UNIVERSITY FREE SPEECH POLICY IS A LIVING DOCUMENT - it expands and contracts! Some free speech is more free than other free speech!
When a University takes a pro-Hamas position they are like a snake or any animal eating its flesh. They are destroying their foundation.
Response to the University of Guelph's Free Speech Policy.
Note: It looks like they haven’t read it, or maybe there is some special exception to free speech that wasn’t stated but implied. Maybe I fell on top of it. https://www.uoguelph.ca/freedom-of-expression/policy
_____________________________
This document contrasts how the University of Guelph’s official statement on free speech that is publically available contrasts with the University of Guelph’s (the senior parent and fully responsible for all decisions of the University of Guelph-Humber) actual practice.
This practice has involved running roughshod over my freedom of speech; indeed, in nine months of suspension, all my questions about my freedom of speech have not been responded to, not a single one, even the writers of this “Free Speech document” refuse to respond when they are told that they do not practice what they preach.
The hypocrisy is rich, but I see no evidence that a single administrator or person working in the human rights department has even read or considered their university’s official statement on freedom of speech. It’s astonishing.
This is typical of university and government culture, which has no structure to force administrators to adhere to their policies and procedures, not to mention free speech codes. This university does what it feels and ignores its speech codes and human rights policies. I have seen no evidence that anyone in the administration or the human rights department has read their policies or free speech codes; if so, they are not understood or are illegally being contradicted.
Even the most autocratic countries have elections; the only problem is that they are fixed and do not commit to creating the real institutions that drive democracy.
This is the same issue with the University of Guelph. They put products in the shop window that look pretty and are well-lit but, for some reason, actively resist considerations that they might follow their policies and statements. Policies might as well be in a ripped orange binder on the shelf; they are dead. Documentation created long ago was ignored due to a bureaucratic mandate, not any ethical or substantive mandate. It is posted and seldom read.
The irony of an institution - a university - that should be grounded in debate, discussion and a free exchange of ideas terminating an employee because of the feelings of a man who loves (and says it publically) an organisation that is dedicated to creating a theocracy, subjugation of women, and that is at its core against everything a Western university stands for is rich. It shows the depth of anti-intellectualism at a supposed institution dedicated to intellectualism.
How are things going with the ideological equivalent of Hamas - the Taliban - well, it looks like they banned girls from attending school. Not very progressive. Yet the Vice Provost and the Associate Vice Provost have all aligned themselves with a man dedicated to creating a primitive, barbaric theocracy.
The pro-Hamas crowd does not need to be met with more official statements, nuanced policies, or word salad of any sort (and I don’t mean a healthy salad, but more the iceberg lettuce one that is a bit of fibre, water and trace minerals.)
They need to be confronted, shamed and exposed.
Yet because the Islamist camp on campus threatens violence, because administrators think so little of Muslim students that they assume they cannot be reasoned with, the University, in my case, has ignored the professor who calls for the destruction of a nation, who engages in the most glaring of anti-Semitic tropes. Why is it allowed?
Cowardice with a strong hint of anti-Semitism.
The University of Guelph's Free Speech policy
(https://www.uoguelph.ca/freedom-of-expression/policy)
(It is a festival of passive voice and poor writing, but I will leave it alone)
To achieve its purpose and fulfil its mission, the University is committed to the principle of freedom of expression, which includes freedom of speech and means the ability to examine, question, critique, investigate, enquire, speculate and communicate on issues without deference to prescribed doctrine.
Various forms of expression, including peaceful assembly, may be used on our University campuses.
Universities are unique institutions. Few others are responsible for preserving, advancing and disseminating knowledge for current and future generations. Given this responsibility, universities must be places for open discussion and free enquiry, as topics deemed controversial and that give rise to or are likely to give rise to disagreement or discomfort are often introduced, debated and analyzed. Debate or deliberation ought not to be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or most University community members to be offensive, unwise, immoral or wrong-headed. In such instances, a balance must be struck among the principles of free inquiry, a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and the protection of human rights.
Freedom of expression is exercised in a society where laws exist, values collide, and interests compete. While members of the University and the broader community are free to criticize, contest and even condemn views expressed by others, they may not use the expression as a direct attack that prevents others from exercising the same freedom to express their views. Freedom of expression does not extend to that prohibited by law, including but not limited to hate speech or incitement of violence, harassment or discrimination, or violation of an individual’s right to privacy.
