Queen’s University in Kingston has announced that it will hire six “facilitators” who will listen in on student conversation, ever vigilant against incorrect speech. These “facilitators will “respond to, stimulate and invite engagement across differences and tensions among and between groups in university residences.” They will pay special attention to “incidents of bias, prejudice .. harassment and discrimination.” They will be good at this sort of thing because they will “receive intensive and specialized training in the areas of social-justice theory.”
Whose social-justice theory? How in the world can officials at Queen’s try to impose an official throttle on freedom of speech which is the sine qua non of a university? Surely the money could be better spent to hire a professor to study and teach about the iniquitous effects of censorship on society in general and on academia in particular.
Far from advancing social peace on the campus, this policy, out of considerations of political correctness, will only suggest that Queen’s has forgotten to have any respect for freedom of thought and of speech.
How pathetic. How frightening.
Do you agree?
The notion that university students ought to exercise critical judgment with respect to their speech is a good thing. However, I think that Queen’s is going about it the wrong way. It would only lead to “safe” venues where conversations would not be snooped upon.
Thought police may be a little strong, though, Neil. I would have to know how they would exercise their authority. Would it be restricted to putting in their own two cents as anyone might in a conversation that was veering toward racist or sexist realms? If so, one could continue the dialogue without a problem. If penalties were given, records kept, the like, I would be concerned. If it were the former, then alternative methods should be possible to achieve the same end.
Barbara:
I think it’s basically putting in their two cents worth.
This is very thin ice. I would not walk on it. It could even be unconstitutional, a severe invasion of privacy. Unless a complaint is filed and a judge issues a mandate not even the police can legally listen on the line.
It depends on how the term privacy is interpreted. If a group of students gather for a coffee in the university commons and the talk turns to some anti-[fill-in-the-blank-minority] rant, someone’s two cents might cause them to think about how logical their positions are. Surely, a conversation in the university commons is not what is termed private legally. Anyone can overhear, anyone can join in.
It is a different thing if they put in a sound system in the dorms or spy on their Internet conversations.
It bears watching, no argument.
Neil, there are limits to the freedom of speech in Canada — even on a campus. There is a hate crime law, isn’t there?
Listen in on students’ conversations? Incorrect speech? How Orwellian!
I will say only this: If I were a student there, and I caught anyone listening in on my conversations with a view to “correcting” what I say and how I say it, basing his objections only on what he can hear me say and not on what he can hear me think, I’d invite him to defend himself and stimulate him up a damned tree! And if he didn’t back off, they just might be finding bits of him scattered throughout the Thousancd Islands for the next hundred years or so…
Barbara,
There is a hate crime law as evidenced by a case in Alberta where a native leader allegedly made disparaging remarks about Jews.
But that’sthe point. Why not let the criminal law deal with this rather than hiring snitches for the dorms?
No commons confrontation, please. Facilitators should enter their remarks in a column in the school newspaper.
Neil asks:
Should Queen’s appoint thought police?
Well, that’s a leading question if ever there was one. And my answer is: of course not. And for all the reasons Neil gives; no further comment is needed.
But I would remind Neil that language of commercial expression also falls under the same freedom of expression that he so cherishes and defends in today’s blog. He may want to consider being as vigilant in his opposition to Bill 101’s sign laws as he is to Queen’s thought police.
Neil, you indicated above that they would not be “snitches”, just engage the students in dialogue. Which is it?
Why bring the law into it. This is an educational institution. It is not uncommon for teachers or others to stop fights in the hallways, to calm angry displays, to discuss the appropriate of remarks made. It is part of education. Are we supposed to ignore hateful, racist remarks made in our presence? Believe me, there is enough of that going around in our schools.
If it involves snitching in any way, I would be opposed.
I am not sure this is the best method to achieve what they hope to accomplish.
I bet the students are given information on acceptable and mutually respectful behaviour on campus. They need to be reminded of that from time to time. I think there may be more effective methods.
This is a no-brainer.
Of course I agree with Neil. Frightening.
