Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

University of Lethbridge sued over cancelling Dr. Frances Widdowson speaking event

Published

6 minute read

From the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

CALGARY, ALBERTA: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces today that a court action was filed against the University of Lethbridge (UofL) on July 26, 2023, on behalf of Dr. Frances Widdowson, UofL professor Dr. Paul Viminitz, and UofL student Jonah Pickle. The three applicants challenge the UofL decision to cancel an event in February 2023 where Dr. Widdowson was slated to speak on the topic of “How Woke-ism Threatens Academic Freedom,“ as violating their Charter-protected freedoms of expression and assembly.

The court action seeks a declaration that UofL breached the applicants’ freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly guaranteed under theCharter, as well as an injunction requiring the UofL to permit the event to proceed on campus.

In November 2022, Dr. Paul Viminitz, a UofL philosophy professor, invited Dr. Widdowson to speak at UofL on the topic of how woke ideology is hostile to free speech, open inquiry, and dissent, which are essential components and conditions of universities. The purpose of the February 1, 2023 event was for interested parties to assemble and engage in social and democratic discourse. The UofL boasts how the institution provides a liberal education, preparing students “to think critically and creatively, communicate clearly, solve complex problems, and contribute fully to society.”

Dr. Widdowson had been a tenured professor at Mount Royal University (MRU) in the department of economics, justice, and policy studies until she was fired in late 2021. She has spent much of her academic career focused on public policy in relation to indigenous people, including the causes of massive socioeconomic disparities between indigenous and other Canadians, and her extensive scholarly research has led her to what some deem “politically incorrect” conclusions which do not conform with “woke” ideas.

The university approved the booking for Dr. Widdowson to speak but in late January a significant backlash to the event developed, including calls for the UofL to cancel the event by signatories to two petitions, by UofL’s Department of Indigenous Studies, and by various members of UofL’s faculty. UofL President Mike Mahon initially resisted the public pressure to cancel the event, but on January 30, 2023, capitulated.

According to the action, the cancellation was on the following grounds:

a. “assertions that seek to minimize the significant and detrimental impact of Canada’s residential school system are harmful”;

b. cancellation was for the “safety” of the “diverse community”, although the UofL was almost certainly referring to ideological safety from opposing viewpoints, which is contrary to the purpose and existence of a post-secondary education;

c. harm associated with the talk was an impediment to “meaningful reconciliation” pursuant to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada; and

d. delegation of decision-making, ostensibly, to “indigenous people”.

Despite the cancellation, Dr. Widdowson chose to attend the UofL on February 1 and speak in the UofL Atrium. A large counter-protest was planned and carried out that interfered in Dr. Widdowson’s ability to be heard. After moving to an adjacent area to continue the lecture with those who wished to hear, she continued to be drowned out by shouting, drumming, and chanting. The talk was eventually moved online to Zoom that evening.

“My experience at the University of Lethbridge is a textbook case of how ‘woke-ism’ is threatening academic freedom and freedom of expression on university campuses,” said Dr. Widdowson. “Instead of encouraging faculty and students to engage with my ideas in order to reach a better understanding of totalitarian identity politics’ impact on the academy, the University of Lethbridge created an ‘unsafe space’ for critical thinking and open inquiry.  This means that the development of knowledge and theoretical understanding is being compromised at this academic institution.”

“When the UofL claims to be protecting the ‘safety’ of its ‘diverse community’, the UofL in fact wants to keep students ‘safe’ from hearing anything the UofL might disagree with. This is completely contrary to why UofL exists in the first place,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

“In a liberal democracy, it is essential that diverse voices and viewpoints be free to gather to share ideas, to seek truth, and to discuss policy,” says lawyer Glenn Blackett. “This is perhaps most essential on a post-secondary campus, which fails to serve its function without open inquiry and, as Dr. Widdowson says, rational disputation.”

“Increasingly, universities are in the business of interfering with the search for knowledge, on the premise that the truth is already known and that dissenting voices are somehow dangerous. It is, in other words, dogma, which is the opposite of science. If we can’t save our universities, there’s no telling what scientific, social, and economic progress we’re denying future Canadians.”

Alberta

School defunding petition in Alberta is a warning to parents

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Catharine Kavanagh

A union-backed petition to defund independent schools in Alberta could trigger a wave of education rollbacks across Canada

A push to defund independent schools in Alberta is a warning to every Canadian parent who values educational options.

A petition backed by the Alberta teachers’ union may be the first step toward reduced learning choices across Canada.  Independent schools, most of them non-elite and often focused on a specific pedagogical approach, receive partial public funding in Alberta and serve diverse student populations.

The petition, launched under Alberta’s citizen initiative law, could trigger a provincewide referendum if it meets the required threshold set by provincial election law.

If your child isn’t in a standard public classroom, whether they’re home-schooled, in a charter, Francophone, Catholic, or
specialized public program, this petition puts your educational decisions at risk.

