The UCP government will require Alberta post-secondary institutions to adopt controversial free speech policies based on U.S. principles that allow speakers, no matter how “unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” say what they like on campuses.
Hailed by Advanced Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides and others as the “gold standard,” they were developed by the University of Chicago in 2014 to demonstrate a commitment to free speech on U.S. college campuses.
But some worry they don’t allow universities to distinguish between groups or individuals who want to speak on campus, be it a flat-earth society, racists or a celebrity.
The UCP did not grant Postmedia an interview with Nicolaides.
However, in an emailed statement, he said applying the principles would ensure Alberta post-secondary institutions are competitive with those in the United States.
‘A crass political gesture’
The move echoes a recent edict by Doug Ford’s Ontario government.
Professor Sigal Ben-Porath, a University of Pennsylvania free speech scholar, helped Ontario institutions develop Ford-mandated policies.
Many ended up simply penning a policy saying they supported the Chicago principles, Ben-Porath said, despite the fact the policy cannot apply in Canada as it does in the States because of our hate speech laws.
Ben-Porath supports free speech, and thinks reasoned, adult conversations and guidelines are useful for campus administrators.
She doesn’t like speech codes, lists of acceptable words or academic censorship, and thinks navigating controversial ideas is — and should be — part of post-secondary civic education.
But she doesn’t think blunt instruments cut it.
“We are serving more and more diverse students…. (and) we need to be thoughtful in the ways in which we organize the environment in which they are learning,” she said.
“The Chicago principles have very little to do with any of that, because they don’t actually let you think as an institution what your values are, what your norms are, what is your history, what is the population that you’re serving.”
Gyllian Phillips, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations president, watched the Ford policy roll out in her province. She called it an unnecessary, “crass political gesture.”
Like Alberta post-secondary institutions, Ontario universities are already governed by a host of regulations including hate speech laws, academic freedoms in collective agreements and student codes of conduct, Phillips said.
‘A very problematic precedent’
Then there are the funding implications.
Ford’s government decreed that any post-secondary institution failing to implement free speech policies could be fiscally punished.
Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March to bar post-secondary institutions from federal funds if they restrict free speech.
Trump’s action drew a swift rebuke from University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer, a fierce defender of the principles developed by his university.
The Trump order would interfere with the ability of universities to address free speech on their own, Zimmer wrote in a public message to his campus, and would set “a very problematic precedent.”
“It makes the government, with all its power and authority, a party to defining the very nature of discussion on campus,” he wrote.
Nicolaides wouldn’t say whether his government will financially penalize institutions that don’t adopt the principles, saying only the policies would give students and faculty “strong protection with respect to freedom of speech, which is essential to the academic experience.”
Tying funding to performance
The UCP has also promised to “measure labour market outcomes of post-secondary programs to identify the correlation between provincial subsidies and economic returns for taxpayers.”
A similar scheme under Ford tied 60 per cent of provincial funding to performance measures like graduate employment and pay, which Phillips worries will set in motion an “unprecedented” change.
“Instead of universities working together to build different regional or research based or education-based needs for the province, it creates winners and losers,” she said.
“The idea that we should turn universities into competitive entities absolutely ignores the reality that each university is autonomous, it’s different, it serves different populations, it has a different reason for existing.
“If they’re used to peg universities against one another, it’s not going to go well for the system as a whole.”
When asked via email if any post-secondary funding will be tied to labour market outcomes, Nicolaides didn’t answer.
“By working closely with our partners at universities and colleges, we will ensure that we meet the demands of the labour market in this province,” he wrote.
When Postmedia asked Jason Kenney during the election if the UCP would tie university funding to performance measures, he said “it’s not our intention to cut funds.”
Universities mum
The policy direction under the UCP is part of an increasing incursion into higher education by Alberta governments.
Take the NDP’s tuition freeze, which left universities scrambling to make up a funding shortfall; MacEwan University president David Atkinson likened it to “being stoned to death with popcorn.”