I also agree with Tony. It’s intellectually obscene for us to pretend the OLF and Bill 101 are not anti-liberty. It’s cultural nationalism.
Last, Chimera: 1984 has arrived and people still don’t see it.
Whither the individual. We all belong to the government now. The fact that these sort of ideas come up at all is evidence of how we’ve lost our common sense.
Barbara, I hope you’re just playing devil’s advocate here. It’s a think line as PC says.
thin line.
If you will note, I do have my qualms with the process Neil describes.
Nevertheless, I think it is unprofessional to allow hateful comments to pass without a challenge. It is part of the university experience to have one’s opinions challenged.
Good morrow, all!
How does one (or for that matter a committee of “ones”) decide what is “hateful?” How does one (or the above-mentioned committee) decide how to correct or punish “hateful” speech? Free speech means just that — FREE FOR ALL. If speech is not free for all, it is not free for any. The most hateful of inarticulate inbred mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging rednecks have EVERY RIGHT to say what’s on their minds. And the rest of us have every right to call them on the paucity of their philosophy. If the bully would bloody your nose, aim for his babymakers. If you miss, you might still bark his shins. You want to counter “hateful speech?” Counter it with better arguments, better facts, more passion, stronger convictions. How do you think Ghandi neutered the British Raj and sent it packing? How do you think Martin Luther King Jr got a million men to march on Washington DC? How do you think Obama won? They faced down the hateful speech of others, and offered a better alternative. Tell the Thought Police they are neither needed nor wanted. They are not part of the solution — more a part of the problem. I think, therefore I am, therefore I digress…CTZen
The limit to free speech is hatefull incitement to violence against people or a specific group. Short of that anyone should be free to speak his or her mind. After there is still a Flat Earth Society.
Free speech does not mean you are free to hollar “Fire” in a crowded theatre.
“It is part of the university experience to have one’s opinions challenged.”
Absolutely. But this is not the way to do it.
But not when it’s “legislated.”
You know this reminds me of a story. I may have told it before. So…
I remember in university when a student (let’s call him dumbass) “challenged” a professor. The professor was quoting Burke and the student took offense to it. He yelled at the professor as if he said it and went off on a “racism” tangent. The professor tried to reason with him stating the obvious: it wasn’t him that said it. But the student was upset nevertheless. Wasted 15 minutes of our lives.
It was simultaneously the most surreal and stupid moment I experienced in school.
I bring this up because we’re already censoring people from speaking on campus thanks to militant student bodies (hello Concordia.) One day we’ll tell professors what they can and can’t say – ooops, already happening.
ignore the third sentence. it makes no sense.
I don’t believe that was a waste of time. The professor modelled civil discourse. Maybe someday that student will realize what was actually going on in that classroom. If not, the others should.
Incidentally, some of us seem to be catastrophizing without knowing the details or parameters of the situation on campus. If it were actually to operate as some of you believe it is intended to operate, it will shut down within a semester.
Part of university education, I would think, is an open-mindedness to the ideas of others. Not necessarily a blind acceptance of them, but a willingness to discuss the pros and cons. To engage in such a discussion, all the facts should be clearly presented. Arguments based on unfounded assumptions tend to be weak.
“Free speech does not mean you are allowed to holler fire in a crowded theater”.
You are right Neil, and yet it does not mean we can accept people from slandering or calling out prejucices and discrimination of people and being content that all it is is their opinion.
We have closed circuit cameras monitoring our actions all over the world and it seems to be effective.
It is helping us to align ourselves with acceptable social behaviour.
Although it is totally against my spiritual considerations, Fear of getting caught” works, for the majority of people.
This whole situation reminds me of my 6th grade. We were given tokens each Monday. If we heard a codisciple using an english or an improper french word, we corrected him and he would give us one of his tokens. If we were caught, we gave a token. On Saturday, the one with the most tokens got a reward. But we were in primary grade school. Not that Queen’s scheme works like this but applying something akin to this in a university setting seems degrading. If bad comes to worse, the criminal code is there to deal with it.