Marginalization and Free Speech: Steps Beyond a Toxic Environment

To recap: WLU dropped the ball on the free speech issue, even if we assume that the TA is guilty.  I mean not to single out WLU. I'm sure most institutions have similar problems, perhaps even my own, because we don't often think about procedures until we actually need them.

What about the people who have been affected by a toxic environment? What about those whose identities are denied by Transphobia? These are good questions. Surely, someone reading my blog might say that I have spilt a great deal of text laying out procedures to defend someone who I am assuming is guilty. I've explained why and why the rule of law, as it were, is so important to democracy, transparency, and, I'd argue, post-secondary education, among other things. Procedures are not add-ons. They are not things we should discover after the fact as a way of addressing issues that arise from situations such as what happened at WLU. If we only use these procedures after the fact to ensure that the alt.right were given their day in court but that was all ... then that would be a pretty poor use of procedures, even if it would, I am saying, still be a necessary one.

Those who ask: what about the other side? What about the LGBTQ community? Why are you not saying anything that protects them, affirms their identity, provides a positive learning environment for them? I think these are necessary questions and I think addressing these issues is necessary as well. If we simply stopped with procedures that protected those who discriminated but not those who suffered from discrimination (in my example, I assume the guilt of the individual involved), members of marginalized communities would have a very similar complaint and concern to the one I outlined in my last blog.

I want to belabour this point because I think that the response to this question has, in fact, been pretty poor. It amounts to various elements of one of the following:

• That's life, grow up. People these days are just too sensitive. Back in my day, no one took offense. 
• That is too bad but it is the price we pay for living in a free society. I don't agree with discourse that marginalizes someone but the fact is that we have to accept it or we don't have free speech.
• Good education will be disturbing because thinking is disturbing, challenging, it takes us to new places and by challenging our preconceptions necessarily makes us uncomfortable. 

None of these standard responses -- which, I freely concede could be said in a way that sounded more sophisticated -- really, in my view, is an effective response to why historically marginalized communities must accept continued marginalization so that I -- as mainstream a Canadian as you are going to get -- can enjoy free speech. Said differently, if we are going to protect speech, we also need to be well aware of the power relations and inequalities that can infuse that protection. To do otherwise would be naive and academic. If we pretend that conflicts over speech occur only in idealized situations where there are no victims, there is no marginalization, there is no violence against marginalized communities ... then, we are not really discussing a real issue, are we? We are making up a hypothetical situation and applying it to the real world *as if* that hypothetical situation were the real world and it just is not. I will, in fact, go so far as to argue that a failure to address real world issues is disingenuous and irresponsible. I think each of these positions are flawed and I'd like to take this blog to address them. 

The first point is simply empirically wrong. Back in the day, people did take offense to being called names, to being denied equality, to being subjected to marginalizing behaviour, to having the legitimacy of their identities denied. The difference was that they lacked the power to do anything about it. Thus, LGBTQ people did not walk about happy about the denial of their equality, the rejection of their voice, the contention that their identities were illegitimate. In often small but profound ways, in fact, they attempted to assert themselves into politics but it was dangerous. Violence was a normal part of their lives. They could not turn to authorities for help. And, they might even have been rejected by parents and loved ones if the truth about who they were came to be publicly known. The silence of the past is not indicative of acceptance. It is indicative of power inequalities that denied voice to the LGBTQ community. 

Regarding the second point, a fairer question to ask is this: who pays the price? If I (Andrew Nurse) pay the price for my (Andrew Nurse) own free speech that is one thing because that is fair. If I ask someone else to pay the price for my rights and benefits ... well ... that can be fair in some instances but it is not inherently fair. Imagine if I want to buy a car. I do and so I get to drive it. If, however, you (reader) are forced to buy a car with your money that I get to drive ... is that fair? One of the concerns I have about the whole "free speech" debate is that Canadian society seems to be asking marginalized groups (LGBTQ, Black Canadians, First Peoples) to pay the price for White Settler Canadians free speech. Put in this way, you can see the issue that I am having and why I think this idea is problematic.  It is made even more problematic because historically marginalized groups are being asked to pay the price for the free speech of historically non-marginalized groups. This is odd. We are asking someone else to have *their* identity denied or to be insulted with racialized epitaphs so that *I* can enjoy free speech.

