A small group of professors is suing the University of British Columbia to stop the university from engaging in “political activity.” According to the CTV story on the legal challenge (I have not seen the statement of claim), the professors object to the university’s use of land acknowledgements, its promotion of equity and inclusion initiatives, and university statements that were perceived as taking positions on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
The CCF is waging “lawfare” and along with the JCCF advances bogus legal arguments. A land acknowledgement that states as a matter of fact that the land it is on is unceded - which is an accurate description of the state of treaties should not be considered political because it is not a partisan political statement.
It’s being advanced by groups who want to add junk legal arguments to their junk arguments about science and the economy.
CTV: "The court action is supported by the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation"
Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is an American supported Atlas Network political advocacy org, portraying itself as Canadian. Is this nothing more than a veiled attempt by Americans to introduce the needed uncertainty that misinformation requires?
CCF acknowledges its also a US charity, but never mentions who supports it.
Are Canadians wanting to challenge the countries progressive policies seeking out CCF, or is it CCF seeking out any and every Canadian inconvenienced by progress?
This blog is called "Defending Canadian Democracy," and I get the email updates because I think the subject matter is profoundly important. This post delves into the facts and legalities surrounding this case in a way that lots of academics and people with degrees from selective colleges/highly-informed people will find interesting. And I think you're right on the merits, as far as it goes.
But if universities and highly-educated/engaged people are going to successfully defend democracy, the first step is to realize that this is a political endeavor, not an academic or legal debate. What this means is that universities should be mindful of how their actions are perceived by the majority of the electorate, and generally strive to do popular things with broad support, rather than unpopular things--especially unpopular things that give their opponents ammunition. And performative "land acknowledgements" are definitely #2.
Canada isn't in the same fascist clusterfuck as America because nationally, the Canadian population is better educated and has a lower percentage of religious fundamentalists. But well over 40% of Canadians still have no tertiary education of any kind. 70% of Canadians are of European descent and only 5% are Indigenous, and the indigenous number drops lower on university campuses for a whole bunch of historical and cultural reasons. So the idea that institutions founded and still mostly populated by the white 70% are illegitimate and morally compromised--so much so that they need to publicly self-flagellate constantly--is of course not just weird and unpopular, but politically self-sabotaging.
All due respect, but if you believe academic institutions should do the "popular" thing instead of pursue missions of truth-seeking, you've completely misapprehended their purpose. And frankly it's telling that you equate recognition of history and land as "self-flagellation".
I believe academic institutions (and academics) need to be cognizant of the fact that they exist in the wider world--a world in which 95% of people are not academics or intellectuals--and so if they're going to effectively defend democracy, they need to take that world and its responses into consideration and get some perspective.
I'm an American. A big part of the reason for our current predicament is that the Democratic Party and the various other defenders of democracy simply did not (and still don't!) grasp that the median American reading level is like 5th grade, so the style of high literacy white-paper "truth seeking" politics in vogue since Obama left the scene isn't effective--especially against an all-caps demagogue like Trump. As I've noted above, Canadians at large are better educated, more secular, and therefore less prone to abject nonsense than Americans, and Poilievre is no Trump. But if Canadians want to learn from America's little fascist adventure here, the lesson is "don't embrace unpopular shit that highly educated people like but average people don't understand, and get no material benefit from"
Respectfully, I don’t think you understand Canadian relationships with Indigenous peoples. This is not about self-flagellation - this is about building relationships going forward.
Our K-12 schools recognize and teach the history and present reality of Indigenous peoples in Canada. My impression (formed by living across Canada and in teaching students from across the country) is that this is a universal requirement of all provincial education curricula (somehow who knows more, please correct me if wrong!). This means there is a broad recognition of the failure of Canada (the Crown) to meet treaty obligations (or to make treaties with Indigenous peoples) and to use colonial powers to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their rights. So the lack of tertiary education does not mean the same thing as in the US.
Is there a reactionary element that would prefer to ignore the status of Indigenous peoples? Of course. But remember our conservative parties have all agreed with and value Indigenous relationships - it was PM Harper, for example, who voiced the official apology for residential schools in Parliament. And this continues today - whether it’s Rustad in BC removing a residential school denier from caucus or Smith in AB - our most right-wing premier - who continues to work on repairing relationships with First Nations and Métis communities.
