Image showing the main campus of McGill University on Nov., 2018. (Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images)
Commentary
On June 3, the National Assembly of Quebec, Canada, passed an Act respecting academic freedom in the university sector.
The law’s purpose is described in the legislation: “to recognize, promote, and protect university academic freedom in order to support the mission of university-level educational institutions, which includes the production and transmission of knowledge through research, creation and teaching activities and through services to the community.” It applies to “legal persons or bodies that are authorized … to confer degrees … or any other attestation of university studies and that offer a university-level instructional program.”
“Academic freedom” is described as “the right of every person to engage freely and without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint, such as institutional censorship, in an activity through which the person contributes to carrying out the mission of an educational institution.”
Significantly, this right extends to an academic’s freedom “to express their opinion about society and about an institution, including their respective institution, and about any doctrine dogma or opinion.” This section thus confirms that “academic freedom” is not limited to the specific discipline or expertise of academics but extends to the expression of opinions “about society” and its institutions, including the institution that employs them.
Although the description of the scope of “academic freedom” appears commendable, a closer analysis of the law reveals that it merely consists of lofty and meaningless statements. Indeed, the impact of the law has been eviscerated by its insistence that academic freedom “must be exercised in accordance with the standards of ethics and of scientific rigour generally recognized by the university sector and taking into account the rights of the other members of the university community.”
Restrictive Speech Codes
This qualification, routinely found in university “speech codes,” has the potential to severely restrict the extent to which academic freedom exists on campuses. The university sector’s free speech codes could, in other words, be used as a sword, to prohibit, and penalises speech that is likely to offend the “sensitivities” of members of staff, students, and indeed the wider community.
The news bulletins are replete with stories about university academics whose views are deemed abhorrent by their universities. The well-documented case of Peter Ridd is instrumental in illustrating this point.
Ridd, an Australian physics professor, had been dismissed by James Cook University in 2018 for criticising his colleagues’ research on the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef. Specifically, he chastised his colleagues’ research that linked climate change to coral bleaching of the Reef.
For Ridd, the Reef was not in substantial decline, and any deterioration could be reversed. However, the High Court of Australia ruled that Ridd’s academic freedom “was subject to constraints” and that these constraints “included respect for the legal rights of others.”
Australian universities have adopted speech codes based on Chief Justice Robert French’s Model Code on freedom of speech and academic freedom. These codes prohibit any speech that, in the circumstances, “is likely to humiliate or intimidate any other person or persons and which is intended to have either or both of those effects.” In practice, this prohibition amounts to the implementation of the “principle of neutrality,” which penalises opinions deemed offensive by its recipient.
Principle of Neutrality in Quebec Law
But, using the language of the Quebec law, the principle of neutrality is the prototypical example of a “doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint.” Yet, it is implemented routinely in modern universities. Hence, it is difficult to see how this principle can be reconciled with the concept of academic freedom to teach and research without fear or favour.
Subject to the validity of this point, the academic freedom granted in the Quebec law is but a meaningless motherhood statement that, in reality, does not restrict the censorship powers of the university.
The Quebec law also imposes an obligation on universities to develop a policy pertaining to academic freedom. This policy is expected to provide for the establishment of a committee, the main functions of which are “to oversee the implementation of the policy, examine any complaints about university academic freedom … make recommendations concerning such complaints or about any other matter relating to university academic freedom.”
However, implementing the policy must not prevent the discussion of even offensive ideas discussed during “an activity that contributes to the university mission.”
The legislation also requires that a person responsible for the implementation of the policy be appointed. If this policy were interpreted by that free speech tsar as requiring the implementation of the principle of neutrality, then they would be restricting, but not extending, academic freedom.
Is Academic Freedom Law Needed?
Surprisingly, legislators might find it necessary to adopt a law on “academic freedom.” This surprise stems from the fact that, at least since the 17th century, there has been a societal expectation that universities will promote the uncensored undertaking of research and teaching.
And, as recognised in the 1997 UNESCO recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, “the principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed.”
Terence Karran, discussing this recommendation in the British Journal of Educational Studies, argues that higher-education academics are entitled to:
“The right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies.”
Overall, the Quebec law is a good faith attempt at protecting academic freedom, but it is doubtful that it will achieve its intended purpose. This is because universities are too far advanced on the road to neutrality.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.