Most of the things I have written over the years concerning the academic activity and administrative practices at the University of Calgary have been critical. From their unquestioning support of the governments’ panic during the COVID-19 event to the more recent embrace of woke-ism, the university has often betrayed its own principles and purposes.However last week, with the eviction of the anti-Israel squatters’ “encampment” from the lawn in front of MacEwan Hall, the main student centre, the administration finally showed both moral courage and prudence.The activities by the encamped were entirely predictable. The same signs expressing support for Palestinians and Hamas, the same genocidal chants about exterminating Israelis and Jews, the same controlled internal organization where only designated “spokespersons” would condescend to speak for everyone else — it was all part of a familiar pattern.The university response was not predictable. In an email to the U of C “community” President Ed McCauley explained that temporary structures and overnight protests had never been permitted on campus. The Calgary Police Service was called in to enforce a trespass order, which became crucial when counter-protesters showed up ready to rumble — or to provide some vigilante justice. Apparently, there was some fighting and rock-throwing so the concern that a situation dangerous to everyone might arise was not an abstract one.McCauley ended his email by reaffirming that he intended “to apply the rules evenly and with consideration to the safety and operation of this university. I want to underline that you are free to use your voice on campus.”The implications were clear: the university is an institution to sponsor critics and commentators but as an institution, it is not itself a critic or commentator. That is good policy and faithfully reproduces one of the social purposes of any university.In addition, students (and given the composition of the crowd, non-students as well) could raise their voices, which is to say they were encouraged to speak, to discuss, and even to argue. But that activity had nothing to do with squatting overnight, which is prohibited conduct.For the record, I am a free-speech absolutist. If students or anyone else is so thoughtless and stupid as to be anti-Semitic, that’s their problem. As Marx said — Chico, not Karl — “there ain’t no sanity clause.” The test of one’s support for free speech is the readiness with which one supports that freedom for one’s political opponents.This is not news. So, if these people hate Jews, they can hire a skywriter to advertise their views or tow a sign over McMahon Stadium during a football game. That is speech. But erecting an encampment is not speech. It is not really a protest either so much as an act of mindless militancy undertaken by terrorist sympathizers. The Hamas Charter, after all, calls for the killing of Jews. All Jews. Period.As for the encamped, they must have been astonished when, around 11:30 at night on May 9th, the cops told them to leave or face arrest. Many of them dispersed. The Calgary Police Chief, Mark Neufeld, made an obvious observation: those who were still there when tear gas, flash-bangs and flexicuffs were deployed “were not surprised. If you were there at the end, you were there because you wanted to be.”The encampment was then deconstructed. A job well done.For those of us familiar with the infantilism of other elements of the university, both students and faculty, their response wasn’t much of a surprise.The U of C Students’ Union (SU) “unequivocally” condemned police actions and Ed McCauley for having the cops enforce the rules, that they had for several hours communicated to the encamped. The SU said it was “an invitation for violence against students.” Rather than “negotiate,” the administration refused to engage in “dialogue,” they said.Look here, children — and pay attention! There was nothing to negotiate. To repeat: the encamped, both students and non-students alike, were repeatedly told they were in violation of university rules, procedures, and protocols. They were, of course, free to break the rules and to suffer the consequences. It was clear from the simpering tone of the SU letter that they did not contemplate consequences; from the administration, they expected capitulation, not backbone.A similar response came from a group of law profs at the U of C and at the U of A. They said they were deeply concerned “about the violent infringement of students’ right to protest” and argued that erecting tents “can be” a form of expression, citing two cases decided over a decade ago by provincial courts. They added that the ability to issue notices of trespass “is not unfettered” and that using the police to enforce the notices was not a reasonable and proportional limit to the students’ Charter rights.The letter issued by the law profs was free speech as well, and readers can make of it what they will. Had they been present at the encampment, their presence would have been something else. Even lawyers ought to know that.Another response from the university came in an email from the Interim Provost, Penny Werther. If Ed McCauley is the CEO, the Provost is the COO — to use corporate analogies. Her email reaffirmed the difference between free expression, which may result in “challenging” and “uncomfortable” conversations, and erecting “encampments and barricades,” which is behaviour that may raise safety issues. Since “what feels safe can look different to each of us,” it is not self-evident that encampments are unsafe. It is self-evident that they are not speech and that they can easily impede access for others to various parts of campus — such as the library, for instance.The Provost proposed an additional remedy for persons who say they are “struggling” right now. “The most important thing is to acknowledge their [the strugglers’] feelings and ensure they know there are supports available,” a list of which followed.The occasion for this “struggling” experience was of course, the removal of the encampment. The remedy was counselling therapy. The assumption was that the sight of police enforcing university policy induced traumatic “feelings” that needed to be treated with psychological techniques. The students I have taught this past year are familiar with “uncomfortable conversations.” They can handle the challenge. Indeed, they enjoy it. They would “feel” insulted by being treated as weaklings, even by a Provost. Most of all they have learned the difference between political disagreement and therapeutic intervention.So, apparently, has President McCauley. This is encouraging.
