I am writing on the subject of the university’s free speech policy draft that has been published on Carleton’s website. As president of the Carleton Campus Conservatives, I am committed to promoting the development and implementation of this policy at Carleton in accordance with our constitution, which mandates our campus club “to work to preserve and protect the freedom of expression of students at Carleton University.”
I was pleased to see that Carleton has published a draft policy outlining the scope of the university’s commitment to protecting free speech on campus. While I am encouraged by the university’s steps to implement a free speech policy, the Carleton Campus Conservatives, including myself, are deeply concerned about several components of the policy.
According to the policy draft, Carleton’s commitment to free speech is immediately limited by the caveat that the university reserves the right to limit the “time, place and manner of speech.” Such conditionality on the right of free speech affords the university administration a de facto power to place a ban on speech or expression at their will, while providing no substantive rationale for this condition.
The short policy document references numerous laws and statutes that can legitimately restrict certain speech or expression. The university’s policy indicates that speech violating the law will not be permitted. While this is a reasonable provision within the policy, it lacks detail on which body will be the arbiter of the legality of speech or expression. Maintaining that speech violating various laws will not be tolerated means nothing, if not accompanied by a specific process for evaluating the legality of speech. In Canadian law, most claims of hate speech are resolved through administrative tribunals or the civil courts, and involve civil or criminal remedies such as damages, fines, or injunctive relief.
If the university wishes to limit free speech on the grounds of Canadian hate speech laws, then they should outline Carleton’s intended process for arbitrating when speech crosses permissible bounds as determined in Canadian law. Determining the legality of speech should never be a competency of university administrators alone, with no structure to govern these decisions. Specific, substantial, and binding structural requirements for addressing complaints concerning inappropriate speech are missing from the draft policy proposed by Carleton. Alleged instances of inappropriate speech should be met with a clearly outlined process of determining the merits of such complaints. The current draft policy, which lacks such details, confers the responsibility of making potentially arbitrary decisions on complaints concerning free expression to Carleton administrators.
Additionally, the policy draft is riddled with loose language and references to vague circumstances that can permit Carleton to restrict free speech. For instance, limiting free expression that “interferes with the conduct of university operations.” Such limitations are vague and open to interpretation. Revising this language to provide more specific instances where Carleton can limit free speech is necessary to ensuring the limiting principles on free speech are clear and transparent.
I, along with the Carleton Campus Conservatives, will continue to advocate for free speech on campus for all students. I hope Carleton will take the time to review these concerns and make appropriate revisions to the draft policy.
