McMaster University

University policies

McMaster University states that its mission is “the discovery, communication, and preservation of knowledge.”

McMaster’s Academic Freedom Statement reads:

McMaster University is dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. Its members enjoy certain rights and privileges essential to these twin objectives. Central among these rights and privileges is the freedom, within the law, to pursue what seem to them fruitful avenues of inquiry; to teach and to learn unhindered by external or non-academic constraints; and to engage in full and unrestricted consideration of any opinion.

This freedom extends not only to members of the university but to all who are invited to participate in its forum. All members of the University must recognize this fundamental principle and must share responsibility for supporting, safeguarding and preserving this central freedom. Behaviour which obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas which are safe and accepted but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent, vitally threatens the integrity of the University, and cannot be tolerated.

Suppression of academic freedom would prevent the University from carrying out its primary functions. In particular, as an autonomous institution McMaster University is protected from any efforts by the state or its agents to limit or suppress academic freedom. Likewise, neither officers of the University nor private individuals may limit or suppress academic freedom.

The common good of society depends upon the search for knowledge and its free exposition. Academic freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the individual; on the contrary, academic freedom makes commitment to a position or course of action possible. Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for knowledge.

McMaster’s event planning document, Free Expression, Protest and Dissent, clarifies the University’s stance on disruption of sanctioned campus events by placing restrictions on acceptable forms of dissent:

The right to dissent is the complement of the right to speak, but these rights need not occupy the same forum at the same time. A speaker (whether a member of the University community, invited speaker or performer) is entitled to communicate their message to the audience during their allotted time, and the audience is entitled to hear the message and see the speaker during that time. Individuals or groups engaged in protest or dissent should not substantially interfere with the speaker’s ability to communicate or the audience’s ability to hear and see the speaker.

[...]

Noise - Responding vocally to the speaker, spontaneously and temporarily, is generally acceptable, especially if reaction against the speaker is similar in kind and degree to reaction in their favour. Chanting, blowing horns or whistles, or making other sustained or repeated noise in a manner which substantially interferes with the speaker’s communication is not permitted.

[...]

Examples of Unacceptable Behaviour

Comment or conduct that constitutes harassment or discrimination, or promotes or incites violence or hate, is not acceptable. Although not intended as an exhaustive list, the following are examples of unacceptable behaviour:

• Using or threatening force or violence, whether against a speaker or a member of the audience;
• Inciting violence or hatred against an individual or a group, either verbally or through the display of signs, slogans or symbols;
• Physically intimidating the speaker or members of the audience;
• Engaging in acts that may endanger the safety of others

The Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities affirms that disruption is a violation of Community Standards:

33. Violations of this Code include, but are not limited to: 
34. b) engaging in physical actions which are threatening, physically abusive and/or compromise the safety and security of any individual and/or group; 
35. c) engaging in verbal or non-verbal behaviour or communication toward any individual or group that may be perceived to be intimidating, degrading, harassing and/or discriminatory (that may violate the Discrimination & Harassment Policy); 
36. d) failing to comply with fire safety regulations, e.g. setting unauthorized fires, tampering with fire and emergency equipment, failing to exit a building during an alarm, etc.;

[...]

1. j) engaging in disruptive behaviour in or out of class e.g. making excessive noise at any time of the day, causing a disturbance in class, or interrupting the daily functions of the University

McMaster’s Discrimination & Harassment Policy states:

This Policy prohibits Discrimination and/or Harassment on the grounds articulated in the Ontario Human Rights Code: age; ancestry, colour, race; citizenship; ethnic origin; place of origin; creed; disability; family status; marital status (including single status); gender identity, gender expression; receipt of public assistance (in housing only); record of offences (in employment only); sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding); and sexual orientation.

The Policy notes:

The University upholds a fundamental commitment to freedom of expression and association for all its members and to academic freedom for faculty. In exercising those freedoms, all its members are required to respect the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to freedom from Discrimination and Harassment.

McMaster’s Equity and Inclusion Office facilitates complaints and educates on issues of accessibility and disability, with limited ideological advocacy.