Most of the things I have written over the years concerning the academic activity and administrative practices at the University of Calgary have been critical. From their unquestioning support of the governments’ panic during the COVID-19 event to the more recent embrace of woke-ism, the university has often betrayed its own principles and purposes.However last week, with the eviction of the anti-Israel squatters’ “encampment” from the lawn in front of MacEwan Hall, the main student centre, the administration finally showed both moral courage and prudence.The activities by the encamped were entirely predictable. The same signs expressing support for Palestinians and Hamas, the same genocidal chants about exterminating Israelis and Jews, the same controlled internal organization where only designated “spokespersons” would condescend to speak for everyone else — it was all part of a familiar pattern.The university response was not predictable. In an email to the U of C “community” President Ed McCauley explained that temporary structures and overnight protests had never been permitted on campus. The Calgary Police Service was called in to enforce a trespass order, which became crucial when counter-protesters showed up ready to rumble — or to provide some vigilante justice. Apparently, there was some fighting and rock-throwing so the concern that a situation dangerous to everyone might arise was not an abstract one.McCauley ended his email by reaffirming that he intended “to apply the rules evenly and with consideration to the safety and operation of this university. I want to underline that you are free to use your voice on campus.”The implications were clear: the university is an institution to sponsor critics and commentators but as an institution, it is not itself a critic or commentator. That is good policy and faithfully reproduces one of the social purposes of any university.In addition, students (and given the composition of the crowd, non-students as well) could raise their voices, which is to say they were encouraged to speak, to discuss, and even to argue. But that activity had nothing to do with squatting overnight, which is prohibited conduct.For the record, I am a free-speech absolutist. If students or anyone else is so thoughtless and stupid as to be anti-Semitic, that’s their problem. As Marx said — Chico, not Karl — “there ain’t no sanity clause.” The test of one’s support for free speech is the readiness with which one supports that freedom for one’s political opponents.This is not news. So, if these people hate Jews, they can hire a skywriter to advertise their views or tow a sign over McMahon Stadium during a football game. That is speech. But erecting an encampment is not speech. It is not really a protest either so much as an act of mindless militancy undertaken by terrorist sympathizers. The Hamas Charter, after all, calls for the killing of Jews. All Jews. Period.As for the encamped, they must have been astonished when, around 11:30 at night on May 9th, the cops told them to leave or face arrest. Many of them dispersed. The Calgary Police Chief, Mark Neufeld, made an obvious observation: those who were still there when tear gas, flash-bangs and flexicuffs were deployed “were not surprised. If you were there at the end, you were there because you wanted to be.”The encampment was then deconstructed. A job well done.For those of us familiar with the infantilism of other elements of the university, both students and faculty, their response wasn’t much of a surprise.The U of C Students’ Union (SU) “unequivocally” condemned police actions and Ed McCauley for having the cops enforce the rules, that they had for several hours communicated to the encamped. The SU said it was “an invitation for violence against students.” Rather than “negotiate,” the administration refused to engage in “dialogue,” they said.Look here, children — and pay attention! There was nothing to negotiate. To repeat: the encamped, both students and non-students alike, were repeatedly told they were in violation of university rules, procedures, and protocols. They were, of course, free to break the rules and to suffer the consequences. It was clear from the simpering tone of the SU letter that they did not contemplate consequences; from the administration, they expected capitulation, not backbone.A similar response came from a group of law profs at the U of C and at the U of A. They said they were deeply concerned “about the violent infringement of students’ right to protest” and argued that erecting tents “can be” a form of expression, citing two cases decided over a decade ago by provincial courts. They added that the ability to issue notices of trespass “is not unfettered” and that using the police to enforce the notices was not a reasonable and proportional limit to the students’ Charter rights.The letter issued by the law profs was free speech as well, and readers can make of it what they will. Had they been present at the encampment, their presence would have been something else. Even lawyers ought to know that.Another response from the university came in an email from the Interim Provost, Penny Werther. If Ed McCauley is the CEO, the Provost is the COO — to use corporate analogies. Her email reaffirmed the difference between free expression, which may result in “challenging” and “uncomfortable” conversations, and erecting “encampments and barricades,” which is behaviour that may raise safety issues. Since “what feels safe can look different to each of us,” it is not self-evident that encampments are unsafe. It is self-evident that they are not speech and that they can easily impede access for others to various parts of campus — such as the library, for instance.The Provost proposed an additional remedy for persons who say they are “struggling” right now. “The most important thing is to acknowledge their [the strugglers’] feelings and ensure they know there are supports available,” a list of which followed.The occasion for this “struggling” experience was of course, the removal of the encampment. The remedy was counselling therapy. The assumption was that the sight of police enforcing university policy induced traumatic “feelings” that needed to be treated with psychological techniques. The students I have taught this past year are familiar with “uncomfortable conversations.” They can handle the challenge. Indeed, they enjoy it. They would “feel” insulted by being treated as weaklings, even by a Provost. Most of all they have learned the difference between political disagreement and therapeutic intervention.So, apparently, has President McCauley. This is encouraging.
