October 4, 2011 - Latest Issue - McGill University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

L a w IDAVIDGROVESHAS LIBERALISM ‘FAILED’?On September 14, in an online conversationwith fellow writer Gail Collins on theObama administration, New York Timesconservative columnist David Brooks announcedthat, in light of White House’scurrent troubles, he was happy to nolonger be on the left. He wrote, “For 50years liberals have dominated Hollywood,the media, the universities, publishingand every mode of communication withthe possible exception of talk radio andTed Nugent concerts,” but have failed in“get[ting] the country to think more likethem.” Continuing on, Brooks stated thatliberals who blame Obama’s current problemson a lack of loyalty to progressiveideals fail to note that America doesn’twant those ideals at all.As pundits go, Brooks has long been aWhite House favourite, and they oftenturn to him and his columns for advice. Indeed,after making his criticism known, hewas contacted by four different membersof the administration to rebut his claimthat Obama’s current jobs bill is an unpopular,ideological mess. In their response,they argued for the pragmaticcharacter of both the bill and its associateddeficit-reduction plan, maintainingthat they were not “engaged in an ideologicalproject to overturn the ReaganRevolution”.Now, I don’t want to use this columnspace to get into a discussion of Obamaand progressive disappointment. Nor do Iwant to tackle the general silliness ofBrooks’ argument that liberals have beenusing mainstream culture to force theirperverted views on poor America. But I dowant to take issue with Brooks’ characterizationof the “failure” of liberalism overthe last 50 years, because it’s clear thathis opinion has a huge effect on WhiteHouse strategy. Obama’s recent legislativepush, as well as the arguments he madefor health care and financial reform, seemto accept implicitly that Brooks is right,that Americans don’t like progressive politics,and that the only way to sell a bill isto refuse, as much as possible, the ideathat liberalism played any role in its development.The problem is that Brooks is ignoring theinteraction between political movements,especially progressive ones, and communities.The central goal of a political movementis to persuade broader society thatits ideological positions should be acceptedand acted upon. When they succeed,their ideological positions disappearfrom public debate; they become ‘commonsense’. In short, the difference betweenideological positions and ‘commonsense’ positions is the degree to whichthey are accepted. Common sense positions,such as the view that the governmentshould provide some form ofprotection against illness or workplace injury,were once ideological positions, evenunpopular ones. It took decades of persuasionand argumentation to move theseideas from the ‘progressive’ column to the‘that’s just a good idea’ column. In anotherexample, the belief that homosexualityshould not be considered a crime isso broadly agreed upon as ‘commonsense’ in modern Canada that it is nolonger a subject of serious debate. However,until 1969, that belief was a politicallyprogressive one, which meant therewas a sizable, perhaps even majoritarian,opposition to it.By saying that liberalism ‘has failed’ overthe last 50 years, Brooks is asking us tobelieve that progressive politics have hadabsolutely no effect on the content ofmodern common sense. This can becleared up with a quick thought experiment.Think about North America in 1961.Now compare that with North America in2011. Ta-da! Environmental protection,nuclear non-proliferation, the expansionof civil rights and equality: these are allpolicy spheres with their roots in progressivethought. Over the last 50 years, thesevalues and others, have moved from theleft-wing to the mainstream. While we’restill fighting to expand and strengthensome of these fields, broader society hasaccepted their inherent value. To arguethat liberals have failed to persuade suggeststhat they’re still arguing for thesame things. To the contrary, the progressivemovement has evolved in light ofprior successes, developing some ideasand picking up new ones. Why re-fight oldvictories?Beyond that, though, Brooks is judgingconservatism and liberalism in a way thatseems to inherently favour his perspective.Conservatism, especially his brand, isthe defense of a status quo; it’s alwaysgoing to start from a more widely acceptedposition. Progressivism is a challengeto the status quo; it’s a persuasiveattack; it’s an advance. It will almost alwayslook weak and out-of-favour, becauseanytime any of its policies are infavour they stop being issues to fight for.A more realistic way to assess the successof liberalism, in America and Canada, is tolook at change, in public policy and publicopinion, over time. Are we closer now asa society to the ideals that progressivismseeks than we were before? Now, obviouslyI can’t make the claim that we are inevery way – both the American and Canadiantax codes are less progressive thanthey have been, efforts to deal with climatechange meaningfully have gonenowhere, drug policy on both sides of theborder remains confused and tragic – butthe opposite claim, that liberalism has“failed”, can’t be made either. In otherwords, the rumours of liberalism’s deathhave been greatly exaggerated. Let’s justhope Obama gets the memo.4 • 4 OCTOBRE 2011 • QN
