The University of Toronto has recently had a minor to-do about free speech, and the circumstances under which it can be exercised on campus. A Palestinian group, Al-Awda, which is officially recognized on campus, wanted to book university facilities for a conference on “Palestinian Solidarity.” It required that all people attending the conference sign up to a six point “basis of unity” in order to be admitted. _Inter alia_ they had to sign up to the statement that “Israel is a racist apartheid state,” and that “[w]e support the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli and colonialism (sic) by any means of their choosing.” The University told Al-Awda that it could not the conference unless it removed the requirement that all participants sign up to the “basis for unity.” Al-Awda declined to do this, and the University revoked Al-Awda’s booking of the room.
What interests me is that both sides in this dispute have invoked the principle of free speech to defend their actions. Al-Awda has “described”:http://www.thevarsity.ca/news/566599.html the University’s actions as “blatant trampling on students’ right to organize” and “a horrible precedent for all other student groups, because the university would be able to dictate the conditions under which [groups could] organize.” The university, for its part, “has said”:http://www.utoronto.ca/president/241103.htm that it didn’t ban the conference because of the views that would be expressed, but because the conference organizers were making sure that dissenting views would not be expressed.
bq. Requiring attendees to agree to the Basis of Unity excluded persons with dissenting views and was thus in violation of the University’s Policy on Recognition of Student Groups, which, among other things, confirms that “the essential value of the University must remain that of preservation of freedom of enquiry and association.”
In other words, the university seems to be saying that it isn’t obliged to provide opportunities to groups to exercise free speech, unless these groups themselves accord the right to free speech to their critics. Thus, in order to preserve the openness of debate, it’s necessary to prevent exclusionary forms of discussion from taking place.
I’m of two minds as to whether the university is justified in this. It seems to me that in this particular instance, the university has a reasonable justification for its actions. I agree that universities should take a strong line against groups that require people to sign a blood-oath in order to participate in a public event that uses university facilities. Still, the principle underlying the university’s decision is open to abuse. It’s quite legitimate for groups to want to conduct some of their business on a private and (to some extent) exclusionary basis, and the question of when and why authorities should interfere is a vexed one. But in general, unlike many in the blogosphere, I’m in favour of some restrictions on the right to political free speech; I’d be interested to see what the more vigorous advocates of free speech, such as Eugene Volokh, have to say on the issue.
Update: “David Bernstein”:http://volokh.com/2003_11_23_volokh_archive.html#106970775795609927 too argues that U of T did the right thing. Matt Yglesias “ripostes”:http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/001906.html#001906, saying that Bernstein’s conclusion likely reflects his distaste for the speech in question rather than an underlying principled position.
{ 26 comments }
Kieran Healy 11.24.03 at 8:54 pm
In other words, the university seems to be saying that it isn’t obliged to provide opportunities to groups to exercise free speech, unless these groups themselves accord the right to free speech to their critics.
Like the GPL.
Henry 11.24.03 at 9:05 pm
Whereas the ‘strong’ free speech approach is more like the Mozilla “license”:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.php. I’m sure that there’s a law review article somewhere in that there analogy …
john c. halasz 11.24.03 at 9:19 pm
1)It seems to me that the right of appeal is required for the legitimacy of such an official decision. Such is the sensitivity of the trade-offs involved that it must be as clearly deliberated as possible to find the “right” parameters and dividing lines.
2)The issue, to my mind, comes down to how restrictive the premises of the organizing covenant are. As a matter of pragmatics, the purpose of such a meeting is vitiated, if it degenerates into a shouting match with Likudniks. But it is equally fruitless, if it precludes inquiry and understanding of alternative points of view.
3) The restriction in question only concerns the holding of a meeting at an official university venue, and thus the implicit imprimatur of the university as an institution with a “mission” and standards to uphold. Political organizing and free speech are not impinged upon with respect to other venues.
Omri 11.24.03 at 9:25 pm
Hmm. “Any means of their choosing.” What a
lovely euphemism.
Barry 11.24.03 at 9:53 pm
Now, how would this affect religious/ideological groups?
