Last week another nail was pounded into the coffin of free speech. And, once again, university students were wielding the hammer. Most regrettably, it happened on the Brantford campus of Wilfrid Laurier where I teach.

The campus’ Criminology Students Association (CSA) had arranged for Toronto lawyer, Danielle Robitaille, to be the keynote speaker at their annual conference. Robitaille is most well-known for being part of the legal team that successfully defended former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi against charges of sexual assault.

The keynote address was slated for March 8th but on March 7th the CSA informed its 800 student members that the event was cancelled. CSA leadership discovered that another campus group had “organized efforts to disrupt (Robitaille’s) presentation” and they became concerned “for group and personal safety.”

The group planning the disruption call themselves Advocates for a Student Culture of Consent (ASCC). On a Facebook page they created they list their reasons for wanting the speech cancelled. The reasons all centred around the notion that because Robitaille had advocated on behalf of an alleged sex offender, Ghomeshi, anything she said, even her presence, could be traumatizing for those who had experienced sexual violence and anyone else sensitive to the issue.

In their words: “WLU’s choice to amplify (Robitaille’s) voice has caused harm and makes us feel unsafe, invalidated and not believed.”

Also explicit in their demands was the idea that they should be able to choose which topics are appropriate to discuss on campus and which are not. For example, they wrote: “During the (Ghomeshi) trial it was hard enough to find spaces momentarily free from these debates, but to actively choose to bring this debate to campus is very different and actively signals that this is up to debate when it is not.”

Where would these students of the ASCC get the idea that it is legitimate practice to shut down views that they personally find offensive? Mostly from their professors. I am ashamed to say that many of my colleagues, almost exclusively in the Arts, Humanities, and the Social Sciences, are promoting a virulent brand of cultural Marxism (under the guise of social justice) that preaches any idea they deem “oppressive” is a legitimate target for censorship.

Ironically, it used to be the case that the Liberal Arts programs of universities were the promoters of free expression, steeped as they were in the classical liberal tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mills. But now they’re leading the charge in the opposite direction. And it couldn’t have happened at a worse time.

Currently, the Arts and Humanities and to a lesser extent the social sciences are trying to combat a perception that our degrees are less valuable than degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (the so called STEM fields). It used to be the case that we in the “soft disciplines” could justify our existence by claiming our degrees teach students to think critically, a valuable skill in any career.

The ability to think critically comes, we used to argue, from our students being exposed to competing ideas, wrestling with the logic and evidence of each, and then deciding which is best. Unfortunately, the truth of that argument is called into question when significant numbers of our students demand not to be exposed to competing ideas.

Despite having accomplished their goal of getting Robitaille’s speech cancelled, the members of the ASCC and their supporters did not emerge from their battle free from emotional scars. At least that is what one is led to believe when one reads the congratulatory message sent to the group by Laurier’s Diversity and Equity Office (DEO) — an official administrative body of the university with the mandate to “cultivate a culture on campus that respects and promotes diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice.”

The DEO’s letter to the group, also found on the ASCC Facebook page, promised support because: “Though Robitaille cancelled her address, The Diversity and Equity Office recognizes that survivors and their support networks in our community have been impacted … We recognize the range of impacts this can have on members of our community, including impacts on feelings of safety and belonging.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

As far as I know the DEO sent no support letter to the more than 800 members of the Criminology Students Association who had their event abruptly cancelled. I suppose the DEO thought those students could deal with their hurt feelings on their own. After all, in the real world, that’s what adults sometimes have to do.