Lawyer Ben Archibald reflects on the theory vs. practice of freedom at Concordia.
In September 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech was cancelled due to a riot outside the Hall Building. A window was broken, students were intimidated and a point of view was silenced. The university community was appalled by the violence and largely assumed this was an unfortunate onetime event. Sadly, last year’s cancellation of Ehud Barak’s speech at Concordia suggests that this optimistic assumption was mistaken. Whether Ehud Barak ultimately makes it to the university is immaterial. The larger question is one of free speech.
The name Concordia is borrowed from the motto of the city of Montreal, “Concordia Salus” which means wellbeing through harmony, not intolerance for those who do not share your opinions. Concordia’s mission of “real education for the real world” should enable students to debate issues in an atmosphere of tolerance without giving a second thought to a violence veto from student provocateurs.
As a Concordia alumnus, I remember my time at Concordia fondly. These memories are now clouded. In attempting to identify an off-campus site for Ehud Barak’s speech, the administration stated that Concordia security personnel made a “collective, professional assessment that the security of the guest speaker, the attendees and faculty and students could not be guaranteed” anywhere on campus. The blame for Concordia’s safety deficit was quickly placed on having unsafe buildings, radical students or the allocation of inadequate security forces at controversial events. While all of these factors must be addressed, the real failure, in my view, lies with the university faculty and its inability to cultivate an atmosphere of tolerance and respect among students.
My Concordia education provided me with a variety of opportunities to develop new opinions and challenge old ones. The one constant throughout this process was a dedicated faculty that made itself available for discussion after class, in the hallways and, most memorably, in the bars along Mackay Street. Irrespective of my own opinions, I never felt the need to hold back my right to speak, persuade, or my duty to listen and be persuaded.
In fact, this experience paralleled the texts we were required to read in my early modern political theory class. John Stuart Mill’s words in On Liberty are as relevant today as they were in 1859: “. . . however true an opinion may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth.”
Full, frequent and fearless are not what come to mind when reading the headlines from Concordia. Indeed, the disturbance preceding the cancellation of Netanyahu’s speech was a far cry from the words of Mill and the ostensible value of a university experience characterized by dialogue with, and not suppression of, interlocutors with whom one disagrees.
Concordia’s faculty has the difficult task of promoting and advancing discussion of controversial topics and not encouraging simple-minded orthodoxy. The world in which we live is increasingly complex and violent. Concordia’s diverse student population is largely
a reflection of our world and includes many nationalities, religions, ethnicities and sexual orientations. The common denominator among these groups should be the desire to learn and benefit from their time on an open and vibrant university campus. The faculty should
encourage and train students to be an example to, not a reflection of, the real world. Only then will the faculty honour its mission by elevating the level of campus debate.
Ben Archibald, BA (poli. sci.) 97, received a law degree from McGill University in 2001. While at Concordia, he was a member of the
Concordia Alpine Ski Team, was the recipient of an academic scholarship and worked for the Annual Giving Campaign. Ben is an attorney at international law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP in New York City.
Concordia has re-invited Ehud Barak to campus. He has been unable to accept due to scheduling commitments.
