Article content continued

What is to be seen, then, is how a university will react if a guest speaker or student, for instance, challenges the gender wage gap perspective or affirmative action hiring policies at public institutions. These opinions could easily violate existing institutional mandates. So in the case of conflict, which mandate will take precedence over the other?

Chris Glover, the NDP colleges and universities critic, has signalled where the official Opposition would fall on this issue: “We want to ensure that campuses are safe, welcoming spaces for all — including those who are women, racialized individuals, and those who are LGBTQ2.”

— Policy violations: Given the conflicts, violations may be as inevitable as policy clashes. If a university violates its institutional free speech commitment — let’s say by slapping an exorbitant security fee on a student group that wants to bring in a controversial speaker — will the Ford government do the tough thing and financially penalize the university in question? Or will the university be able to explain away its actions using policy loopholes relating to “protecting safety,” or requiring “inclusivity?” Will the financial penalty be severe enough to change behaviour and set an example to other universities?

For these free speech policies to be tested, students and professors must take initiative and push the envelope by hosting public lectures or events on campus that are intellectually stimulating but also provocative.

However, what lies ahead largely depends on the Ford government’s commitment to solving this campus crisis and not solely on the challenging actions of students and faculty. It will be the Ford government’s own interpretation and enforcement of this policy that will make the difference between effective change and tough talk.

— Lindsay Shepherd is Campus Free Speech Fellow at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms



On Twitter: @NewWorldHominin