On March 9, the National Gallery of Canada is holding a public seminar on the psychology of creativity. Protests have erupted against keynote speaker Jordan Peterson, not for any particularly controversial view on creativity, but rather for his views about political correctness.
Peterson is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, who has objected to the enforcement of gender-neutral and other politically correct language in academia. Protesters, organizing on Facebook and other social media, have claimed his alleged transphobia and bigotry are grounds enough for his removal as a public speaker.
The attempt to deny Peterson his right to speak, aside from proving his point, shifts the conversation from one about political correctness and the use of preferred language to a broader crusade over the rights to freedom of speech.
The event to be protested is not about political correctness. Peterson is not using the venue to preach hate or make claims about transgender people, but rather to talk about the creativity in psychology and development. Yet the knee-jerk reaction from well-meaning activists demonizes the man, and attempts to obstruct him from doing his job.
The protest is against who Peterson is, and not what he’s actually there to do. Even if Peterson is a transphobe, for which no compelling evidence exists other than his objection to the regulation of speech, and even if this event were scheduled with the intent of speaking his mind about transgender people, he would still have a right to speak. This is the fundamental principle of free speech. It is not just whoever you agree with, it’s whoever has something to say.
Though it may seem obvious to point out, the hosting of a public seminar on psychology by the National Gallery is not an endorsement of transphobia. Nor is it essential that a public functionary condone or condemn a political opinion or entity while playing host. A library is not racist because it holds a copy of Huckleberry Finn on its shelves, and by that same principle the hosting of an alleged bigot is not an expression of political beliefs one way or the other by the institution.
One of the guiding principles of freedom of speech is that anyone can speak about any issue they want, and be free of persecution for it. While no government has enacted criminal penalties on Peterson, he is being tried in the court of public opinion. Presumably he would only be free to carry out his job if he were to recant his opposition to political correctness and embrace the enforced consensus. This is the very regulation of speech that he has talked about.
The protest’s Facebook page reads: “Our pronouns are not optional. Our pronouns are not preferred. Our pronouns are mandatory.” This is not creating a “safe space” or an environment conducive to discussion, this is an attempt to enforce public thought. Whether the intention is morally righteous or not, the underlying effect is a censoring of both language and opinion.
In plain language: Peterson is not using the seminar as a cover for transphobic propaganda, he’s doing his job by discussing and teaching psychology. Even if he goes uses the publicity for self-promotion, he’s only doing so because there’s a group of activists giving him leverage by trying to silence him anywhere he might appear. He has a right to speak, and we have a right to attend or ignore his seminar as we may see fit.
