Mahdis Habibinia | Executive Editor (Online)
Sajila Nudrat | Health Editor
Featured image courtesy of Jasmine Wiradharma | Comics Editor
Trump’s tweets, Kaepernick kneeling, and Roseanne being barred from her own show; the recent political climate has been an interesting one to say the least. What all these events have in common is that, in one way or another, the questions that have been raised in their regard have to do with freedom of speech, and voicing personal opinions.
By now, the general population is aware of the world’s newly-found sensitivity towards any, and all subject matter, even idiomatic animals.
PETA released a statement suggesting the public change the way we use animal-related idioms. For example, “killing two birds with one stone” should be revised to “feeding two birds with one scone.” The animal rights organization tweeted a chart in early December to help convert these idioms in an attempt to “remove speciesism from your daily conversations.”
We’ve even gone as far as applying today’s views, in extremity, to the past’s objects as well. ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ by Idina Menzel featuring Michael Bublé made a comeback in December; not as a holiday song, but as another subject for people to get upset about.
There is even the ongoing joke (not so much a joke), that millennials are easily offended.
“Some people want to be catered to,” says Rahul Sheikh, first-year computational math student. “I think people feel like they’re not being recognized. Their right to express themselves is being taken away.”
But where did this sensitivity come from?
“Before, compared to now, there was more discrimination,” explains first-year health studies student Nabilah Chowdhury. “And now things are getting somewhat more equal. So everyone’s used to that.”
“A lot of people want to be included,” says Lucas Dabs, a third-year student. “A lot of people want to be upset because we’re human. We stress. Being upset motivates us, it pushes us.”
Others like Davaughn O’Connor, second-year biology student, believes it stems from each community’s history. “For example, the black community and the n-word. Because there was such a negative connotation we are still here fighting for our rights.”
Yes, it is within everyone’s right to voice their opinions, but a fine line needs to be drawn between sensitivity, and an actual reason to be upset.
For example, Sheikh explains that someone shouldn’t get offended if they are mistakenly addressed by a pronoun other than their preferred one. “If they do know you, they should respect you by calling you by your preferred pronoun, but if they don’t know you how is that their fault?”
So let’s call a spade a spade: everyone is too damn sensitive about everything; and freedom of speech may get lost in the journey to please everyone, including Doug Ford’s new policy for universities and colleges.
Chowdhury, as well as Jessica Leggieri, a third-year human resources management student, are among the few students who believe the policy may not work, or may cause difficulty.
Others like Dabs believe sensitivity will not affect the free-speech policy at all. “I think people will be more vocal, but not violent. It gives people a chance to see the other side.”
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the notion of an individual or community being able to freely express their opinions or ideas without the fear of retaliation, being censored, or punished. It’s a theory, in principle, that seems to support how important it is for everyone to have a voice, and be able to use it. In actuality, it has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent times due to the growing fear surrounding haphazard, or even unorthodox, opinions.
So, how will the Ford-inspired free speech policy be effective if everyone is prepared to throw up their defences in sensitivity?
“You can’t have free speech if people get offended because everyone’s feelings come into play,” says Helen Moshe, a graduate animal physiology student. “I feel free speech is slowly being weeded out. If trivial matters are things that people feel sensitive over, we lose freedom of speech.”
First, let’s make something very clear: hate speech is not freedom of speech; and an uncommon opinion is not always hate speech.
Hate speech is a form of abusive or threatening expression of prejudice against particular individuals, groups or communities on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation, to name a few. Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute. Under section one of the Charter, governments are allowed to pass laws that limit the freedom of expression, as long as those laws are justifiable. This itself has stirred controversy amongst individuals who claim that this undeniably gives the government the power to restrict people’s freedom. Others feel that it is necessary to avoid inciting hate speech.
Dr Alexandra Rutherford, associate professor of psychology in the history and theory of psychology graduate program says: “There is lots of research that shows how negative speech affects mental health and contributes to social alienation.
