What is most remarkable about the report of the Independent Scientific and Technical Commission on the Recognition of Academic Freedom in Academia is that the five recommendations all relate to the law that the Commission is proposing. Yet such a law would paradoxically undermine the results and values that academic freedom is meant to achieve. In other words, a law would end the very debate that academic freedom seeks to protect.
The law is a coercive instrument of the state which, in accordance with the liberal political tradition in which academic freedom is anchored, requires justification. Referring to section 4.6 of the Commission report, “The need for a law on academic freedom”, the main justification given is that the concepts of academic freedom differ in their meaning and practice in different institutions. Quebecois. Consequently, the Commission considers that a law is necessary to ensure its uniformity.
The Commission does not, however, explain why such uniformity is desirable. Indeed, if one thinks about what uniformity represents – a destruction of dialogue and debate – the report’s paradox is clear: killing debate over academic freedom in the name of academic freedom. More paradoxically, the President of the Commission, Alexandre Cloutier, affirmed that it was the moment to put forward the idea that in Quebec, we have “the right to discuss everything, to debate everything”.
However, the recommendation to crystallize a definition of academic freedom through legislation will prevent discussion of how to defend its values in a reasonable and context-appropriate manner.
Let’s ignore the anti-liberal ethics of a law that is supposed to protect liberal principles and judge the law on its own terms. By examining the issues detailed in appendix 2 of the report “Recent events involving university freedom in Quebec”, we see a variety of causes at play that would not be clearly resolved by such a law. A certain number of events involve lecturers, who do not benefit from the same protections as permanent professors.
In recent decades, universities, in an effort to reduce costs, have continued to rely heavily on this flexible workforce. This had the unintended effect of making these instructors disposable in thorny situations of debate and controversy. Beyond simply strengthening protections at all levels of education, departments and faculties can support instructors instead of letting them tackle problems on their own.
Dialogue and rights
Consider cases where students reacted strongly to course materials. Their reaction is part of the communicative democratic sphere, which human rights protect. Heavy retorting from university administrators or the state threatens to cut off opportunities for dialogue and learning. In other circumstances, where freedom of thought and freedom of expression are not called into question, one might agree on the benefits of a law. But here we undermine the values that underlie our goal. Adherence to the values of the debate is done by the facilitation of themselves.
Most importantly, one must remember that the law cannot replace cultural norms. Rather, it is necessary to bring together actions and social experiences in all their beautiful complexity. The Commission’s report is an important document whose potential to provoke debate is evidenced by this very letter. But we cannot allow the law to replace dialogue, for the courts to deprive us of the courage to debate it.