There is indeed a virus vexing us, one that is much worse than Covid-19; this virus has many names: divisiveness, lack of respect, fear. No, I am not a health expert, and yes, I am also tired of the debate, but I do feel the need to speak up and give those a voice who dislike the tone of this discussion. Those who want to read on only if this message comes from an expert: rest assured I do claim relevant expertise. Which? Wait and read on.

I find it offensive and dangerous that someone calls out referring to “costs” of anti-pandemic measures as “extremism”. To be clear, I do not argue that masks are evil or useless. On the contrary, they have helped us cope with Covid-19. I disliked them yet endorsed their use wherever adequate (be this term’s students my witnesses). What I do argue is that wearing masks comes with costs and side effects, just as every medication comes with costs and side effects. Denying costs or side effects is as harmful as denying potential benefits.

One cost to start with:

I suffer from asthma (as many others). Occupational Health confronted me with a form, based on studies that asthma is not a reason for not wearing a mask (even if my request was only for not wearing it when lecturing from the podium in a fully-vaccinated classroom). My request was denied, and my asthma remained ignorant of the wisdom taught in whatever studies.

Another cost:

I wonder how often each of you have experienced that communication through a mask has failed. I order a tea with milk at William’s, repeat my order twice, and am served a coffee with sugar. This is not a joke, but real life – save it for your next peer-reviewed study. Anecdotes aside, as teachers in the classroom, we depend on oral communication; if this is inhibited, all other teaching skills become irrelevant. Those who insist on a ‘study’ may start with an anonymous survey among their own students.

Yet another cost:

I firmly believe in showing face. I always did, it is my citizen ethos. I asked my students to show face during the pandemic, when I was teaching remotely. I was hoping that if I showed my face out of my disorganized home office, while wearing a comfy hoody, students might have the courage to show theirs in whatever situation they might be. Some followed my lead (and benefitted), but most did not, because many students are full of fears or uncertainties. We should empower our students – rather than cultivate their (often disproportionate) fears.

What wearing masks does or does not do to our immune system I do not know, but I do not need a peer-reviewed study to see that wearing masks comes with significant costs for individuals and our society as a whole.

I appreciate that some of our colleagues have stood up for what is important to them, the one demanding a renewed mask mandate indoors on campus, the other rejecting it strongly; I accept that a this can be passionate. But we should strive to maintain respect for each other as colleagues, maintain respect for reason as scholars, and maintain respect for diverging interests and values as good citizens – as long as we believe in democracy.

The democratic principle did prevail, when a very high number of us demanded the vaccine mandate in 2021. Without having had a vote, my guts tell me that some 90+ percent of faculty, staff, and students do not want a mandate now – otherwise they would begin by wearing masks. But why not put it to a vote?

Am I thus disrespectful to “vulnerable” people? I truly do not want to be, but democracy sometimes appears to be disrespectful to minorities. This is the case when minorities or their advocates cannot make a sufficiently strong case that the majority should pay a(nother) price out of compassion. Am I cynical?

Not at all, I am just an expert of democracy, for “I am Pericles” … is one of the outlets of my research on constitutional law and political culture in the Greek and Roman world and beyond.

Decisive in politics are never just facts, but very much their interpretation and their weighing according to interests. A functioning democracy requires us to be honest about the evidence, to start with, and transparent about who pays and who gains, before we put a proposal to a vote.

My proposal is to ask our leaders – starting with FAUW, then at the Faculty and University levels, and eventually nationwide – to honour democratic principles and to have more trust in democratic procedures.

On 22 September, the indigenous people at the University of Waterloo invited President Vivek Goel to vow the University’s lasting commitment to Truth, Reconciliation, Decolonization, and Indigenization. The first Commitment Ceremony took place around the Cedar Circle in the college greenspace at the Equinox Sunrise, the second a few hours later on the ground believed to be the very centre of the Haldimand Tract, the land promised to the Six Nations in 1784. President Goel was given the indigenous name “Ogiima” (‘leader’), together with an eagle feather. For the University he received two wampums (‘ritual belts’) remembering the friendly reception of the first European settlers by the local people. In return, he gave quilts with the logo of the University of Waterloo to Jean Becker (Associate Vice-President, Indigenous Relations), Elder Bill Woodworth (Adjunct Professor at the School of Architecture), and Elder Myeengun Henry (the Indigenous Knowledge Keeper appointed to the Faculty of Health). By smoking a ritual pipe, the binding nature of the agreement was endorsed. All participants were offered orange mini bundles of tobacco, which they gave into a little bonfire at the end of the ceremony, thus joining the agreement. I had to leave early and took my bundle home. It now sits on my desk to remind me of a touching morning, but also of my personal quibbles. Many questions have accumulated on my own path.

My problem is not so much with the notion of Truth, although I gave up believing in the Truth (long before a passionate liar launched ‘Truth Social’). I acknowledge instead that individuals construct their own ‘truths’, though some do so based on more accurate and balanced information, others pick by convenience. Yet I see the high value of attempting to be truthful by not closing one’s eyes before less pleasant facts, by being transparent regarding one’s own interests, by taking risks to advocate against misinformation.

