Freedom of speech must be guaranteed to students, but clear guidelines must also be set to avoid violence and foster communication, agreed panelists at a discussion initiated by the Concordia Multi-Faith Chaplaincy on Jan. 28.
“We’re a very diverse community, and as we know, that can lead to complications, so what we were interested in doing is trying to create a more positive atmosphere of respect and growth,” said Daryl Ross, the co-ordinator of Multi-Faith Chaplaincy.
“We want to help people see diversity as a resource instead of a disadvantage,” she said.
The four panelists were Concordia professors Donald Savage and Christine Jamieson, and Rabbi Shlomo Mahn and Imam Salam Elmenyawi, who work with Concordia Multi-Faith Chaplaincy in co-ordinating the Jewish and Muslim communities on campus.
Jamieson, an ethicist and graduate program director of Concordia theological studies, said free speech is the basis of community life.
“Free speech creates a climate for common sense, and keeps us from descending into alienation,” she said, warning that we must avoid deprecating others.
Savage, who advised UNESCO on academic freedom, gave an account of the development of Canadian universities. He said the reason we have free speech now is partly due to an historical accident.
“When different Christian denominations wanted to create their own universities, none had enough money to create a multi-faculty university in the traditional sense, so they had to apply for government funding,” said Savage. The first Canadian university, the University of Toronto, was shared by several denominations and later secularized, he explained.
“In other words, the university would be a kind of central space where various faculties and religions could come together and share their views but not control it,” said Savage. He added that students and faculty at the university should have unfettered access to free speech, although academic freedom carries with it the responsibility to be conscious and informed of issues.
Mahn and Elmenyawi said there may be legitimate reasons for censoring certain modes of discourse. What should be established, said Mahn, is not what the limits of freedom of expression are, but who is setting them. “It’s not where you draw the line but who draws the line, who has the right to draw the line?” he said.
The panelists heard expressions of frustration from audience members, many of whom said it was very difficult to deal with the administration.
CSU researcher Dave Bernans and SPHR member Shadi Marouf said Concordia administration applied restrictions on freedom of speech selectively. Bernans said the CSU has been fruitlessly trying to get the administration to open an inquiry into racism on campus.
Mahn said if it were up to him, he would initiate a mandatory course on respectful speech. “Civil Dialogue 101,” he joked.
Two more talks in the series, entitled Freedom of Religious Traditions, Holy Days and Precepts and Finding Common Values will take place on Feb. 10 and Feb. 25, respectively.
Comments are closed.