Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Don’t give campus censors more power — they’ll double down on woke agenda

Published

8 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Bruce Pardy

Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them.

Last Saturday, Liz Magill resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania. Four days earlier she had testified before Congress about campus antisemitism. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct? “It is a context-dependent decision,” Magill equivocated. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman launched a campaign calling for Magill to step down, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, who testified alongside her. Their reluctance to condemn revealed a double standard. That double standard, like the titillation of a scandal, has distracted from the bigger mistake. Universities should not police the content of expression on their campuses.

In 2019, I invited a member of Penn’s law school to give a lecture at Queen’s University, where I teach. Some students at my law school launched a petition to prevent the talk. To their credit, administrators at Queen’s did not heed the call, even though the professor I invited, Amy Wax, had become a controversial academic figure. In 2017, she championed “bourgeois culture” in an opinion essay in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego). The piece suggested that the breakdown of post-Second World War norms was producing social decay. Some cultures are less able than others, it argued, to prepare people to be productive citizens. Students and professors condemned the column as hate speech. It was racist, white supremacist, xenophobic and “heteropatriarchal,” they said.

Wax was not deterred. She continued to comment about laws and policies on social welfare, affirmative action, immigration, and race. When she was critical of Penn Law’s affirmative action program, the dean barred her from teaching first-year law students. In June 2023, he filed a disciplinary complaint against her, seeking to strip her of tenure and fire her. It accused Wax of “intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic actions and statements.” The complaint alleged that she had violated the university’s non-discrimination policies and Principles of Responsible Conduct. But unlike others, allegedly, on Penn’s campus, Wax had not called for, nor was she accused of calling for, violence or genocide. She continues to wait for a decision in her case.

For years, North American universities have embraced certain political causes and blacklisted others. To stay out of trouble, choose carefully what you say. You can accuse men of toxic masculinity, but don’t declare that transgender women are men. You can say that black lives matter, but not that white lives matter too. Don’t suggest that men on average are better at some things and women at others, even if that is what the data says. Don’t attribute differential achievement between races to anything but racism, even if the evidence says otherwise. Don’t eschew the ideology of equity, diversity, and inclusion if you want funding for your research project. You can blame white people for anything. And if the context is right, maybe you can call for the genocide of Jews. Double standards on speech have become embedded in university culture.

Universities should not supervise speech. Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them. If during class I accuse two colleagues of cheating on their taxes, they can sue me for defamation. If I advocate genocide, the police can charge me under the Criminal Code.

In principle, universities should be empty shells. Professors and students have opinions, but universities should not. But instead, they have become political institutions. They disapprove of expression that conflicts with their social justice mission. Speech on campus is more restricted than in the town square.

The principle that universities should not supervise speech has a legitimate exception. Expression should be free but should not interfere with the rights of others to speak and to listen. On campus, rules that limit how, when, and where you may shout from the rooftops preserve the rights of your peers. Any student or professor can opine about the Ukrainian war, but not during math class. Protesters can disagree with visiting speakers but have no right to shout them down. Such rules do not regulate the content of speech, but its time and place. If you write a column in the student newspaper or argue your case in a debate, you interfere with no one. The university should have no interest in what you say.

Penn donors helped push Magill out the door. In the face of rising antisemitism, more donors and alumni in the U.S. and Canada are urging their alma maters to punish hateful expression. They have good intentions but are making a mistake. They want universities to use an even larger stick to censure speech. Having witnessed universities exercise their powers poorly, they seek to give them more. Universities will not use that larger stick in the way these alumni intend. Instead, in the long run, they will double down on their double standards. They are more likely to wield the stick against the next Amy Wax than against woke anti-Semites.

The way to defeat double standards on speech is to demand no standards at all. Less, not more, oversight from universities on speech is the answer. If a campus mob advocates genocide, call the police. The police, not the universities, enforce the laws of the land.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada wants to add DEI measures to globalist WHO pandemic treaty

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canada is suggesting measures to counteract ‘misinformation’ and promote ‘marginalized’ groups are included in the WHO pandemic treaty, an initiative which experts have warned will undermine national sovereignty.

Canada wants to add misinformation and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures to the World Health Organization’s controversial global pandemic treaty. 

According to a July summary report from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Canada is suggesting measures to counteract “misinformation” and promote “marginalized” groups be added to the WHO global pandemic treaty.  

“Comprehensive prevention strategies, inclusive surveillance practices, and addressing challenges for marginalized communities are essential for effective pandemic prevention,” it said.  

“Data ownership, privacy, inclusivity, race-based data and cultural sensitivity are important issues which could be given greater consideration,” the report continued.  

“Data collection can be a challenge, compounded by strained relationships between Indigenous people and the health system, marked by trust deficits and ingrained power differentials,” it claimed.  

The report discussed Canada’s participation in the WHO global pandemic treaty. Formally known as the Pandemic Accord, the agreement would give the WHO increased power over Canada and other countries in the event of another “pandemic” or other so-called emergencies.   

The PHAC report further discussed the importance of countering so-called “misinformation” in the event of another pandemic.