Truth is necessary on the path towards Reconciliation, whether it is between individuals, larger groups, or whole nations. Reconciliation implies true greatness of character: the humble recognition of one’s own failures and the willingness to make up for them let one hope to find forgiveness. This is how the trust is built we need to move forward together.

For many, Decolonization seems to be an essential element on this path of Truth and Reconciliation. But, as a historian, I have some concerns about using this term. At most times in world history, colonization involved violent immigration and the imposition of foreign culture, religion, and political structures. For me, an honest use of this word implies the demand of undoing colonization, in that colonizers (or their descendants) leave the land. Most Canadians don’t want such a radical solution, for obvious reasons. But why should we then use such a radical term that may alienate many from the effort of seeking Reconciliation? Yet ever more progressive agendas seem to be falling under the umbrella of Decolonization, such as action against gender inequality. Many activists salute this – but does it do justice to each instance of injustice? As I see it, Decolonization presumes unquestionable moral authority that inhibits a free analysis, often based on the assumption of an ideal pre-colonial and an immoral colonial society. These are simplistic constructs that obliterate historical and political complexity. They may well lead away from the Truth.

Another problematic claim is that Sovereignty be returned to First Nations. I willingly concede that every tribe should have cultural autonomy. But for centuries of political thought, Sovereignty has meant much more, including fiscal, legal, and political independence. Vagueness further pertains to the territory: sometimes, I understand that those claims are limited to indigenous reserves, while others seem to be made for all Canada. If we maintain the established meaning, there can only be one sovereign in any given territory (although the duality of the Crown and the democratic citizenry remains a conundrum to me). I therefore discourage speaking of Sovereignty – unless one indeed wants to advocate replacing the Canadian state with something different. I would rather pursue Reconciliation through constitutional procedures. This may well include constitutional reform in an open, democratic process. Why not start a critical discussion about it, instead of pretending that there is a simple and fair solution that is being withheld for unethical reasons?

The notion of Indigenization involves further uncertainties. Of course, granting First Nations more participation in and better access to Canadian institutions, to elementary and higher education or to an adequate health system is overdue. And I happily acknowledge the value of native traditions in our efforts of preserving land and water, or of seeking balance in life. As a humanist who experienced Catholic liturgy earlier in his life and studied Greek mythology, I am attuned to the imagery of Mother Earth, which the Elders Bill and Henry evoked: a stimulating complementary approach to appreciating our environment. But to be clear, for me this is imagery, for some it is firm belief, for yet others it may be difficult to reconcile with their religious convictions. So, are we to embrace indigenous traditions only as far as they meet with our own spiritual or philosophical positions or are we to accept them because they are indigenous? My preference as an academic would be a third way: to think as critically about my own tradition as about those of others, including of those who lived in this place before me. Yet unmentioned are the tensions between Indigenization on the one hand and academic freedom and secularism on the other, regarded highly in Canada and held dear by me. If we address these questions openly, we will lift some of the uncertainty hovering over the vague notion of Indigenization. We will work against fears that come with an untransparent path to an uncertain end. We may instead facilitate the inclusion of indigenous traditions in a critical, pluralistic, and respectful public discourse on culture and religion. That is what partnership may look like.

The recent Commitment Ceremony at UW was, of course, not the occasion to discuss all these open questions. For me, it was uplifting to see the trust and goodwill that has been built over the past years on our campus. I thus allowed the rich symbolism to inspire me. And, perhaps, I found a bit more this way. Those who wish might find answers to the critical questions I have raised, if only indirectly. A viable version of Decolonization, Sovereignty, and Indigenization might be sketched in the respectful partnership that was forged. President Ogiima Goel humbly expressed his strong desire to continue learning from the First Nations. At the same time, both sides acknowledged the need to respect established procedures as avenues towards change.

I am, however, realist enough to foresee that not everyone will want to accept the Elders’ invitation to live in their land as “welcome guests,” for a guest is not a citizen who is an active partner in democratic process. Academia must hence do more than fostering the process of Truth and Reconciliation through the display of generosity or humility. We must also do better at the intellectual and political levels: to enhance clarity and transparency, in order to better inform as well as to broaden and deepen the democratic discourse. We may thus lay the ground for a more sustainable way towards Truth and Reconciliation.

As with my other centrist writing, I try to offer something that is critical yet respectful and potentially the starting point of a constructive, open-minded discussion. I was therefore quite disappointed that an earlier version of this article (composed for my O Canada column at The Community Edition, October edition) was rejected with barely any explanation – although I think it is a very suitable piece for a journal that seeks to foster community engagement. I was likewise disappointed that the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo did not want to publish it on its blog page, although the questions raised substantially impact on the questions of academic freedom and else. The rejection took two months, so that I am publishing the article here with some delay on 9 December 2022.

My recent travels through European countries involved me in heated debates on cultural and national identities and the future of the European Union. The altercation of arguments reminded me of the Leitkultur (‘leading culture’) debate which flared up in Germany a couple of times since 2000. It unfolded along the question of whether Germany (or the European Union) should redevelop a cultural or religious profile as a benchmark for the integration of migrants. In those days, I disliked the discussion, afraid that it would allow in nationalist themes and sentiments through the backdoor.

In Germany at least, the debate gained little traction in the mainstream. The left rejected it from the onset for ideological reasons, the moderate conservatives were not fond of it either, largely perhaps out of fear of losing votes. I now admit I underestimated the anxieties of people who feel marginalized in their own home countries (whether economically or culturally). There is growing awareness now of a more general desire of nations or ethnics to maintain their dialects or other cultural or religious traditions. And, ugly as it may sound to some, yet necessary to consider in our analysis, some concerns are about losing a more prestigious status or financially relevant privileges. This all comes into play when we talk about cultural, religious, or national identities.

My time in Canada gave me insights into First Nations’ attempts at reclaiming their culture, history and ‘sovereignty’, and I also observe the fight of Quebecers to maintain their French language. The power imbalance and the historical experience of course differ significantly among these two examples, but they have in common certain roots and consequences, including fear and anger on the one hand, and solidarity or fierce opposition and political uproar on the other. In similar ways, a majority of Poles and Hungarians regard European (or American) liberal policies as attacks on their Catholic identity. Election results in recent years can be taken as indicators of a public sentiment that should not be downplayed.

But let us return to the Leitkultur debate in Germany. Little attention has been paid to what I regard as the real reason for its failure. It appears plain and simple to me: the debate, if led with honesty and respect, would force us to ask thorny questions, and even worse, oblige us to articulate our own answers.

1) Those who introduced the concept (the Christian conservatives, Germany’s main centre-right party) were unable to describe plausibly what a viable (German or European) Leitkultur should consist of. How much Classical Antiquity, Catholicism or Protestantism, Islam, and Enlightenment can be admitted, and from which century should such choices be made? E.g., is it the Christianity of Jesus, Paul, Constantine, the Crusaders, Martin Luther or Martin Luther King?

2) Perhaps more importantly, the same proponents of a European or Occidental Leitkultur also failed to explain who should have the authority to define those elements and their proportions in the yet to be created Leitkultur: Is it the European or the national Parliaments, some academic elites, or the general public engaged through open debates and reaching a verdict by a referendum?

3) Likewise interesting is the question to whom the result of such a finding process should apply: only to migrants, to all school children, or to everyone living in a certain territory?

4) This leads us directly to another question: which would be the legitimate methods of transmitting and enforcing such a Leitkultur? How many incentives and constraints, how much violence would be applied?

5) Perhaps all the aforementioned questions melt down to a single one: how do we envision the society we want to live in? Do we want our newcomers, citizens and children to embrace diversity, to adhere to one mainstream, or to ask their own critical questions? Do we want them to live in fear or with courage? Do we want them to be curious, indifferent, or suspicious of different views?

Of course, this is – for now at least – only an imaginary discussion. But it is one we should not shy away from. It can have a sobering effect.

The most thought-provoking plea for maintaining a free, diverse and respectful discussion culture I came across last month was an article by the University of Virginia student Emma Camp (The New York Times, 7 March 2022). She shares her frustration about being censored for attempting free and open-minded discussions on campus. Some readers may not like to hear it, but even well-intended ideologies of inclusiveness, if applied without balance and discretion, will result in exclusion and division. Ms. Camp quotes representative surveys estimating that up to 80 per cent of undergraduate students in the US feel intimidated to speak their minds, after being muted for holding “untenable” views or due to fears of being shamed. These are numbers that we would intuitively relate to countries known for their oppressive systems (name them yourselves), not to our neighbour who is under the watch of the Statue of Liberty.

The Canadian experience may not be as bad, but from my own classroom experience I know how difficult it is to engage students in speaking openly on any important matter. Most of them are confused by a prof actively encouraging diverse views on principles and values of which they have learned that others had already decided on. Diversity may be celebrated as a high value in Canada, but often I feel that it is more a lip service, since it is about check-marking as many different religious, ethnic or gender boxes as possible. But then there is the strange assumption that the opinions of these diverse people all fall within the narrow scope of what is acceptable. Voicing a view that is not within these confines is either ‘politely’ ignored or more actively ‘silenced’. I would rather see more engagement with a position regarded as difficult. Should we not try to make an attempt at understanding what experience or perception might have led to the ‘problematic’ view? And should we not try to find specific arguments showing the problems that may arise from a view that we want to discourage? But need we not also consider all such challenges as opportunities to reconsider our own views and to wonder if this has got its blind spots? Little of this exercise is practiced in our classrooms.

Silencing is a kind of social and political conditioning. It begins relatively early in our school system and continues throughout university. Admittedly (and thank goodness) there are always a few teachers and profs who ignore those gently imposed limits of speech and rather actively encourage us to think out of the box. Such stimulating instructors were the majority in my school days (Germany, 1980s and 1990s), but they are a minority nowadays (at least in North America). Typically, our students not rarely encounter either unwillingness or inability to think through new arguments or nuances.

Silencing is often a gentle or quiet process, gradually inducing most of our youth to go with the flow, and to do it silently. I regard this as a systemic problem. By doing so, our schools and universities do not deliver what they pretend to do: educating our youth to become a critical, inclusive and empowered next generation of citizens. Instead, the majority is led to disengage from sociopolitical debates, afraid of stepping onto one of the many ideological mines. They expect direction to come from leaders, rather than seeing or claiming their own active part in the public debate and the resulting decision.

Such conditioning is the real threat to our democratic freedom.

Let us therefore allow, encourage, and where necessary even push our students to experiment with the freedom of thought and expression. Our job as (academic) teachers is to show them how this can be done in respectful ways, how to experience conflict in a constructive, argumentative way, how to maintain collegiality or friendship even when no consensus is reached.

If we as University Professors achieve this, we will not have to be afraid for our academic freedom, because it will be anchored more deeply in our society than a written constitution can do.

A reader kindly drew my attention to this excellent discussion by Debra Soh (Globe and Mail, 21 March 2022): What is lost when Universities self-censor.

I have three news on Climate Change, two that are good and one that is bad. The first two are on knowledge and are kind of taken care of; the third is on justice and needs our urgent attention.

1) In 2022, the human species has a solid and detailed understanding of the causes, symptoms, and effects of Climate Change. Compared to the 19th century, we reached a global temperature increase of 1.2°C by 2020. As a result, we are already seeing record numbers of natural disasters, with storms, droughts, and inundations more frequent and deadlier than before. We will be seeing a further surge of such incidents, besides the slow but steady – and no less threatening – melting of the ice caps on the poles.

2) We likewise have detailed knowledge to prevent global warming from crossing the tipping point of 1.5°C, not by 2050, as we were assuming until recently, but probably closer to 2045. We do not yet know all the technologies that the future might bring us to prevent further warming or to cope with the change that has happened already, but we already have a wide range of options at our disposal to cut back and eventually eliminate the burning of carbon fuels.

Let me repeat: as terrifying as Climate Change may be, the news is still good, for we know what is going on and can avert disaster for humankind. Gone are the days when governments were still denying either the reality of Climate Change or refused to recognize the increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as its driving cause. For many years now, international scientists from several countries (who are no longer limited to North America and Europe) co-operate under the umbrella of the United Nations. The latest report by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) on “Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability” was delivered to the Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres on February 28, 2022. This Sixth Assessment Cycle Report II is available in multiple formats, to allow for differing levels of understanding. For non-specialists as myself, I recommend the FAQs version.

3) The true challenge is not one of knowledge but of acknowledgment. Most of us do not have a deficit of understanding, but one of justice and, I would like to add explicitly: of courage. Indeed, the notion of justice is ever more often evoked in political and scientific declarations relating to climate change.

To the signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement, it was clear that the common objective could only be achieved by a balanced combination of Science, Efficiency and Justice. The tenth paragraph of its preamble acknowledges “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.” “To strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” (Art. 2.1) can be seen as a summary of the whole endeavour. In the wake of the conference, many good-willing countries declared their intention of climate neutrality (mostly) by 2050, while acknowledging the need of a JUST TRANSITION to achieve this. For some, this may seem as an additional burden; others regard such an ecological transformation as the greatest opportunity ever to establish a higher level of equity and sustainability, both among our fellow citizens and partner states.

The latest IPCC report summary (p. 5) defines:

“The term climate justice, while used in different ways in different contexts by different communities, generally includes three principles: distributive justice which refers to the allocation of burdens and benefits among individuals, nations and generations; procedural justice which refers to who decides and participates in decision-making; and recognition which entails basic respect and robust engagement with and fair consideration of diverse cultures and perspectives.”

We must acknowledge that there is barely any area of climate change and climate action that does not involve serious aspects of justice or injustice respectively. The two most typical complaints that stall action come from two directions: the ones complain about others who polluted our environment more in the past than they did themselves, as if there were an entitlement to destruction; the others are afraid of ending up with higher bills for climate action in the present and near future, as if their wealth did not come with a higher level of responsibility. Add to this the controversies about balancing different pieces of information from various perspectives defined by distinct interests, and the ensuing conflicts about procedures and decision-making become even more intricate. An end to such negotiations is thus not in sight. As inescapable as they are, they have procrastinated urgently needed action for far too long.

The complexity of climate justice is perhaps even more daunting as climate science itself. It is like the Hydra of Greek mythology, the nine-headed monster that fearless Hercules had to face, but could not handle initially. For every head he cut off, two new ones grew. He conquered the beast by burning each wound after chopping off a head. The usefulness of the image is of course limited. I would not want to suggest that we respond to each claim of justice with ruthlessness, although there might be temptation, to prevent yet others from coming forth with similar claims. But we can draw inspiration from Hercules and Hydra in other ways. They may help us understand the complexity of climate justice and leave us with no doubt that every single type of injustice will sooner or later have to be addressed.

But most important right now, since we are in climate emergency that no longer bears inaction, is this: Hercules had the courage to fight a beast that must have appeared indomitable to him at first. And he showed the determination to fight even before he had all the answers. Resignation was not an option.

The context in which I pursue climate (justice) action is the Climate Justice Working Group at the University of Waterloo. On March 12, 2022, we function at the local hosts of the nation-wide Day of Action for a Just Transition initiated by 350 Canada and Council of Canadians. See the event page and the flyer.

The Ambassador Bridge (connecting Windsor, ON, and Detroit, MI) was occupied by trucks and protesters on February 7, and it took until February 13 to have it cleared. The hundreds of truckers and thousands of their sympathizers who had been laying siege to Ottawa since late January have gradually been sent home, arrested or cornered (while I am writing these lines on 19 February). An end of the chaos seems to be in sight for those most affected in the capital. But when will the turmoil truly be over? Not, I claim, until we have learned our lessons – and do better.

Protests against the vaccine mandate for truckers crossing the US-Canadian border oscillated in mid-January. They became the loudest and most disturbing political demonstration in recent Canadian history. Truckers and supporters from both countries gradually filled the highways and cities all over the country since about January 21 before gathering in our capital a week later. By January 23, they had gained so much clout that I was fascinated – and frightened at the same time – by the power of the sound of ‘Freedom’. I reflected on this in my O Canada Column with The Community Edition (published on February 1).

Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford declared the state of emergency on February 11, to begin clearing the Ambassador Bridge. Yet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waited until February 14 to evoke the Emergencies Act, though the residents of Ottawa had to wait until February 18, before police forces from all over Ontario and Quebec began freeing the streets of the capital. (For detailed timelines and documentation, you may check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest or https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/timeline-of-convoy-protest-in-ottawa-1.6351432.)

There are so many troublesome sides to this story. To be clear, I support a (balanced) vaccine mandate. Some people choose to ignore the data from our own and many other countries. If it’s too hard for them to accept the rules that our government has implemented and with which about two thirds of Canadians agree (see polls), they enjoy the democratic privilege of challenging the government at the courts, flooding their MPs with letters and phone calls, and expressing their minds in many other ways. This is freedom!

I do not think that it is a human right to be allowed to drive a heavy truck over Parliament Hill, to idle with it in a city center, or to terrorize residents with honking or exhaust fumes incessantly. I wonder how someone may seriously justify such attacks on innocent people’s health with concerns about their own health. I am bewildered by the fact that those expressing concern for their freedom even hold their own children hostages in the midst of those honks and fumes, under precarious sanitary conditions and with temperatures falling to around -30 C. I further question that banners screaming “Fuck Trudeau” should have any room in our democratic society: since when can our citizens and law enforcement no longer distinguish between a political opinion and an insult?

My frustration is not only about the misguided people who seem to have lost their ways, but also about the police who do not intervene when they see that harm is done. Paradoxically, this plays into the hands of extremists whose strategy it is to diminish trust in our government. I am upset about the municipal, provincial and federal governments which took no proactive measures, knowing for weeks that a convoy of angered truck drivers was rolling towards Ottawa. I am speechless in the face of prolonged inactivity in the midst of a crisis that will leave thousands of fellow citizens traumatized for some time.

Should the government’s choices be condoned as de-escalating strategy, bemoaned as incompetence or castigated (with Professor Regina Bateson, as quoted by CBC News today) for the racial bias underlying it? I see signs of all three things here, and I cannot but endorse Professor Christian Leuprecht’s verdict (cited in the same CBS article) of a “fundamental epic failure of all levels of government to provide for the most basic function of the modern state”. Yet I am relieved to see that experts and journalists are having this discussion, so that there will perhaps be some kind of accountability.

There is something that troubles me even more, something that we are inclined to push away, since it is just too disturbing. The protesters were and are still taking immense hardship upon themselves (and their children): they risk their livelihood, their freedom and their health, all quite literally. They have convinced themselves that they must make the last stand for their own freedom and for a livable life of their children!

We should pause for a moment with our lamentations on the burden they have been imposing on us. Let us seize the importance of what I have just tried to describe: the despair in the gazes and shrieks of the protesters that we can see and hear these days on all media channels. Thousands of our fellow citizens are apparently disconnected from what we like to call ‘our’ or ‘Canadian values’. But it’s not just a splinter group of less than one percent. Probably over a third of Canadians express sympathies for the so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’, as various polls suggest. This is about the same proportion that I have found confirmed in the anecdotal conversations I have been having with friends and random people in my community.

Obviously, we see the toll of a pandemic that has been dividing us for two years. Even worse, there is a growing level of organization among the ever-bolder right-wing extremists who systematically try to undermine the citizens’ trust in our laws, media and institutions. Our fellow citizens are increasingly falling prey to them, by mixing understandable frustration with legitimate, non-sensical and outrageous claims about rights and freedom. Extremism has in fact many more allies in the middle of our society.

Many allies of radicalized anti-vaccine activism are to be found in the (Progressive) Conservative Party: about half of them openly sympathize with the protesters. It is no coincidence that Erin O’Toole was chased as party leader during the truckers’ protest on February 2. Quite emblematically, he tried to find a balance by denying dialogue with them without condemning them either. The new interim leader Candice Bergen shows active support for the truckers. The Premier of Alberta Jason Kenney announced today his intention to challenge the invocation of the Emergencies Act as disproportionate. I would like to surmise that he does not see any realistic chance of prevailing in court, but rather wants to court the votes of the radicals. I find this reckless and keep wondering what ‘conservative’ values are left in this party’s portfolio.

But there is another alliance that operates in secrecy. There is something tragic about it, because only one side knows that it is aided by the other. I mean the overly ideologized (left) elites, who certainly have the best intentions. But while talking so much of being inclusive, they fail to see that they are pushing millions from the center to the right. That the Prime Minister excluded categorically to speak with truckers before they even arrived in Ottawa, that he – and many others – made so many sweeping judgments about all the protesters and their sympathizers helped but only one group: the radicals.

