At 6:45 AM on October 3, 2016, a student noticed several posters at the University of Calgary and reported the discovery to Campus Security.They carried a very rude hashtag and made uncomplimentary references to Sharia and to beheadings of prisoners by ISIS, many videos of which has been recently made public. The posters made liberal use of the F-word and quite properly were considered anti-Muslim.“To see something like this is truly disturbing,” said Elizabeth Cannon, University President. “It makes me personally very angry.” She continued: “these disturbing, extremely offensive posters in no way reflect the inclusive, diverse, and caring culture of this university.”The next day, at a noon rally outside the MacEwan Student Centre, she said: “We’re here today to support our Muslim students…. The University of Calgary is strong, and we respect one another, regardless of where you come from.” President Cannon stressed Campus Security would be working with the police to check surveillance footage and examine the possibility of laying criminal charges regarding hate speech. After looking at the videos next day Campus Security said they were looking for “a black male in his late 20s or early 30s.”The Calgary Police Service decided not to pursue hate crime charges. As Sgt. Eric Levesque of the CPS said, “if you remove the bad words, the message itself does not contravene Canada’s hate speech laws.” The extensive mainstream media coverage included the Calgary Herald and the Toronto Star. Electronic media coverage included CBC, CTV, and Global. It was clearly a major story.I have discussed this event regularly in a first-year course on ideologies. It is important because of President Cannon’s characterization of the “culture” of the university. None of her remarks made any reference to conflicting religious truths. Nor did she mention anything about beheadings or Sharia. Rather, her statements emphasized the liberal and progressive truth of being inclusive, diverse and caring. One would have expected her to say the same thing about, say, an anti-Buddhist poster.Her remarks side-stepped any consideration of the more difficult political problem of understanding divergent religious commitments. The objective of adapting an inclusive etc. attitude was to make the question of religious truth go away. This has been a mainstream liberal attitude since the seventeenth century and a central tenet of liberalism as an ideology, which was why I discussed it in class.Now, let us skip ahead seven years.On October 6 of this year some undergraduates paraded through a student dorm, one of whom was dressed up as Adolf Hitler. Global News reported “the university strongly condemned the actions” and offered “counselling services to anyone affected.” Nothing was said about Campus Security or evidence from CCTV surveillance.The next day Hamas attacked Israel, an event to which we shall return.On November 7, 2023, Elie Cantin-Nantel, a freelance journalist for several non-legacy-media outlets, reposted a video he had been sent by a student at the U of C. It showed a bathroom cubicle with graffiti urging viewers to “kill the Jews, then the whites, praise Allah.” Another, surrounded by Nazi swastikas, again used the F-word to suggest what was to be done with Zionists and Jews.So far as I can tell, this event was reported only in the Western Standard by Jen Hodgson. Radio silence from the legacy media.When contacted by the Western Standard, a university spokesperson said they had “been made aware of these deeply disturbing statements, which we strongly condemn, and have located and removed them.” The spokesperson also said they were investigating the event and would hold the perp “accountable.”Nothing was said about video evidence or working with the CPS, though the cops were “informed.” Nothing was said about hate speech. No stirring words from the president of the university. No rally outside the Mac Student Centre. And now the evidence has been removed.It’s hard to determine whether the university 'culture' has changed in the past few years or whether we are dealing with another instance of a double standard. Anti-Muslim expressions trigger calls for inclusion, acceptance and mutual understanding. Anti-Jewish expression? Brief condemnation of “deeply disturbing statements.” Looks like a double standard to me.Looking now at the remarks delivered on October 10, 2023, by current University President Ed McCauley. He began by condemning the terrorism of Hamas. That was the easy part.He then immediately switched his focus to “innocents of each side of the Gaza barrier” and the “unimaginable toll” they were paying. Such loss of life, he said, “saddened” him. Finally, he noted “there are passionate and divergent feelings on the broader issue of Israel and the Palestinians” so that, in discussing these events, we need to “respect that opinions will legitimately differ based on values and a myriad of other matters.”All of President McCauley’s remarks were presented under the title: “Continue to be kind to each other.”The platitudes of President McCauley bore a family resemblance to those of President Cannon. No facts were discussed. No history introduced. The expression of such sentiments is evasive beyond measure.The O’Brien Institute for Public Health, which is a flagship operation within the med school, weighed in on the Israeli-Hamas war on Hallowe’en and thereby made clear thinking even more difficult. This may not be a major surprise because the O’Brien Institute views climate change, racism, kindergarten and a “basic income” as being significant health issues as well. So why not “armed conflict” as they call war? We are not just talking about individuals getting killed and maimed or suffering many kinds of “anxieties.” In war, apparently, special care must be provided to “medical professionals, healthcare facilities and infrastructure.”There is only one threat to such “humanitarian operations,” namely the Israel Defence Forces.Accordingly, the authors of this O’Brien Institute document, MDs and PhDs to a person, called for an end to “indiscriminate bombings.” And “at the very least an immediate ceasefire.”They did not acknowledge that the hospitals that have come under IDF attention, Al-Shifa and Al-Buraq, in particular, are co-located with Hamas command-and-control centres. That fact renders their immunity from attack void under the laws of war.Second, the notion of a ceasefire, as countless observers have said, would benefit only Hamas. The effect would be to sacrifice Israeli soldiers in order to save the lives of terrorists, their supporters and other Palestinians.Third, only a complete ignoramus would suggest that IDF bombing has been “indiscriminate.”Such fact-free “even-handedness” on the part of spokespersons for the University of Calgary and for one of its high-profile institutions are additional evidence that they have lost whatever moral compass they may once have had.