I heard about these “dialogue facilitators” Queen’s University hired a while ago. Glad that’s over with.
Bravo to Queen’s University for abandoning the creepy “Intergroup Dialogue” program, whereby a small squadron of hired racism-sexism police was to be turned loose on student residences to survey, report on and intervene in incidents of offensive speech.
Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.
People have varying life perspectives – sharing those perspectives enables progress. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the message or not, cutting it off only contributes to ignorance.
The fact the University of Calgary has allowed other controversial displays to go on raises questions about their motives in this particular case:
Moreover, the university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.
A publicly funded educational institution getting involved in a public debate is one thing – and that’s another question altogether that we can leave for another time. But, assuming it’s perfectly acceptable for them to participate in the debate, is there anything that can justify silencing the other side?