The transition to distance teaching in Canada’s universities during the Covid-19 has been a source of stress both for students and professors. These tensions have resulted in unfortunate incidents. Some of them are the expression of silly behaviours from students who mock their professors in chats and WhatsApp groups. Other events are more serious episodes of harassment and intimidation towards teachers and students.
Professors at Montréal’s UQAM are reporting cases of cyber harassment by students. It seems that the online environment opens the door to some students who like making derogatory and offensive comments about their teachers. In other occasions, as in the case of Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval at my own University of Ottawa, the online attacks are the consequence of so-called “hurt sensibilities,” or even demands to ban certain books from the curriculum because they contain words or even ideas that are offensive, as is a recent incident at McGill.
Students have the right to be stupid (e.g. those who are mocking their professors) and even offended. But they don’t have the right to harass or intimidate professors and their fellow students. In a recent case, again in my own university, a student entered an online chat in the introductory class of one of the 34 professors who signed a public letter defending academic freedom after the incident affecting Professor Lieutenant-Duval, to “advise” the students that this colleague supports the uttering of “racist terms” (which is not true), and that she hoped “that this professor will respect their human rights.” The student just entered the online chat to intimidate the professor and the students. After that grave incident, she left the course.
So far, while I am writing this article, those responsible at the Faculty level of looking at this very disturbing situation, and who should take the necessary measures to prevent this from happening in the future, haven’t done anything. The same has been happening since last year, when those who attacked Lieutenant-Duval and other professors were not subject to any disciplinary actions. The same lack of action is evident in other cases where students have sent massive emails insulting professors and demanding that they should be “re-educated.” Nothing, nada, rien from those who are supposed to enforce the policies against harassment, intimidation and cyberbullying. Why is that? I have my hypothesis: fear.
A Reign of Fear
The spectre of a new reign of terror is haunting the field of education. Under the cover of “hurt sensibilities,” we are seeing a growing radical activism looking at limiting academic freedoms (mainly pushing self-censorship) through the creation of a toxic intimidatory climate on campus. Unfortunately, it’s not only students who are contributing to this. In the case of Lieutenant-Duval, colleagues attacked other colleagues in a public online petition accusing them of being racist and supporting “white supremacy” because they expressed their solidarity with the professor who was cyber harassed, condemned any form of racism and discrimination in the university, and defended academic freedom.
The Reign of Terror was a turbulent period of the French Revolution. During La terreur a series of massacres and numerous public executions took place in the name of the revolution. Nowadays the terror in the education field shows its most horrific face, as in the case of the killing of Professor Samuel Paty in France or the terrorist attacks against the Kabul University in Afghanistan. It should be said that the threats to academic freedom in the world come both from the right and the left, as the cases of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and the so-called Bolivarian regime in Venezuela show. The disgust for free enquiry, critical thinking and respect of pluralism is not exclusive of a particular camp.
Using the rhetoric of stigmatization against those who don’t agree with their ideas and dare to criticize them, the advocates of wokism qualify people as “racist,” “hate speakers,” or “white supremacist” because they defend academic freedom. They are reversing the judicial principle affirming that some people are “guilty” by definition (e.g. “white professors”), until proven the contrary. This reasoning has some resonances with the public confessional rituals that we have seen in the infamous case of Evergreen State College in the State of Washington.
Clientelism and Fragilization
The other reason that might explain the lack of action against those who have harassed and intimidated professors is a clientelism way of understanding the relations between the university and the students. Even if those causing trouble is a tiny minority (the vast majority of students behaves respectfully and maintains a climate of civility during online teaching), the administrators that should secure a healthy and safe working environment prefer not to confront the trouble makers. They presuppose that the students (even those who attack their professors) are in a “fragile” position, and they should be “protected.” By adopting this attitude, they infantilize university students, who are adults responsible for their behaviours.
This is the typical example of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb would call a "fragilista" policy that represents “the tragedy of modernity: as with neurotically overprotective parents, those trying to help are often hurting us the most.” The clientelist approach fragilizes students.
When the University of Ottawa decided to cancel face-to-face courses and switch to virtual learning because of the pandemic, the vast majority of professors and students managed to adapt quite well to the new situation. They went on to give their courses virtually. Students attended their online classes. They did their homework, exercises, and readings. Of course, there have been exceptions, and professors have sought ways to accommodate those students who have had difficulties adjusting to last-minute changes.
The quick adaptability of most professors and students was an exercise in antifragility in full swing (antifragility is present in systems, objects and living beings that gain strength as they are subjected to unexpected shocks according to Taleb’s definition). It’s true that the university community dealt with some confusion in the beginning of the transition. We, professors and students, wanted to put “skin in the game” in this disruptive but enriching learning experience. I am sure that the majority of students doesn’t want to fall into the overprotective fragilization. They also want to be in a campus where the health and the safety of all its members, including professors, are protected.
Comments
Post a Comment