Opponents of choices in education have been forthright in their attempts to erode the large and successful range of learning options that most Canadians enjoy. Instead, they seem to be aiming for a single, uniform, one-size-fits-all system with no variation for children’s many learning styles and needs, nor for new teaching innovations.

During last year’s NDP leadership campaign in Alberta, candidate (and current MLA) Sarah Hoffman proposed effectively eliminating charter schools and forcing them to join public school boards.

The current recall effort targeting Alberta Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides lists “charter-private school” funding as a rationale. There is no such thing as a charter-private school, since charter schools are public and 100 per cent provincially funded.

It’s clear the petition is aimed at restricting or defunding charter schools despite their popularity. More than 15,000 students are enrolled and over 20,000 more are on wait-lists in Alberta.

Alberta isn’t the only place where schooling options are coming under pressure. Yukon’s NDP leader has called for defunding and eliminating the territory’s entire Catholic separate system. Similar arguments exist in Ontario. British Columbia doesn’t have a Catholic school system. Newfoundland had one, but in 1998 merged the Catholic board into the public one.

Going as far back as 2010, provinces including Newfoundland, British Columbia, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia have sought to justify limiting the Francophone schooling options they offer due to high costs and budget limitations.

These provincial actions raise a larger question. Efforts to defund Catholic and Francophone schooling are striking, given that both are constitutionally protected. If, as teachers’ unions argue, even constitutionally protected choices can be defunded, restricted or eliminated, how safe are all the other options, like independent, charter, or microschools that aren’t written into the constitution but excel at producing well-formed, knowledgeable graduates ready for adulthood?

Even specialized programs offered within the public system aren’t safe. Last year, the Calgary Board of Education shut down its all-boys program, saying the space was needed to accommodate general enrolment growth. However, the building was then leased out to a post-secondary institution. In Vancouver, the public board stopped new enrolment in its gifted student program, ending “the only publicly funded option for kids who need an accelerated learning environment.”

If these formal attacks on educational diversity can happen in Alberta, which has long been Canada’s leader in making a wide variety of learning options available, affordable and accessible to families, then it certainly can happen in other provinces as well.

The Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation has already asked the government to end funding for independent schools. A similar push has surfaced in British Columbia. The claim that independent schools drain resources from the public system is incorrect. Every student who enrolls in an independent school costs the provincial budget less and frees up space, teaching time, and other public school resources for everyone else.

These efforts reflect a zero-sum view of education and a false view that only some schools serve the common good.

A better approach is to expand what’s available. Provinces can support more learning options for families, which means more resources and better results for students, no matter how or where they learn.

We need to pay attention to what’s happening in Alberta and elsewhere. Parents don’t want fewer options to help their children enjoy school and flourish academically or personally. If educational diversity can be rolled back in Alberta, it can be rolled back anywhere.

Canadians who value educational alternatives need to pay attention now—before the decisions are made for them.

Catharine Kavanagh is western stakeholder director at Cardus, a non-partisan thinktank that researches education, work and public life.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Alberta

Tell the Province what you think about 120 km/h speed limit on divided highways

Published on

Alberta’s government is engaging with Albertans on increasing speed limits on rural highways.

Starting Nov. 7, Albertans can share their views on modernizing speed limits on divided highways through an online survey running until Dec. 12. The survey will ask how Albertans view raising the speed limit by 10 km/h on various highways from 110 km/h to 120 km/h.

“Alberta’s government is investigating how to safely increase speed limits on divided highways, and if Albertans support increasing speed limits. We are investing more than $1.5 billion this year alone to improve highway safety and upgrade infrastructure across the province. We want Albertans to be able to drive the speed limit that the highways are designed for. Modern vehicles combined with public awareness mean we can explore higher speed limits.”

Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors

The survey will provide Albertans with the opportunity to provide input on which highways they would prioritize having a speed limit increase, their views on restricting commercial trucks from using the far-left lane on highways with three or more lanes and any other feedback that would improve driving experiences on provincial highways.

Following a review of the survey results, Alberta’s government plans to conduct a mini-trial of a 120 km/h speed limit to assess the impacts of higher speed limits on divided highways. The trial will include strong monitoring to assess driving behaviour.

Alberta’s government reminds motorists to slow down and drive to the conditions. Speed limits are set for ideal conditions. When roads are wet, icy or when there is reduced visibility, motorists should slow down.

Quick facts

  • Alberta’s provincial highway network includes more than 64,000 lane kilometres of highways, about 11,700 lane kilometres of which are divided.
  • The posted speed limits of Alberta’s divided highways range from 100 to 110 km/h, although the posted speed limits on segments passing through cities, towns and First Nation lands can be as low as 50 km/h due to factors such as signalized intersections, pedestrians and local access.

Related information

  • The survey is available online.
Continue Reading

Trending

X