Dialogue and Controversy
The founding principle of any university is that in order to create and advance knowledge, ideas must circulate freely, as unrestricted as possible, and be debated publicly.
At the University of Ottawa, individuals, associations and academic units are constantly engaging in debates as part of courses, conferences, seminars, colloquia or informal impromptu discussions, in which sometimes unpopular or even outrageous opinions are expressed.
Nevertheless, the fact that these ideas circulate on our campus does not imply that the University endorses them or warrants their validity. Moreover, the fact that the University, via one of its faculties or services, provides global grants to the student associations or academic units that organize these debates must not be interpreted as an endorsement or support for specific activities.
Simply put, the University wants members of its community to organize debates and wants them to do so freely. Its only requirements are that these activities not promote unlawful positions such as racism, violence and hatred, that the debates respect the principles of intellectual exchange, namely respect for others, decency and decorum, and that the participants’ safety be ensured.
Sometimes members of our internal or external communities pressure the University to ban a specific activity that presents an objectionable position. However, if the ideas presented are not illegal, the University will not intervene unless there is evidence that the safety of participants, including the speaker, organizers and audience, may be at risk.
The reasons presented above are specific to universities. However, there are more pragmatic reasons why the University does not usually intervene. First of all, if an activity is banned, the focus is no longer on the ideas that would have been presented but rather on the ban itself, namely on the perceived intellectual repression exercised by the University. Thus, objectionable ideas are viewed as targets of repression and start winning supporters, regardless of their fundamental value. Secondly, universities are aware that the best way to reduce the impact of these ideas is to allow them to be presented publicly so that their flaws are exposed. Finally, unsound ideas must be counteracted with valid ones. The best way to react to a questionable activity is to attend it and question the speaker or to organize another activity presenting a more intellectually convincing position.
It is by respecting these principles that Western universities have become the dynamic intellectual institutions of today, institutions that are, for our collective good, some of the most active agents and defenders of democracy, freedom of expression and knowledge development.