Lindsey Shephard, Laurier, Why Free Speech Rallies Aren't Pro-Free Speech and What to do Instead

Free speech is under attack! The left is anti-free speech! The sentiment is prevalently expressed and echoed across various platforms by various people today. This idea cropped up in the "Laurier vs. Lindsey Shephard" case that has been in the news recently. Tensions have been running high all around but I want us all to step back and unpack what happened, as well as suggest an alternative to what is happening that addresses everyone's concerns.

For those of you who aren't aware of what transpired, here's a quick summary: Wilfrid Laurier University English TA showed some of her tutorial classes a video of people debating the use of the pronouns that people identify with. She approached the issue neutrally to demonstrate "the nuances of English and how that can cause controversy" (approximate quotation). Laurier was not happy with this and sanctioned her because she did not denounce the opinion of refusing to deviate from traditional pronouns.

Many people feel this was an inappropriate action for a university as they are a place to create knowledge, of which one way to do so is to debate, and as a proud leftist I agree. Laurier did not handle this appropriately. 

But I don't agree with the "free speech defender" rhetoric either. Like too many things today, there is an element of visceral-ness to this response, of react first, think later. And as with anything else, taking a moment to think is important. I know what you're thinking, "duh, don't patronize us, that's obvious," but take a moment to think about how often people are doing that today. 

Did YOU take a moment to think before deciding on an opinion regarding this brouhaha?

Did the dozens of people at the free speech rally take a moment to think before taking sides? I would argue no, because then they would have realized what I am about to say.

Anti-transphobia, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-discrimination, they are all speech, too. 

It's called counter speech and to truly be pro-free speech, you should not be trying to silence the people who disagree with you. You have every right to have opinions, but the act of arguing against someone who calls you out over it, and saying they're anti-free speech undermines them and impedes upon their right to free speech. You can disagree with someone, but when you disagreeing with someone undermines their ability to disagree with you, that is inherently anti-free speech. 

And I want to make it very clear that I'm not pointing fingers. Left, right, center, people of all ideologies, faiths, backgrounds and so on are guilty of this.

But the thing with the current iteration of this "free-speech rhetoric" is that it seems what people really want is to be able to say what they like without repercussion, without thinking about the consequences and who it might hurt.

To be able to say whatever you like, you have to be in a position of relative power over that person or situation - if you were afraid of getting beaten for saying something, you wouldn't say it, you're effectively not able to say it. Then to say whatever you want without thinking about who that might hurt, well, friends, that is the definition of being a bully, of being someone in power who does what they like to the weaker or marginalized. 

So take a moment to think about what people are really defending at "free speech" rallies like that of last Friday.

Free speech started so we as people could keep our government in check and hold them accountable. It has nothing to do with being able to say what you like and having some sort of protection against other people disagreeing with you. And quite frankly, people are plain and simple using it as an excuse to be mean.

Free speech is important but you don't always have to use it. Tolerance is paradoxical in that being too tolerant can lead to intolerance dominating. We have to draw the line somewhere, we don't tolerate people debating whether genocide is wrong, there's a reason for that. 

They teach kindergarteners "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it" so why are we saying all manners of mean and awful things? (And yes, it's pretty awful to tell a trans person that they're experience is not legitimate and that they must fit into a box you made for them, and you know better than them about their own identity). 

Back to being Reasonable 

People on all sides are being unreasonable right now, so how do we change that? 

There are a lot of reasonable people are out there, unfortunately, unreasonable right-wing and leftists tend to get most of the media attention. but the simple truth is if you want someone to be reasonable with you, you need to be reasonable with them, and I'll illustrate with what I think should have happened at Laurier. 

Wilfrid Laurier University should have invited Shepard to a discussion rather than a reprisal. They shouldn't have sanctioned her because she didn't have malicious intent. And when you do humiliate or punish people for doing something you disagree with without malicious intent, they start resenting you, and even generalizing whatever group you're a part of as unreasonable. If they'd met with her and said "Hey, thank you for wanting to foster discussion and excellence in academia, we just want to check in with you because we have some concerns about your approach. Let's chat until we both feel like our goals are looked after". 

What would have come out of that? Laurier expresses their concerns without causing grievance to Shephard. 

On Lindsey Shephard's part, I don't think she handled the initial showing of the video appropriately. Yes, absolutely the creation of knowledge via debate and diverse perspectives is valuable. What she should have done, however, which respects the concerns of all, is to preface the video clip by saying something along the lines of: "Don't use this debate as an excuse to disrespect people". It's still neutral though not as neutral as she maybe would have liked, while addressing the concerns brought up by the university, though not as well as not allowing Shephard to do it at all. It's a compromise, which people need to start remembering how to do again.

So the next time you disagree with someone, please just take a moment and try to see the world as they do and talk to them. Discuss, don't just throw names or accusations out there. And when you're being reasonable, you'd be surprised by how reasonable people can be in return. 

So what do you think? Did I change your mind? Feel free to disagree, but be reasonable about it and let me know in the comments!