University of Lethbridge demonstrates balance with Widdowson visit

No rights or freedoms were harmed in U of L's decision to rescind space to "wrong" ideas.

Any publicly-funded educational institution should have the obligation to provide a foundation of learning that is based in fact — this doesn’t seem like it should be a controversial take.

From the basis of fact, students, teachers, and guests should then be able to move to debating the opinions of whether something is good/bad, helpful/hurtful, enough/lacking, useful/detrimental, etc..

Having differing opinions is not a bad thing – in fact, it’s precisely what can contribute to lively discussion, better policy, and decision-making – but we should be able to expect a debate in an institution of learning that begins, at its core, with verifiable facts.

When it comes to residential schools in Canada, one can’t even argue that they were started with “good intent”. Sir. John A. MacDonald is on record saying that the purpose of residential schools was to “take the Indian out of the child”. In other words, to deny an entire generation (or three) of their cultural identity.

The federal government, after extensive consultation, agreed that the implementation and provision of the residential school system in Canada was an act of cultural genocide.

Some – too often those without ties to Indigenous communities – disagree. 

Even if you ignore the allegations of abuse, neglect, and more, the intent was clearly the erasure of their language, rituals, beliefs, education, family… their entire culture.

These are uncomfortable facts but facts nonetheless.

Frances Widdowson, a former associate professor at Mount Royal University, made inroads with the far right in 2020 and 2021 for her criticism of Black Lives Matter, “woke” culture, and “questioning" the Indigenization policies of her employer.

Widdowson was dismissed from her position in 2021.

She is appealing her dismissal on the grounds of freedom to draw unsubstantiated and biased conclusions that are informed by an obviously racist lens, but allegations of harassment and discrimination were also made.

Widdowson has been throwing spaghetti at the wall with regards to Aboriginal history in Canada for more than a decade. Her views on the subject matter are well-documented through her publications.

When she was invited to speak in a reserved space at the University of Lethbridge, the request was initially approved by the University president. However, after hearing from faculty, students, and community members, the approval for reserved space was withdrawn.

Widdowson announced she would still make an address in a public space on campus. Her speech was drowned out by protesters and she left shortly thereafter.

She was, however, still welcomed to deliver a speech in the classroom of the professor who invited her and I’ve included some of that for clarity on the opposition to her invitation based on a transcript by Kim Siever in Alberta Worker.

During her introduction, Widdowson claims that it is important to the academic process to have one’s views challenged but follows with “we need to be able to speak what we think is true”.

What we think is true. Stick a pin in that.

She says the question she’ll be answering for her talk is “should universities foster respect for Indigenous ways of knowing”, adding that it was this qualifier of “foster respect” that she took issue with in the Indigenous Strategic Plan launched by Mount Royal University in 2016.

For posterity, that phrase appears in “Goal 2: Culturally respectful Indigenous research; Foster respect for Indigenous ways of knowing and knowledge-production and increase capacity for Indigenous scholarship.”

Widdowson claims that she understood this to mean that there was a “right way to think about (Indigenous ways of knowing)”. She goes on to say that “it’s hard to determine what (Indigenous ways of knowing) is, but when you read about it and try to figure it out, you realize that it is contrary to the values of the Enlightenment, so it’s actually an attack on the values of the Enlightenment in the university.”

It’s times like these when I question the value of “do your own research”. While her academic work lends her a certain “expertise” (I’ve read some of it — it’s dicey), she was obviously out of her depth.

She then goes on to explain the Enlightenment (modernism) — a move from faith/religion to the scientific method, logic, and reasoning — and then to post-modernism, which she considers an “assault on the Enlightenment” describing it as the position that there is no objective truth, only subjective – or, one could even say, “what we think is true”.

That description is oversimplified, and due to the fact that post-modernism exists within multiple disciplines, it’s important to attach an appropriate definition.

“Postmodernism can also be a critical project, revealing the cultural constructions we designate as truth and opening up a variety of repressed other histories of modernity; such as those of women, homosexuals and the colonised [sic]. (Through post-modernism) the modernist canon itself is revealed as patriarchal and racist, dominated by white heterosexual men,” writes Daniel Palmer, a lecturer from Monash University in Australia (see also: Encyclopedia Britannica).

Widdowson then goes on a brief rant about losing the reserved space and says she opposes the University taking an “advocacy position”.

A student then asks if Widdowson is opposed to all advocacy positions that a university may take (she responded in the affirmative), and if the Enlightenment counts as an advocacy position. Widdowson responds that “the Enlightenment is allowed (because it is) what allows us to determine whether various advocacy positions are valid.”

In other words, to Widdowson, there is one right way of thinking.

Whether she understands or not, Widdowson’s views are borne out of rigid ethnocentrism and laughably contradictory. For a scholar who has spent much of her academic career writing about Indigenous people, the former alone should have stunted her mobility.

If there’s an audience for the message, however…

In freedom worrier fashion, Alberta’s Minister of Advanced Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, responded to the withdrawal of (one) space saying Alberta will see new rules to “strengthen free speech on campus”. They’ve decided to go with “free speech reporting” for universities.

If there’s any chance they could all respond with “no Constitutional rights were infringed upon this year”, I would appreciate the snort laugh..

The fixation with America’s Constitution is not new. In 2019, Jason Kenney and the UCP’s enforced compliance with the “Chicago Principles” — freedom of speech guidelines from the University of Chicago based on rights guaranteed in America — on Alberta post-secondary institutions.

In Canada, however, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with recognition that our rights and freedoms can be limited, in some cases, due to competing rights and freedoms of others.

In the UofL’s dilemma, the competing rights and freedoms belong to two entities: the professor who invited Widdowson, and the University itself.

Widdowson’s freedom of expression was never in jeopardy. You have the right to express yourself but neither the right to a platform, nor a right to an audience (apologies to those blocked by Smith). 

The professor who invited Widdowson was not prevented from having her speak to his class.

The University also enjoys freedom of association. The University is responsible for its reputation and making decisions that align with its stated mission and goals.

Iniskim (University of Lethbridge) has stated and continuously worked toward its commitment to reconciliation, well prior to Frances Widdowson’s invitation being extended.

Their commitment to reconciliation is entirely at odds to offering a reserved space for a person who denies the importance and obligations of Treaty, Indigenous rights and history.

The University did not interfere with Widdowson’s attempt to share her views in a public space on campus. The University did not interfere in the academic freedom of its professor. The University’s actions in this matter appear to be a marvelous balance of defending freedoms for all involved.

Except, the UCP government saw an opportunity to pander to their convoy-addled base by sticking their nose in someone else’s business and threatened to once again curtail freedoms.

Funny, that.