Time to close Concordia

Editorial

Concordia University has been in the news frequently in recent years. The Montreal institution has a reputation as a hotbed of radical social activism dating back to its inception (through the unification of two pre-existing universities) in the 1960s. Most recently, the student body has become known as a powerful force supporting Palestinian self-determination and opposing Israeli government policy.

Some critics, including some students at Concordia, have complained that the rhetoric has become so enflamed that it has gone well beyond criticism of the Israeli government and has veered into the realm of racial hatred.

The matter has gone beyond rhetoric, as well. When the former Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu attempted to speak there recently, a riot ensued, which prevented him from speaking and resulted in an arrangement banning public discussion of Middle East issues at the school.

That arrangement, made between the administration and student representatives, was challenged last week by Vancouver-area members of Parliament Libby Davies and Svend Robinson, two New Democrats who have been vocal critics of Israeli policies and who sought to address a public meeting at the university.

But a judge ruled that the risk of violence outweighed the right of free speech and the two, along with activist and commentator Judy Rebick, spoke off campus instead.

Keith Landy, national president of Canadian Jewish Congress, had harsh words for the politicians and their supporters.

"Canadians are fed up with these self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong acting irresponsibly to promote their own agendas," he said. "Who are they to determine that the cooling-down period duly negotiated by the administration and students at Concordia needs to be challenged? Where were these avowed defenders of free speech and fundamental rights when rioters at Concordia violently prevented Mr. Netanyahu from speaking in September? Their hypocrisy is stunning."

We couldn't agree more about the hypocrisy that is so rampant among North American critics of Israel. People like Robinson are stridently vocal when they view Israel as an aggressor, but they merely tsk-tsk when Palestinian terrorists blow up Israeli civilians.

But the ban on Middle East discussions and its subsequent challenge by the New Democrat MPs have overshadowed the larger issues at hand.

The agreement between students and administrators at Concordia was not intended as a ban on free speech, but rather a "cooling off" period intended to reduce or eliminate the sense of intimidation felt by some, especially Jewish students, and thereby encourage true freedom of speech in the long term.

It's an interesting theory, but it is philosophically insupportable and is reminiscent of the Vietnam War-era dictum that a village had to be destroyed in order that it could be saved.

Free speech is not unrestricted, as CJC likes to remind us. We cannot yell "Fire!" in a theatre, is an example commonly raised.

But, if we accept that free speech has limitations, we must be extremely careful where we draw those limits.

To suggest that an aspect of international affairs is not open for discussion because it might result in violence raises the possibility that any time a controversial speaker is slated to appear, anonymous threats of violence could scuttle the meeting. In the same way that negotiating with terrorists begets more terrorism, the perpetrators of violence successfully ensure that intelligent discussion is pre-empted.

One could argue that Concordia is merely one institution and it has the right to set policy such as this. But even more than society at large, campuses are the first line of defence in the battle for free speech. Open dialogue must be protected on campuses with as much or more vigilance as elsewhere in society. Where violence occurs, it should be dealt with in the manner proscribed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

It's as if Canada has forgotten these two simple facts: Smashing windows is illegal. Discussing world affairs isn't.

If the Montreal police cannot enforce the law, then there is a whole other frightening issue to be addressed. But if Concordia is going to err on the side of preventing violence, perhaps it should rethink its entire curriculum. After all, one never knows when a discussion of King Lear or Einstein's Theory of Relatively might turn into a brawl.

As a solution to this impasse, we have a modest proposal: If Concordia cannot provide a safe setting for students to intelligently and confidently discuss the relevant issues of the day as well as the historical foundations on which they rest, we suggest they acknowledge that their experiment as an institution of higher learning has failed and that they close their doors.

^TOP