The fear of seeing the state interfere in the management of universities with its bill on academic freedom — a paradox in itself, it is always good to remember — has essentially been dismissed. Sticking as closely as possible to the path traced last December by the Cloutier commission, the Minister of Higher Education, Danielle McCann, gave her Bill 32 guidelines that have the merit of being as simple as they are flexible. Reserving the enunciation of the common principles, it sends back to the universities the weight of designing the continuation in their image and their resemblance.
A strong message if there is one, the bill confirms the supremacy of freedom of expression and the transmission of knowledge in a place that cannot be hindered by any “doctrinal, ideological or moral” constraint whatsoever. . Thus, all the words can therefore be pronounced there, and all the possible criticisms can be formulated there. In this, the proposal of Mme McCann, who relies on the principles of UNESCO, is a rebuff to movements demanding from universities – often in the name of the defense of diversity, but not only – a standardization or a watering down of thought.
In this way, it comes to restore power to institutions that have had to deal at one time or another in their recent history with dogmas attacking the very heart of their mission. Dogmas that they fought with more or less nerve, it must be admitted. Let us simply recall the painful Stations of the Cross at the University of Ottawa, the scene of virulent debates with the Lieutenant-Duval affair, which concentrates the essence of the abuses noted in recent years.
This bill, the Minister hopes, will give ammunition to universities so that they can discriminate against what comes under heavy debate or censorship and react accordingly. Above all, it will standardize practices in terms of academic freedom, which the community cannot do without, including at the other end of the spectrum, where teachers could be tempted to seize the concept as an amulet. to escape any supervision.
By closing the door to safe spaces for the sole benefit of so-called open spaces managed in full light, the Minister is betting that everyone will win. He is granted that the debate, even conducted on the muffled ground of words, can shock and that this must be admitted as such. Provided that this debate is carried out in accordance “with the standards of ethics and scientific rigor” while “taking into account the rights of other members of the community”, as specified in Bill 32. Transparency that it would be good to also apply to the financing of these same universities, corroded by clientelism.
We note all the same between the lines a form of mistrust on the part of the Legault government towards the establishments which worries and even shocks. Mme McCann has defended herself from wanting to tie the hands of rectors, the fact remains that by reserving to the Minister the powers to order an institution “to include in its policy any element that it indicates” and “to make corrections” if it is not deemed “compliant”, Quebec still goes very far. Too much ? We will judge it by use.
There is also a certain intransigence towards those who want the university community to show more openness and sensitivity towards minority voices. These voices are no less valid than those we want to protect here. This should not be forgotten when the time comes to create these famous councils responsible for monitoring the proper application of the law.