Arun Smith is appealing the decision made by Student Affairs for tearing down the “free speech wall” put up by the Carleton Students for Liberty in January.
Smith, a seventh-year human rights and political science student, has been fined $75 for tearing down the free speech wall in the Unicentre Jan. 22.
The other sanctions assigned by Student Affairs requires Smith to issue a formal apology to Carleton Students for Liberty and that Smith not be allowed to take on a leadership role within a university-led program or activity for one year.
“I remain prepared for the imposition of sanctions, but where there are errors in the application of those sanctions, it is imperative that I seek to appeal them,” Smith said in his notice of intent to appeal.
He is appealing his fine on two grounds: first that misconduct procedures were not correctly followed, and second that the penalty for the action was too much.
“[T]he Director of Student Affairs has erred in his application of the exclusion from ‘a leadership role within a university-led program or activity,’” Smith said in his notice.
He said this penalty is only applicable in the case of a Category 2 Offence, and that he has been charged with a Category 1 Offence.
Smith also said in his letter of appeal that the fine should not have exceeded $50, according to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Policy. He said that the only fine that can be given to him is between $25 and $50 for non-compliance.
Smith also refused to apologize and said, “there is no remorse to be felt.”
“When someone puts something up like a free speech wall, it’s an open invitation to say, ‘well wait a minute, I have an entitlement to make hateful comments, I have an entitlement to ignorance.’ There should be no place for that on campus,” Smith said.
Smith said free speech doesn’t even exist.
“Its something that doesn’t actually exist, that we pretend exists to retrench hegemonic structures of power,” he said.
Ryan Flannagan, director of Student Affairs, said he cannot comment on his decision pertaining to Smith because it is confidential.
The appeal goes to the Carleton University Resolution Board (CURB), the final body of appeal for all non-academic matters on campus, Flannagan said via email.
“CURB can arrive at three outcomes: maintaining the decision; amending the decision (a reduction in the severity of the original sanctions); and a full overturning of the original decision. CURB is made up of one faculty member, one staff member and one student,” he said.
Ian CoKehyeng, the campus co-ordinator of the Carleton Students for Liberty who put up the free speech wall, said digging up the issue is becoming tiresome.
“I understand [Smith] wants to make a statement and demonstrate his defiance in the face of authority but all I want is compensation. I am not one to cause controversy for the sake of controversy,” CoKehyeng said.
CoKehyeng said he does not believe speech should be monitored whether it is in the university or elsewhere.
“If we had speech monitors in the real world, any sensible person would see this as unacceptable to a free and democratic society, so why should this be the case in university?” he said.
Free speech is necessary for a good learning environment, and necessary for the future of educated citizens, CoKehyeng said.
The Carleton Students for Liberty put up a new free speech wall after the first one was torn down. The wall was up for one week in the atrium in January.
If Smith’s appeal is rejected, the fine he receives will be paid to the Carleton Students for Liberty as remuneration.
