Unleashing the Campus Freedom Index Results

“Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

For centuries, our ancestors fought for free and democratic societies. Democracy, however, is a system that seems to be missing from most university in Canada, as reported in the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom’s (JCCF) Campus Freedom Index, 2014. The report, published by the non-profit legal organization based in Calgary, Alberta, aides parents and students in “choosing a school that will encourage, not stifle, their free expression rights on campus.”

University rankings, such as those based on teaching, classroom size, and research capacity, are common practice, however, measuring the state of free speech on university campuses is a novel endeavor. The author of the JCCF report acknowledges that it is the first of its kind in Canada, albeit it is the fourth edition. Between 2011 and 2014, the number of universities in the sample increased by nearly 200 per cent–from 18 to 52–which decreases the likelihood of bias and inconsistent measurement.

The Campus Freedom Index measurement relies primarily on two criteria: 1) university practices and policies and 2) student union practices and policies. Based on them, the author assigns five letter grades: A, B, C, D, and F. According to the report, “There are 24 campuses that earned at least one ‘F,’ assigned to the university or its student union.” Overall, the authored assigned only five ‘A’ grades to universities and student unions in the survey.


Nova Scotia has become a popular destination for Canadian and international students seeking a university education in recent years: in 2010, the province attracted 35,131 full-time university students–40 per cent of whom are international students. An increase in popularity, however, merits an increase in responsibility–a responsibility to preserve our free and democratic society.

The table below shows seven universities in Nova Scotia, the amount of funding they receive from the provincial government, and their rating according to the JCCF Campus Freedom Index, 2014. University of King’s College is the only university that received an ‘A’ grade, whereas the three largest universities in the province–Dalhousie University, Saint Mary’s University, and Cape Breton University–received an F grade.

Regarding the performance of student unions at universities in the province, the Acadia University Student Union received the sole ‘A’ grade for standing with its student newspaper The Athenaeum in defense of free speech, whereas the two largest student unions in Nova Scotia received an ‘F’ grade for their student union practices: Dalhousie University Student Union (DSU) and Saint Mary’s University Student Union. As a student at Dalhousie University, I felt shame when I saw the report. DSU has regressed from a ‘D’ grade in 2013 to an ‘F’ in 2014 due to their policies, whereas the university itself received an ‘F’ grade for the second year in a row.

One thing was very clear from the report: DSU has not amended their outdated policies, despite the student newspaper, The Dalhousie Gazette, covering the 2012 edition of the report and a former student of the university conceding the absence of freedom of speech on campus in an interview with The Prince Arthur Herald. It is time to update the outdated policies, embrace those that accommodate free speech, and discard those that reflect a negative image of campus.

Last winter, the DSU president violated the union’s constitution, the very constitution he must uphold as the leader. How could DSU expect students to follow their policies when the leader ignores them? Moreover, although some critics argue about the credibility of the JCCF, it is the methodology underpinning the report that is most important. The authors use a very simple and straightforward method to evaluate campus freedom and there is an important message within: universities and student unions in Nova Scotia, and throughout the country, must take the freedom of speech seriously and should strive for better results in the 2015 report.

Rinzin Ngodup is an AIMS on Campus Student Fellow who is pursuing a graduate degree in economics at Dalhousie University. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies

On Trinity Western Law School

Trinity Western University’s (TWU) proposed law school has sparked debate across the country, not only in British Columbia, where it will operate, but also in Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society (NSBS) held a public meeting recently and opened the floor to the public and legal professionals to present their concerns and opinions about the implications of TWU’s Christian mandate. In addition, there were several written reviews submitted to the Society in previous weeks.

TWU is a private Christian university and part of their faith-based mandate includes a community covenant that outlines values and principles that staff and students must espouse. The agreement, which requires signatories to abstain from, “Sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman,” has created tension among the public and legal community, and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada’s (FLSC) approval of the university’s law school this past December has exacerbated the dispute. The FLSC approval committee concluded that TWU has the capacity to provide a quality education to its student body, comparable to other Canadian law schools, however, the decision to recognize students with degrees from TWU falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Some provinces, including British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario have requested external input before making an official decision about whether they will accept TWU-educated law students, yet, whereas other provinces have chosen simply to accept FLSC’s decision.

Gathering public opinion on these issues is theoretically understandable, however, ultimately, the decision should be consistent with the FLSC. This would not only ensure that lawyers can continue to practice throughout the country, but also it upholds religious freedoms, which are entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As long TWU graduates represent Canada’s legal principles and abide by Canadian rules and regulations, personal beliefs are irrelevant.

For instance, refusing to recognize law degrees from a Christian university illustrates another form of discrimination. Although TWU requires students to espouse the values outlined in the university’s community covenant, they continue to accept gay and lesbian students that choose to study there. The province’s should also accept lawyers with varying beliefs and opinions, so long as they are able to put them aside to uphold the law. Diversity includes accepting differing religious beliefs and censuring prospective law students from studying in a religious setting is adverse to the principle.

Nevertheless, debate over this issue is certain to continue and some provinces are just beginning the process already begun British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. While there has been support of, and opposition to, TWU’s proposed law school in Nova Scotia, however, it appears that the provincial government will discredit law degrees based on discrimination against the LGBT community. In any case, the government will decide in April and it will be interesting to see whether popular opinion influences the NSBS, causing it to lose sight of the fact that TWU law graduates will receive an acceptable legal education and compelling it to focus solely on their personal beliefs.

Rachel Lowe is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

The Modern University Campus: Free Speech-free Zone?

In light of the recent experience of my fellow AIMS intern Ian CoKehyeng and the Carleton Students for Liberty’s Free Speech Wall, it is timely to make a comment on free speech and its state in university campuses today.  The free speech wall was put up by SFL for students to write whatever they felt like expressing.  The day it was put up, it was torn down by—ironically—a human rights major, ostensibly because it could incite violence.  Freedom of speech is a freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  It is a fundamental human right, allowing citizens to express themselves, exchange opinions and participate in the processes governing them.  If the “human rights” student who tore down the Free Speech Wall disagreed with the views expressed, he was of course free to debate those views and counter them with his own.  He chose instead to set himself up as chief censor, forcibly suppressing the views of others.

Unfortunately, this student’s attitude is all too common on university campuses today.  As Rex Murphy argued in a recent column, the individual who tore down the wall is a creature of his environment—the modern university.  Speech codes, equity imperatives, and suppression of conservative views are the “hallmark of the modern enlightened campus,” Mr. Murphy writes. “The label of campus activist produces…a kind of totalism: Everyone on one side is bold and true; everyone on the other side comprises a band of bigots, haters and religionists.”

Carleton University was given a failing grade in the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom’s Campus Freedom Index last year, but intolerance is not unique to that campus.  The other day I overheard a student from the Conservative Association of my university say that students from the Marxist society had torn down their posters. Free speech laws are not there to protect popular opinions, but to protect the right of dissidents to be heard.  President Barack Obama made a number of points in his UN speech last year which are worth pondering in this instance. The President said:

Real democracy is hard work, and those in power must resist the desire to crack down on dissidents.
Those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.
The effort to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to oppress minorities; the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression but more speech.

These are the sort of principles institutions of higher learning should promote.   But it seems that the ivory tower today is not only detached from reality but also from its traditional mission: the pursuit of knowledge through the encouragement of free thought and expression.  Political correctness, groupthink and tolerance of intolerance threaten to turn university campuses into free speech-free zones.

-Stami Zafiriou