Knowing so well that stereotyping is unjust and generalizations are dangerous, we should try to avoid them. We should further resist the temptation of dehumanizing those who are inconvenient for us. Let us at least make an effort to understand them or perhaps get to know the one or the other individual from among that amorphous crowd. We should try to distinguish between those few who may be lost for a civilized society and those many who still share values and interests with us, even if we cannot see or hear it in the heat of the conflict.

I thus plead a soft approach towards those who deserve the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I demand rigor for those who break the law. Especially those who harm other people should feel the teeth of law enforcement. They should experience this no more and no less than other activists who choose to ignore the law when making their claims. The principle that the law is the same for everyone should be embraced by minorities and majorities alike. Is this not a principle that we want to be defined by and proud of?

Admittedly, few of us have a say in the government’s choices, at least directly. But there is something left for us to do, and if done with determination it can be quite powerful.

Before eventually addressing the helpful things that each of us can do, there are some good news to share in all this mess. Even after our Parliament had been besieged for three weeks, no attempt was made to storm it. Likewise, relatively few weapons have been found, and none used. Moreover, the physical harm that has happened (and that I do not want to belittle) is still moderate if compared with last year’s Capitol Attack. This was the result of a one-day riot that the voted-out-but-unwilling-to-cede President Donald Trump had unleashed on January 6, 2021.

Although the organizers of the convoy are affiliated with white-supremacist groups, even those instigators denounced physical violence. I cannot say if this was shrewd strategy or heart-felt. But there would be some good either way. If it was a strategy only, then even the sinister organizers acknowledge that most protesters resent violence. Something similar could be said about the Nazi flags that showed up in the crowds in Ottawa: they did not sit well with the truckers and supporters.

These swastikas should therefore not been used to discredit the whole protest, but must remind us on the contrary of our own urgent responsibility. Our responses to the protesters and their sympathizers will decide to some extent whether they will affiliate more with a nationalistic and autocratic or with a diverse and democratic system. In other words, they can one day tip the balance towards a political system that even some of them will be shocked about when waking up in it. But there is still a remedy.

What if all of us show the courage and patience to engage in conversations with those we do not understand? We might express our gratitude for receiving the vaccines, which made our lives safer. We could address the tax-funded benefits that kept millions of Canadians from falling into poverty – nothing really one should expect from a ‘mischievous’ government. We will learn that some things are so much more important to other people than to us, and hence reconsider what a fair compromise can look like. We should definitely voice our love of freedom, while acknowledging that its natural limits are set by the freedom of others.

Quite regrettably, we will often fail to achieve the agreement we hope for. This, however, gives us the chance to send out an even more powerful message: that we, as devoted democrats, can show respect also to those with whom we disagree. If we pledge to deliver this message on a daily basis, we will achieve the unthinkable: keep the millions of uncertain people in the middle of our society, let them be part of our concerns and share with them the pluralistic discourse we treasure.

As a result, we will have more anti-vaxxers among us, more who find manmade climate change a hoax, more who have their problems with the head scarf or with the growing list of sexes. If we manage to keep these people at our dinner tables, in our bowling clubs or our churches, we might prevent someone with one such problem from quickly having difficulties with them all. We might discourage hating those who are not understood. When reasonable arguments have failed but some trust remains, there will still be room for experiencing the good in the unknown other.

True enough, this is a long shot. But I’d rather take the long shot than the last stand.

This is an extended version of an open letter to the Decision Makers at the University of Waterloo.

Yesterday, the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo (FAUW) discussed how to articulate the concerns of Faculty to the university administration. This was only a week before the scheduled return to campus on Feb. 7, for which it appears we are not yet ready. Many thoughtful views and much frustration were expressed, with no attempt at drawing a conclusion. What I found missing most was a clear and constructive pathway towards a solution that works for as many as possible. I shall formulate four straight-forward suggestions at the end of this article. Beforehand, I shall briefly summarize the arguments currently on the table, followed by an explanation of the principles that should be underlying our discussion to find constructive solutions.

Most of the comments addressed safety and practicality concerns, besides voicing frustration that the university continues failing to consult with Faculty or FAUW. It was made clear how many aspects of Omicron are still uncertain, how high the risk of long-Covid is, how many amongst us are in a high-risk group or have vulnerable people back home. The administration speaks of safety but does not explain how the safety plan can be sufficient with the Omicron variant being ten times more contagious than Alpha. And what is the concept worth, when it is not sustained by an adequate supply of higher-quality masks or rapid tests? Moreover, the administration did not offer support for the switch from physical to virtual teaching in January, nor is it doing so now for the switch back to physical. Even worse, instructors are left alone with the students’ expectation that courses should be hybrid for a partly physically present and partly remote audience. What is, moreover, the point of calling everyone back to campus when there is no plan B for instructors likely failing the daily Covid screening in high numbers? The concerned voices of my colleagues thus added much flesh to the list of demands that FAUW had posted on the 27th. Many of the latter bullets were echoed by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) in yesterday’s posting to members.

