I believe that Mr. Potter mischaracterizes the issue. It is not about a dual mission of universities. Rather, it s about academic inquiry. Rather, it is about the proper limits on free speech when such free speech interferes with others, whatever the circumstances (not just universities).
Clearly, there must be limits on free speech. I cannot drive through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night with a megaphone, blaring out political or other messages. But I can drive through the same neighborhoods during the day with signs painted on the side of my truck, informing people of my views.
It is a balancing act, between the rights of the speaker and the rights of those whose activities might be disrupted by the speech. In a liberal democracy, the presumption should be in favor of free speech, but that is far from an absolute.
Universities have a special duty to prioritize free speech over prevention of other factors in the balncing act. They exist so that all kinds of ideas may be pursued. Who knows where a train of inquiry may lead? And yet, universities do declare entire areas of research off limits, e.g. evolutionary psychology, by making funding and publication very difficult. Or speakers with certainviews or connections are not given opportunities to speak to interested members of the community. I would argue that, in such cases, the proper balance has not been reached.
Mr. Potter seems to favour a restrictive approach to freedom of speech on campuses, and that this allows the exploration of ideas and challenges to research to proceed without fear of meddling external influences. I hope I understood that correctly?
Perhaps the meddling influences on campuses are inside jobs and in our post national, illiberal society, critical thinking in universities is passé. A recent example is the current trend to insert Indigenous Science on an equal footing with established enlightenment theories of discovery and freedom to challenge established data without prejudice. Anyone who attempts to discredit this trend through frank and open discussion can find themselves ostracized and out of a job.
Our institutions of higher learning are drifting into irrelevance and considering the huge amount of public funds that are paying the freight we should be concerned about the intellectual capacity of those graduating these days.
And of course, I might have added that the financial crisis at Laurentian University, and now, it seems, Queens University merely increases the likelihood that these institutions will face value for money scrutiny, in a situation where money is scarce and could go to other learning forums.
The critical question to ask in cases like these is, "How does the institution add value?" And, does this value exceed the costs? If the answer is no....
Today, economic historians believe that the closing of the monasteries by Henry VIII boosted economic growth. This is not to deny that they hadn't been beneficial in previous centuries. It's just that by the 16th century the benefits had shrunk and the costs had grown, so it was time to do some institutional pruning.
I think we are at the same point with universities.
An interesting position that unrestricted free speech can interfere with the primary mission of universities, and I find myself agreeing with it. It should be they primary task of administration to ensure that inquiry and education are given maximum freedom and support to proceed and people that interfere with these goals are gently kept at bay.
By their nature, administrators and bureaucrats of all stripes quickly move to rule making. To restrictions, punishments, and pressure against their congregation. Like government, the general rule of thumb for administrators should be less is better. I don’t mean support staff. Those registrars’ , maintenance staff, food service workers and beat-walking security that keep a university running safely and efficiently are the opposite; more is better. I mean the middle and senior management type that have bloated campuses everywhere. People that spend their lives meeting to think up new rules to obstruct people in their education and inquiry and to push support structures for their particular ideologies with claims of righteousness.
There is nothing more nauseating than an administrator or politician saying “our values” or “ the values of Canadians” when what they are spouting about is not your value at all.
Interesting piece - although it dodges questions of public policy and the public interest, as well as the way in which the state or its regulatory agencies “can”, (and some would say “should”), shape what a university does, or how it goes about doing it.
Especially if the state (and inferentially, the public) is paying for it.
It also seems to presume an entitlement to that public funding, together with (not necessarily
congruent) claims for virtually total internal autonomy, which, in these days of scarce resources, is open to question, if only on a “value for money” basis.
Which is to say (perhaps too bluntly): those paying the piper may increasingly want to call the tune; and they may find ideologically driven and proselytizing professors, claiming life tenure, to be a bit irritating.
For after all (and to be reductionist about it) does Canadian society need more plumbers and physicians, or more post-modernist polemicists?
And do we want the crucially important STEM subjects to be dominated by the best minds, or by the latest ideologically driven DEI decrees?
Or do we need more pragmatically oriented “community colleges” or more focused skilled-trades training like Germany, and less focus on the liberal arts and related intellectual constructs? And so on.
Finally, readers interested in the idea of “Free Speech” and questions of “Academic Freedom” may find it profitable to read the work of Professor Stanley Fish, who has written perceptively about both subjects. Often in books of columns or compact snippets of ideas, which makes his writing diverting and digestible. Like Professor Potter I might add.
Its not an inference. The State pays of nothing. It steals, oh excuse me TAXES, your wealth to pay (redistribute) for anything it deems beneficially correct. And funnily enough everything the current "State" deems correct also serves to grow the bureaucracy and, by direct extension, the bought and paid for voter attached. The well bribed and no-longer-independent media would also be an excellent second example. (Note The Line and Rebel do not accept public funds, all the rest are suspect.)
