Un-Chartered Waters: Ontario’s Campus Speech Directive and the Intersections of Academic Freedom, Expressive Freedom, and Institutional Autonomy

In August 2018, the Ford Government in Ontario introduced a ‘Directive’ entitled “Upholding Free Speech on Ontario’s University and College Campuses” (the Directive).1 The Directive required all publicly supported universities and colleges2 in Ontario to create a free speech policy by January 1st 2019 that applies to “faculty, students, staff, management and guests,” and includes a) a definition of free speech, and b) reference to various “principles” of free speech similar to those elucidated by the University of Chicago (Chicago Principles).3 According to the Directive, speech that is otherwise illegal is not permitted. Illegal speech includes hate speech and uttering threats that are proscribed by Canada’s Criminal Code,4 defamatory speech which can give rise to both criminal5 and civil6 actions, as well as workplace harassment.7 * Dr. Alison Braley-Rattai is Assistant Professor of Labour Studies at Brock University. Dr. Kate Bezanson is Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Brock University. 1 Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities, “Upholding Free Speech on Ontario’s University and College Campuses” (30 August 2018) online: Government of Ontario Newsroom <https://news.ontario.ca/ opo/en/2018/08/ontario-protects-free-speech-on-campuses.html> [perma.cc/7VXR-K4RB] [Directive].2 This piece is only concerned about the university sector. There are noteworthy differences between colleges and universities with regard to topics discussed in this piece that are unexplored here.3 The Committee on Freedom of Expression, “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” (2014) online (pdf): University of Chicago <provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf> [perma.cc/LAA4-RW43].4 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 319(1).5 Ibid, ss 297-304.6 Libel and Slander Act, RSO 1990, c L.12.7 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1; Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19.

Download Full-text

Introduction

Sedition in Liberal Democracies ◽

10.1093/oso/9780199481699.003.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 1-27

Author(s):

Anushka Singh

Keyword(s):

Free Speech ◽

Hate Speech ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

University Of California ◽

American Democracy ◽

Mob Violence ◽

A Chain ◽

The Right ◽

The University ◽

Public Lecture

On 1 February 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, USA, mob violence erupted on campus with 1,500 protesters demanding the cancellation of a public lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British author notorious for his alleged racist and anti-Islamic views.1 Consequently, the event was cancelled triggering a chain of reactions on the desirability and limits of freedom of expression within American democracy. The Left-leaning intellectuals and politicians were accused of allowing the mob violence to become a riot on campus defending it in the name of protest against racism, fascism, and social injustice. In defending the rights of the protesters to not allow ‘illiberal’ or hate speech on campus, however, many claimed that the message conveyed was that only liberals had the right to free speech....

Download Full-text

Academic Freedom: a Choice Between Conservative or Liberal Perceptions – the Case of the United States

Review of European and Comparative Law ◽

10.31743/recl.9380 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 42 (3) ◽

pp. 193-218

Author(s):

Katarzyna Teresa Maćkowska

Keyword(s):

Academic Freedom ◽

Free Speech ◽

Hate Speech ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

The United States ◽

Legal Method ◽

Legal Provisions ◽

The One ◽

The University ◽

The U.S

It is only the minimum extent to which the law becomes the instrument of coping with social tautness regarding the academic freedom. On the one hand, legal provisions significantly limit the number of cases related to hate crimes but on the other, they sometimes narrow a discussion due to difficulties in harmonizing individual’s rights and campuses’ perception - a phenomenon, which in the U.S. had been called as “chilling” the freedom. Undoubtedly, the enactment of free speech or academic freedom regulations at universities is necessary as it helps to prevent from a “hate speech” but the legal shape of this process has been strictly connected to a determination for either liberal or conservative description of the academic freedom. Regarding the newest Niche’s rankings, ten universities have been selected, five out of the most liberal and five the most conservative public ones. Furthermore, two catholic universities have been added to describe differences in defining the academic freedom. Moreover, some references have been made to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the very fundamental documents, namely the 1940 Statement and Harvard Free Speech Guidelines. In the separate article a problem of legislative acts that had been enacted for the past two years in a response to Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression by the University of Chicago of 2014 will be covered. A few remarks upon this matter have been hereby made, though. The article is based on a dogmatic legal method, including quotations of legal sources and their subsequent analysis.

Download Full-text