Freedom of speech is quite clearly under attack at both The University of British Columbia (UBC) and Simon Fraser University (SFU). On Nov. 2, 2019, a panel discussion by Anna Slatz, Jonathan Kay and Meghan Murphy, moderated by Lindsay Shepherd, was to be held at SFU’s downtown Vancouver campus. The event was moved due to threats of violence. The Sponsor, Prof. Collard, says that

… he didn’t want to take any chances when he heard about safety risks that led to the change in venue. That was a big problem to hear,” he said, adding he was concerned about potential disruptions for people who would be gathering in a nearby meeting room at the university’s campus as well as members of the public who could be in the building.

“I decided I just couldn’t in good conscience expose people to that level of risk. Given that the security team is telling me that there is a very, very high probably of being some sort of violence that … I decided it would be irresponsible for me to continue.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/meghan-murphy-b-c-event-location-1.5345680

The event was moved to the Pan Pacific Hotel. The Vancouver Police, hotel and private security maintained order, so that the assembly could meet to transact the business of hearing speakers and discussing their views. SFU did not cancel the booking because of “hate speech” or any such nonsense, they cancelled the booking because they were threatened. So if our Universities are incapable of dealing with this sort of security risk, this is a serious blow to post-secondary education in British Columbia.

Our Universities are under attack. It might seem like a small skirmish, but imagine what people who are willing to violently attack a scholarly talk would do to students they were grading: they won’t have to be violent, they can just use politicized grading, as described in Peters, et al.:

Equally surprisingly, our qualitative data, combined with the quantitative findings, reveal a significant discrepancy between many philosophers’ beliefs that ideological bias and discrimination are either rare or non-existent in the field and many more other philosophers’ reports of having actually experienced or witnessed them first hand, or being willing to engage in it themselves. Starting with the political right, the more right-leaning the participant was, the more hostility they reported personally experiencing from colleagues, and the stronger their impression that they and their political ideology would be negatively viewed in judgment-and decision-making in the field. The validity of this subjective impression was partly confirmed by the fact that the more left-leaning the participant was, the more frequent their WTD [Willing To Discriminate] against right-leaning individuals and contents in judgment-and decision-making. (p. 18)

This is when we consider philosophy, where there is a semi-rigorous sort of method that involves at least a few credits of logic. It’s important to note that logic is optional for arts degrees, you can be an Art History major without knowing anything about logic, symbolic or otherwise. The philosophy department teaches logic, and even in the “logic department,” we’re having to face that there is political discrimination, which is what accounts for the perception that nobody opposes certain views, or wants to have a discussion to seek clarification. And then there is the question of what happens to students who somehow make it into graduate school but who do not share the correct political opinions. If someone were willing to threaten to use violence against a talk, presume such a person were a fellow student, professor or other person involved in the University. What would they be willing to do “for the cause” with such a position? We would be foolish to act like this is not already happening.

At the panel discussion, 1:24:00, an audience member asks

How many of us have lost jobs and felt physically at risk for asking questions or offering a space for this conversation? How many of us? Hands up.

In the frame, several hands go up. Of course, everyone’s hand should have gone up: the protesters outside were physically threatening everyone gathered, that is why SFU cancelled the talk, because they did not want to be responsible. The member also explained that in a Faculty of Education, after presenting articles to students, a minority of them “freaked right out” and complained, which resulted in her, being a sessional, not being hired again. If you teach the wrong articles, or you say the wrong thing, these people are out for blood, and they are clearly willing to use any and all force ranging from threats of violence, to bad grades, to hiring/firing. The only open question is how we restore the integrity of our public universities.