It is an interesting read and having gone to university in the 80s (all of them, yay graduate degrees) and having worked with academia through employment, and now 5 close offspring/adopted kids in university and college recently (and still) I think I have a fairly observed view of that evolution and I will say that I think reading Potter's notes he didn't go to a university he observed an adult day-care. And a lot of university was glorified day-care even back in the 80s, heavily the "arts" back then but it seems all faculties are doing it now. Coming out of the "everyone should go to University" 70s which was one of our more tragic mistakes inflicted on youth. (No, everyone should NOT go to University.) The mission of University is to provide an environment where you learn to form ideas, to express yourself, and, more importantly, TO DEFEND YOUR VIEWS. It's not about coddling. University has, or should have, nothing to do with protecting anyone from RELEVANT criticism and questioning. THAT is the whole purpose of a competent University: teach you to defend you ideas. The key is relevance and providing an unfettered space to hold that discussion with tolerance and respect. Universities these days seem to think they have to protect everyone from themselves and all things conservative, that is as wrong as it gets (unless you are a Liberal then you can abuse and assault anything that is considered Conservative). The University should be required to protect people from any overt or subtle threats, enforce tolerance and respectful debate, and moderate that debate. BUT they should never steer or direct the debate outside of keeping things on topic.
Well, the end part of your essay is very interesting. I'm in university right now and I've observed how my presence there - and people knowing me - they just assume to know my political leanings. And honestly - while I care enough about politics to have a party membership and use the official channels that are available to citizens to try and create change, I most certainly do not care enough about politics to announce to fellow students my voting intentions. And I'm quite happy to not know theirs either - I think the hyperfocus on partisan agreement has become problematic in recent years, and sometimes I think people choose their viewpoints just based on what party it aligns with. I wish more people would get comfortable with saying they disagree with what a party has to say about a specific topic - maybe if more people did, then we'd get some of the productive change that I think we all want, but never quite seem to get.
This was a really long article to say nothing and nor give any opinion as to the solution. One of the few times at The Line where I feel like I wasted my time reading the article.
D-V, I respectfully suggest that if you feel that you wasted your time reading the material you, one of, a) didn't read it very deeply; b) don't give consideration to the issues of free speech and/or academic freedom (as Professor Potter notes clearly, very different concepts but intrinsically related in many ways); or c) are a dullard, not given to thoughtful consideration and/or introspection.
In whatever guise you find yourself, I must say that I think you have a very lonely, unfulfilling life.
Yes meatspace instantiating sent me to the dictionary. Meatspace is the place where live human beings come together as opposed to virtually meeting. Meat is apparently an old word for food so presumably real people need to leave their screens to buy food. Really! Uber eats will tell you otherwise.
I also read the weekend piece in the Globe which was excellent. I was reminded of things I hadn’t thought about in a while.
The long time practice of providing subject specific experts to provide balance and context to a news story is excellent practice. No problem there.
Commenting on world issues is a joke - the university itself as an institution has no opinions.
Academic freedom in the Academy and free speech on campus are vitally important to higher education. And obviously they are different things. If you don’t want to hear about it you can walk away. Beyond hate speech as defined by law free speech reigns on campus.
Speakers should never be cancelled by administrators because they worry about undergrads feeling safe. If they have feelings preventing them from listening and developing rational opposing arguments they should ..... move on. Or learn to develop rational arguments and set feelings aside for the moment....that’s a big part of what they’re learning to do.
These institutions have developed a problem for themselves by teaching and adhering to a world view based on identity and vulnerability. ( See Mounk, “ The Identity Trap”) They now must roll that back if we are to continue the progress that liberal democracy and universal values have brought to several generations in the western world and beyond. But I digress.
When looking at academic freedom inside the institution - freedom to question and explore a specific subject without fear must also be respected. Within the rigorous lines established by methods of enquiry, the quest for knowledge is guided by faculty.
The problems created by confusing these things are complex but the principles that should be guiding us here are not complicated.
The University as an institution SHOULD have no opinions... Alas the four located near me all seem to reek of opinion and direction. The mere concept of "give the prof what they want to hear" common knowledge for undergrad success among students at all 4 clearly shows that they are no longer institutions of higher learning they are trying to be indoctrination centres.
"But the biggest problem for universities has been the growing insistence on violating their traditional neutrality (actually it is more like indifference) on political matters."
Yup. Keeps me as far away as possible, and super fun to ridicule.
I believe that Mr. Potter mischaracterizes the issue. It is not about a dual mission of universities. Rather, it s about academic inquiry. Rather, it is about the proper limits on free speech when such free speech interferes with others, whatever the circumstances (not just universities).
Clearly, there must be limits on free speech. I cannot drive through residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night with a megaphone, blaring out political or other messages. But I can drive through the same neighborhoods during the day with signs painted on the side of my truck, informing people of my views.
