Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression at the University of Manitoba.
A Response to the University of Manitoba’s Invitation to Comment on Its Free Expression Draft Proposal
September 18, 2024
Bryan Schwartz, Professor of Law, University of Manitoba
Calls to Action in this Submission:
This submission calls upon the University:
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt the Chicago principles of free expression;
-to clearly and unequivocally recognize antisemitism as a real and distinct concern;
-to clearly and unequivocally recognize antisemitism in its “EDI” policies;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt IHRA as an educational tool in the same manner as the government of Manitoba and Canada;
-to clearly and unequivocally state and enforce that there can be absolutely no discrimination in admissions, hiring, or retention on the basis of political belief;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt the principle of institutional neutrality;
-to clearly and unequivocally state that it embraces viewpoint diversity in all respects;
-to establish a vice presidency, with no less status and no fewer resources than any other, whose mandate is to educate about free expression, freedom of speech, and intellectual diversity, recommend concrete measures to ensure these norms are honoured, and to regularly and rigorously report on compliance with these norms in all aspects of University operations;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt academic excellence as the criteria for admissions, recruitment, and retention. Such a commitment can be accompanied by effective policies to eliminate artificial and discriminatory barriers, but the fashionable nihilism at this University about the existence of merit and excellence must end.
Elaboration
- The University of Manitoba has overwhelmingly emphasized a version of “EDI” up to and including a disregard or rejection of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
- The University should unequivocally adopt the Chicago principles. These recognize intellectual pluralism. Viewpoint diversity is essential to the academic mission. That includes all points of view, including the left and the right. It does not mean establishing EDI as an intellectual orthodoxy.
- A genuine commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression does not permit the university to any form of ideologically driven censorship.
- The Manitoba Code of Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of political activity or belief. There is a comparable provision in the Collective Agreement. When will this University finally recognize these norms in practice, rather than moving in the contrary direction?
- The University cannot pretend to support intellectual pluralism while adopting the Marcusian idea of “repressive tolerance.” The latter is the notion that permitting not-leftish views is oppressive and discriminatory. An allied and similarly intolerant idea is that censorship somehow promotes free expression – because when people are offended by the speech of others, they are supposedly somehow prevented from speaking up in response.
- There can be tensions between free expression and other values, but the best response to potentially harmful speech is the force of a reasoned argument, not censorship. An institution that purports to be a home for free expression encourages and facilitates those who disagree to express themselves, rather than shutting down those who it believes are mistaken.
- The best response to speech perceived as “disinformation” is to make an effort to provide credible evidence and a reasoned argument. It is not to fall into yet another fashionable trap, which is to portray “disinformation” as the disease of one side of the political debate only. No political party or faction has a monopoly on the truth and an exemption from the distortions in perception that result from self-interest and a host of cognitive biases. Holding an official position, even in a specialty such as a branch of medicine or physics, does not make you the voice of “settled science” and entitles you to suppress competing views.
- The Chicago principles recognize that a limit on free expression is harassment to the point that people cannot participate in an academic environment; the Chicago principles do not permit the suppression of views merely because people's feelings are hurt by hearing challenging perspectives.
- Among the biggest threats to free expression through the academy now are intolerant and bigoted versions of EDI ideology.
- As a self-affirming Jew, I am subjected to a constant basis to verbal macroaggressions on this campus. I accept, however, that part of free expression and academic freedom includes my having to listen to leftist ideologues who are obsessive Israel haters. I believe that this University should adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as an educational tool, but as with the Cambridge University model, l am clear that it is subject to academic freedom.
- I myself should have the right to speak out, however, and I reject the particular form of EDI ideology being promoted at the university, which is effectively antisemitic. It does not even acknowledge the existence of Jews as a tiny and vulnerable minority, the group in Canada that by number is among the most exposed to hate crimes. The practical application of the version of EDI ideologically that is aggressively promoted at this University is to exclude Jews from higher education and to stereotype Jews as “white” and “privileged.” This reality – including the antisemitism that is so prevalent among EDI bureaucrats- has been documented with meticulous academic care in David Bernstein’s book Woke Antisemitism. I have seen firsthand the ethnic cleansing of Jews from academic positions in Canada.
- I have no issue with robust attempts to identify artificial and discriminatory barriers to equality of opportunity. I have created and embraced many such initiatives. I have tried to develop and deliver innovative programming in areas such as the history and rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. I built a graduate program associated with my endowed chair that worked successfully over the years with students who were almost entirely from other countries. My Israel program, “Mishpatim”, in partnership with Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has been praised by students from all backgrounds and perspectives for being an open forum to explore a wide variety of perspectives, including advocates for groups such as various Arab minorities, refugees from Africa, immigrants from Ethiopia and many others.(Despite this fact, this University long evaded its responsibility to reject attempts by the intolerant Israel haters on campus to ban academic contacts with Israeli universities.) I have worked with hundreds of students from every background in their capacities as research assistants, student authors and co-authors.
- EDI ideologues have no monopoly on an understanding of discrimination or opposition. In fact, they tend to act in a manner contrary to principles such as equal protection of the law and non-discrimination to Jews and to supporters of Israel’s right to exist – and to actively discriminate against applicants, students, and staff on the basis of ethnicity and political belief and creed.
- Part of this University’s antisemitic conduct has been its selective nonenforcement of its own policies concerning encampments. It has resorted instead to a fog of evasions. The right of protestors to access public spaces is the same- not less, but no more than that of any else. No group has the right to take over University spaces without authorization. The university has not respected its autonomy to control its own spaces and its own purported commitment to human rights, including non-discrimination on the basis of political belief or ethnicity. Instead, it permitted a group to make parts of the campus a no-go zone, including out of concern for basic physical safety.