Let me spin this point out one step further: you can actually see how upsetting this issue is when we see right-wing intellectuals complaining about what the so-called "radical left" teaches and researches and complains against tenure and research grants.  Many of my friends who are moderates or center-right in their politics complain vociferously when someone says Canada is illegitimate or that Canadians should be asking First Peoples for permission to live on Indigenous land. Why? Interestingly for reasons similar to the concerns expressed by LGBTQ activists regarding the incident at Wilfrid Laurier: it denies the legitimacy of their identity. Said in other words, many of those arguing that it is a drag but marginalized minorities just have to pay the price for the free speech others enjoy, actually become quite upset when they are asked to pay the price. At the most extreme, they then start to argue against tenure and that research grants be canceled. In the US, I gather, some political right-wingers have gone even further and setup web sites where one can report supposedly unfair treatment by leftists and radicals.

As to the third point: maybe. I will confess that I don't really understand this point. There are many things in the world I find disturbing: homelessness, global warming, violence against women are three. But, exactly why learning, say, that there is a solution to homelessness is disturbing is not at all clear to me. Moreover, as a faculty member of long-standing, I work to develop a positive educational environment as does just about every other instructor I know. So, exactly why we have to upset people to educate them is not clear. Yes, history is upsetting when we teach the holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda or Jim Crow. Hence, when I teach similar things -- say, about residential schools -- I work doubly hard to promote a positive environment: to telegraph my intentions, let students know in advance about the disturbing character of the lesson that is coming, to find good news stories to integrate into the lesson (say, stories of healing and recovery), to use appropriate artistic representations (say, from artists who were in the schools and which they have made available in the public sphere), to be available to talk to students after class (say, having a discussion sessions), to provide resources for those who might need them, and the like.

I will likely now jinx myself, but in the twenty years I have been teaching about residential schools, I have not had a single complaint. I am sure students were upset. I was. Who could not be? But, no one has been upset to the point of complaining about me. No one said that I created a toxic environment. And, I think that says something ... not about me but about students. It says students are willing to accept upsetting learning if there is a point to that learning and that point is clear. In other words: if the instructor has done their job. And, this seems to me to be something different from saying "let's debate the legitimacy of someone else's identity" or "let's get a bunch of straight people together to determine whether gay people are equal."

The difference might be subtle but it is important. One can create an education that challenges students and one should, but that is different from upholding marginalization or legitimizing violence.  It is one thing to teach a difficult subject matter (wars, violence, etc.) but another thing to teach in a disturbing way, particularly as there are steps one can take (other than not teaching material) to address the matters one might want to address.

Finally, in this regard, one might ask a foundational question: what is the aim of teaching and how is it best accomplished. If one's aim is encourage, say, "critical thought," (which is a pretty standard aim), then the question one has to answer is: how is this best accomplished. Is it best accomplished in a positive and supportive learning environment or in one strewn with controversy, with upset, and disturbed students? I don't know about you folks, but I am actually at my lowest in terms of learning potential when I am frustrated and angry or when I feel marginalized.

To conclude: more needs to be said. What I have tried to do here is to contest three standard arguments used for upsetting/disturbing students that are often connected to pro-free speech arguments. I find they have few merits and many problems. They ask others, as it were, to pay our bills; they don't provide an environment conducive to critical thought, and they tend to replicate problems rather than providing solutions.

Being Nice to Bigots? Or, I'm almost fed up with this ...