It is a balancing act, between the rights of the speaker and the rights of those whose activities might be disrupted by the speech. In a liberal democracy, the presumption should be in favor of free speech, but that is far from an absolute.
Universities have a special duty to prioritize free speech over prevention of other factors in the balncing act. They exist so that all kinds of ideas may be pursued. Who knows where a train of inquiry may lead? And yet, universities do declare entire areas of research off limits, e.g. evolutionary psychology, by making funding and publication very difficult. Or speakers with certainviews or connections are not given opportunities to speak to interested members of the community. I would argue that, in such cases, the proper balance has not been reached.
Mr. Potter seems to favour a restrictive approach to freedom of speech on campuses, and that this allows the exploration of ideas and challenges to research to proceed without fear of meddling external influences. I hope I understood that correctly?
Perhaps the meddling influences on campuses are inside jobs and in our post national, illiberal society, critical thinking in universities is passé. A recent example is the current trend to insert Indigenous Science on an equal footing with established enlightenment theories of discovery and freedom to challenge established data without prejudice. Anyone who attempts to discredit this trend through frank and open discussion can find themselves ostracized and out of a job.
Our institutions of higher learning are drifting into irrelevance and considering the huge amount of public funds that are paying the freight we should be concerned about the intellectual capacity of those graduating these days.
I believe you just reinforced my day-care equivalence. And I agree with your comment on equivalence.
And of course, I might have added that the financial crisis at Laurentian University, and now, it seems, Queens University merely increases the likelihood that these institutions will face value for money scrutiny, in a situation where money is scarce and could go to other learning forums.
The critical question to ask in cases like these is, "How does the institution add value?" And, does this value exceed the costs? If the answer is no....
Today, economic historians believe that the closing of the monasteries by Henry VIII boosted economic growth. This is not to deny that they hadn't been beneficial in previous centuries. It's just that by the 16th century the benefits had shrunk and the costs had grown, so it was time to do some institutional pruning.
I think we are at the same point with universities.
An interesting position that unrestricted free speech can interfere with the primary mission of universities, and I find myself agreeing with it. It should be they primary task of administration to ensure that inquiry and education are given maximum freedom and support to proceed and people that interfere with these goals are gently kept at bay.
By their nature, administrators and bureaucrats of all stripes quickly move to rule making. To restrictions, punishments, and pressure against their congregation. Like government, the general rule of thumb for administrators should be less is better. I don’t mean support staff. Those registrars’ , maintenance staff, food service workers and beat-walking security that keep a university running safely and efficiently are the opposite; more is better. I mean the middle and senior management type that have bloated campuses everywhere. People that spend their lives meeting to think up new rules to obstruct people in their education and inquiry and to push support structures for their particular ideologies with claims of righteousness.
There is nothing more nauseating than an administrator or politician saying “our values” or “ the values of Canadians” when what they are spouting about is not your value at all.
Interesting piece - although it dodges questions of public policy and the public interest, as well as the way in which the state or its regulatory agencies “can”, (and some would say “should”), shape what a university does, or how it goes about doing it.
Especially if the state (and inferentially, the public) is paying for it.
It also seems to presume an entitlement to that public funding, together with (not necessarily
congruent) claims for virtually total internal autonomy, which, in these days of scarce resources, is open to question, if only on a “value for money” basis.
Which is to say (perhaps too bluntly): those paying the piper may increasingly want to call the tune; and they may find ideologically driven and proselytizing professors, claiming life tenure, to be a bit irritating.
For after all (and to be reductionist about it) does Canadian society need more plumbers and physicians, or more post-modernist polemicists?
And do we want the crucially important STEM subjects to be dominated by the best minds, or by the latest ideologically driven DEI decrees?
Or do we need more pragmatically oriented “community colleges” or more focused skilled-trades training like Germany, and less focus on the liberal arts and related intellectual constructs? And so on.
Finally, readers interested in the idea of “Free Speech” and questions of “Academic Freedom” may find it profitable to read the work of Professor Stanley Fish, who has written perceptively about both subjects. Often in books of columns or compact snippets of ideas, which makes his writing diverting and digestible. Like Professor Potter I might add.
Its not an inference. The State pays of nothing. It steals, oh excuse me TAXES, your wealth to pay (redistribute) for anything it deems beneficially correct. And funnily enough everything the current "State" deems correct also serves to grow the bureaucracy and, by direct extension, the bought and paid for voter attached. The well bribed and no-longer-independent media would also be an excellent second example. (Note The Line and Rebel do not accept public funds, all the rest are suspect.)