“Being the target of racist statements, for example, has been connected with higher rates of depression and anxiety. There are research programs in social psychology that show how activating negative stereotypes about race and gender affect people’s ability to accomplish tasks, and so on. I show a video in one of my classes where people describe how the use of language that reflects negative attitudes about people with mental illness—or mental health stuff’ as we say in class, undermines them and makes them doubt their self-worth. Language—and speech—have powerful effects on our psychology.”
But, where do we draw the line between free speech and hate speech? This has become not only a hot debate in a political context, but has moved into the post-secondary sphere. Universities tend to have legal responsibilities that may come into conflict with their duty to promote free speech.
The Ontario government has required that every college and university implement and have a free speech policy in place, but what does that entail?
Under this new policy that aims to reaffirm the university as a ‘safe space,’ it’s goal is to promote dialogue and discussion that is healthy, but also caters to the feelings of all parties involved. The problem with such an idea is that it has indirectly resulted in universities taking several discussion topics off the table. Most of the time, hot topics that should be discussed are ones that incite passionate personal opinions. How are we to move forward as a society and support women’s rights, when the topic of abortion is barely breached, and one that is considered to be taboo by some?
There are lots of hot topics in society: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, among others. Students are not shielded from these in their day-to-day lives, and, in some cases, they experience them a lot. So why not try to make student environments more progressive, instead of shielding students from learning how to disagree and debate these hot topics in an educated, mature way. This essentially leads to living in echo-chambers and being offended by even non-taboo topics.
This begs the question: how can students practice their freedom of speech, within the confinement of the university’s new policy, if someone will always be ready to throw up their defences in sensitivity?
“It’s kind of a contradicting term because you’re saying free speech so we should be able to say whatever we’re feeling but if we’re gonna take into consideration people’s emotions and feelings, then I’m going to hold back what I have to say,” says O’Connor.
Students cannot feel comfortable speaking up, or even using idiomatic expressions (thank you, PETA) if absolutely everything, not just hot topics, will be up for scrutiny. It seems that an educated, and calm, conversation to help someone understand something they don’t is out of some people’s reach. This is because overly-sensitive reactions are fueled by emotion, not logic.
Nishtha Sharma, second-year mathematics for education student, says: “Technically if they’re offended, they have free speech too, so they’re voicing their right to say what they have to say.”
However, Moshe proposes the idea that sensitivity and defensive responses might have an underlying societal cause. “I think our society tells us we have to think a certain way. It’s driven us to believe something and when someone opposes your belief or what you’re expected to believe, you get sensitive about it,” she explains.
However, some academics argue that this sensitivity is actually the product of a new style of university leadership. Dennis Hayes, a professor of higher education at the University of Derby, says the “student experience industry” treats young people as vulnerable, partly as a result of the competition for tuition fees.
“Everything from welcome week, to on-site counselling, to puppy rooms—they all come together to present university as an intimidating, rather than exciting experience,” he said.
Hayes argues that the “therapeutic university” is on the rise, and soon, all students will be treated with kid gloves. This shift in attitude has left staff censoring themselves, for fear of causing offence.
However, Rutherford says: “In terms of ‘do we live in a society that is too sensitive’ any answer to this will depend on who you ask, and what social locations they occupy.
“For many people who have been exponentially marginalized by virtue of their race, class, sexuality, gender, ability status, socioeconomic status and so on, we are a long way, as a society, from being sensitive at all. It is easy for those of us who occupy positions of privilege or who are members of dominant groups to claim that others are being ‘too sensitive.’ It is a strategy to deflect responsibility for creating a more inclusive and safe environment where everyone can flourish.”
University is supposed to be a safe space, explains Sharma, so even unorthodox opinions should be welcomed.
“The fact that were on a university campus, hopefully there are educated people here. It’s about who’s willing to accept that someone else has another side and just because they don’t agree with you, it doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world,” says Dabs.
As the leaders of tomorrow, we have a responsibility to create healthy discourses about controversial topics in order to ensure that the tomorrow we are planning for today is one that we are proud of.
With files from Jessica Sripaskaran