- The most drastic form of censorship at this University and throughout academia is regarding hiring and admissions. “Free expression” and “academic freedom” are meaningless in a community that excludes different viewpoints from participation altogether.
- Independent surveys in the United States and Canada have found that the distribution of political opinion in the academy is drastically out of sync with the general population. It may be that right-wing ideologues if in power, would be just as inclined to exclude other viewpoints. The longstanding trend, however, is for leftist ideologues to self-replicate.
- This university has been wholly inadequate in even its verbal pronouncements. In its bureaucratic practice, however, it embodies viewpoint intolerance.
- This university is more and more centralized. There is less and less room for academic units and individuals to pursue their own intellectual interests.
- This university has to come to terms with the impact on free expression and academic freedom of its relentless push towards centralization. More and more extremely high-paid and powerful bureaucratic positions are created that intervene in the life of units and individuals within them.
- Our research bureaucracy has decided that the institutional priorities of this University are effectively aligned with current leftist ideology. Where is the commitment to support the research interests that faculty members individually choose in the exercise of their own judgment, ideas, and freedom? Do research priorities declared at this University such as “equity, diversity, and inclusion” actually include supporting research that is critical of the university’s own ideology?
- A recent University committee report proposed centralized hiring norms that embody extremist EDI ideology that downplays the existence of academic merit as an objective reality and that promote ideas such as that “merit” consists of a commitment to “equity” – which means sharing the same dogmatic ideology as the authors of the report.
- A vice presidency has been created for EDI, which effectively means major financial resources and institutional pressure in that direction.
- Where is the bureaucrat dedicated to free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity?
- The United Kingdom has recently legislated that all institutions of higher education must have a designated officer to enforce protections for free expression.
- This University can and must establish an office of intellectual freedom and diversity with the same resources and the same stature as any of the other vice presidencies. An adjustment in the university’s stated policies will be meaningless unless backed up by reforms in its administrative structures.
- I call upon this university:
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt the Chicago principles of free expression;
-to clearly and unequivocally recognize antisemitism as a real and distinct concern;
-to clearly and unequivocally recognize antisemitism in its “EDI” policies;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt IHRA as an educational tool in the same manner as the government of Manitoba and Canada;
-to clearly and unequivocally state and enforce that there can be absolutely no discrimination in admissions, hiring, or retention on the basis of political belief;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt the principle of institutional neutrality;
-to clearly and unequivocally state that it embraces viewpoint diversity in all respects;
-to establish a vice presidency, with no less status and no fewer resources than any other, whose mandate is to educate about free expression, freedom of speech, and intellectual diversity, recommend concrete measures to ensure they are honoured, and to regularly and rigorously report on compliance with these norms in all aspects of University operations;
-to clearly and unequivocally adopt academic excellence as the criteria for admissions, recruitment, and retention. Such a commitment can be accompanied by effective policies to eliminate artificial and discriminatory barriers, but the fashionable nihilism at this University about the existence of merit and excellence must end.
- As noted, this University released a report on equity in hiring that dismisses concepts such as there is any criteria that can be “objective.” The report effectively promotes the view that hiring should be based in large part on whether the applicant agrees with the ideology of the authors of the report. The report itself is replete with references to literature that agrees with the ideology of its authors. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment that there might be reasoned and good faith objections or qualifications to its perspective, including facts and arguments that suggest that various forms of EDI ideology can be contrary to the principle of viewing individuals as individuals, rather than through the lens of group stereotypes; that the group stereotypes favoured by EDI ideologues often promote their own career interests and their own political biases and disfavour vulnerable groups such as Jews; that the pursuit of truth ought to be among the goals of a university, and that there means of approaching the truth – including empirical testing and rigorous debate.’
- Institutional neutrality is a principle that should be recognized and adopted. This University has not practiced it. Elements such as the Institute for Humanities used university funds for events such as “Rallies for Palestine” that invite Israel haters to bring masks and demonstrate in a highly partisan manner that includes ignoring the continuing captivity and torture of Israeli hostages at the hands of Hamas, which is antisemitic to the point of violent annihilationism. I have never called for this university to officially take sides in the Middle East conflict officially. I utterly reject that official institutions at this University can properly adopt extremist positions, including the demonization of Israel.
- In authoring this paper, I am responding to an open call for comment from this University. I would remind this University that any form of retaliation- direct or indirect, in any way, shape or form, no matter how subtle and disguised - for raising human rights concerns, which I do here, is contrary to the fundamental and binding law of this province. The fact that I have to make this point should be taken as an indication of how badly this institution is failing its mission of being a home for free intellectual inquiry and expression.
- I invite anyone involved in this study to read David Bernstein’s book Woke Antisemitism, Jonathan Turley’s just-released The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage and my own recent book Re-Enlightening Canada.
- Short pieces that readers might wish to explore include:
- The occasion of reviewing and revising this University’s policies on free expression, academic freedom and institutional neutrality should be the occasion for necessary reforms, not doubling down on past and ongoing excesses. It is a time for moral courage and plain speaking, not the further repetition of rote formulas and evasions. The outcome of this process will have a major impact on whether the public can have any confidence in this University as upholding the best traditions of academia, including freedom of intellectual inquiry and expression and openness to all on the basis of individual merit and excellence.