Oddly you don't think there is anything political about performative university requirements which absolutely do chill speech in the university context.
I sometimes refrain from comments that imply the poster didn't actually read the post, but my point isn't that policy decisions aren't political, but that they are inevitably so, as would be policies of silence or the status quo that relate to the university's mission. As for 'performative', nothing is as performative as a spurious lawsuit.
The problem, Emmett, is your deeply ideological commitment to performative politics. COVID was radicalizing for you, but not in a good way.
The fact that you provide bad faith readings of any criticism is instructive.
The trend, enabled and cheered by Canadian academics like yourself to have our public universities enable and entrench particular political views as necessary and required is repugnant. Your defence of this is not only a non sequitur, but it's ugly. Literally your argument is that it it is an "impossibility" to be non-political is genuinely deranged logic. We expect our public institutions to be apolitical, whether municipal government of public universities. It may be impossible for individuals to be purely non political in every aspect, but universities absolutely can and should have non political policies.
You have personal preferences and ideological beliefs regarding indigenous history. It is absolutely your right to engage in research and advocate for policies that you like, no matter how damaging. But when you advocate for conditions of employment that align with your views you are deeply unserious. This one particular lawsuit may be based on a faulty premise which the courts may reject, but your views are not only wrong they are out of step with most Canadians.
This is some fantastic projection on your part as the real ideologue here. You simply don't like the legal and human rights obligations that undergird institutional EDI policies, or the recognition of basic historical facts that relate to UBC's recognition of its presence on unceded territory. You feel compelled to accuse others of politics to support your own reactionary, whiny bullshit, while ignoring the main arguments in this post about the importance of coherent approaches to institutional neutrality that don't allow people like you to dictate how institutional autonomy or policy is exercised.
The law wouldn't. But the principle as applied to non-extreme cases is pretty easy to follow, particularly in contexts where the result is just endless complaints and demands regarding dueling statements to condemn Hamas or Isreal for their respective actions, none of which a university should be spending time on.
The CCF is waging “lawfare” and along with the JCCF advances bogus legal arguments. A land acknowledgement that states as a matter of fact that the land it is on is unceded - which is an accurate description of the state of treaties should not be considered political because it is not a partisan political statement.
It’s being advanced by groups who want to add junk legal arguments to their junk arguments about science and the economy.
CTV: "The court action is supported by the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation"
Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is an American supported Atlas Network political advocacy org, portraying itself as Canadian. Is this nothing more than a veiled attempt by Americans to introduce the needed uncertainty that misinformation requires?
CCF acknowledges its also a US charity, but never mentions who supports it.
Are Canadians wanting to challenge the countries progressive policies seeking out CCF, or is it CCF seeking out any and every Canadian inconvenienced by progress?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225185847/https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partners/global-directory/canadian-constitution-foundation
The petition is available on the CCF's website if you're so inclined. https://theccf.ca/ubc-professors-file-lawsuit-to-protect-academic-freedom-from-administrative-politicization/
Not that I think it substantively changes the arguments here.
This blog is called "Defending Canadian Democracy," and I get the email updates because I think the subject matter is profoundly important. This post delves into the facts and legalities surrounding this case in a way that lots of academics and people with degrees from selective colleges/highly-informed people will find interesting. And I think you're right on the merits, as far as it goes.
But if universities and highly-educated/engaged people are going to successfully defend democracy, the first step is to realize that this is a political endeavor, not an academic or legal debate. What this means is that universities should be mindful of how their actions are perceived by the majority of the electorate, and generally strive to do popular things with broad support, rather than unpopular things--especially unpopular things that give their opponents ammunition. And performative "land acknowledgements" are definitely #2.
Canada isn't in the same fascist clusterfuck as America because nationally, the Canadian population is better educated and has a lower percentage of religious fundamentalists. But well over 40% of Canadians still have no tertiary education of any kind. 70% of Canadians are of European descent and only 5% are Indigenous, and the indigenous number drops lower on university campuses for a whole bunch of historical and cultural reasons. So the idea that institutions founded and still mostly populated by the white 70% are illegitimate and morally compromised--so much so that they need to publicly self-flagellate constantly--is of course not just weird and unpopular, but politically self-sabotaging.
