Unlike many other Canadian post-secondary schools, Laurentian has locked in a commitment to free speech, non-partisanship
Whatever happened to educational neutrality?
Late in 2023, the board of governors at Laurentian University adopted a new policy on institutional neutrality — the first of its kind among post-secondary schools in Canada. It’s a bold and encouraging move from one of Ontario’s smallest universities and stands in contrast to a growing trend in higher education of abandoning ideological neutrality for partisanship on contentious social issues.
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Don't have an account? Create Account
Laurentian’s policy applies only to the top officers of the institution: the president, the vice-chancellor, the chair of the board of governors and those given authority to speak on behalf of the institution. The policy states that these few individuals shall not embroil the university in disputes of political, social or ideological matters. It is also clear that these authority figures may share their own opinions in a personal capacity.
Laurentian is unique in the Canadian educational landscape, where schools from the primary to post-secondary levels are increasingly engaging in political and social issues. This trend reflects a broader societal pattern where individual commentary is ubiquitous and organizations are ever more compelled to take positions on issues of social contention, often in ways that amount to little more than a virtue signal. It represents a cultural shift — one that interprets silence itself as a public statement in support of (or against) a cause. Out of an abundance of caution, institutions now comment on everything, fearful of being caught in the headwind of an ideological storm.
This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Examples abound, such as the University of British Columbia’s statement after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, McGill University’s Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences’ statement against injustice and racism following the death of George Floyd in 2020 and most recently the myriad of statements issued in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 massacre in Israel.
Any contentious world development elicits strong reactions from many, and as individuals, few of us remain neutral. But for educational institutions, a stance can mean giving up the image of being a bastion of free thought.
The issue is rooted in an absurd interpretation of silence as a statement of opposition. Refraining from publicly condemning Russia for its attack on Ukraine does not equate support for Russia — it is merely to not embroil oneself in a public discussion. To hold off making a public statement admonishing the death of George Floyd is not akin to celebrating his death; it is a non-statement that says nothing at all of one’s position on the intersections of systematic racism. Until one has set the precedent of adding incessant commentary on all matters of social relevance, remaining silent is to state nothing at all.
That is the catch-22 now faced by many educational institutions. Silence is neutral and uninterpretable by default, but once an institution begins offering commentary on select social matters, there’s more reason to believe that silence implies defiance and opposition to the cause. Once you begin to show partisan colours, it’s rather difficult to reclaim a neutral stance.
Avoiding the adoption of ideological positions is perfectly reasonable for individuals and corporations alike, and it’s a principle many would do well to adopt more regularly. Sometimes an issue may not be fully understood and staying quiet is prudent simply to avoid misspeaking. Oftentimes, one’s opinion on a social issue, however strong it may be, is meaningless as most people don’t have the power to effect change. In most cases, throwing one’s opinion into the public chorus does little more than create further social division.
While restraint may be prudent for organizations that benefit financially from brand appeal, it’s imperative for institutions whose publicly funded mandate is education. A university’s sanctity derives wholly from its status as a place of open dialogue. For any institution that champions the liberal tenet of “how to think” over “what to think,” adopting broad social stances is antithetical to the cause, limiting the possible discourse available to its faculty and students alike.
As important as education neutrality may be, it is also an aspiration impossible to achieve as enacting such a policy is itself not a neutral act. It should not escape us that Laurentian’s policy itself is an ideological position.
This paradox was recognized by the Laurentian’s board of governors, which ensured that the final version of the neutrality policy included the clarification that it only applied to positions “other than those consistent with the university’s mandate or policies.” This allows room for the adoption of institutional positions on, for example, the importance of protecting the physical safety of faculty and students or on the value of funding education in remote areas.
Public pedagogy researcher Henry Giroux famously observed that an education where no positions are held at all is one where nobody is accountable. He’s right, and institutions must take positions on matters relevant to education but should err on the side of neutrality wherever possible, enabling their thought leaders to hold divergent opinions. Such restraint protects the autonomy of faculty while ensuring the necessary guardrails are in place to keep the institution within both the law and its mandate.
The path forward for post-secondary educational neutrality requires an embrace of institutional neutrality along with a refusal to engage in the institutional enforcement of neutrality. On this, Laurentian hits the mark.
National Post
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.
To mark the celebrations, many fashion brands release special collections. Here are five favourites from this year's drops.
Options according to preferences, uses and budgets
Paula wanted a hair colour that would blend in with her natural silver to avoid touching up her root colour.
Three buzzed-about beauty products we tried this week.
Top-rated base, mid and outer layers for all kinds of adventures
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Tarik Cyril Amar
Rami G Khouri
Dr Ramzy Baroud
Mort Laitner
Bradley Blankenship
visit website
