September 2008
Violations of academic freedom have become something of a cliché. Everything
that comes out of the mouth (or pen) of an academic, no matter what the venue,
is presumed by some to be protected. Indeed, the concept might appear to a
casual observer to be a meaningless convention designed to entrench the scholar
as political activist. But, this is not so. Academic freedom provides a very
narrow, yet useful function.
The
only relevant factor when evaluating scholarly research is whether it
contributes to a field in some way, whether it has scientific worth. Academic
freedom is simply protection for scholars to do their jobs. It protects the
advancement of academic and scientific knowledge, and not the expression of
political ideas. The right to political expression is something all in a free
society enjoy, and there is nothing special about the professoriate in this
matter. Some may disagree, but that is a topic for another day.
Last week, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) announced that
it would be investigating allegations that Kwantlen Polytechnic University
violated academic freedom of the kind I am referring to. The charge seems
justified, as Kwantlen’s behaviour is rather peculiar.
Despite the blessing of the school’s Research Ethics Board, the administration
has prevented sociology professor Russel Odgen from pursuing a project whereby
he would witness assisted suicides.
It
is no doubt a controversial proposal, but nearly every social, political and
cultural issue is a valid area of academic inquiry. To contribute to the
understanding of human behaviour, sociologists and criminologists are
increasingly observing illicit and illegal activity, such as the activities of
biker gangs and prostitutes.
Three years ago, Odgen assured the ethics board that he would take appropriate
precautions to ensure that research subjects would not be unduly influenced by
his presence and that they would be respected. In addition to being approved by
the ethics board, Kwantlen’s associate vice-president research also signed off
on the project.
Still, the administration reversed its approval in December 2006. In response,
the faculty association attempted to appeal the decision, and when that failed
to resolve the matter, the CAUT became involved. Their report is expected in the
fall.
When I contacted Kwantlen, I was told that the administration would not be
taking questions on the issue. Media relations officer Peter Chevrier cited the
CAUT investigation as reason for not commenting on the case — a position that
makes absolutely no sense.
The
Canadian Association of University Teachers is not launching a criminal
investigation and has no power to enforce policy beyond making recommendations.
There is nothing about a CAUT investigation that makes it necessary for Kwantlen
to reserve comment, especially since CAUT executive director James Turk has been
speaking freely on the issue.
Kwantlen did release a brief, cryptic statement in which they explained that
they had consulted two criminal lawyers and cited potential “legal risks” as the
reason for halting Ogden’s research. Although they do not go into any more
detail than that, the university is presumably concerned that Ogden could be
participating in illegal activity. Again a position that makes little sense.
According to John Lowman, a Simon Fraser University criminologist who is
familiar with Ogden’s research and to whom Ogden directed media inquiries, the
university did not seek a legal opinion until five months after removing
approval for the project.
It
is not entirely clear why the criminal lawyer Kwantlen consulted advised that
there could be liability issues, especially since the university will not answer
any questions. But it is not a crime to bear witness to illegal activity.
According to Bernard Dickens, a University of Toronto law professor who
specializes in health law, unless one is “actively encouraging” illegal
activity, the observer has committed no crime.
This would seem to be supported by the case of Sue Rodriguez, who underwent an
assisted suicide in 1994. Rodriguez gained notoriety because she made a charter
challenge to the Supreme Court for the legalization of assisted suicide but the
court ruled against her. While the doctor who aided her in her death remains
anonymous, former NDP MP Svend Robinson was present — yet the police opted not
to open an investigation into the matter.
In
any event, in order for an observer to escape culpability, no encouragement must
be given for the act. Ogden demonstrated to the ethics board that he would take
such precautions. In other words, the regulations approved by the ethics board
would have ensured that Ogden did not commit a crime. Not to mention that Ogden
has also sought a legal opinion that reinforces this point.
Ultimately, universities have the authority to stop research even if it has been
approved by an ethics board. A legitimate reason might be that the research
would tax the university’s resources beyond the institution’s means. However,
this does not appear to be the case.
Unlike at most universities, Kwantlen’s faculty association does not have an
academic freedom clause, which theoretically would mean that such matters should
be discussed at the university’s Senate. Is the administration planning to amend
and/or clarify their research policy? Would they discuss it with relevant
university constituencies?
More to the point, does Kwantlen even care to be involved in social-science
research?
Maclean’s On Campus, July 7, 2008.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
