 |
| Two readings of the same report about academic freedom (source: CBC and Radio-Canada) |
The contrast between the two headlines, one from CBC (in English) and the other one from Radio-Canada (in French), could not be more striking.
“Committee backs right to freedom of expression after Ottawa prof uses N-word. Censorship could compromise 'dissemination of knowledge,' but some students feel unsafe”, says the posting from the CBC that you can read here.
“L’Université d’Ottawa doit « protéger » les libertés d’enseignement et d’expression” (The University of Ottawa should ‘protect’ the freedom to teach and the freedom of expression), says the posting from Radio-Canada that you can read here.
The two headlines refer to the report of the Committee on Academic Freedom, which was chaired by former Supreme Court Justice, the Honourable Michel Bastarache (CC, QC), that you can read here.
The headline from the CBC insists that the “problem” was the “use” of the “N-word,” implicitly conveying the idea that the event that triggered the debate about academic freedom and the decision to summon a Committee to make recommendations in that regard, was somewhat an expression of racism.
The CBC text does not make any difference between the “use” of the word and the mention of the word by Professor Verushka Lieutenant-Duval in a pedagogical context and with the clear intention of illustrating the reappropriation and resignification of denigrating expression by marginalized communities. The report on Academic Freedom states: “[…] We must distinguish between the concept (the citation) and its use in speech. Racist or hateful statements – in practice – are not protected because they have no scientific or educational justification […]” (p. 31). That was not the case in the aforementioned incident.
The CBC also reduces the issue to a question of “freedom of expression,” while the report of the committee makes an important distinction between “freedom of expression” and “academic freedom.” Even if they overlap, academic freedom could not be reduced to a question of expression or speech, since the mission of the university and professors entails teaching, doing research and presenting evidence and ideas, even if they can be controversial.
The English-speaking public broadcaster also points to the students who could feel unsafe by the recommendation of the committee. The CBC interviewed a student who expressed her shock because some professors are insisting in their “right to say to N-word,” reducing the issue of academic freedom to a supposedly “intellectual extravaganza” of privileged scholars. The framing of the CBC is misleading and reductionist.
In the case of Radio-Canada, the headline highlights the obligation of the university to protect the teaching and the expression of ideas. Even though the text presents in detail the content of the report, the focus of the headline is “academic freedom,” but limited to the teaching and the expression of ideas.
People tend to read mostly the headlines. In the era of Twitter, TikTok and Instagram, most users are not very interested in the nuances and the details. If they read the CBC headline, they don’t have a correct idea of what the report says about the value of academic freedom.
Comments
Post a Comment