Let’s protect and cultivate

Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression & open-minded Inquiry are Closely Connected with individual Wellbeing, Prosperity of Society, & a Vibrant democracy. They are the essence of Intellectual Progress & the very notion of ‘Universitas’.

The reflections posted here are intended to foster a renewed debate culture especially in academia & educational institutions, for which I as a Professor of Classical Studies care as much as a father of children going through the Canadian school system. I wish our elementary schools, high schools, & universities not just to inform and direct public debates, but also to be models of free, creative, respectful thinking and talking. Diversity of thoughts and life styles can flourish in a setting of institutional neutrality and mutual respect. Disagreement can be the starting point of progress, if we manage tensions with patience and collegiality, if we seek an honest understanding of other positions, and if we maintain fair and transparent procedures of truth finding and conflict resolution.

I am here linking my blog posts with the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo (FAUW) and the Green Party.


Part 4: We Must Discuss What the Right to ‘Freedom of Expression’ Should and Should not Cover

  • Throughout the Western hemisphere, a new wave of student protests in support of Palestine in the Gaza War was kickstarted with the encampment at Columbia University on 17 April 2024. The Waterloo student community was slow to follow, but by mid-May, a camp had also been set up on our campus. (I will not call it ‘student encampment’, as it is not established whether the activists represent UW students in a meaningful way).

    The camp was initially tolerated by the university administration, which also tried to engage with the protestors, but on 20 May, formal notice was given to end it. Soon thereafter, a ‘Statement from UW experts & demands from UW/WLU community members opposing UW’s formal notice to end the encampment’ was released online. It has found several signatures in support by now. Based on this, a motion was drafted to urge the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo (FAUW) to support the protestors:

    ‘Be it resolved that FAUW, with urgency, will formally request to the University administration that it:

    • Retract its May 20, 2024 "Formal notice to end encampment and remove all structures";

    • Negotiate with the students in good faith; and

    • Uphold the core principles of freedom of expression on which our universities depend.’

    On 7 June, an extraordinary general meeting was held at FAUW to discuss and vote on the motion, and the result was released today, 10 June: 60.8% voted against.

    I would like to commend the leaders and administrators of FAUW for the fair procedure, which allowed many voices to be heard both in favor of and opposed to the motion. And I would also like to thank colleagues devoted to either side for remaining respectful in their tone and argumentation.

    These are (about) the concerns that I shared in this debate:

    1) I hope we agree that we owe compassion to all who suffer from war, terror, and violence, irrespective of their identities. However, compassion is not the same as political activism, which tends to be onesided.

    The university campus in particular should be the space for critical inquiry, open-minded in all directions. What I have been hearing on campus since shortly after October 7 has been very one-sided.

    2) I do not want get into this – important – political discussion here, at FAUW, because our association is not the right place for debating international affairs – or politics – unless they directly relate to the educational system or our working conditions. The mission of FAUW is to promote and protect the interest of faculty, to enable them to do their work well, and thus benefit the students – not by advocating on behalf of the students.

    3) Politicizing FAUW through the present motion not only detracts its attention from its many important duties, but also deteriorates – once more – its relation with the university administration. Much work has been done to repair this relation, and we should not imperil this by provoking the administration with undue interference.

    4) Last but not least, the motion focusses on the freedom of expression, a topic very dear to me, as those of you know who read what I write on the FAUW blog or on Think-Centrist.com.

    But freedom of expression is not all at stake here. Everyone can say everything on campus that is within the law, and the demands of the encampment have been and will be vocal on this campus.

    Freedom of expression is not an entitlement to trespassing or to having one’s demand fulfilled, even if they lack a legal basis.

    I conclude that the discussion will have to go on, hopefully with respect, hopefully based on facts, hopefully within the law, but please outside of FAUW. This is why I’ll vote against the motion.

    Now that the vote has been cast, FAUW can concentrate on matters that are in its purview.

    However, we should pause and take note that our membership appears to be severely divided on the question of what ‘Freedom of Expression’ actually means, how far it should reach (for Faculty, students, citizens, or human beings), and where limits must be drawn to protect other people’s rights.

    I would like to invite colleagues to discuss this with me sometiome on 18, 19, or 20 June 2024, 5-7 pm, probably in the Grad House (to be confirmed), hopefully endorsed and sponsored by the Faculty Association (as requested). Please, drop an email to acoskun at uwaterloo.ca if you wish to attend, and share the invitation with those who might be interested. I hope that we may have a good crowd of liberals, progressives, conservatives, and centrists, to allow for a solid discussion, and possibly also for some conclusions.