All due respect, but if you believe academic institutions should do the "popular" thing instead of pursue missions of truth-seeking, you've completely misapprehended their purpose. And frankly it's telling that you equate recognition of history and land as "self-flagellation".
I believe academic institutions (and academics) need to be cognizant of the fact that they exist in the wider world--a world in which 95% of people are not academics or intellectuals--and so if they're going to effectively defend democracy, they need to take that world and its responses into consideration and get some perspective.
I'm an American. A big part of the reason for our current predicament is that the Democratic Party and the various other defenders of democracy simply did not (and still don't!) grasp that the median American reading level is like 5th grade, so the style of high literacy white-paper "truth seeking" politics in vogue since Obama left the scene isn't effective--especially against an all-caps demagogue like Trump. As I've noted above, Canadians at large are better educated, more secular, and therefore less prone to abject nonsense than Americans, and Poilievre is no Trump. But if Canadians want to learn from America's little fascist adventure here, the lesson is "don't embrace unpopular shit that highly educated people like but average people don't understand, and get no material benefit from"
Respectfully, I don’t think you understand Canadian relationships with Indigenous peoples. This is not about self-flagellation - this is about building relationships going forward.
Our K-12 schools recognize and teach the history and present reality of Indigenous peoples in Canada. My impression (formed by living across Canada and in teaching students from across the country) is that this is a universal requirement of all provincial education curricula (somehow who knows more, please correct me if wrong!). This means there is a broad recognition of the failure of Canada (the Crown) to meet treaty obligations (or to make treaties with Indigenous peoples) and to use colonial powers to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples of their rights. So the lack of tertiary education does not mean the same thing as in the US.
Is there a reactionary element that would prefer to ignore the status of Indigenous peoples? Of course. But remember our conservative parties have all agreed with and value Indigenous relationships - it was PM Harper, for example, who voiced the official apology for residential schools in Parliament. And this continues today - whether it’s Rustad in BC removing a residential school denier from caucus or Smith in AB - our most right-wing premier - who continues to work on repairing relationships with First Nations and Métis communities.
Oddly you don't think there is anything political about performative university requirements which absolutely do chill speech in the university context.
I sometimes refrain from comments that imply the poster didn't actually read the post, but my point isn't that policy decisions aren't political, but that they are inevitably so, as would be policies of silence or the status quo that relate to the university's mission. As for 'performative', nothing is as performative as a spurious lawsuit.
The problem, Emmett, is your deeply ideological commitment to performative politics. COVID was radicalizing for you, but not in a good way.
The fact that you provide bad faith readings of any criticism is instructive.
The trend, enabled and cheered by Canadian academics like yourself to have our public universities enable and entrench particular political views as necessary and required is repugnant. Your defence of this is not only a non sequitur, but it's ugly. Literally your argument is that it it is an "impossibility" to be non-political is genuinely deranged logic. We expect our public institutions to be apolitical, whether municipal government of public universities. It may be impossible for individuals to be purely non political in every aspect, but universities absolutely can and should have non political policies.
You have personal preferences and ideological beliefs regarding indigenous history. It is absolutely your right to engage in research and advocate for policies that you like, no matter how damaging. But when you advocate for conditions of employment that align with your views you are deeply unserious. This one particular lawsuit may be based on a faulty premise which the courts may reject, but your views are not only wrong they are out of step with most Canadians.
This is some fantastic projection on your part as the real ideologue here. You simply don't like the legal and human rights obligations that undergird institutional EDI policies, or the recognition of basic historical facts that relate to UBC's recognition of its presence on unceded territory. You feel compelled to accuse others of politics to support your own reactionary, whiny bullshit, while ignoring the main arguments in this post about the importance of coherent approaches to institutional neutrality that don't allow people like you to dictate how institutional autonomy or policy is exercised.
Would institutional neutrality have prevented universities from condemning the murder of Jews, homosexuals, etc by Hitler?
The law wouldn't. But the principle as applied to non-extreme cases is pretty easy to follow, particularly in contexts where the result is just endless complaints and demands regarding dueling statements to condemn Hamas or Isreal for their respective actions, none of which a university should be spending time on.
I don't think they should lose their jobs for being wrong about something.