Do you remember Deborah MacLatchy? Wilfrid Laurier’s President and Vice-Chancellor has penned a special message for all Canadians in the Globe and Mail:
A university’s commitment to better speech demands a long-term focus on creating environments – both inside and outside of the classroom – where meaningful dialogue, not individual platforms, is the norm. One approach to ensure we uphold a high standard of discourse on our campuses is to practice inclusive freedom, a concept proposed by political philosopher Dr. Sigal Ben-Porath of the University of Pennsylvania. Inclusive freedom involves a vigorous commitment to free speech, coupled with the assurance that all individuals have an opportunity to engage in free expression, inquiry and learning.
Be sure to scroll to the bottom and read the comments. Here’s but one example:
WLU has severely tainted its credibility as a respected institution of higher learning and the administration is to blame. This article does nothing to improve that perspective and major changes at the administration level is definitely required.
h/t William McNally
Better Speech? More like BS.
The fact that “Better Speech” so easily is turned into BS should tell the world how little logic and consideration of the real world went into this piece of propaganda, although I hesitate to call it propaganda as that is at least usually a little thought out.
What is the reason for this piece, it surely is not to promote speech within the law. She says (can I call it a she?) “It is not the role of a university to…… that falls within the limits of Canada’s laws on discrimination, harassment and hate speech.” What about liable or incitement to violence, surely speech should also fall in line with the law on those too?
There are also so many terms here that are simply not defined well or at all, starting with better speech and are very suspicious. What exactly is “inclusive freedom?” Does freedom really need a qualifier, does justice need a qualifier. These words can stand on their own, why mess with them unless you intend to mislead?
May I suggest that she look up the word hypocrite and write a piece on better hypocrisy. She has so clearly shown an understanding of that!
“Does freedom really need a qualifier, does justice need a qualifier?”
No and no.
And when they are qualified i.e., “social justice”* or “inclusive freedom”, I always smell a rat.
* I forget the name of the writer who once observed that the statement on the front of the US Supreme Court building – “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” – was three words too long, since JUSTICE alone ought to have sufficed; for if justice is not applied equally and lawfully, then it is not justice.
He was talking about advertising, but a friend of one once opined that when trying to convince someone of something, any adjective means “not”.
In the new “progressive” world there is only one type of free speech: everyone must agree with our Dear Leader, Justine Turdeau. Diversity and inclusiveness means everyone (i.e. the diverse) agrees with the Dear Leader (i.e. inclusiveness). Failure to agree with the Dear Leader will result in sentencing to hear the teachings of the Dear Leader’s apostle Mr Butts.
I am an academic economist, retired from teaching, but still doing unpaid research part-time at the university. During my career, I wrote, and had published, a number of pieces that, as a conservative, I was too afraid to declare on my curriculum vitae (publishing is important for promotion). I was our riding president for the Reform party during 1994 and 1995 — for which my promotion to full professor was delayed a year in 1996/97. My department has been tyrannized by a left-wing professor, who would verbally abuse people he disagreed with. (Much of that has stopped now, given that, in these politically-correct times, abusive yelling is considered a breach of university rules).
The good university president, using lofty and flowery rhetoric as university presidents do, misses the nitty-gritty of left-wing intimidation on campus. I am working on two academic papers for a forthcoming regional academic conference, papers co-authored with two moderate conservatives and with marginally-conservative policy implications. Even here in “conservative” New Brunswick, I worry about nasty receptions to these papers this coming October. What the author misses is articulating the mean-spirited, politically-correct intimidation everywhere at universities. I know all about it, having taught and researched for 35 years. — David Murrell, Economics, UNB at Fredericton
I haven’t read it yet, but I note that Ben-Porath’s (an Israeli and a specialist in “citizen education”) book Free Speech on Campus has been positively reviewed by Peter Singer. If you are familiar with Singer that should give an idea of the tenor of the book.
Here is a podcast interview with Ben-Porath:
http://www.pipeline.fm/podcast/episode-005-sigal-ben-porath
Can it be said that the academics are the assassins of free speech.
Captain Obvious asks
So who gets to determine what this better speech is?
So who gets to determine what this better speech is?
– Why “WE” do, of course – and $crew you.
Nothing like a precipitous decline in first year enrolments to focus the mind hmm?
That is why trudeau is letting in all these “young” refugees, someone has to go to WLU.
Don’t send your daughters, send your boys instead and tell them to call themselves girls.
To the left, “free speech” has only ever meant the alleged right to distribute pornography, libel the Jewish people and the Christian Church, openly recruit children for sexual perversion, and propaganda for globalist ideologies (liberalism, socialism) and other Satanic cults, Islam among them.
The right of decent people to tell the truth—to sing the praises of the God of Israel, to preach the Gospel, and to expose the perverts, globalists and Satanists—has never been recognized by the left, and never will be.
They cannot be reasoned with. Reason and truth has never meant anything to them. They must be defeated and imprisoned, where the jailers will have the opportunity to finally teach the leftists to not insult the intelligence of decent people, something their absent or indifferent fathers neglected to do.
If in prison you don’t make your work quota or talk out of turn, your excuses and pseudo-philosophical discourses won’t get you out of a beating and three days in the hole with no food. In prison, leftists will quickly learn to do the work they are asked to do, and not talk rubbish—a skill the rest of us learned in grade school.
SmokeScreen- BS – Propaganda dressed up so that it may appeal to those that have been harrassed and chased off campus due to their ideas. “Better” Speech..?? WTF is that even..?? Sounds like to me, nicely dressed up LEFTARD determined speech with zero tolerance for conservative ideas….same old – same old.
Like putting a dress on a pig…its still a pig.
Have you ever noticed that those in wordsmith professions seem to incapable of clarity and precision in their writing?
There was nothing in that intellectual meandering that explicitly stated a commitment to free speech. A lot of vague references about its value combined with nonsense about “language that threatens the humanity”, “speech that denigrates the dignity and humanity”. I have yet to hear a good example of a “controversial” campus speakers that attacks the “humanity” of others. The controversial speakers overwhelmingly focus on ideas, not personal attacks. All I’ve seen is drama queens overreacting to any discussions that even slightly challenges their progressive, intersectional and blank-slate world views. I assume the “oh, my humanity” drama is used to hide the absence of good counter arguments. Then there’s better speech, inclusive freedom introduced but, as usual, not really explained.
Considering the vague free speech commitment and the inclusion of the humanity code-word, it is a signal that free speech will remain subordinate to protecting progressive ideology. It would be interesting to bring in a Charles Murray or Peterson type speaker to test this free speech commitment. I suspect that the undefined better speech and inclusive freedom is really a euphemism for non-progressive ideas or discussions not allowed.
LC Bennett wrote:
“Have you ever noticed that those in wordsmith professions seem to incapable of clarity and precision in their writing? ”
That is deliberate. They can sound erudite and rational while deflecting their own censorial tyranny.
Everyone can see right through her.
Yep, I think it is complete BS. It should be put to the test by controversial speakers, students and faculty members. It will then become clear how she really defines free speech, better speech and inclusive freedom.
Have her face off with Jordan Peterson.
THAT will be a defining moment.
“In the face of increasing polarization in society, universities must be a stabilizing force.”
Never mind the fact that universities are the leaders in creating that polarization.
When I watched the Senate hearings and saw and heard the Democrats come to the defence of Strzok I made comment here that I had never seen a more illustrative example of an orchestrated attempt for a group of people to “Polish a Turd!” Well I now stand corrected, MacLatchy and anyone that believes this gobbledygook balderdash has just pole-vaulted over the Senate Hearing Democrats in performing the fine art of “Polishing a Turd!”
Anyone that believes MacLatchy has had a volte-face or epiphany is as dumb as the voters that elected the “Diversity is our Strength.” advocates.
You saw the same House hearing as I did, but you missed the mistake Strzok made at the end… The DCrats wanted his behind door transcripts released which would give PAGE advance info before her hearing so her testimony would not conflict with his…After voting down that Dem motion & an angry exchange,,, After a break the Chair came back and said they would consider releasing the Transcript under 3 conditions,,,,
1, It would not be released for 2 days (Meaningless because page would have immediately gotten it. Not enforceable
2 Redaction of Classified information
3, Strzok would have to agree to the release (Strzok was nodding his head in the affirmative, like a happy doggie
Just before the Chair Ruled a Republican stood up and added the motion that Andy/s transcript be released under the same conditions at the same tine. That motion was agreed
Strzok emeadiatly said NO he would not Agree. (Only the liar knows he lied and his word will be at odds )
Who do you believe Andy or Strzok?
The NAZI Party had … “better speech” … too. Along with “better” everything. Better genetics. Better intellects. Better culture.
I believe that ALL the victims of Adolph and the Nazis … have been just waiting for their moment in history to … get even. By doing the same thing to Aryan peoples as were done to the Joos and Gypsies. To create their own 4th Reich.
This whole “hate whitey”, “hate colonialists” … is nothing more than another NAZI Party forming for the extinction of; whites, conservatives, gentrifiers, and deniers
Deborah MacLatchy should have resigned.
As with – oh, I don’t know – say, Hydro One execs, one of the perqs of a high-paying position is to fall on your sword on behalf of the organization in order to “encourager les autres”.
What she really means is the “New” free speech is Marxist progressive approved speech. Some of our families have already experienced her “new free speech” in the former Soviet Union.
WLU: The High School Down the Road.
Among the things Ms. MacLatchy lacks is a sense of irony. One recalls this statement from Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”
“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
McLatchy is as political as academics come.
A new euphemism for political correctness: “better speech”; well done!
‘Better Speech’ is a clever variation of ‘responsible speech’ which itself was a big improvement over: I believe in free speech BUT …
We Know Best.
Ergo, speech that aligns with our views is better speech.
Brava, Deb!
Rex Murphy takes this broad apart in today’s NP.
“meet the new speech, same as the old speech”.
with apologies to Roger Daltry and The Who.
anyways, does this mean they fired mr rambookabooka? aka the inquisitor of Ms Shepherd?