If there was, say, a Catholic group meeting on campus, would they have to admit people who were opposed to the Catholic church?
Kyle 11.24.03 at 10:24 pm
To Barry’s Catholic Question: Yes, though I doubt the group would ask all the attendees to sign statement demonizing all non Catholics as fingers of the “Great Satan”
In General: Sadly, this type of meeting occurs frequently here at the University of Kansas. Gratefully, the Administration doesn’t allow required “basis of unity” statements, and nobody really seems to mind. It sounds to me like somebody got caught up in their own Victimism and is too eager to scream censorship.
Ophelia Benson 11.24.03 at 10:35 pm
Yeah, what omri said. “Any means of their choosing.” That’s why I’m not a free-speech absolutist. That kind of phrase isn’t just rhetoric – or speech.
novalis 11.24.03 at 11:05 pm
Kieran, the GPL was exactly what I was thinking. But then I thought, “Nobody will understand that analogy. And I’m not even sure if it makes sense.” Then I thought, “why am I such a GPL geek?”
So, I’m glad that you had the same thought I did. I’m still not sure that there’s any power to the comparison, but I like it anyway.
Kieran Healy 11.24.03 at 11:09 pm
I’m still not sure that there’s any power to the comparison
If there is, it probably runs in the opposite direction, from free speech to free code rather than vice versa.
J 11.25.03 at 12:34 am
From my University experience, I would expect that quite a few colleges have policies mandating that events taking place in University facilities must be open to other university students — something along the lines of University-recognized groups can’t discriminate.
matt 11.25.03 at 1:55 am
Sorry, but, what’s “GPL”?
andrew 11.25.03 at 2:15 am
I’m probably missing something, but it seems like an easy answer to me: if the university’s policy is to allow *private* meetings to use their facilities, then the organizers can require any kind of loyalty test they desire. But, if the school requires all groups using public facilities to allow open attendence, than the school can disallow the meeting.
Just choose a policy about private meetings, and leave the content out of the question. If the KKK wants to meet, privately, and discuss the dilution of the master race’s gene pool, that should be fine too. The limits on content could only extend to incitements of violence, etc.
Sure, ideas can be dangerous and all, but there’s that tradeoff. Does anyone really think that kids in Toronto are going to walk away from such a meeting significantly more likely to hurt someone? Contributing to a body of repellant thought doesn’t satisfy an “imminent harm” standard. IMO
novalis 11.25.03 at 3:35 am
Matt, GPL is the GNU General Public License, the most popular Free Software license. It says that you can share, modify, sell, etc the software, so long as you pass the same rights on to the recipient.
The analogy here is that the University will give you a forum for free speech, so long as you don’t require or forbid certain speech from those who attend.
I guess that in general, I support this sort of regulation, in the context of a university or other public forum, since the goal of such fora is to advance the debate. And if you want to make people sign a loyalty oath or whatever, just rent the local firehouse. If there were a severe lack of places to hold conventions of this sort, I might be bothered, but as is, I’m inclined to agree with the university.
Tom T. 11.25.03 at 3:50 am
There is a somewhat analogous situation at a number of American universities, where the U.S. military is barred from using campus facilities for such functions as ROTC (non-US translation: part-time pre-inductment officer training) and recruitment, because the military does not comply with university standards of non-discrimination toward gays and lesbians. That situation is slightly different, but similar enough to be interesting.
S.A. Smith 11.25.03 at 5:40 am
“By any means of their choosing,” including all-out war against mother’s with baby carriages. Frankly I’m surprised the University gave them any grief at all.
Matthew Kramer 11.25.03 at 11:25 am
Groups using university premises should be able to shield themselves from disruptive wreckers, but they should not be able to shield themselves from polite dissenters. As a Jewish atheist, I have intermittently (during the last twenty years) attended Bible study groups in which all the other participants are devout Christians. I attend because of my fascination with the Bible — and because I enjoy demonstrating that I know the Bible (including the New Testament) considerably better than devout Christians do. I have always made clear my atheistic views beforehand, and I have likewise indicated that the probability of my altering my views is zero. At the same time, I have always made clear that I am present for serious discussion rather than for provocation or disruption. Far from being excluded, I have invariably been welcomed into these groups, and I have certainly not been required to sign a preposterous oath of loyalty. I would be shocked if I ever were excluded or if I ever were asked to sign such an oath; no Bible study group that is using university premises should be able to keep me out or to require me to sign a pledge of allegiance. The same applies to this noxious organization at Toronto.
a canadian 11.25.03 at 3:55 pm
Just because a policy is open to abuse, does not mean it is being abused.