This freedom is never without its limits since it is expressed within our University community, which espouses values of mutual respect, civil discourse, inclusion and the highest standards of human equality. All University community members are expected to support and enrich these values.
The university retains the ability to reasonably manage the time, place, and manner of expression and use of university resources by members of the university community and the general public. The University reserves the right to restrict expression that it reasonably believes violates laws, creates safety concerns or disrupts the normal functioning of the University. Administrative decisions in this regard should not be made lightly and, when necessary, will be considered in a manner consistent with the University’s commitment to freedom of expression.
A Comparison of the University of Guelph’s Real World Approach to Free Speech and their Official Position Stated Above.
Context: the University of Guelph appointed Guelph-Humber Vice Provost has already told staff that she intends to fire a Guelph-Humber lecturer for allegedly responding to a stranger on LinkedIn (the original post and post being responded to have long been deleted and lost to the ether). This stranger endorsed the Oct. 7 massacres and openly expressed that he wanted Israel destroyed. Finlayson responded and said he stood with Israel and that anyone who stands with Hamas stands with the Nazis.
(Written in the third person.)
Principles expressed in the document from the University highlight a strong commitment to freedom of expression, academic freedom, and the importance of open dialogue and debate, even on controversial topics. This commitment is central to the university’s mission to preserve, advance, and disseminate knowledge.
Firing a professor for expressing a viewpoint, particularly when that viewpoint is related to a contentious and widely debated geopolitical issue, would fundamentally contradict these principles.
Here’s why the university would not be right to sack the professor.
Commitment to Freedom of Expression
The document explicitly states that the university is committed to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of speech and the ability to examine, question, critique, investigate, enquire, speculate, and communicate on issues without deference to prescribed doctrine.
This commitment underscores the importance of allowing individuals within the university community to express diverse and even controversial viewpoints.
The professor’s statement supporting Israel and equating Hamas with Nazis, although contentious, falls within the scope of examining, questioning, and critiquing significant geopolitical issues. If the university were to fire the professor for expressing this viewpoint, it would undermine its stated commitment to freedom of expression. Note that Hamas came out of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazi party is historically verified and is not considered contentious.
Handling Controversial Issues
The document acknowledges that universities must be places for open discussion and free inquiry, especially on topics that are likely to give rise to disagreement or discomfort. The role of a university includes introducing, debating, and analyzing controversial issues, with the understanding that debate or deliberation should not be suppressed merely because some find the ideas offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
By expressing his views, the professor engages in the kind of open discussion and free inquiry the university claims to support. Firing the professor would suggest that the university is unwilling to tolerate unpopular or controversial views, thereby contradicting its stated mission.
Balance of Principles
The document mentions the need to balance the principles of free inquiry, commitment to diversity and inclusion, and the protection of human rights. While the professor’s views might be upsetting to some, the principle of free inquiry should not be sacrificed solely because the views expressed are controversial or offensive to certain community members. Freedom of speech cannot have a carve-out or exception that says, if a protected class member has their feelings hurt, please discard all free speech expectations and ideals. In official words, this is not said, but actions are more important than words, and by their actions, the University of Guelph is clearly in gross violation of its stated ideals.
Diversity and inclusion involve protecting the rights of all individuals to express their viewpoints, not just those that align with the majority or are deemed acceptable by the loudest voices. The protection of human rights includes the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, ensuring the professor’s right to express his viewpoint is consistent with the university’s commitment to human rights.
Legal Considerations
The document notes that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech, incitement of violence, harassment, or discrimination. The professor’s statements, while provocative, do not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence as defined by law. Equating a political group with another based on perceived similarities in actions or ideologies is a form of political expression and critique, generally protected under the principle of freedom of speech.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the professor’s statements meet the legal definitions of hate speech, incitement of violence, harassment, or discrimination, firing him would be not only unjust but also potentially unlawful. The post made by Finlayson was sent privately to an anti-semite in Pakistan. Without permission, a student took Finlayson’s post and presented it to the professor who subsequently filed the Human Rights Complaint along with the Vice Provost (the official complainant). This in itself negates any possibility of harassment.
Note: The fact that the Complainant, acting as VP, was able to suspend the respondent is an outrageous conflict of interest and, in any mature organization, would not be allowed.
