sticks and stones may break my bones...

...but names will never hurt me.

This bit of elementary school yard wisdom was my first exposure to fundamental human rights. In its simple way it underscores one of our most treasured rights, that of freedom of expression. It acknowledges that the conditions that allow for good speech must, by necessity, also allow for bad. But it implicitly suggests that in the long run this is a better state of affairs than putting curbs on people's abilities to air their views.

Moving from elementary school to more lofty levels of academe, we find this same homely wisdom in an open letter from the president of the University of Toronto to senior officers of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. It appears in the February 27, 2008 edition of the National Post, p. A16. It is reproduced in whole, and any emphases placed in italics are those of the writer:

February 7, 2008

Mr. Avi Benlolo
President and CEO, Canada
Mr. Leo Adler
Director of National Affairs
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre
for Holocaust Studies

Dear Messrs. Benlolo and Adler:

On February 5, you addressed an open letter in these pages to me, as the president of the University of Toronto, regarding a series of events entitled "Israel-Apartheid Week" sponsored by a small student group.

The University does not sponsor, organize, or even implicitly endorse these events. We do, in fact, recognize that the term "Israeli Apartheid" is upsetting to many people. We also recognize that, in every society, universities have a unique role to provide a safe venue for highly charged discourse.

U of T's approach works. Year after year, events on our campuses have been far quieter than the storm surrounding them outside our community.

Why does U of T's approach succeed? It succeeds because we work to help student organizers understand the difference between free speech and hate speech and monitor events very closely if there is any chance they will cross the line. It succeeds because we have the resources to respond to complaints of racism promptly and thoroughly, and because our policies prioritize safety and are based in Canadian and Ontario law.

Our approach also works because we do not, in fact, simply refuse controversial bookings. Cancelling events because of anticipated controversy rapidly changes the nature of the debate. Instead of public attention focusing on the actual positions of the speaker or sponsoring group (sometimes extreme and therefore lacking broad appeal), the focus shifts to the abrogated free speech rights of the affected groups and can create publicity and even sympathy for an extreme view.

We remain committed to the principles and policies that have made the University of Toronto a highly inclusive environment where ideas are exchanged, challenged and debated with mutual respect, tolerance and civility.

Yours sincerely,

Professor David Naylor, O.C.
President

The views expressed by President Naylor are in the finest traditions of the university world's commitment to freedom of speech, academic freedom, and so on. I applaud him for taking his stand.

Now compare this open-minded and mature attitude with that of another player in the Canadian university scene, that of the Canadian Confederation of Students. The source is the student newspaper of the University of Western Ontario, the gazette. In this case, emphases in italics are mine.

CFS-Ontario passes pro-life ban motion, Jay LaRochelle, Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The always-controversial abortion debate is heating up across the province after the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) of Ontario passed a contentious motion. At a conference in January, CFS-Ontario approved a motion to support student unions that wish to ban pro-life groups from their campuses. The motion was brought forth by the Lakehead University Student Union, that wished to deny official club status to the group Life Support.

Concerns CFS-Ontario would support student unions targeting religious groups that oppose abortion were raised by a representative of the Ryerson Student Union (RSU), who was in attendance at the conference. Heather Kere, RSU VP-education, proposed an amendment to the motion on the basis the definition of an “anti-choice” group was not clear. The amendment was not passed.

“The amendment was to clarify the language around the past actions of the group that would be denied space,” Kere said.

Kere noted pro-life groups should not be banned unless they are harassing students or using sensationalistic imagery. She added the group at Lakehead had behaved inappropriately in the past.

Sandy Hudson, the CFS-Ontario Women’s Commissioner, said while the motion is not meant to target religious groups, groups that oppose abortion should not be funded by students. When asked whether Ryerson students should be exposed to both sides of the abortion issue, Hudson said allowing an anti-choice group would be like allowing a white supremacist group on campus. Hudson added the literature distributed by Life Support likened abortion to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the Holocaust.

The CFS-Ontario decision is welcome news for Joyce Arthur, coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Arthur believes pro-life groups should not receive support from student unions because they seek to repress human rights. She said these groups are comparable to Neo-Nazi movements.

Jakki Jeffs, executive director of Alliance for Life Ontario, asked why pro-life groups are being targeted by student unions.

“What is so different about a pro-life group other than it is politically incorrect?” she asked.

Although Western’s main campus does not have a pro-life group at present, there is one at King’s University College. According to Nathan Welch, a member of King’s Live for Life, a pro-life group at King’s, the University Students’ Council will review an application by students at main campus to establish a pro-life group in the next two weeks. He said such an application was turned down by a previous council.

As a long-time academic, I do shake my head in wonder at people who claim a kind of moral high ground, and the cloak of academic respectability, resorting to the very kind of language that President Naylor decries. Pro-life supporters are like white supremacists? Neo-Nazis who seek to suppress human rights?

What awful, inflammatory comments! I wonder how my elderly father, who fought in the battle of the Atlantic in World War II to preserve our way of life, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and is pro-life, feels about being compared to a Neo-Nazi? I wonder how some of my Indo-Canadian and African-Canadian colleagues in the right to life movement like being compared to white supremacists?

Such hatred and discrimination is widely held in the academic world and the media, of course. At an event celebrating the Morgentaler decision by Canada's supreme court, CBC.ca writer Heather Mallick expressed approval of student associations that cut off funding to pro-life groups — because the rights of Canadian women “are not up for debate.”

If Ms Mallick were to stick her head out of the world of groupthink in which she lives and look at the diverse body of opinion and literature that exists under the pro-life umbrella, she would find that many of us do not disagree with the notion of women's rights. We are just more committed to choice for women than she is. We think all sides of the debate should be aired. She doesn't.

I must call my friends at Jews for Life and break the news that they are Neo-Nazis.