Barry: If there was, say, a Catholic group meeting on campus, would they have to admit people who were opposed to the Catholic church?
Of course they should be. Why not? Since when has the Catholic Church prevented Non Catholics from attending its services, meetings and lectures. I think the only thing a Non Catholic is prevented from doing is receiving communion.
So long as attendees do not disrupt the activity and show respect, why can’t non Catholics attend them. It is very important for people on opposing sides to listen to eachother. They don’t have to agree, but they have to figure out a way to live side by side.
“by any means necessary” does not sound cooperative to me.
I suppose if some recognized mystery cult appeared on campus, it might have good reason for only wanting to admit devotees of that faith. As far as I know there is nothing inherently private about being Palestinian.
novalis 11.25.03 at 5:43 pm
I suppose if some recognized mystery cult appeared on campus, it might have good reason for only wanting to admit devotees of that faith. As far as I know there is nothing inherently private about being Palestinian.
Why “recognized”?
And why should people get an exception to ordinary campus policies simply because they are religious?
What if some software company, as a recruitment strategy, gave a presentation of its confidential source code, and required participants to sign an NDA to attend — should the admit-all policy be waived then?
The more I think about this policy, actually, the more I like it.
BruceR 11.25.03 at 9:36 pm
I’m not sure the ROTC example is analogous. There the university’s denial of service is related to the group’s (in this case, the armed forces’) behaviour off campus, as well (their “beliefs,” in a word). This particular decision has nothing to do with Al-Awda’s off-campus beliefs, only their use of a public space created and dedicated to freedom of inquiry and expression.
The fundamental question is how does tolerance combat intolerance without being taken advantage of? A closer analogy might be, if you owned property that you leased out under a covenant, which prevented its use for purposes you disagreed with (say, hothouse tobacco farming), can a lettor who is not a tobacco farmer be allowed to sublet it to a tobacco farmer, while you look the other way? The only consistent approach would seem to be to hold your lettors to the same rules on your property that you hold yourself to. This seems to be an attempt to do that. I agree it’s novel, though.
(Full disclosure: like Prof. Farrell, I work for U of T.)
novalis 11.25.03 at 10:35 pm
The only consistent approach would seem to be to hold your lettors to the same rules on your property that you hold yourself to.
I don’t think that’s right. Some things are OK for some people/situations but not for others — for example, it’s not OK for a publically funded school to promote some religion or political candidate. But it is OK for them to let space to those who do so.
Jerry Mayer 11.26.03 at 2:38 pm
Interesting debate at Toronto, but my approval or disapproval of the actions of the U would be affected by the answer to this question–does the U recognize student groups that exclude members based on race? It may be problematic for a conference held at a public university to practice discrimination based on creed, but what about university groups that discriminate based on race? A number of U’s in the U.S. have been roiled by whites wanting to join Asian clubs, or “Third World Weekend” orientation programs that are only for certain races (at my alma mater, this led to a lovely discussion about whether Portuguese were part of the Third World?–only if they lived in the U.S., was the administration’s answer).
So, could a Jewish person join Al-Awda at UT? Could a non-Jewish Palestinian join the campus Hillel? If the answer is no, it seems to me non-problematic to exclude based on creed.
A canadian 11.26.03 at 2:39 pm
Why “recognized�
And why should people get an exception to ordinary campus policies simply because they are religious?
An ancient style mystery cult, was the only example I could think up where secrecy and exclusion of the public would be integral to the function of that group.
