Freedom Of Expression In The Classroom

This morning, the Alberta Court of Appeal will hear arguments on the Pridgen case. As discussed in yesterday's post, Pridgen rests on the issue of freedom of expression on campus and whether non-academic misconduct resulting from Facebook postings criticising an University professor was a justifiable restriction under the Charter. If, however, we tweak the case and re-imagine it, we come up with a different, yet related, freedom of expression dilemma: the expressive rights of teachers in a classroom.

The discussion will not refer to Keegstra or Ross, who through their expression promoted discrimination and hatred. Instead, the discussion will be about Mr. Morin, an untenured and untested teacher at a Prince Edward Island Junior High School. Mr. Morin's first year of teaching goes by smoothly and uneventfully and he is contracted to teach again. His second year, however, is much more controversial.

One evening, Mr. Morin watches a PBS documentary entitled "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done" and he is devastated. The raw documentary exposes the corrupt side of the fundamental Christian movement of the late 80s and its connection to American politics. Much of the documentary focuses on the scandal-ridden Jimmy Bakker, his wife Tammy Faye, and the PTL Church.

Mr. Morin sees a teaching opportunity in the documentary and decides to show the film to his grade 9 class in connection to a writing assignment on "What Religion Means To Different People." After the viewing of the documentary in class, the Principal receives complaints and directs Mr. Morin to stop the assignment. Mr. Morin will take his right to express himself in the classroom all the way to the highest Appeal Court in his province, and he will do it on his own and without the benefit of counsel.

The PEISCAD (PEI Appeal Court) agreed with Mr. Morin, although not unanimously. The majority of the Court, found expressive content in Morin's assignment, consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's liberal interpretation of the freedom of expression under the Charter. Moreover, the right involves not only the teacher, who is expressing viewpoints in an effort to exchange and stimulate "opinions and ideas," but involves the students' right

in a democratic society to have access to free expression by their teachers - encouraging diversity, critical thinking, and vigorous debate ... students have a right to hear this expression and benefit from it...this right of students is fundamental to their being citizens in a truly democratic state and students of that states' educational system.

The right of a teacher, therefore, to express himself transcends the classroom and is elevated, thereby becoming a core concept of our society's fundamental values as reflected and protected by the Charter.

As we grow older and look back on our education, we recall those teachers who taught us without fear or prejudice. Thank you, Mr. Morin for reminding us.

The Pridgen Case and Freedom of Speech On the Canadian Campus

Tomorrow, the Alberta Court of Appeal will hear arguments on the Pridgen case. The issue involves the use of Facebook postings to criticize a University of Calgary professor, contrary to the student code of conduct. In the lower court case, Madam Justice Strekaf considered whether the subsequent finding of non-academic misconduct by the Pridgen brothers was a violation of freedom of expression under s.2(b) of the Charter. Ultimately she ruled there was a violation and the restriction could not be justified under s.1 of the Charter.

The issue of freedom of speech on campus is troubling. Universities are seen as the defender of academic independence and the protector of free thought. Through this freedom, critical thought is created, nourished, and encouraged. Innovation and excellence is the by-product of free thought. To restrict it, results in a withering effect and a loss of free debate on controversial issues. Thus, there is a societal interest in protecting free expression on campus. Our democratic tradition demands it.

On the other hand, as mentioned in previous posts, freedom of expression is not absolute under our Canadian Charter. Speech can be restricted but only if justified in a free and democratic society. There have been campus cases where Facebook postings were restricted justifiably. Those cases, however, involved threats of harm attracting Criminal Code sanctions. In contrast, the Pridgen case involved no threats and there was no evidence of resultant "injury" before the discipline council. Certainly, the comments were unkind, but were they the kind of expression we want to restrict on a University campus?

The answer will be left to the Court on Wednesday when the freedom to express oneself on campus will be tested. We will await the decision to see if the Pridgen brothers receive a pass or a fail.

Is Saying Sorry Enough?

An apology can be a very personal act but it also can take immense proportions as government's apologize for large-scale wrongs against ethnic communities. These apologies are usually scripted formal affairs with monetary reparations. In that spirit, the Canadian government has apologized for the Chinese Head Tax, the Japanese-Canadian internment and the Aboriginal Residential Schools.

These large-scale apologies or collective apologies have a dual purpose: healing within the wronged community and increased political support for the apologizer. To accurately fulfill both of these purposes requires some astute government decision making. The government must decide the form of the apology, the content, and the extent. Collective apologies are, therefore, not for the faint-hearted.

Typically, formal collective apologies are backed by monetary reparations. All three Canadian government apologies discussed in the first paragraph of this post are such examples. There are times, however, where the act of apology with some reparations is deemed inadequate as in the case of the Aboriginal residential schools. 

