September 2001
May 2, 2001
Dear President Marsden and
Dean Hogg:
I am writing on behalf of
the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship concerning a report in
yesterday’s National Post, headlined “Osgoode Hall apologizes for
anti-Islam article.” Our society is committed to defending academic freedom
in research and teaching and the merit principle in decisions about faculty
and students. You can learn more about our organization at our website:
www.safs.niagara.com.
The report in the National
Post stated a) that officials at York University have apologized for
the article, b) that they have initiated an investigation because of complaints
about the article, c) that President Marsden has written to the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, a lobby group based in Washington, D.C.,
to “inform them proceedings against the student have begun,” and d) that
Dean Hogg said “the university is investigating complaints that the article
breached the school’s code of non-academic conduct that prohibits hatemongering.”
Our Society defends freedom
of speech. It is our belief that the free exchange of ideas is essential
to the proper mission of a university, which is the pursuit of truth. Censorship,
intimidation, and the threat of sanctions for undesired speech are almost
always wrong in concept and frequently ineffective and counterproductive
in practice.
We have read the article
in question by Mr. Papasortiriou in the Obiter Dicta (March 12,
2001), as well as his follow-up article on March 19. We have also read
the article (March 19) written by Mr. Shahidsaless criticizing Mr. Papasortiriou,
and the letter to the editor by Dean Hogg, dated March 19.
Though Mr. Papasortiriou’s
article may have been offensive to many Muslims, it appears it was written
essentially to express displeasure at life in an Islamic state, and not
to incite violence or hatred toward anyone. While we understand the concern
for individuals who may have been offended by the reasoning or language
in the article, the proper response is to reply with considered arguments
explaining why Mr. Papasortiriou is wrong in reason or tone. The published
criticism by Mr. Shahidsaless and Dean Hogg serves that purpose. The launching
of an investigation, with the threat of a disciplinary tribunal that might
impose a penalty of expulsion from the university is, in our view, a reaction
that reflects poorly on Osgoode Hall’s and the University’s commitment
to reasoned debate in a free society. Mr. Papasortiriou’s comments fall
clearly within the bounds of academic freedom. If speech is protected only
when no one is offended then speech is not protected. The adult students
who read the pro and con arguments in this debate will make up their own
minds as to who is right or wrong. Osgoode Hall and the University should
not condescend to them by having senior administrators dictate what is
appropriate speech or argument.
As a consequence of your
actions, we are gravely concerned about the freedom of speech and debate
at Osgoode Hall. We wonder how many students at York University will now
be second-guessing whether their remarks conform to the administration’s
view of acceptable speech. Instead of apologizing for your students’ remarks,
you should be encouraging them to express themselves clearly, and to think
critically about the opinions of others.
We urge you to stop your
investigation of this matter.
Sincerely,
Clive Seligman, President
Note:
A slightly different version was published in the Letters section of the
National Post, May 3, 2001.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
