U of L bungled free-speech fiasco, but so did UCP

The University of Lethbridge has almost gone out of its way to make itself an easy target over the last week regarding its handling of a speech by a controversial academic.

What's particularly odd about the whole fiasco is that university officials originally handled the matter in a completely reasonable and appropriate way. Had they simply held firm to their principles and stuck to their initial position, the situation would have attracted far less attention and, by extension, far less government intervention.

However, that's not to say that the university's fumbling of the matter warrants a government response. There may be some political points to be scored for the government here, but it's not clear that the measures announced in response to this controversy were necessary or will be useful.

The academic in question is Frances Widdowson, now formerly a professor at Mount Royal University (although she has contested her dismissal). Widdowson has espoused what many would consider to be controversial and/or offensive views on such matters as residential schools and the Black Lives Matter movement. Her planned speech at the University of Lethbridge, however, was on neither of those topics, but rather on how “wokeism” is threatening academic freedom. Although she never got to deliver the speech on campus, it feels like others helped to make her point for her.

The initial response from U of L president Michael Mahon made it clear that although the university is committed to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and that they “strongly disagree” with Widdowson's views, their commitment to their principles of free expression would prevail.

However, Mahon's claim to “vigorously defend” these principles fell by the wayside four days later as he announced that Widdowson's speech would not be allowed to go ahead. That reversal led to condemnation from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which said the decision to cancel the event “raises serious concerns about the University of Lethbridge's commitment to freedom of expression and academic freedom.”

After declaring that U of L community members “may not obstruct or interfere with others' freedom of expression,” Mahon later released a statement praising the large protest that prevented Widdowson from trying to speak there last week.

This all drew the attention of the Alberta government. Last Friday, Advanced Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides announced that moving forward, “post-secondary institutions will have to report annually to government on their efforts to protect free speech on campus.” He also vowed to “explore greater steps we can take to strengthen free speech on campus.”

It's somewhat ironic that in the midst of Red Tape Awareness Week, the Alberta government chose to impose additional red tape on the province's universities. It's unclear, though, what this is supposed to accomplish other than to piggyback onto an issue that's resonating among the ruling UCP'S political base.

The default position here shouldn't be indifference, but the Alberta government has already waded in far enough here as far as interventions go. In 2019, the UCP government mandated that post-secondary institutions adopt new and specific free speech policies (with an exemption for one religious university). What evidence do we have that further scrutiny and micromanagement — or punishment — of post-secondary institutions are necessary here, other than this controversy at the U of L?

As the U of L's president noted in his original letter on the Widdowson speech, as much as they hold to the principles of reconciliation, their mandate is also to protect free inquiry, open scholarly discussion of issues, free expression and academic freedom. All of those principles can be honoured simultaneously. The university's subsequent actions reflect poorly on them and on the president in particular. For now, though, that reputational damage is theirs to manage.

A heavy-handed approach from the provincial government is not warranted and could prove to be counterproductive.