MENDELSON DEFENDS FREE SPEECH AT TOWN HALL
By Erin Hale
McGill Daily
Oct 15, 2009
Deputy Provost (Student Life & Learning) Morton Mendelson laid
out McGill’s policy on controversial events and fielded questions
from students at a packed town hall last Thursday in the Shatner
building. Referencing three events that have stirred debate over the
past year – a talk by a Turkish professor on the Armenian genocide,
a flag display by Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, and a recent
Choose Life event that ended in two arrests – Mendelson indicated that
the University would maintain a policy of respecting freedom of speech,
as long as the events in question are not hateful or slanderous.
Mendelson noted, though, that while the University respects students’
right to protest, this right is subject to certain restrictions.
"The University has been very open with respect to protest, but it
also has limits. One of the limits we are absolutely adamant about
is protest that disrupts the free expression of ideas on campus,"
he said. "[It] crosses the line because that protest is attacking or
undermining the core value of a university, that is meant to educate,
transmit, and discover knowledge."
When SSMU VP External Sebastian Ronderos-Morgan asked whether SSMU’s
equity policy and constitution would be considered for contentious
events, Mendelson said that the University’s stance would be determined
independently.
"If there is an event that is approved for university space, then we
don’t look to others outside the university – and SSMU is outside the
university, though students are not. We don’t look to expressions
from stakeholders to determine whether we are going to have the
event," Mendelson said, noting that he takes the same approach when
concerns are raised by other interest groups, such as private donors
or professors.
While Mendelson said that he evaluates controversial campus events
personally and on a case-by-c e Senator Mitran Mehta both commented
that they found this policy arbitrary and problematic.
"The University holds responsibility not only to students but to the
local community," Mehta said. "There are some events out there that
want to express a unilateral point of view. I feel there should be
general guideline to work from."
Karina Gold, U3 Political Science and Latin America studies, asked
Mendelson to define more specifically when he felt a campus group
was using hate speech or denying another group’s existence.
"I’m not a lawyer. We have to make a distinction between hate speech
and speech we may find hateful," Mendelson replied. "Just because
someone finds something very disturbing and very problematic does
not make something hate speech."
Referencing his time at university in the sixties, Mendelson said
events that make students feel uncomfortable – provided they are not
hateful – are an important part of student life.
"If you spend three years at university and are not troubled by
something you hear, then we aren’t doing our job. You’re supposed to
be troubled by things you hear, you’re supposed to be upset by them,
supposed to challenge them. You’re supposed to be engaged by them. The
mere fact there is an idea out that is deeply disturbing to you is
something we have to protect," Mendelson said. "As long as the idea
does not violate the law – so hate speech is out, slander is out –
the public expression of ideas is fine."