Academic freedom, also called academic freedom, is the cornerstone of university life. Over the centuries, this freedom has allowed scholars to question conventional precepts without fear of reprisal or censure. It has played a fundamental role in the advancement of knowledge.
Posted at 4:00 p.m.
It goes without saying that academic freedom deserves to be protected against any infringement. But this protection cannot take the form of a law that provides for state intervention in university policies.
In April, the Minister of Higher Education tabled Bill 32, entitled Academic Freedom in Academia Act. Presented as a measure to ensure freedom of speech on our campuses, the bill gives the minister the authority to intervene in the governance structure of universities, which risks jeopardizing the quality of higher education in Quebec.
First of all, let’s recognize that the current government has been able to safeguard the interests of universities throughout the pandemic. By maintaining stable funding for post-secondary institutions, which has not been done in all provinces, the government has enabled students and teachers to succeed despite great challenges.
However, by introducing Bill 32, the government seems to be ignoring the actions it must take to support the main mission of universities.
Before the bill was tabled, university leaders from across Quebec urged the government not to legislate on the matter. They rightly recognized the incompatibility of state intervention in university governance with academic freedom. This freedom is based on the autonomy of institutions, an autonomy which the arbitrary nature of this bill directly undermines.
The government has nevertheless submitted a bill whose two objectives are irreconcilable. On the one hand, the project would aim to protect academic freedom by requiring all universities in Quebec to adopt a policy to this end. On the other hand, it would allow the Minister to oblige a university to integrate into its policy any element that he deems necessary if he considers the policy unsatisfactory. Such interference in university governance is unprecedented, and contravenes the fundamental principles that govern the relationship between governments and higher education institutions.
A misconception
The bill again misses the mark in its misconception of academic freedom. This freedom emanates from expertise based on clear research experience and academic recognition by peers, which the bill does not take into account. Statements from around the world, including those the Minister has used as an example in support of Bill 32, restrict academic freedom to those who teach and conduct research at institutions of higher learning. However, the bill defines academic freedom as “the right of every person” who contributes to the mission of a university. This definition, which is more similar to that of freedom of expression, does not fit with the primary objective of freedom of education and risks diluting its scope.
While freedom of expression applies to everyone in the public sphere, academic freedom is limited to members of an academic community carrying out research and teaching activities.
Finally, let’s not forget what prompted Bill 32. This initiative stemmed from concerns about the so-called culture woke Quebec universities. This discourse implies that social activism, especially in favor of equity, diversity and inclusion, stifles free speech and forces teachers to censor themselves. It suggests, moreover, the unidimensional application of this possible law, which would define threats to academic freedom not according to the risk they pose to research and teaching, but rather according to their orientation. cultural and political.
It is true that many professors today are more concerned about the effect that a sensitive subject or an offensive word could have on the dynamics in the classroom and on the experience of each student. However, this sensitivity should not give rise to restrictions with regard to the subject matter, however difficult or controversial it may be.
It is also true, however, that we have a duty as teachers to make thoughtful and responsible choices about what knowledge to impart and how to impart it, and those choices must be centered on the learning experience of our students, including those who come from groups long excluded from or under-represented in universities. Bill 32 presents this duty, which is essential to good teaching, as an excessive burden. He tells us that “everyone” can take part in university activities in any way, “without doctrinal, ideological or moral constraint”. This right is subject to the requirements of ethical standards and scientific rigor, but the bill assumes that when it comes to expression, anything goes. Given the power imbalance between students and teachers, this approach could inhibit informed criticism in students, and even harm the development of the very analytical capacity that we are working to instill in them.
The government has given itself an ambitious legislative programme. In June, when the parliamentary session ends, before the election, some bills will inevitably die on the order paper. Bill 32 should be one of them.