It is an interesting read and having gone to university in the 80s (all of them, yay graduate degrees) and having worked with academia through employment, and now 5 close offspring/adopted kids in university and college recently (and still) I think I have a fairly observed view of that evolution and I will say that I think reading Potter's notes he didn't go to a university he observed an adult day-care. And a lot of university was glorified day-care even back in the 80s, heavily the "arts" back then but it seems all faculties are doing it now. Coming out of the "everyone should go to University" 70s which was one of our more tragic mistakes inflicted on youth. (No, everyone should NOT go to University.) The mission of University is to provide an environment where you learn to form ideas, to express yourself, and, more importantly, TO DEFEND YOUR VIEWS. It's not about coddling. University has, or should have, nothing to do with protecting anyone from RELEVANT criticism and questioning. THAT is the whole purpose of a competent University: teach you to defend you ideas. The key is relevance and providing an unfettered space to hold that discussion with tolerance and respect. Universities these days seem to think they have to protect everyone from themselves and all things conservative, that is as wrong as it gets (unless you are a Liberal then you can abuse and assault anything that is considered Conservative). The University should be required to protect people from any overt or subtle threats, enforce tolerance and respectful debate, and moderate that debate. BUT they should never steer or direct the debate outside of keeping things on topic.
Hoo boy, Duane Bratt isn't going to like this one.
Well, the end part of your essay is very interesting. I'm in university right now and I've observed how my presence there - and people knowing me - they just assume to know my political leanings. And honestly - while I care enough about politics to have a party membership and use the official channels that are available to citizens to try and create change, I most certainly do not care enough about politics to announce to fellow students my voting intentions. And I'm quite happy to not know theirs either - I think the hyperfocus on partisan agreement has become problematic in recent years, and sometimes I think people choose their viewpoints just based on what party it aligns with. I wish more people would get comfortable with saying they disagree with what a party has to say about a specific topic - maybe if more people did, then we'd get some of the productive change that I think we all want, but never quite seem to get.
This was a really long article to say nothing and nor give any opinion as to the solution. One of the few times at The Line where I feel like I wasted my time reading the article.
I'm sorry to hear that.
D-V, I respectfully suggest that if you feel that you wasted your time reading the material you, one of, a) didn't read it very deeply; b) don't give consideration to the issues of free speech and/or academic freedom (as Professor Potter notes clearly, very different concepts but intrinsically related in many ways); or c) are a dullard, not given to thoughtful consideration and/or introspection.
In whatever guise you find yourself, I must say that I think you have a very lonely, unfulfilling life.
Yes meatspace instantiating sent me to the dictionary. Meatspace is the place where live human beings come together as opposed to virtually meeting. Meat is apparently an old word for food so presumably real people need to leave their screens to buy food. Really! Uber eats will tell you otherwise.
I also read the weekend piece in the Globe which was excellent. I was reminded of things I hadn’t thought about in a while.
The long time practice of providing subject specific experts to provide balance and context to a news story is excellent practice. No problem there.
Commenting on world issues is a joke - the university itself as an institution has no opinions.
Academic freedom in the Academy and free speech on campus are vitally important to higher education. And obviously they are different things. If you don’t want to hear about it you can walk away. Beyond hate speech as defined by law free speech reigns on campus.
Speakers should never be cancelled by administrators because they worry about undergrads feeling safe. If they have feelings preventing them from listening and developing rational opposing arguments they should ..... move on. Or learn to develop rational arguments and set feelings aside for the moment....that’s a big part of what they’re learning to do.
These institutions have developed a problem for themselves by teaching and adhering to a world view based on identity and vulnerability. ( See Mounk, “ The Identity Trap”) They now must roll that back if we are to continue the progress that liberal democracy and universal values have brought to several generations in the western world and beyond. But I digress.
When looking at academic freedom inside the institution - freedom to question and explore a specific subject without fear must also be respected. Within the rigorous lines established by methods of enquiry, the quest for knowledge is guided by faculty.
The problems created by confusing these things are complex but the principles that should be guiding us here are not complicated.
The University as an institution SHOULD have no opinions... Alas the four located near me all seem to reek of opinion and direction. The mere concept of "give the prof what they want to hear" common knowledge for undergrad success among students at all 4 clearly shows that they are no longer institutions of higher learning they are trying to be indoctrination centres.
"But the biggest problem for universities has been the growing insistence on violating their traditional neutrality (actually it is more like indifference) on political matters."
Yup. Keeps me as far away as possible, and super fun to ridicule.
"meatspace instantiation"??? 'not a criticism, I just don't know what that means. Is it a thing on Twitter(X)?
Meatspace as opposed to cyberspace. Instantiation so as to provide an example.
An elitist version of "real life example"
Sort of like "uterus owner" for "woman"
Instead of "meatspace" think "human being." Or at least that is my surmise. Actually, I found that an interesting assembly of two words.
It's not often I run across two words together that I've never seen before and can't find meaning from context.
I thought “meatspace” meant “meathead”