Recognition is recquired to access campus space. That policy, I presume, is an organizational solution. Recognizing student groups is a good way to ensure students are responsible for their activities and it creates an organized and efficient way for the adminstration to deal with student groups by encouraging students to maintain stable hiearchies that can work within the established beaucracy. Just like with any large body – a little red tape is required.
Recognition is usually not a deep political issue. It mainly involves doing the right paperwork. Everything from Buddhist groups to juggling clubs exsist on campus. They all have to fill out the right forms in order to use campus space.
I would assume is possible that spiritual groups not recognized by the state as religions do not qualify for status. There are many good reasons for not recognizing and providing such groups funding.
The University of Toronto is quite liberal in some areas. It has a Wiccan chaplan to represent those students who are members of the Wiccan faith – a recognized student group.
A canadian 11.26.03 at 3:02 pm
Interesting debate at Toronto, but my approval or disapproval of the actions of the U would be affected by the answer to this question—does the U recognize student groups that exclude members based on race
I don’t remember any restrictions keeping me from joining any groups. A white friend of mine joined the Asian student union on the promting of an Asian friend. He enjoyed their events, when he went. Probably got a few strange looks but he wasn’t excluded.
I don’t know if groups are allowed to exclude membership. I imagine it doesn’t come up very often. I don’t think the a whole lot of Palestians are lining up to join the Jewish Student Union. Perhaps things on all univeristy campuses would be better if we all did that kind of thing.
I think everyone here is assuming that the Palestinian group is being targeted. I don’t think that is true. I can’t ever remember being asked to sign anything when I attended events. At most you were made to buy a ticket.
Mostly belonging to a student association is a recognition that you want to be alerted about their events and you may get ticket purchase preferences when that organization holds popular activities like a concert. Joining a student association involves nothing more than signing a list and perhaps paying a fee.
I can never remember being asked to leave any event because I was not a member of the club.
It is the Palestianian group that has gone against the grain with their policy statement and the demand that it be signed by attendees. That is highly unsual and IMO inflamtory.
BruceR 11.26.03 at 3:04 pm
All recognized student groups at U of T (that is, those entitled to make room bookings on campus, etc.) must by policy be open to anyone who wishes to join. The obvious exception is student representative bodies (ie student councils), where by virtue of your student status (ie graduate/undergraduate) you automatically comprise part of one student constituency as opposed to another. Student groups that ignore this rule (ie, fraternities) are still free to organize on campus, but then are not eligible for recognition benefits.
The relevant policy is available at http://www.utoronto.ca/govcncl/pap/policies/camgroup.html.
Jerry Mayer 11.26.03 at 3:38 pm
It seems the policy on student groups is very consistent then, with the ruling by UT. Some of the student groups put this explicitly in their constitution. But while the Black Students Association doesn’t post its constitution, it does say this on its website:
The motive behind the establishment of the BSA was to ultimately create a cohesive united community of black students at the University of Toronto develop a forum for which the black community of U of T could come together…
****
I’m certainly not going to argue that racial, ethnic, and religious minorities do not have legitimate reasons for desiring exclusionary associations. Indeed, I’m mentoring a thesis exploring just this idea–how can liberal democratic theory legally recognize associational privileges deriving from those connections, without contradicting core liberal beliefs?
But, thanks to those who posted on UT policies. Even if they are not always being observed, at least UT is being consistent in its advocacy of open fora for debate.
Incidentally, the UT debate on the conference mirrors one that took place here in the states. The actual divide was between a mostly Palestinian group of students from many universities who wanted to have a conference that considered true compromises over land and other issues with Israel, while a radical group of neo-Sparticists (many or most non-Palestinian) wanted a conference that began by endorsing suicide bombing. My recollection is the group split over the issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same underlying tensions are present at UT, particularly since the Al-Adwa group’s full name addresses a “right of return” for Palestinians to ’48 Israel–a complete non-starter for even the left in Israel. A group committed to accomplishing R of R (as opposed to some de jure recognition of it, and compensation for it) is basically committed to perpetual war in the Middle East. Kind of like advocating keeping Jews in illegal settlements like Netzarim from the other side.
Creno 02.20.04 at 1:14 pm
Thee best bloggg
Comments on this entry are closed.