian conservative advocacy group for academic freedom, issued a letter denouncing last week’s Scholar Strike.
I believe the SAFS argument is wrong on two points, first when it claims that when universities support political activity, they are violating the academic freedom of students and faculty, and second when it claims that faculty are abusing their authority when they take political stands in the classroom.
The letter, from SAFS president Mark Mercer to Laurier University, complains that Laurier’s administration announced in response to the Scholar Strike, “Laurier supports faculty, staff, and students in participating in the digital teach-ins and other events being organized as part of the Scholar Strike.” However, the SAFS letter does not mention that Laurier University’s statement clearly declares, “Participation in Scholar Strike activities is voluntary” and gave recommendations “for those who do wish to participate.”
Mercer argues, “Scholar Strike Canada not only protests ‘antiBlack, racist and colonial police brutality in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere’ but urges activism in pursuit of a variety of concrete partisan political goals, including defunding the police….” Mercer is technically wrong–a political goal (such as defunding the police) is not the same as a partisan goal (electing a particular candidate), even when political parties have different political goals. But clearly, the Scholar Strike has political goals. So what?
According to Mercer’s letter, “SAFS is concerned that Laurier’s announcement encouraging members of the Laurier community to participate in political activities violates the principle that public institutions of education be non-partisan in politics and take no specific stands on the issues of the day. This principle respects the fact that public institutions are funded by taxpayers of diverse political views for the common good.” The common good is served by allowing engagement in political activities, not by banning controversial stands. After all, free speech is one of those issues of the day that some people oppose. Should colleges be banned from standing for freedom of speech?
Mercer also claims, “The principle also makes it possible for scholars and students to research and discuss contentious issues without fear or favour.” What makes it possible for scholars to discuss contentious issues is that they are protected from punishment. Banning institutions from speaking out in a backlash against political expression creates an atmosphere where everyone is afraid to express controversial ideas, not an environment that promotes more liberty.
I don’t think we should care what opinions institutions express about political issues, but neither do I think such institutional expression should be silenced. Any declaration that political speech must be silenced has a chilling effect on free speech, not a liberating one.
Mercer’s letter argues on a more disturbing level, “Scholars who use class time to encourage their students to engage in Scholar Strike actions, then, would be abusing their authority by enlisting students in partisan causes.” This is an even greater threat to academic freedom, since universities normally punish professors who abuse their authority. It is important to note that the “actions” and “enlisting” that SAFS objects to involve watching videos and participating in other educational activities. The notion that professors should not be allowed to educate students about “causes” is a disturbing restriction on academic freedom. Forcing students to express certain political views or take particular political actions can be an abuse of authority, but encouraging political engagement must be fully permitted in a free university. SAFS, not Laurier, is guilty of endangering academic freedom in the policies that it advocates.
John Wilson’s points are well-taken, at least in reference to the two issues he raises about faculty’s political rights.
However, we faculty should, in my opinion, ALWAYS be more concerned about the effect on STUDENTS of our decisions than on our own rights and opinions. In this case, canceling a day (or more) of instruction can be extremely detrimental to a student’s education — especially those who are/were under-prepared for college.
A case in point: *I* boycotted a class during the Vietnam War Moratorium protests, even though it was only an extension course. For my whole career, I never understood the material that I missed and it adversely affected my ability to teach and practice certain areas of my field.
Please don’t tell me that police brutality and other such causes are more important than education — or that those important social concerns are, in some way, educational. That is a value judgment that may or may not be shared by students, who may prefer to learn about those issues on their own (or not at all), while confining schoolwork to the major and minor subjects they study. Besides, if a strike was called for every injustice in society, we’d hardly meet once a month!
You are quite right about effects on students. That may be the core dilemma. It reminds me of striking pilots who strand passengers. Otherwise this issue at this particular university is framed by the Lindsay Shepherd case, a conservative student who was subject to enormous institutional prejudice; she bravely fought back and has influenced Canadian campus free speech policy, but apparently not enough: https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-silences-canadian-free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd. This current case is another example of speech act suppression by academic disruption. I don’t think it is reflects well on the university certainly, let alone the student and faculty agitators: it undermines their credibility in free speech doctrine. Why is the Left so insistent on establishing its positions as institutionally favored, even by tactical disruption? SAFS is right. Regards.