Speaking Freely Vs. Dignitary Harm: Balancing Students' Freedom Of

Document generated on 09/24/2021 10:08 a.m. Atlantis Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice Études critiques sur le genre, la culture, et la justice Speaking Freely vs. Dignitary Harm: Balancing Students’ Freedom of Expression and Associational Rights with their Right to an Equitable Learning Environment Elizabeth Brulé Volume 41, Number 1, 2020 Article abstract In this article, I examine the difficulty of using student codes of conduct and URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1074013ar civility policies as a way to restrict harmful speech. I argue that policies used to DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1074013ar monitor students’ non-academic behaviour provide administrators with a means to restrict and surveil students’ political advocacy work, especially See table of contents marginalized students’ advocacy. Rather than providing a ‘safe’ learning environment, codes of conduct curtail students’ opportunities for freedom of expression and limits their ability for critical pedagogical engagement with Publisher(s) controversial ideas. Drawing on case studies at Canadian universities, I illustrate the contradictory challenges that student activists encounter when Mount Saint Vincent University attempting to balance principles of freedom of expression and principles of equity on university campuses. Rather than use codes of conduct, I argue that ISSN administrators should adopt criteria that help students identify and limit dignitary harms. In doing so, students will be better equipped to assess their 1715-0698 (digital) expressive freedom and associational rights with the rights of others to an equitable learning environment. Moreover, such an approach represents a Explore this journal decolonial shift and promises to expand our narrow liberal conception of rights and ensure marginalized peoples’ voices and worldviews are heard. Cite this article Brulé, E. (2020). Speaking Freely vs. Dignitary Harm: Balancing Students’ Freedom of Expression and Associational Rights with their Right to an Equitable Learning Environment. Atlantis, 41(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.7202/1074013ar All Rights Reserved ©, 2020 Elizabeth Brulé This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ Special Section: Speaking Freely and Freedom of Speech Research Speaking Freely vs. Dignitary Harm: Balancing Students’ Freedom of Expression and Associational Rights with their Right to an Equitable Learning Environment Elizabeth Brulé is an Assistant Professor in the De pholding both liberal principles of freedom of partment of Gender Studies, at Queen’s University, Uexpression and the principles of equity as pro with a research focus in institutional ethnography, In tected respectively in the Canadian Charter of Rights digenous feminist, antiracist and anticolonialist the and Freedoms and Canadian Human Rights legisla ory and activism. She is of FrancoOntarian and Métis tion presents real political challenges. With the rise in ancestry. extreme right groups that espouse white nationalism on campuses in the last decade, the desire to create a Abstract: In this article, I examine the difficulty of us safe learning environment for all students and, in par ing student codes of conduct and civility policies as a ticular, for marginalized students, has resulted in con way to restrict harmful speech. I argue that policies cerns about whether the speech of the former and used to monitor students’ nonacademic behaviour their associational rights should be increasingly regu provide administrators with a means to restrict and lated (Masri 2011; Moon 2014; Palfrey 2017; Spencer, surveil students’ political advocacy work, especially Tyahur, & Jackson 2016; Waldron 2012). Still, others marginalized students’ advocacy. Rather than provid argue that students’ rights to free speech and associa ing a ‘safe’ learning environment, codes of conduct tional rights should have the same status on university curtail students’ opportunities for freedom of expres campuses as they would off campus (Cameron 2014; sion and limits their ability for critical pedagogical en CAUT 2018, 2019; Chemerinsky & Gillman 2017; gagement with controversial ideas. Drawing on case Cloud 2015). ey contend that restrictions on aca studies at Canadian universities, I illustrate the con demic freedom and freedom of expression through tradictory challenges that student activists encounter student codes of conduct and civility policies are prob when attempting to balance principles of freedom of lematic. While acknowledging the undeniable harms expression and principles of equity on university cam of hate speech, they nonetheless counter that the risk puses. Rather than use codes of conduct, I argue that of censoring legitimate political speech outweighs such administrators should adopt criteria that help students harms. identify and limit dignitary harms. In doing so, stu dents will be better equipped to assess their expressive In this article, I examine the current debate around freedom and associational rights with the rights of the use of student codes of conduct and civility others to an equitable learning environment. policies to restrict harmful speech and their effects on Moreover, such an approach represents a decolonial marginalized students’ political advocacy work on Ca shift and promises to expand our narrow liberal con nadian campuses. I argue that the use of codes of con ception of rights and ensure marginalized peoples’ duct and civility policies for nonacademic behaviour voices and worldviews are heard. to monitor students within the Canadian postsec ondary system provides administrators with a means Keywords: codes of conduct, equitable learning en to restrict and, indeed, surveil students’ political ad vironments, freedom of expression, harmful speech vocacy work, especially marginalized students’ ad vocacy. Rather than providing a ‘safe’ learning environment, such policies and codes of conduct cur Atlantis Journal Issue 41.1 / 2020 21 tail these students’ opportunities for freedom of ex ing.” And at Western University, some students pression and limits their ability for critical pedagogical posed in front of a giant #WesternLivesMatter engagement with controversial ideas. Moreover, such banner. (2017, 1) restrictions have provided the impetus for conservative provincial governments such as Alberta’s United Con More recently, in the fall semester of 2019 at Queen’s servative Party and Ontario’s Conservative Party to University, a racist, homophobic note that threatened compel universities to adopt free speech policies. violence against its student residents was posted in While seeming to uphold students’ Charter rights, Queen’s University’s Chown Hall residence common such directives also require that student conduct rules room. A day prior, a Métis and an 2SLGBTQ+ flag be in place to penalize groups that ‘disrupt’ (or rather, was stolen from the same fourthfloor room—a floor counterprotest) the free speech of others. In this art designated for Indigenous students and their allies. As icle, I draw upon case studies at Canadian universities a social justice advocate of FrancoOntarian and Métis to illustrate the contradictory and often precarious heritage, and a gender studies faculty member, I was challenges that student activists encounter when at concerned for my students’ safety and the impact that tempting to balance principles of freedom of expres such violence would have on them and their families. sion and principles of equity on university campuses, I was not alone. From the university’s principal, and how administrators apply student codes of con Patrick Deane, to a majority of students, staff, and fac duct in often discriminatory ways. While universities ulty, the reaction was one of shock and disgust (CBC are exempt from upholding Charter rights due to in News 2019). Over 1,000 students, staff, and faculty stitutional selfgovernance and academic freedom, I along with the broader Kingston community took to contend that administrators should move away from the streets to protest the hateful note and to support student codes of conduct and civility policies and, in our Indigenous and 2SLGBTQ+ students. Organized stead, adopt criteria that helps students identify and by Four Directions Indigenous Student Centre, the limit dignitary harms whilst balancing their right to march called on all members of the Queen’s com associational and expressive freedoms. In developing munity to stand up against racism, homophobia, and such criteria, students will be better equipped to assess transphobia on campus. Flags representing the their expressive freedom and associational rights with Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Métis Nation, the the rights of others to an equitable learning environ Pride flag, the Trans Pride flag, and the Two Row ment. Moreover, such an endeavour may help foster Wampum were hung outside Four Directions in sup students’ sense of collective responsibility in uphold port of our Indigenous and 2SLGBTQ+ students, ing dignitary rights on campuses and encourage critic only to be vandalized the

Load more