Although our FAUW meeting was about specific concerns of colleagues, I was happy to see that many of them also took the precarious situation of our students to heart. Strong cases were made for the numerous students who cannot come back to Waterloo in the middle of the term for a wide range of reasons. Students may have the same health concerns as we have, but most of them are under more pressing financial constraints, some of them being even unsure if they can return to Canada at all. Exerting pressure by refusing choices, or by imposing untransparent procedures run by Health Services (which do not enjoy the trust of everyone on campus, to put it politely) increases existing anxieties by adding frustration and even fear for the future of their careers.

There is also a strong correlation between the voices heard yesterday and the results of a survey that the UW administration had conducted amongst staff and Faculty: half of the more than 3,600 responses express significant discomfort about the return to campus under the current conditions, while only a quarter welcomes it. This quarter was also present at the FAUW meeting and made itself heard. They remind us that many of our students (and I add: instructors) have an urgent psychological need to regain normalcy in their lives, to have interpersonal encounters on campus before their undergraduate program ends, to enjoy a full learning experience, which is difficult to convey in a fully virtual environment that is generously funded, and which is impossible to deliver in the less-than-ideal world in which we live. Let us be honest, we as instructors – or as society at large – can never make good what our youth has been missing out on over the past two years. And how balanced are the medical concerns for a campus community that is double vaccinated to 99%, and probably largely also having received the booster shot?

One colleague advocated the continuation of remote teaching, another claimed the immediate return to campus. Both supported their views with self-conducted student surveys, each claiming to act in agreement with two thirds of their students. But where to go from here? Should we be paralyzed by this dilemma or give in to one side?

Do the conflicting surveys mean that statistical data is always useless or misused? Not necessarily, but as scholars we should know that many of our findings align with what we are hoping to find. Good scholarship and good citizenship demand us to look at the same problem from various angles. A more balanced conclusion should be that either of these two choices would fail a very large number of our students and instructors. Two years into the pandemic, we should see that a far greater risk than the virus itself is how the discourse about it divides our society. The same division runs through our Ivory Tower, though admittedly still somewhat more politely.

We must try to do better, and I know we can do much better. I would like to propose three simple principles to help us out of the dilemma: respect, balance and transparency.

To start with, respect! Listen to the other side with an open heart and an open mind! Whoever does this should conclude that the arguments among both groups are very strong; imposing a one-sided solution on everyone would mean unproportionate harm to many of us. We are not all the same: while we all deserve the same respect, we do see things differently, feel differently and construe risks, pains and dangers differently. Society needs to think much more carefully about when a one-fits-all solution is necessary and legitimate – and when it is not.

The next virtue I reclaim is balance. I would appreciate more solid data not only on what Covid-19 has done or might still be doing physically to many people, but also what it does to our mental health, career prospects and sociopolitical cohesion. A debate that advocates for one constituency alone without considering adverse effects on others does not seem balanced to me.

The current debate would further benefit from more honesty and transparency. I am puzzled why, on the one hand, Covid-19 is still seen as so dangerous that a burdensome protocol is imposed on our lives, while our provincial government has already decided (or at least accepted with resignation) that we are going for herd immunity perhaps within weeks.

Yesterday’s debate paid little attention to the fact that our children were called back to school two weeks ago. The communication strategy of the government was confusing; safety precautions are inefficient to prevent the spread of the virus; consultation with teaching associations did not happen; concerns for children whose parents decide to keep them home were minimal, largely confined to a few youtube links. Parents and children responded with loud protests or equally loud applause, while many just accepted what’s coming with silent resignation. In this regard, there is little difference to what seems to be happening on campus.

Likewise, I wonder about the excessive safety demands as advocated by CAUT and FAUW: they would all have merit in an ideal world, where resources are unlimited and where the same safety precautions are taken by everyone. Today, when talking to my massage therapist, I learnt that there is no supply of medical masks or rapid tests for him and his colleagues. I conclude that those who reject compromises with the safety protocol (whose efficiency against Omicron is yet to be debated) actually mean: there should be no return to in-person teaching before the pandemic is over. Here, too, the discourse could be more straigt-forward.

Having said all this, I think that we should try to escape those one-sided debates and seek more creative and balanced paths towards a solution of our problems. Here they come:

• Let the university administration negotiate with FAUW and representatives of the student bodies which resources must, should, can or need not be provided for those who return!

• Let Health Services not become an administrative nightmare for those who need accommodations, but assist them in finding resources or solutions for those who are experiencing difficulties and need our help!

• Let the departments enquire into the needs and availability of their instructors and students, and be empowered to organize collegially, constructively, and pragmatically a study program that has sufficient online and offline offerings as to make sense for hopefully all students!

• Stop praising the resiliency and innovative spirit of the UW community – better start trusting in it!

I am not saying that my recommendations respond fully to everyone’s needs, but I claim that everyone would be better served, with a better learning experience for the students, more predictable workloads for Faculty and probably lower long-term costs for the university. In fact, I am convinced that we would all come out of the pandemic more resilient and united, and perhaps be seen as a model for how our society should respond to the remaining controversies relating to the pandemic (and beyond).

A centrist approach begins with the awareness that the erosion of the discussion culture does not make halt before the most fundamental levels of society: our families and neighbourhood or workplace. In fact, we may wonder if not much of the current problems originate in the negligent ways we sometimes encounter each other here.