Values of Mutual Respect and Civil Discourse
The university espouses values of mutual respect, civil discourse, inclusion, and the highest standards of human equality. Civil discourse involves engaging with ideas and arguments, not suppressing them. Mutual respect means acknowledging the right of others to hold and express differing viewpoints. The University has refused all requests to discuss its free speech policies. They have decided that only one or two people are enough for Finlayson to communicate with; all others delete or ignore his messages or threaten him not to communicate with anyone except with the chosen HR person - a person who is equally unresponsive and has no personal knowledge of Finlayson’s work record, or context of his harsh suspension.
‘Human Rights’ has expressed no interest in discussing the concept of free speech, and management has also refused to do so; to them, the official policy is just another dead or ignored document on some server in a basement.
Firing the professor for his statements would undermine the principle of civil discourse by signalling that certain viewpoints are not allowed. It would also challenge the notion of mutual respect by indicating that the university does not respect the professor’s right to express his opinions.
Administrative Considerations
The document allows the university to manage the time, place, and manner of expression and to restrict expression that violates laws, creates safety concerns, or disrupts the normal functioning of the university. Administrative decisions to restrict expression must be made judiciously and consistent with the university’s commitment to freedom of expression. Finlayson made the posts to a stranger on his own time from home.
The professor’s statement to a stranger in Asia does not appear to have disrupted the normal functioning of the university, nor does it present a clear safety concern or violation of laws. The allegations of safety concerns are highly disingenuous and seem to have been repeated strangely by multiple complainants who did not know each other.
It appears that someone has been coaching complainants to use the word “safety” or “unsafety” because they were told that it was a magic word that, by its mere usage, legitimized itself and incriminates Finlayson. This is patently abuse; even the latest JPEG of a doctored post that Finlayson originally wrote contains no threats, no references to violence, ethnicity or religion. The human rights complaints by the VP and co-accusor and their use of modern danger buzzwords seem scripted, vexatious, and unethical.
Therefore, these criteria would not justify administrative action to fire the professor.
Collective Agreements and Academic Freedom
The document emphasizes that this policy does not negate the university’s obligations under other policies or collective agreements, particularly regarding academic freedom.
Academic freedom is a cornerstone of university life, allowing scholars to pursue truth and express ideas without fear of retribution. Suspending an employee and forcing him to be interrogated by a different institution (Humber College) even though the accuser and respondent at the time worked for the University of Guelph is extra-judicial in itself; the University of Guelph’s retribution has been extreme and is highly anti-academic.
How the University of Guelph/Guelph-Humber allowed and even encouraged defamatory behaviour by their staff and faculty, with defamations including accusations of criminality that had no substance at all, is particularly appalling and shows the University of Guelph-Humber’s contempt for basic civil law and decency.
It is reasonable to say that Guelph-Humber/Guelph are deliberately trying to create a toxic work environment for Finlayson. The fact that printed records plus names of six witnesses of the aggressive defamations, defamations in which the staff member referred to their employee inside connections, were given to Guelph/Guelph-Humber with no action taken goes beyond a lack of openness to free speech.
It shows the administration is exhibiting malicious intentions toward Finlayson.
Firing the professor for his expressed viewpoint would constitute a breach of academic freedom, as it would punish him for engaging in a legitimate exercise of free inquiry and speech. Such an action would be inconsistent with the university’s commitment to uphold academic freedom. The University of Guelph is the senior parent of the University of Guelph-Humber. Graduating students receive a degree from the University of Guelph, which makes the University of Guelph fully responsible.
Suppose the U of Guelph have internally decided they want Humber College to manage operations or have another university in Ontario administrate another function. In that case, it does not take away the University of Guelph’s full responsibility for their failure to respect Finlayson’s free speech and to protect him when staff and faculty were making fully and verifiably false criminal accusations toward him.
Note: the posted Guelph code, even upon a cursory inspection, is rife with errors. Harassment is criminal harassment, and it is a criminal issue and is not covered in a speech code; discrimination is a human rights issue and not part of a free speech code; incitement to violence is not separate from hate speech; it is double-entered; it is classic hate speech. That was a three-minute inspection and three errors.
Conclusion
In summary, firing the professor for expressing his viewpoint on Israel and Hamas would violate the university’s principles outlined in the document. It would undermine the university’s commitment to freedom of expression, academic freedom, open dialogue, and civil discourse.
While the professor’s statements may be controversial and offensive to some, the appropriate response in an academic setting is engaging with those ideas through debate and discussion, not censorship and punitive action.
The university’s mission and values require it to protect the professor’s right to express his views, even when those views are unpopular or contentious. Both unions should also be concerned about and respectful of Finlayson’s concerns about his lack of free speech, academic freedom and general institutional contempt for due process.
