Can Government Legislate a Return to Academic Values?

The University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, in a file photo. Jeff Whyte/Shutterstock

Commentary

It is somewhat unsettling to discover that no matter how fervently we believe in something, others believe differently. Perhaps more frustratingly, we soon discover that our interlocutors are as passionate about their beliefs as we are about ours and have sound reasons for believing as they do.

This is why free speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The democratic norm is a marketplace of ideas where contested issues are resolved not through force or violence but through conversations in parliaments. Democrats respect the views of others, even when such views are anathema to their own. In a democracy, citizens are treated like adults, as thinking, informed agents capable of arriving at their own conclusions. This is why freedom of expression is critical to the health and vitality of the democratic polity.

And nowhere should the democratic conversation be more robust than on the university campus.

Alberta’s proposed legislation defending and promoting freedom of expression in universities has a certain appeal. The recent cancellation of Frances Widdowson’s talk at the University of Lethbridge is merely the latest instance of zealots shutting down debate on Canadian campuses. Mob rule is a bad look anywhere but is particularly reprehensible in a university setting. One can easily understand why the Alberta government is alarmed.

Yet a note of caution creeps in. The new legislation brings to mind Plato’s warning about the state legislating the behaviour of its citizens. Plato thought that such legislation, as helpful as it might appear, was really like cutting off the head of a hydra, the many-headed creature of Greek mythology. As Hercules soon discovered, the trouble with slaying such a creature was that each time you chopped off one of its heads, two more would appear. Plato thought that getting citizens to behave virtuously was beyond the control of legislation. Individuals themselves need to choose virtuous conduct freely.

And a similar dynamic is at play at the university. Mark Mercer, professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax and the president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, warns, “The use of sticks and carrots by governments to get universities to protect and promote freedom of expression on campus could easily make things worse. For one, they will give administrators and professors (and students) who prefer restrictions and oversight a cause around which to organize.”

Such legislation might embolden governments to meddle and interfere in universities in other ways. Unsurprisingly, governments like to promote programs that further their political goals, and instances of governmental meddling in university affairs aren’t difficult to find. For example, the Canada Research Chairs program, funded by the federal government, demands applicants’ allegiance to the goals of diversity, equity and inclusivity, an ideology which promotes political ends at the expense of academic ones.

On the other hand, it is easy to conceive that legislation defending and promoting free speech would make the lives of professors committed to freedom of expression on campus and academic values generally easier and more pleasant. If, say, a university president cannot cancel a talk without risking being sued or losing funds, freedom of expression might take hold on campus.

But as with an individual who exhibits unsavoury behaviour, the ultimate solution lies within. At day’s end, it is the universities themselves, that is, the professors, students and administrators, who need to embrace wholeheartedly academic values and the academic mission of their institutions.

So what exactly is the academic mission? There is, of course, no pat answer to this complex question. But two salient aspects can be addressed.

First, it is crucial to remember that universities are institutions that exist to serve democracy but are not themselves democratic. Rather, universities exist to promote the norms that govern teaching, scholarship, debate, and research—activities which seek to cultivate intellectual virtues and are needed for the ongoing search for truth.

Second, it is crucial to keep in mind that the search for truth is “ongoing.” Blaise Pascal’s famous formula perfectly captures our situation: “We know too much to be skeptics, but not enough to be dogmatists.” Genuine education ends when we obstinately assert that we “now know the truth,” declare the matter resolved or “settled,” and render certain debates immune from criticism. The closing down of the democratic conversation appears to be happening with disturbing frequency on Canadian campuses.

The Alberta government deserves to be commended for recognizing and seeking to address the erosion of free speech in one of society’s critical institutions. But ultimately, universities need to set their own house in order. That doesn’t preclude asking governments for help, but it does mean that universities carry a burden that cannot be placed on the government’s shoulders.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.