I read another bigoted post on Facebook recently and I know that I should not take these things too seriously but ... well ... I do in the sense that I think they contribute to a culture of prejudice. At the least, they reinforce the views of those who are already prejudiced and this reminds me of friends and relatives of mine who have the same type of bigoted views. The question I have is: what to do about it? For a long time I ignored it ... well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration.  There were always posts that set me off to which I had to reply. And, I won't claim to be a long time aficionado of Facebook. But, in the time that I have been -- and, elsewhere in life -- I tended to ignore bigotry perhaps because it was upsetting or perhaps because I just thought it would go away. It didn't. And, this is one of the things that as I reflect on my job, my age, and what I used to think that confuses and upsets me. When I was the age of my students now, I used to assume -- as did many of my friends -- that bigotry was on the way out, in all its forms. Surely, we thought, even bigots recognize this and they are becoming a smaller and more vocal and idiotic-sounding group of racists whose only supporters were skinheads and KKK wannabes. To be clear, no one expected racism or sexism or homophobia to disappear right away but we had a sense that those of us who supported equality, who supported compassion, who supported kindness and progress were on the right side of history.

Current debates over refugees in Canada highlight the degree to which we judged incorrectly. I take a great deal of heart from the fact that overly bigoted people are a minority of the Canadian population. The vast majority of Canadians -- and the vast majority of people about whom I care and for whom I respect -- have risen to the challenge of helping people who need help; who recognize what it means to flee from ISIS or famine or militarized extremism in an unfortunately diverse range of forms.

But, I still can't shake the deep feelings of disquiet that haunt me when I read posts by people I know or even don't know who recycle sad clichés and try to pretend that they are not bigots all the while talking bigotry. The other day, for instance, I read a post reposted by a friend, a person who is a member of the same church I attend and who would self-identify as a Christian. This person frequently asks for prayer support and help because ... well ... she needs it owing to her current life circumstances. Fair enough. That is what she should do. I would do the same thing in her situation. But, she will also periodically posts bigoted and inaccurate statements, urging our support for prejudiced views. For instance, a couple of weeks ago she re-posted a complaint against Muslims not wearing motorcycle helmets while all good Canadians did. The post included a picture that showed supposed Muslims flaunting the law, riding what appeared to be ATVs, with long beards flowing. Her accompanying text complained that hard working Christians built this country and they were being treated as second class citizens (because these supposed Muslims could here be seen flaunting the law).

You know the story and you don't need my discourse analysis to highlight words like "hard working" attached to Christians but not others and the implications of that link. But, the image that was posted was all wrong. It showed Sikhs not Muslims at a parade, shriner-like. In other words, what looked like a service club having fun at a parade was politicized into an anti-immigrant statement. (I would, btw, strongly advise anyone to wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle).

This is just plain wrong. It is wrong because it is uncharitable; it is wrong because it is inaccurate; it is wrong because it asks us to think about groups of people and make judgements about them based on their heritage and not who they are as people.  It is wrong because it treats civic spirit as a crime and it is wrong because it distorts history and tells at best half truths ... .

Over the years, I've tried to approach these types of things in the way I have thought best: with reason and evidence. Years ago, I was chatting with another father on soccer pitch. He found out what I did for a living and began -- as people are often wont to do -- to tell me my job. He explained that when I taught about Canadian heritage I had to treat things in context (OK, yes), for instance, no one back in the day thought deporting Acadians was wrong and so we should not teach that it was wrong. I thought about this for a second and asked him "don't you think the Acadians thought this was wrong?"

My question was pointed but asked in an even voice and designed to highlight (a) that context is complicated; it is rarely a simple thing and depends on the perspectives of those who experienced that history (b) that he was violating his own rules by not taking account of context. I did not pause to call him a bigot or belittle his lack of knowledge of the Deportation. I tried to intimate that good relations between different communities could, in fact, be build on accuracy about history and that we should not excuse tragedy.

My question then, as often now, fell on deaf ears. Rather than continue the discussion, the other father walked away from me. And, I hate to say it, that is more often than not the response I get from people when I use the even keeled reason and evidence approach.

