Definitely, in these strange times that we are going through, issues related to freedom of expression keep coming back to the forefront of the news. Judge for yourself on these recent examples, selected from among others.
In France, The world reports several deplorable cases of censorship that have taken place at the university.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the Republican Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, wants to deploy a legal apparatus that is said to allow politics to exert immense control over higher education.
Let’s stay in the United States. The children’s book Pink, Blue and You!, by Élise Gravel and Mykaell Blais, is prohibited in the schools of certain school boards. In the same file of books for children, one rewrites the works of Roald Dahl to purge them of what would shock, and on our premises, one warns against a book for teenagers. On the adult side, it is the James Bonds that are being rewritten.
There is also this puppet which caused the storyteller who created it, Franck Sylvestre, to have his show canceled.
I was going to forget that teacher in British Columbia, Jim McMurtry, who is reported to have been fired for arguing in class that the majority of deaths at an Indian residential school were caused by disease, primarily tuberculosis.
I bring to your attention three ideas.
The first one. We should have and apply very clear criteria on what can justify limits to freedom of expression: in civil society; at University ; and in the arts. These cases are different, and failing to meet these criteria undermines values vital to a liberal society. The news shows, unfortunately, that we are not always up to it.
The second. The case of the school is particular and requires criteria which are also particular.
The third. Having said all this, we forget a new enemy of freedom of thought which now affects all of society, including schools. We should act urgently to counter its dangerous effects.
Society, the university, the arts… and the school
I cannot go into details here, but my positions have long since been exposed. Existing laws limit freedom of expression in civil society and these limits should be respected. But at university, it’s something else.
Here, the search for truth takes precedence and freedom of expression becomes academic freedom. At the moment, the commodification of knowledge, ideologies (left or right) and their demands, as well as demands for censorship because of sensitivities seriously threaten it.
Let’s come to the art continent.
Here too, the question is posed differently. Truth is no longer the decisive criterion: it is the deepening of the problem of artistic expression that is. It must take its decisive place and it implies that in art, almost everything must be permitted. “Any license in art”, said André Breton with reason. We are, alas, sometimes not up to this vital requirement.
But saying all this, we risk not seeing how singular the case of the school is. In fact, here we have legitimate limits to the actors’ freedom of expression, which stem from the very nature of the institution that is the school. I see four.
I remind you of them and invite you to meditate with them on the cases concerning the school reported above.
To begin with, what is transmitted by the school is defined by a curriculum and, when it comes to knowledge, one cannot move away from it. The biology teacher therefore cannot teach creationism to be true; And so on.
Then, when she evokes doctrines, debatable subjects, and there are heaps of them, the teacher must absolutely not indoctrinate, and therefore not attempt, by means which would allow to do so, to close the mind of his students on certain doctrines.
Something else. The school is a political institution and this also implies limits to the freedom of expression of its actors. Respect for what secularism implies is a perfect example.
The fourth limitation imposed by the school is due to something specific to it: the age of its recipients. It is imperative to take the greatest account of it, and this means that certain subjects, certain remarks, cannot be approached with certain schoolchildren. This also applies when addressing children outside of school.
I announced a new enemy.
I think it is huge and very dangerous for all institutions, including schools, very dangerous for the health of democratic conversation, for freedom of thought and expression. I am of course thinking of these giants that are the GAFAM and their effect on us, on the information on which we base our opinions, on our ability to debate, and even on our intellectual and mental health – in particular it seems it among younger people. (A recent study also suggests this.)
My colleague Pierre Trudel has very well evoked certain aspects of all this in these pages.
For my part, I ask: when will there be a GAFAM ministry? And what will he recommend for the school?