“Countering misinformation and disinformation is critical to pandemic response efforts, as seen by its impact on vaccination and immunization rates around the world,” the report said.   

However, it seems unlikely that those “countering misinformation” would work to safeguard opinions that differ from the globalist narrative, considering Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy which protested COVID regulations.  

In addition to using violent police force to drive the protestors out of Ottawa, the Trudeau government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest.  

In addition to potentially suppressing legitimate opinion, Conservative MP Colin Carrie has warned that the treaty could “institutionalize” freedom-throttling COVID “pandemic mistakes.”  

Similarly, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has repeatedly warned that the new International Health Regulations (IHR) contained in the treaty will compromise Canada’s sovereignty by giving the international organization increased power over Canadians.    

Lewis also gave her endorsement of a petition demanding the Liberal government under Trudeau “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its WHO subgroup, due to the organizations’ undermining of national “sovereignty” and the “personal autonomy” of citizens.     

The petition warned that the “secretly negotiated” amendments could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Continue Reading

Education

Toronto-area Catholic school hid ‘trans’ identity of 10-year-old girl from her parents

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A school in the York Catholic District School Board kept ten-year-old Julie’s ‘transition’ a secret from her parents and called the Children’s Aid Society when her parents questioned what was happening with their daughter. The girl has since detransitioned.

A Toronto-area Catholic school has been exposed for hiding a young girl’s “gender transition” from her parents, and calling the Children’s Aid Society on the family when the parents expressed concern over the decision. 

In a September 3 article, the National Post revealed that an unnamed school in the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB), located in the suburbs of Toronto, kept a ten-year-old girl’s “transition” a secret from her parents and called the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) when her parents questioned what was happening. The National Post article uses the alias “Julie” for the girl for privacy reasons, it also uses aliases for the names of the parents.

“Transgender activists were actively posting videos about ‘safe’ breast binding and how euphoric testosterone makes you feel and how it makes all your problems suddenly disappear. The more I was brainwashed by these videos, the more I started to resonate with them,” Julie, who is now thirteen and no longer thinks she is “transgender,” told the outlet.  

The article retells Julie’s experience, relaying that her gender dysphoria began in 2021 when she installed social media app TikTok and spent hours on it during COVID lockdowns. While online, Julie fell down rabbit holes and “discovered the LGBTQ+ community.” 

In 2021, at the start of her grade five year, after watching a video asking viewers whether they were “anxious and uncomfortable” in their own bodies, Julie became convinced she was “non-binary.”

In 2022, she came out to her class and began using “they/them” pronouns and a male name with the help of a teacher from the YCDSB. This development was kept from her parents who only discovered it in June 2022 when Julie began cutting her hair short and revealed that she did not feel “like a girl anymore.” 

“It was a horrible time for me as a parent because so much was happening behind my back. I didn’t know for a long while about many things that were happening. I suspected that something was really wrong,” Julie’s mother, Christina, recalled to the National Post.  

Many Ontario school boards have policies requiring teachers and staff withhold students’ private information from their parents, including the York Region District School Board, Thames Valley District School Board, and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.    

By the beginning of grade six, in September 2022, Julie believed she was a boy, using a male name and looking into testosterone injections and a double mastectomy. 

However, instead of addressing Julie’s underlying phycological issues, doctors assured her that chest binding was safe and even asked if she would like to learn about puberty blockers.  

“At that age, I can’t make a conscious decision about medical interventions with an extremely high risk of life-threatening side effects that could make me unable to ever conceive a child,” Julie declared. “All accepted that I’m a boy and never tried to dig up any underlying problems that might be causing these suicidal ideations.”  

After Julie ran away, the school called CAS, claiming that Christina’s opposition to Julie’s transition is a potential “culprit of conflict.” Over the next few months, the school called CAS several times, leading the agency to visit the family in their home at least five times. 

The school principal told CAS that “she knows that the family loves their child and want the best for the child but they are doing a lot of damage emotionally at this time.” 

Finally, in the early months of grade seven, now aged twelve, Julie’s father brought home Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier, which discussed the reasons behind gender dysphoria. While her father had bought the book for himself, Julie read it out of curiosity.  

“After reading about detransitioners and how they came to identify as transgender, I understood I was heading in the wrong direction and needed to turn around before I hurt my loved ones or myself,” she revealed.  

This began Julie’s detransition journey, which she discovered was not as celebrated as her initial decision to identify as a boy.  

“When we announced that she wants to go back to female pronouns, everyone kept asking: ‘Are you sure? Are you sure you want to transition?’” Christina said. 

Similarly, Julie revealed, “I did not really lose any friends, but my closest friends seem to be, pushing away from me. Like, they’re not talking to me as much, and they’re part of the LGBTQ” community.” 

Now, as she enters grade eight, Julie revealed that she “finally felt truly at peace with my identity.” 

Unfortunately, Julie’s story is not unique.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.     

Despite the claims of LGBT activists, a significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence  and that “transition” procedures, including “reassignment” surgery, fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

Continue Reading

Trending

X