I get it. I am often not talking to the person to whom I am actually speaking but setting a model of reasoned engagement in public issues for others to follow and from which others can learn. But, I will also confess that I am getting tired of the barrage of racism and bigotry and if I am tired of it, how much more tired must be the people who actually experience this bigotry and racism?

What should we say to those people who do not want to help children fleeing sex slavery? Or, who don't want to see hospitals rebuilt because there might possibly be some sort of use to someone who does something wrong? Or, who feels that the reality of poverty in Canada means that Canadians should not help someone fleeing for their lives?

I ask these questions because they expose what I think was the fallacy of my old reasoning. I used to believe -- back in the day -- that reason would win out because the bigots and racists and sexists of the world simply did not understand the issue. At heart, I believed, they were good people who were misguided. Once they discovered that they had made a mistake, they would behave like I behave when I discovered that I made a mistake. They would correct it. They would be generous, support equality, not want to see innocent people hurt.

Was I wrong about that? I don't think so but the evidence is mounting. Every day I read posts from people -- including people who are Christian friends -- who ignore the tragedies of others' lives, who don't want to see Canada reach out to help and play a constructive role in world affairs, who ignore sexual slavery and torture as they complain about refugees who they treat as a bunch of slackers riding off the Canadian welfare state. They -- safe in their homes -- claim they are the aggrieved party -- the person to whom something wrong has been done -- and not the child about to die; not the man about be beheaded; not the woman about to be sold.

Perhaps, indeed, these people have grievances. Perhaps we should talk about their problems. But, we have that luxury. We can talk about their problems tomorrow. For the refugees that they stop at our borders ... the matter is somewhat more pressing. For the kid in Gaza who will die without medical treatment, the issue is someone more grave.

I don't agree with what she says but I almost  ... almost ... get why Rona Ambrose stands up in the House of Commons and distorts the truth. I'd urge her not to, if she cared about my views. I'd tell her that she could and should be a principled conservative who did not have to pretend that there were no implications to not providing medical aid in Gaza. I'd tell he that she did not have say that Israeli lives mattered but we can ignore Palestinians. She could play a leadership role in building a better and different type of conservatism in Canada and that she did not need to pander to the basest voices in our society. She could be better than this. I almost get it. She is trying to get votes and those votes don't come easy because she is selling a product, as it were and using a metaphor, that most Canadians don't want to buy. And, this is why she plays the politics of distortion.  I almost get it, even as I hope she'd be better and more responsible and more humane.

But, I don't get why others hold these views. What is so threatening about refugees who want to live? About women who want to be something other than abused? About religious minorities that want to practice their religion without fear of beheading?

What is most disturbing, of course, is the realization that there are people out there who simply do not care about others. Ambrose is playing a role for her own reasons, so we can leave her to one side, but what about those people who actually believe these things? When did they lose -- did they ever have? -- their sense of human decency, of kindness, or compassion? When did they start to argue that kindness and compassion were bad?

Racism is back and it is back with a vengeance. It has been broken free from the bounds of simple human decency to make the other not someone worth caring about. It is an ideological trajectory that runs, in my view, disturbingly close to fascism.

I have decided that I will be polite in most circumstances in response but I have also decided that people need to be "called" on their views. If a Christian friend of mine posts a bigoted statement I will say "this is not Christian". If a non-Christian friend or relative does the same thing, I will say "you are wrong" and in cases where people are being racist idiots ... I feel compelled to say "you are being a racist idiot." I am not at all certain that racists and bigots of all sorts should be let off the hook. I suspect, in fact, that bigots count on the reasonableness and proper behaviour of the rest of us. They assume that they will not be called on their points (or, if they are, they can dismiss us with their ready answer of "oh, you're a liberal" -- another thing that happened to me). If someone is making a stupid point ... should we be polite in response?

Likely yes and the model of those who suffer directly from bigotry but continue to make polite responses, continue to argue in reason, continue to try to animate the better nature of others, stands as a model. For me, however, every once in awhile, I think it is necessary to call things for what they are.