RUTHAINSWORTHL a w I IWHAT IS A UNIVERSITY? SOMETHOUGHTS ON THE INJUCTIONWhat is a university? Is it a place wherestudents come to learn and faculty cometo research, a place where knowledge isproduced and individuals are trained? Oris it more than this: an ideal, a communityfounded on and embodying the beliefthat the full and free exchange of ideashas some fundamental value? My rhetoricalconstruction of this question allows foronly one answer, I admit. But I actuallywant you to consider the question: whatis a university? This is a question that hasbeen on my mind since the McGill administrationsought and obtained an injunctionseverely curtailing the ability ofstriking MUNACA workers to picket.The university is a unique institution inour society, and fundamental to its uniqueidentity is a commitment to the search forknowledge. The character of this knowledgemay vary from department to department,ranging from the practical tothe abstract to the arcane. But the commonthread animating the functioning ofthe otherwise unconnected disciplineshoused by a university is a commitment tothe open exchange of knowledge andideas. Exchange of ideas necessarily requiresmore than a cursory commitmentto freedom of expression. On thecontrary, freedom of expression is thevery essence of a university. It is writteninto its structure, as the basis of facultytenure.It is for this reason that I was shocked tohear about this injunction and to read itsterms. (For those of you who haven’tdone so, these include: “TO CEASE ANDABSTAIN from impeding, obstructing orinhibiting the free circulation of pedestrianor vehicular traffic within four (4)meters of the entries and exits” of McGillproperty; “TO CEASE AND ABSTAIN fromassembling in a group of more than fifteen(15) persons within four (4) metersof the entries and exits”; “TO CEASE ANDABSTAIN from using a microphone, speaker,loudspeaker, stereo, or any other toolor machine used for the purpose of amplifyingvoice or sound within twenty-five(25) meters” of McGill property.)Regardless of how you feel about thestrike, or about strikes in general, I askyou to think about this measure in thelight of a university’s underlying commitmentto the inherent value of free expression.In its weekly email of September26th, the McGill administration claimedthat it sought the injunction becausepicketers were preventing the delivery ofsensitive materials and endangering thesafety of pedestrians. It repeated theseassertions without further clarification byemail on September 29th. All I can say tothis is that in my experience the picketershave always been courteous, respectfuland accommodating. These latest statementsby McGill come in a line of misleadingcharacterizations of the “threats”posed by striking workers, and I remainskeptical as to their truth value. Equally significant,however, was the additional justificationput forth by the administrationthat the “noise level […] was unacceptablyhigh.” It is this latter complaint that particularlyunnerves me. This justificationproposes, essentially, that the inconveniencesand annoyances suffered by onesector of the McGill community trump therights to free expression of another.Lest you object that this “noise” supposedlyobstructing the research and teachingat this institution is simply that –noise, low-value speech - take a momentto consider the function of a picket for anotherwise voiceless and invisible community.The administration sends us weeklyemails outlining its position on the strike(emails I would ask you to read with agrain of salt, mindful of the partial interestsof the source). MUNACA workershave no such captive audience. They havetheir bodies and their voices, and the publicspaces in which to manifest their presence.They have the strength of numbersand the ability to use this strength to remindus of their existence; to remind usthat they are standing at the gate, waitingfor a contract to be reached. This kind ofnoise is eloquent.The ideal of free expression is an abstractprinciple. It is sometimes an inconvenientprinciple, but it is nonetheless fundamentalto the very meaning of a university. Ifwe do not hold to our ideals when theyare inconvenient, they lose their meaning.In seeking such a dramatic curtailment ofthe free expression and assembly of MU-NACA workers, this administration has essentiallystated that the raw production ofknowledge has a greater value than theanimating principle of this institution. Thisis not a position with which I can agree.McGill is not a business. It has obligationsdeeper than the smooth and efficientfunctioning of the academic machine. It isa community with a social function andwith foundational principles that it has anethical obligation to uphold. This administrationmay have convinced the Court ofthe justice of granting an injunction; it hasnot convinced me of its rectitude in seekingone. This particular injunction expireson October 3rd. As a student and a memberof the university community, I call onour administration to refrain from employingsuch tactics in the future.QN • OCTOBER 4 2011 • 5
Page 1 and 2: J o u r n a l d e s é t u d i a n
Page 3: É D I T OC o - E d i t o r - i n -
Page 7 and 8: S AO a n d M U N A C A m e m b e rT
Page 9 and 10: MAXFLOMENL a w IA PUB DIVIDED: THE
Page 11 and 12: L a w I I IKRISTAKAIS-PRIALTHE JOY
Page 13 and 14: C O N T I N U E D F R O M P R E V I
Page 15 and 16: GEORGIAPAPADOLIASV P A c a d e m i
Page 17 and 18: LAWLIBRARYLIBRARY NEWSQuestion - An
Page 19 and 20: JEAN-PHILIPPEMAC KAYL a w I IESCAPA
Page 21 and 22: Room bookings, lockers, lost and fo
Page 23: OVERHEARD AT THE FAC2L: I want to k

October 4, 2011 - Latest Issue - McGill University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?