Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Philosophy teacher in Quebec suspended for anti-gay remarks on social media

Brian Leiter

Story here.  (Note that he is teaching at a level that is intermediate between American high school and American university education.)  We may put to one side his silly rationalization for his anti-gay bigotry, I am curious to know whether (1) CEGEP faculty enjoy academic freedom, (2) whether academic freedom in Canada includes protection for extramural speech (this was clearly extramural speech), and (3) whether hate speech laws in Quebec, or at the federal level, cover the kinds of remarks at issue here (in which case, I assume they trump academic freedom).

Leave a Reply to Michel Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 responses to “Philosophy teacher in Quebec suspended for anti-gay remarks on social media”

  1. Steve McKay

    Cegeps are part of the "higher education system" in Québec. While not university-level, cegeps are not bundled with primary and high school and are governed by their own set of regulations. Historically, Cegep teacher have been granted greater academic freedom than their colleagues teaching in the Quebec equivalent of K-12. This is especially the case when it comes to choosing topics, readings, pedagogical methods, etc. This being said, we do not have in our collective agreement (the same contract essentially for all teachers in all Quebec cegeps) a clause that recognizes and protects our academic freedom like the one found in the university level collective agreements. Cegep teachers fought for such a clause during the last negotiation in 2015, but we were granted something less official. The next round of negotiations is coming up in 2020 and academic freedom will be on the table again. The issue of academic freedom, especially extramural and intramural political speech, became an important issue during the 2012 student strike. Some teachers who expressed their solidarity with the students by writing letters in news papers, wearing the "red square" or participating in manifestations were threatened and suspended by their administration. This was a wake-up call for many that there was a need for an explicit protection of freedom of speech for cegep teachers. Some administrations are also trying to influence the curriculum and the syllabus, which is another reason why academic freedom as become an important issue. Finally, some of us do research and we seek to be granted the same kind of freedom that our university colleagues have.

    From the analyses offered by legal scholars picked up in various French newspapers (caveat lector, I am a philosopher and not a lawyer), Laberge's comments are not considered hate speech under the article 319 of the Canadian criminal code. It does not rate as "promotion of hatred" against a group and does not "incite to a breach of the peace".

    Given that the administration has 15 days to act once a teacher has been suspended (unless the local union accepts to extend the delay), we should be hearing more about this case sooner than later.

    Reply
  2. Michel

    CÉGEPs are also technical colleges, where students go to learn skilled trades (there's a two-year academic stream, and a three-year trade stream).

    I'm not sure about (1), but I do know that the CÉGEP faculty union is pretty strong, as are their protections. According to union rules, his suspension (with pay, pending an investigation) would have to come after two other complaints (about similar things) were lodged and addressed over the course of the last year, or after he did or said something causing prejudice to the CÉGEP. Although the CÉGEP makes the initial decision, the arbitration board of the Labour Relations Committee has final say.

    I'm also not sure about (2); IIRC the CAUT recognizes the importance of protecting extramural speech, but the AUCC doesn't. I also know that in 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the Charter doesn't apply to universities (because, for Charter purposes, they're not public agencies), which means that the legal grounds for academic freedom are pretty shaky. That leaves contractual grounds.

    As for (3)… the relevant sections are (3) of the Human Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and a conviction which has been pardoned) and sections 318-20 of the Criminal Code, which deal with hate propaganda. To count as hate propaganda, though, usually requires the advocation of, promotion of, or incitement to genocide or violence. Section 10 of Québec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination on similar grounds (including sexual orientation). Section 11 prevents people from distributing, publishing, or publicly exhibiting discriminatory signs and notices.

    I don't think the Facebook posts (as they're described) could plausibly count as any of those, unless they were accompanied by discriminatory actions. But that just means he's not subject to civil or criminal action. He might still be subject to disciplinary action (although, as I pointed out WRT 1 above, it wouldn't *just* be for the FB posts; it would be for failing to address the problems behind at least two other, prior complaints).

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress