James Gacek -
Federal Conservative party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre speaks at The Roundhouse in Toronto, Tuesday April 19, 2022.
[Photo Peter J Thompson/National Post]
In a tweet on Monday, Pierre Poilievre, Member of Parliament for Carleton and candidate hopeful for leader of the federal Conservative party, posted a message saying: “My message to universities: Protect free speech and academic freedom to keep federal grants. I will appoint a Free Speech Guardian, a retired judge, to ensure academic freedom is defended.”
This was followed by an image of a university with the text “Universities must protect free speech and academic freedom. Those that don’t will not receive federal research grants or other grants”.
This type of messaging is misguided and, frankly, dangerous. The censorship of researchers is concerning, especially when politicians suggest, without evidence, that researchers and their work are ethically or intellectually compromised in some way.
Of course, problems exist among researchers’ perceptions and not institutions per se (perhaps also tied to the odd truths around who receives funding, access and ethical clearance versus who does not and the feeling such discrepancies evoke).
These are ongoing matters Canadian universities face, but when paired with this kind of political messaging, the consequences remain unfortunate for both researchers and knowledge generation.
The production of knowledge is already regulated by and through several modes of university and federal governance, including the politics of winning contracts and grants; restricted and procedural access to information; negotiating or bargaining for independence; the failure to publicly release research findings; and the list goes on.
There are already accountability structures, like ethics clearance, in place to ensure the researcher reports knowledge accurately and fairly. So the pressure upon the researcher, from pre- to post-project completion, already impacts knowledge creation and production.
Political interference in this process is certainly not needed, nor should it be used as an illusory wedge-point to suggest universities somehow do not uphold academic freedom; many Canadian universities already properly protect this freedom in our respective collective bargaining agreements.
No matter how it’s arrived at, questioning the academic and intellectual freedom of researchers can leave individual researchers in rather discouraging and unwarranted positions.
And moreover such practices breed a culture of being suspicious of institutions and institutions being suspicious of researchers — a feeling faculty may unintentionally extend to their students and future generations of Canadian researchers.
Politicians peddling dangerous rhetoric, ignorance and misinformation do so to score political points for their own advantage — but at what cost to the public? Is it not detrimental to the public to be kept from the knowledge universities and their researchers produce?
If universities become more involved with select political interests, they may become less likely to support research or researchers that are unsupportive or threaten these interests.
Rather than focus on issues around who is awarded funding, attention should be directed toward taking heed of when politicians creep too far into university governance and the funding of higher education research.
When political ‘guardianship’ (i.e., censorship) hampers the ability for researchers to give voice to unheard marginalized populations — at what point is guardianship doing more harm than good?
Social scientific research is controlled and contained when normative (rather than critical) questions are posed, especially when the expression of political ideology pretends to be ethics.
Avoiding the knowledge about the suffering of others runs the risk of creating a generation of researchers (and the public) that become desensitized to injustices in their communities.
We must continue to make higher education a priority. Evidence-based education is human development; it opens windows and doors of opportunity, but also hearts and minds.
Education is a public, common good; it constantly evolves and we along with it. For the sake of research, the creeping messaging like Mr. Poilievre’s must be resisted, lest we allow the silencing of researchers and the thought-provoking insight they produce.
Elected officials who attack knowledge or are afraid of education should reconsider whether they are serving the public interest.
James Gacek is an assistant professor in the Department of Justice Studies at the University of Regina.
In a tweet on Monday, Pierre Poilievre, Member of Parliament for Carleton and candidate hopeful for leader of the federal Conservative party, posted a message saying: “My message to universities: Protect free speech and academic freedom to keep federal grants. I will appoint a Free Speech Guardian, a retired judge, to ensure academic freedom is defended.”
This was followed by an image of a university with the text “Universities must protect free speech and academic freedom. Those that don’t will not receive federal research grants or other grants”.
This type of messaging is misguided and, frankly, dangerous. The censorship of researchers is concerning, especially when politicians suggest, without evidence, that researchers and their work are ethically or intellectually compromised in some way.
Of course, problems exist among researchers’ perceptions and not institutions per se (perhaps also tied to the odd truths around who receives funding, access and ethical clearance versus who does not and the feeling such discrepancies evoke).
These are ongoing matters Canadian universities face, but when paired with this kind of political messaging, the consequences remain unfortunate for both researchers and knowledge generation.
The production of knowledge is already regulated by and through several modes of university and federal governance, including the politics of winning contracts and grants; restricted and procedural access to information; negotiating or bargaining for independence; the failure to publicly release research findings; and the list goes on.
There are already accountability structures, like ethics clearance, in place to ensure the researcher reports knowledge accurately and fairly. So the pressure upon the researcher, from pre- to post-project completion, already impacts knowledge creation and production.
Political interference in this process is certainly not needed, nor should it be used as an illusory wedge-point to suggest universities somehow do not uphold academic freedom; many Canadian universities already properly protect this freedom in our respective collective bargaining agreements.
No matter how it’s arrived at, questioning the academic and intellectual freedom of researchers can leave individual researchers in rather discouraging and unwarranted positions.
And moreover such practices breed a culture of being suspicious of institutions and institutions being suspicious of researchers — a feeling faculty may unintentionally extend to their students and future generations of Canadian researchers.
Politicians peddling dangerous rhetoric, ignorance and misinformation do so to score political points for their own advantage — but at what cost to the public? Is it not detrimental to the public to be kept from the knowledge universities and their researchers produce?
If universities become more involved with select political interests, they may become less likely to support research or researchers that are unsupportive or threaten these interests.
Rather than focus on issues around who is awarded funding, attention should be directed toward taking heed of when politicians creep too far into university governance and the funding of higher education research.
When political ‘guardianship’ (i.e., censorship) hampers the ability for researchers to give voice to unheard marginalized populations — at what point is guardianship doing more harm than good?
Social scientific research is controlled and contained when normative (rather than critical) questions are posed, especially when the expression of political ideology pretends to be ethics.
Avoiding the knowledge about the suffering of others runs the risk of creating a generation of researchers (and the public) that become desensitized to injustices in their communities.
We must continue to make higher education a priority. Evidence-based education is human development; it opens windows and doors of opportunity, but also hearts and minds.
Education is a public, common good; it constantly evolves and we along with it. For the sake of research, the creeping messaging like Mr. Poilievre’s must be resisted, lest we allow the silencing of researchers and the thought-provoking insight they produce.
Elected officials who attack knowledge or are afraid of education should reconsider whether they are serving the public interest.
James Gacek is an assistant professor in the Department of Justice Studies at the University of Regina.
Related
No comments:
Post a Comment