Dear Evan,

To be clear, anyone who is calling me a “coward” is simply showing that they don’t understand as much as I would like them to about the politics of certain kinds of writing. My choice to write under a pseudonym has nothing to do with cowardice. As I have already explained, I was writing to David Staples and Paula Simons, who are (in my view) journalists as a professor – that is, writing from them in from my role (“doctor of humanities”) to them in theirs (“columnists”). I am truly surprised to hear that they are defining themselves on Twitter not as journalists but as “opinion writers.” I suppose that simply points us towards a larger issue, that we have people writing for local newspapers who feel they are free to offer their opinions on matters of momentous importance to the public without lodging their work in established journalistic processes and ethics.

I hope to God that I am misunderstanding what they are saying on Twitter! But thank you for giving me an opportunity to reiterate this all important point. As a professor, I know only too well how important it is to reiterate key ideas. Research has proven that it sometimes takes several “hearings” for an idea to get properly “heard.”

I’m sorry that you feel that the exchange that I’ve been having with David and Paula is nothing more than a “silly blog debate.” We are actually discussing important things. This isn’t a bear baiting, or a dog fight, or a gladiatorial battle in the Coliseum, or a hockey game. It’s an exchange of ideas.

And speaking of ideas: it would be a very sorry world indeed if I had to be “scared of what [my] employers might think.” University professors are protected by academic freedom, and I am confident in that protection. My choice of the signature “a doctor of humanities” has nothing to do with any fear.

You raise a really important issue, though, and you are not alone in raising it. I have had others ask me, in person, at Occupy events, whether I have any such fear. They’re asking in part because there has been a certain very unfortunate development in relation to academic freedom in Canada.

On 25 October 2011, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) issued a new statement on Academic Freedom to replace its earlier 1988 statement. In addition to other changes that have disturbed many, the 2011 AUCC statement involves no explicit wording about Academic Freedom extending to things that a professor may say or do outside the classroom. As the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has noted in its official response, the statement does not protect “extramural speech.” It thus fails in its protection of Academic Freedom, as this was one of the most pressing reasons for which, as the CAUT statement notes, the American Association of University Professors wrote, in 1915, its influential “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure.” Academic freedom in regard to extramural speech and activities is designed to ensure that professors, despite their public roles, have as much right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression as anyone else.

The statement has been found alarming by many, especially in light of its appearance a few weeks after the occupation of Liberty Plaza in New York by members of the Occupy movement. (As you may know, many professors have gotten up and given speeches at Occupy Wall Street.)

The statement is sufficiently alarming that the president of the University of Toronto, David Naylor, has resigned from the AUCC in objection to it. Specifically, he has resigned from the AUCC because it aims to make this new statement on Academic Freedom a criterion for membership. In other words, to be on the board of the AUCC you would have to affirm that you believe in its statement on Academic Freedom. This is not acceptable to Naylor, who has asserted that the University of Toronto will be governed by the much stronger principles of Academic Freedom enshrined in the University’s “Statement of Purpose” approved by its Governing Council in 1992.

Given that the University of Alberta aims to be amongst the “Top 20″ universities in the world by 2020 — that is, aims to be a university of the same stature as the University of Toronto — I assume that it will want to follow the University of Toronto’s lead in affirming much stronger principles of Academic Freedom than that contained in the AUCC statement.

I am not aware of any recent statement by our president, Indira Samarasekera, on the matter, but as you know, I have been otherwise Occupied. I look forward to hearing her make such a statement. The “fear” that you speak of may be something some of my colleagues are experiencing as a felt thing, and it would certainly be a great help if our President did what is necessary to set these fears, and the public’s concerns about them, at rest. But to be clear, she would be speaking not as my “employer,” or the employer of anyone else at the University, but as our colleague.

In the meantime, if anyone wishes to read the three documents to which I’ve referred, you can find the links for them here:

AUCC statement. http://www.aucc.ca/media-room/news-and-commentary/canadas-universities-adopt-new-statement-on-academic-freedom
CAUT response. http://www.caut.ca/uploads/CAUT_to_AUCC_Academic_Freedom.pdf
Letter to AUCC by University of Toronto President David Naylor.

http://www.president.utoronto.ca/presidents-comment-on-aucc-statement-on-academic-freedom.htm

Yours sincerely,

A doctor of humanities

Postscript: I’m not sure that I understand the post you have sent to my website while I was writing about this. I’ll assume that it’s sincere, but how am I a 1%’er?