The residential schools were conceived and implemented through systemic discriminatory government policy and legislation over decades. Once taken from their families, many Aboriginal children were abused and taught self-loathing and hatred for their culture. This was a case where an apology was not enough and neither was the financial reparation offered by the government.

After years of protracted legal negotiations, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, presently hearing evidence in Halifax, was created to build an accurate and complete public account of the event, to determine the reason for it, and to recommend further appropriate commemorations of the event. The Commission has not been without its troubles: Justice LaForme resigned as a commissioner in 2008 over the proper emphasis on "truth" or "reconciliation." Nor has it been without controversy, as the University of Manitoba recently apologized at the commission for educating and mentoring the authority figures involved in the schools such as clergy, teachers, and politicians.

Despite the difficulties in taking collective responsibility and the struggles encountered in striking the right balance between apology and reparation, Canada's culture of redress is an international instruction on how to say "I am sorry" and we, collectively, should not be sorry for that.

It Never Hurts To Say You're Sorry

We live in a culture of apology. As young children, we are taught to apologize when we are wrong. This teaches us empathy (the apology) and compassion (the forgiveness). It also helps us shape an independent self-identity as we accept responsibility for our own actions. An apology can take us to the next level in life as it permits us to move forward, without the burden of the past. An apology is behaviour which is best learned by example. We all do it. Our biblical prophets also did it: Jacob apologized to Esau for taking his birthright. 

There are also literary apologies. While we apologize to acknowledge our misdeeds, for which we seek forgiveness, and as an expression of regret, the literary apology is for a much different purpose. Plato's Apology, which famously describes Socrates defence of his teachings during his trial for sedition, is a persuasive justification and not a true apology. The only regret shown by Socrates is over the tribunal's inability to understand.

Some apologies are constructed for a particular outcome. Political apologies are an attempt to resuscitate bad publicity. Sometimes those apologies work as in the instance of President Bill Clinton's apology over his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Soon after his public apology, he was re-elected for a second term. John Edward's apology did not have the same effect. 

In law, apologies are crucial. Criminal law sentencing principles encourage, and essentially reward, apologies. A remorseful acceptance of responsibility by the accused is a mitigating factor in sentence. Further, an accused is given a statutory opportunity to apologize through s. 726 of the Criminal Code. The concept of restorative justice presupposes an apology. Even in the civil context, an apology can reduce damages and sometimes, even thwart a law suit as in the case of slander or defamation. Recent laws, such as the Ontario Apology Act, encourage apologies by restricting such an incriminatory admission from use in subsequent proceedings.

It seems, therefore, that it never hurts to say sorry as we encourage others to open up, take responsibility, and seek forgiveness. But sometimes, saying sorry is not enough or deemed not required. In tomorrow's post, I will explore this concept in the context of government apologies. 

What's in A Word? From Treason To Celebration

Today is Guy Fawkes Day in the UK and, although recognized increasingly less, also in Newfoundland. Guy Fawkes was a radicalized Catholic, who attempted to blow up King and Parliament in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. His treasonous actions resulted in his execution. It is celebrated tonight through the burning of bonfires, the lighting of fireworks, and the burning of the miscreant's effigy.

There is also a more modern connection as the Occupy movement have taken Guy Fawkes as a symbol of revolution. On a gentler note, the event imbues deeper meaning to the name of Professor Dumbledore's Phoenix; Fawkes. 

Treason itself is an oddity. Defined as an act of betrayal against one's government, it is an ancient crime still found in our Criminal Code, yet rarely used. Indeed, until repealed in 1995, high treason was considered in equal seriousness as first degree-murder, attracting similar penalties including the death penalty. 

Yet, how does such a terrifying event transform itself from terror to celebration, from revolution to praise, and from death to disuse? For an answer, we can turn to the Canadian experience and to an equally seminal historic event; Louis Riel and the Red River Resistance. At the time, Louis Riel was considered a radical, his provisional government was branded treasonous, and for his efforts he too was executed.

His actions have now been viewed quite differently as the founder of Manitoba and the protector of Metis rights. School-age children are not taught to expunge his memory but to embrace his vision and to appreciate the background story behind his revolutionary actions. Even the government has been asked to re-draw their perspective through Pat Martin's private member's bill, the Louis Riel Act, which, if passed, would commemorate Riel's actions and expunge his "crime."

History, therefore, is a fluid concept: as we navigate through time, differing perspectives colour the past, providing us with a richer present. As a result, you may never view a word or event the same again. Now that's something worth celebrating.

Update on Saturday, November 5, 2011 at 8:44AM by Lisa A. Silver

As a follow-up, I highly recommend the graphic novel on Louis Riel by Chester Brown as a "re-drawing" of history. You can read about the book here.