A Climate of Intellectual Dishonesty
In the course of my investigation into the
demonization of conservative thought at McGill, I received an e-mail from Zach Dubinsky, the reporter at the Gazette who broke the Ayn Rand-chair-rejection story. Mr. Dubinsky, who's kindly offered to send me some of his sources, brought to my attention
this piece by two McGill proffessors which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail.
The story is, more or less,
this (req. reg.): the two professors, Dr. Margaret Somerville and Dr. Katherine Young, had been asked to testify before a group of attorneys and justices involved in the various same-sex-marriage cases being heard throughout the country. They intended to testify, respectively, that the historically-heterosexual nature of marriage suggested a biological necessity that shouldn't be slightly tampered with; and that heterosexual couples deserved the same consideration as homosexual couples, including the recognition of the uniqueness of heterosexual marriage.
For their troubles, the professors were subjected to a barrage of harassment that extended from the irritating (a flood of pre-fab pamphlets and e-mails) to the outrageous (denouncement of the professors as 'homophobes', disruption of lectures, 'sit-ins' of offices).
One need not agree with the positions of these professors to be disgusted by the behaviour of those who would hinder their testimony and the free expression of their opinions. A greater body politic should always allow criticism and true debate; that's the very purpose of 'free-speech' guarantees. Rather than fearing dissent, proponents of an argument should have the confidence to rebut opposing views, to illustrate their fallacy. By refusing to do so, and by rather attempting to silence critics and dissidents, proponents display their belief that their opinion is not strong enough to sway minds, and that it must be enforced on rather than accepted by the public.
One can, perhaps, understand university students holding such views; after all, at our age we are said to believe in our own genius and infallibility. Being so smart and so right, why not boss other people around? Of course, this is an empty explanation; as participants in a higher education, we should be the first to embrace new or different opinions, to investigate such opinions, to strive for some truth or better understanding.
And yet the absurd activity of students has ceased to bother me. I am, instead, troubled by the activity the professors who led the campaign to demonize Profs. Somerville and Young. By engaging in this heavy handed approach, they display the same intellectual dishonesty displayed by the previously discussed philosophy professor. Together their behaviour suggests an attitude that may indeed be unsettlingly common at McGill - the notion that there is only one acceptable approach to any given discipline, and that attempts to offer an alternate approach must be quelled - not by argument but by intimidation.
There are many ironies involved, of course, most especially the fact that those attitudes now deemed 'acceptable' are generally thought of as 'counter-culture', or more accurately leftist. But that's another discussion. The thing to remember is this: the intimidation practised by those who would maintain the hegemony has real consequences. It has consequences for junior professors who are reluctant speak out; and it has consequences for us, the students, whose education is further cheapened by that reluctance.