Jolene Armstrong, president of the Confederation of Alberta Faculty Associations, worries that tying funding to labour market outcomes could damage education programs.
“I just don’t understand the sociological data that would be used to indicate that would be a good way to fund any program,” she said.
“I would guess that’s the intention, to try to reduce funding obligations on behalf of the government … but universities have already experienced a reduction in government funding.”
The presidents of Alberta’s two largest universities — David Turpin at the University of Alberta and Ed McCauley at the University of Calgary — both said it’s too early to comment on UCP post-secondary policy.
However, Turpin said the sector is “a key part of the economic engine of this province, providing the educated workforce and research needed for job creation, economic development and diversification.”
1.The So Called University Of Chicago Principles Are Based On The
Fact That U Of C Is As Right Wing Economic And Political Departments As You Can
Get
Home To The Likes Of Leo Strauss And Former Nazi Judge Carl Schmidt,
Fascist Romanian Mircea Eliade, And Of Course Who Can Forget The Chicago School
Of Economists Hayek, Mises, Etc.
In Alberta The Graduates Of The Chicago Poli Sci Department Program Created Their
Own Program At The U Of Calgary Called The Calgary School
You Can Read About Them Here
It Led To The Creation Of The New Right In Canada, The Reform Party, The
Alliance, Then The Conservative Party Of Stephen Harper. Academics Like Barry
Cooper, Tom Flanagan, etc Were The Masterminds Behind The Rise Of The Right In Canada.
So You Can Imagine the Kind Of Principles These Will Be
" … 'The government rolled this out with much less detail than you would expect given the magnitude of the change they're contemplating,' said Alex Usher, president of Higher Education Strategy Associates, a Toronto-based consulting firm.
Usher supports the principle of performance-based funding.
'It gives governments and taxpayers a sense that [universities and colleges] are spending money to a purpose,' he said in an interview.
'We've got $5 billion in public money going into the province's universities and colleges and I think people like to know that there are certain objectives that are being accomplished with that money.'
The issue, said Usher, is whether the metrics are well-designed.
'I don't think we know enough about the program yet to be able to say that with confidence one way or the other,' he said.
The ministry briefing document shows that starting in the 2020-21 academic year, 25 per cent of provincial grants to post-secondary institutions (about $1.27 billion) will be 'performance/outcomes-based funding.'
That will rise by 10 percentage points each year, until 2024-25, when it peaks at 60 per cent ($3.04 billion).
Currently, only 1.2 per cent of college funding and 1.4 per cent of university funding is tied to outcomes ...
Usher has seen details of the metrics and describes them as mixed. He said some are 'badly designed or just plain stupid' and puts the community/local impact metric in that category.
'If you really want to rig something so that Nipissing comes out well, just hand them the money, don't pretend it's a performance indicator.' NIpissing University is located in North Bay, the smallest Ontario city with a university.
One of the government's own agencies is advising it to choose the metrics carefully.
The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) was created by the province to assess post-secondary institutions on a range of measures. In a paper published last week, HEQCO says the performance-based metrics must be 'meaningful and informative.'
'Meaningful performance measurement must focus on impact and outcomes,' write the authors, led by HEQCO's president and chief executive Harvey Weingarten.
'What or how much have students learned, and what is the economic and social impact of the institutions and a well-educated province?'
The report says the key outcomes to be measured should be based on the priority goals for higher education, as identified by government policy ...
The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) is raising concerns about the plan, calling it 'a drastic move towards tying funding to performance outcomes.'
The move will 'create inequities and slowly but certainly undermine the integrity of Ontario's postsecondary education system,' OCUFA says in a new post on its website.
'This is something that's being used a lot in a number of different states in the U.S. and nowhere is there any research to suggest that it improves education,' said the association's president, Gyllian Phillips, in an interview …"
CBC News has learned more details on how the Ford government will measure the performance of Ontario's colleges and universities to determine the total funding they receive.