How much do we still listen in these private and semi-private settings? What effort do we make to see problems from other perspectives? Do we try to give specific answers to the concerns raised? Do we concede that we cannot see the whole picture either? Do we exhibit the patience to listen to other views, even if upsetting to some degree? We must learn to accept that what we perceive as fair or just is not shared by everyone and that our aims cannot be achieved with ease or without compromise. Even if we firmly believe that we are right, we must choose respectful ways of expressing disagreement, consider the viability of compromise and keep our minds open for new information or arguments. The more we project balance around us in such ways, the more we contribute to the health and stability of our society at large.

Solidarity may sometimes urge us to speak up for those who have a weaker voice, to endorse their legitimate interests or to intervene when we see that respect is denied to them. This requires empathy and courage, but I suggest that more than that an ability to build bridges and overcome a divide is needed. So, how do we address our concerns? Is it in a righteous and sweeping way which echoes the loud shouts from either the right or the left? We must be cautious not to end a dialogue before beginning it by slamming a door into someone’s face. Centrist thinking looks for the nuances in other opinions, tries to identify some good intentions and reasonable worries even in a position that it may largely resent. It is mindful of the need to keep people in or at least closer to the centre of society, rather than pushing them into the corners. Much well-intended but overly ideological and polemical debate has actively catalyzed alienization and radicalization in our society.

Centrist thinking seeks a safe balance between letting the centre be radicalized on the one hand and allowing it to be thinned out on the other hand. Centrist speaking is more hesitant to condemn anyone wholesale and tries to build on values or interests that are still shared. When we may no longer have to say much to each other about one topic, we may continue our dialogue and social experience together. This should immunize us against hating and denigrating each other. Despite our differences, we maintain our ability to see in each other the human, the fellow citizen, the esteemed neighbour or even the dear friend.

As we learn to disagree more respectfully, we are also better prepared to confront taboos that permeate our society. Taboos pertaining to people with whom one is not supposed to be friends and pertaining to subjects about which one better remains silent. I often notice that students, neighbours and friends are uncomfortable speaking about certain topics, afraid that they might say the wrong thing or step on one of the many ideological mines. Admittedly, there may be traumatic situations in which certain topics are better avoided for a while, lest they trigger uncontrollable reactions, violence or pain. The norm in a democratic society should be, however, that every topic can be spoken about openly and rationally, provided that respect is maintained: respect for the facts, respect for the affected people, and respect for those holding different views.

An open and respectful exchange of arguments may lead to significant improvements of a situation, whether factually or at the level of perception, which matters no less in politics. In contrast, silence in the face of difficulties often increases problems. It squanders the opportunity of responding with information, arguments or negotiation, so that it bars the way towards compromise or solution. Being silent about challenges may result in small problems growing bigger or in misunderstandings turning into frustration, hatred, or destructive forces.

Of course, not everyone can enter into a debate at any time. We are neither prepared to speak on every possible subject nor do we have a genuine interest in everything. But in some topics we do. For these we should compare our views with others, refine them where we encounter good arguments and then articulate them adequately. As long as we have the privilege of living in a free society, fear should not stop us from pursuing this. Likewise, it should rather not be fear that holds us back from committing hazardous actions, but a sober consideration of the consequences of our deeds. Everyone should thus work towards an environment in which others can speak out respectfully without fear of repercussions. In the same way, everyone should have the courage, at least occasionally, to speak out something that may not be popular, if it results from reflection and aims at maintaining respect. Asserting this right of active political participation not only promotes a specific agenda, but it fuels the vibrancy of democratic culture.

I have previously explored the virtues of respectful listening and bridge-building as well as the courage of breaking with taboos. These encouragements directly aim at strengthening our freedom and democratic culture. But there is one more outspokenly democratic wisdom that centrist thinking tries to promote. While admitting the institutional weaknesses and ethical shortcomings of democracy, we should still accept it as the best way of safeguarding fairness, freedom, and diversity. If we do so (given the lack of any plausible alternative), then we should remind ourselves – and our politicians – constantly of democracy’s fundamental principle: after a fair exchange of arguments, the majority rules.

The litmus test is not whether someone’s arguments relate – effectively or purportedly – to the common good or universal values, however defined: this is what even the most tyrannical regimes in this world are doing. The critical question is whether we have both the courage and humility to defer to the majority. Deferring should not mean changing one’s view due to pressure, but may mean acknowledging that one has not (yet) managed to convince the majority of one’s own suggestions and that a longer process is needed to bring about change for the better. Many examples could be drawn from historical or current processes of emancipation, whether of sexual or ethnic minorities. How far should one go when one might have the power to decide things for now, albeit without the ability to sway the hearts and minds of the majority population? Is slow but steady progress with the approval of large endorsement not the more sustainable pathway than aiming for full equality or even going beyond by means of ‘corrective’ justice?

I concede that the majority is not always fair or well informed, but bearing with a society that is a bit slow to understand and somewhat selfish is the price of democracy. This does not mean that the majority lacks solidarity or insight in all regards, but sometimes our fellow citizens need to be engaged in informed discussion, and sometimes they may just need more inspiration and better leadership. The beautiful thing about our democracy is that every citizen can potentially display this kind of leadership - starting at the grassroots level and thus helping us improve our political culture.