By Peter McInnis

The issue of what constitutes civil discourse, or a respectful working environment, has long been subject to broad interpretation. The balancing act of complying with statutory obligations for anti-harassment and anti-discrimination while appreciating the necessity of defending both Charter and academic freedoms remains vexing.

Faculty, staff, and students are undeniably entitled to work in a campus setting devoid of physical threats and serious verbal abuse as defined under human rights legislation. Whether one may apply highly subjective definitions of “personal safety,” “disrespectful behaviours,” or “appropriate decorum” is dubious.

As universities and colleges must remain sites of rigorous intellectual engagement and wide-ranging debate, the potential to develop flawed policies is amplified. It is an axiom that, too often, defective policy supplants well-thought-out alternatives and that, in some instances, no policy at all should remain a consideration.

Specific problems involving a few individuals may lead to the imposition of restrictive measures for the majority. One policy goes so far as to include “dressing professionally” in a list of decorum requirements.

The procedural imposition of civility and respect extends to digital interactions on social media. Faculty recourse to intramural and extramural academic freedoms are subject to scrutiny under such policy directives, including disciplinary sanctions for those who breach codes of conduct. This obvious overreach impinges on professional practice assiduously safeguarded in academia.

As higher education becomes increasingly beholden to the vagaries of federal and provincial directives and funding by private philanthropy and corporate donors, the reflexive tendencies toward risk aversion are accentuated. The ulterior motive for civility or respectful policies may be to shield institutional reputations or marketing brands rather than defend the fundamental values of expressive freedoms.

Policies that offer subjective conceptions of comportment may have far-reaching consequences for our working and learning conditions. The CAUT Advisory on Respectful Workplace Policies analyzes efforts to narrow expressive freedoms to comply with institutional mission statements and contemporary sensibilities. Faculty associations are advised not to incorporate respectful workplace or civility language in collective agreements as this would imply acceptance of such policies and subject their members to any disciplinary sanctions therein.

The advisory notes, “At first glance, such policies may seem anodyne. After all, nobody disputes the goal of civil dialogue and debate. In daily interactions, it is not unusual to hear colleagues voicing a desire for more civility. But in moving from exhortation to regulation, core values of academic freedom and freedom of expression are endangered.”

This observation remains valid as the overreach of ill-defined policies conflating civility with legally mandated requirements under law seeks to awkwardly bundle disparate elements into directives that undermine accepted principles of higher education. The outcome will undoubtedly be the self-censorship of those in the campus community who wish to participate in a meaningful exchange of ideas or actions of solidarity.

Human resource offices have sprung into action to expand existing harassment and civility directives. The recent student and faculty protests over international humanitarian crises have resulted in the conflation of peaceful dissent with incivility. This is a deeply problematic amalgam.

Overly broad applications of civility and respect have been linked to campus demonstrations. Administrations intend to reassert control not only of the physical boundaries of institutional confines as private property but also to manage the conduct of the campus community.

One egregious draft policy defined such dissent as a public gathering of a person or group of persons to express a sentiment by explicit means, including but not limited to picketing, marching, carrying signs, distribution of literature, and other related activities, usually in favour of or opposed to some action or opinion.

The CAUT advisory concludes, “Elevating politeness to a regulative principle of academic life enforceable by discipline and justified by the purely subjective responses of complainants presents a fundamental threat to academic freedom.” In this respect, we should learn from our past mistakes, refuse to obey in advance, and act to defend expressive freedoms as core values of Canadian higher education.