Academic freedom is a cornerstone of university life. Over centuries, it has allowed scholars to challenge received wisdom without fear of institutional censure. In this way, it has been fundamental to the advancement of learning.
It should go without saying that academic freedom deserves robust protection. But such protection cannot take the form of a law that foresees state intervention in university policy.
In April, Quebec鈥檚 minister of higher education introduced Bill 32, An Act respecting academic freedom in the university sector. Proffered as a measure to ensure unfettered speech on our campuses, the bill confers sizeable authority on the minister to intervene in universities鈥� governance in a manner that puts at risk the quality of higher education in our province.
Our current government has done well by universities throughout the pandemic. Maintaining stable postsecondary funding, a decision not replicated in all other provinces, allowed our students and faculty to continue to thrive throughout this challenging period. But the government鈥檚 sensitivity to what universities need to support their core mission is absent from Bill 32.
Prior to the bill鈥檚 introduction, heads of universities across the province urged the government not to legislate in this area. They rightly recognized the incompatibility of state intervention in university governance with academic freedom. Academic freedom depends on institutional autonomy, and legislative dictate strikes at its heart.
Nevertheless, the government tabled legislation that pursues two irreconcilable goals. First, it ostensibly aims to safeguard academic freedom by requiring all universities in Quebec to establish a policy to this end. Second, it would permit the minister to order a university to include in its policy 鈥渁ny element鈥� of the minister鈥檚 choosing. Such governmental reach into university governance is unprecedented, and it violates the most basic principles governing the relationship between governments and institutions of higher education.
What鈥檚 more, the bill fundamentally misunderstands academic freedom. It fails to recognize that academic freedom is grounded in research-based expertise and academic standing. Authorities on academic freedom worldwide limit academic freedom to those who teach and research in higher education institutions. In contrast, the bill defines academic freedom as 鈥渢he right of every person鈥� who contributes to a university鈥檚 mission. This definition is at odds with the core purpose of academic freedom. And it stands to dilute it, confusing freedom of speech, which is the right of every person in the public sphere, with the academic freedom of instructors and researchers within a scholarly community.
Finally, we must not lose sight of Bill 32鈥檚 origins, which target a so-called culture of 鈥渨oke-ism鈥� on Quebec鈥檚 campuses and posit that efforts to advance equity, diversity and inclusion stifle free expression. Indeed, many professors are today more aware of how sensitive topics or offensive words may affect classroom dynamics and student experiences. Such awareness must not lead universities to restrict the teaching of relevant course materials, even if difficult or controversial.
At the same time, as instructors, we have a duty to make thoughtful, reasoned and responsible choices about what we teach and how we teach it. These choices must prioritize the learning experiences of our students, including those from groups who have historically been excluded from or underrepresented in universities. Bill 32 casts this elemental duty as an undue burden. It tells us that 鈥渆very person鈥� can participate in academic activities 鈥渨ithout doctrinal, ideological, or moral constraint.鈥� While this right is subject to ethical standards and scientific rigour, the bill鈥檚 starting point is an 鈥渁nything goes鈥� ethos toward speech that, given the power differential between students and professors, risks stymying thoughtful student criticism and the very analytical capacity we hope our students develop.
The government has an ambitious legislative agenda. When the National Assembly rises in June for the election, some bills will inevitably die on the order paper. Bill 32 should be one of them.
听
Op-Ed on May 7, 2022