Photo by Christian Fleury
The past two years were the most active and demanding
of any since the Office of Rights and Responsibilities opened in 1996.
The primary event was the conflict that arose on campus when the Palestinian/Israeli
situation became critical in the fall of 2000. The office received
15 complaints arising out of these events [including six of alleged
verbal harassment of a racist or ethnic nature, and three about written
opinion pieces].
Many of the complainants had to be told that the Code [the Code of
Rights and Responsibilities, which applies to all Concordia students,
faculty and staff] could not respond to their complaints. However,
the advisor took the time to listen to the students’ concerns.
An effort was made to differentiate between the expression of an opinion,
however offensive to some, and personally targeted harassment. The
university’s repugnance for racist attacks was emphasized. Some
were encouraged and went away with a better understanding of the issues.
Others were not satisfied and expressed their frustration that the
university would not “do something.”
Feeling passionately justified in their cause, [the complainants]
are not in search of an impartial process. In the heat of emotion,
they have difficulty accepting or understanding that the Code and
the advisor must remain essentially disinterested, and make their
appeal to the person, rather than the officer. But the incumbent,
who surely has feelings and opinions of her own, must resist the impulse
to respond to such an appeal.
As the situation became more polarized, the demand for action became
more vociferous. One of the first casualties of extreme polarization
is trust: in this case, trust in the university, its officers, and
its rules and policies. They are perceived as functioning together
en bloc, in obedience to other interests, the protection of which
requires the suppression of free speech and political protest (suggesting
a capacity for tactical planning that would be flattering were it
not so far from the reality).
This phenomenon is not new in the history of the world, and there
is no reason why things should be any different at Concordia. Knowing
this, the officers soldier on, but this does not mean that it is not
taxing and disheartening to be constantly in a state of negative reaction.
It is particularly hard when in addition their integrity is publicly
impugned. Added to these effects at the time was the constant concern
that there would be violence, and the cautioning impact that this
possibility had on decision making.
The present advisor has always conceived of the Office of Rights and
Responsibilities as a community resource, that is, a place to obtain
guidance, assistance and support. This view is in contrast to the
common misconception of the Office as some kind of community police
station, where the staff lie in wait for malefactors. In this season
of discontent, it is important to emphasize once more the positive
aspects of the mandate, which is, to quote the Code’s preamble,
to help keep the university environment “safe and civil.”
It is even more important to clarify that safety and civility do not
exclude dissent, however harsh. Without dissent, there is no academic
life. To take the issue further, it must also be said that safety
and civility do not exclude the likelihood of being offended on occasion.
The reference is, of course, to offensive opinions, and not offensive
behaviour. In fact, the view from this office is that if a student
or employee leaves the university without ever having been offended
by an opinion, the university is probably falling down on the job.
For more information on Concordia's Office of Rights and Responsibilities,
or to see the full text of its 1999-2001 report, visit http://rights.concordia.ca/.