University practices

McMaster University failed to condemn the actions of its student union when, in July 2019, it de-ratified a student group on the basis of its views (see “Student Union Practices”).

On March 17, 2017, a debate took place at McMaster University on the subject of gender identity, political correctness and free expression. The debate, which was to include three McMaster professors and University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, was disrupted by students and protesters who used tactics including clanging cowbells, blowing air horns and chanting to drown out Peterson’s remarks. One individual was seen blowing an air horn very close to Peterson's ear. Another person reportedly threw glitter on Peterson's face and suit. Eventually, Dr. Peterson retreated outside the hall, where he continued speaking while standing on a bench.

McMaster University failed to provide adequate security to ensure the debate could proceed as organized.

In the week following this incident, McMaster University’s president, Patrick Deane, issued a statement upholding free expression, wherein he stated:

I said in a recent interview with students that the most serious thing I have to do in my role as President is to defend the principle of academic freedom. The freedom to research, consider, discuss and present even the most controversial or potentially divisive issues is a fundamental tenet of academic freedom, and the foundation of the work and mission of the academy. In the same interview, I also made the comment that defending academic freedom is not always easy to do. The events of last Friday surrounding the "Drawing the Line" student-organized event provide a perfect demonstration of this difficulty. The University received multiple communications both before and after the event from individuals and groups writing either in support of or in opposition to the speaker. The University was variously invited to shut down the event, to silence anticipated protests, to make public statements denouncing the speaker, and to make similar statements denouncing those expressing their opposition to the speaker.

As President I chose to do none of those things. The event was framed and organized as a discussion of political correctness and freedom of speech on campus, which I regard as an important and entirely appropriate topic for discussion at an institution of higher learning. The fundamental mission of the University is to provide opportunities for education, both within and beyond the classroom. Taking the opportunity to listen to a speaker, even one with whom one may vehemently disagree, is an important aspect of education and a cornerstone of academic debate. It has not, therefore, been my approach, nor that of this University, to intervene to shut down events, exclude speakers, or prevent discussion of issues, even where controversial topics are under discussion.

In clearly affirming the commitment of this University to protecting the expression of diverse opinions on our campus, I also want to be absolutely unequivocal in expressing our support for the diversity of our campus community, and our commitment to the rights of minority groups, including trans- and gender-non-conforming members of our community, in particular. I am in no doubt that our University, like our society, is only enriched and strengthened by the diversity of people and opinions on our campus. As such, the presence on campus of a speaker who may challenge the rights of any particular group should not be seen as undermining the University’s commitment to inclusivity but merely as an opportunity to explore and debate the topics under discussion.

Indeed, an important aspect of academic freedom is the willingness and ability to engage with and discuss ideas that might be fundamentally opposed to one’s own. It is extremely regrettable that the events of last Friday do not reflect the standard of academic debate that we would aspire to model on our campus but this does not mean that as an institution we should ever seek to limit the right of members of our community and visitors to our campus to engage in peaceful protest. In the event that the tactics employed by such protestors violate the laws of our land, or the codes of conduct of our community, appropriate sanctions can and will be applied, but our commitment to academic freedom requires that, except in the most extreme cases, the cancellation of events, or the exclusion or removal of particular individuals will not be our response.

I would hope that all members of our community are united in our pursuit of knowledge, our belief in the power and importance of education, and our mission to protect the free flow of ideas within an inclusive and respectful environment. As members of the academy, we bear a shared responsibility to reaffirm and uphold the core principles of academic freedom, collegiality, and respect that are fundamental to McMaster and to ensure that our University continues to be a place where respectful debate and discussion can flourish.

Student union policies

Upholding the student right to freedom of expression is not listed as a Purpose of the McMaster Students’ Union (MSU).

The MSU Clubs Operating Policy states:

2.2  Under the terms of this policy, the MSU will not attempt to censor, control or interfere with any existing MSU Club on the basis of its philosophy, beliefs, interests or opinions expressed unless and until these lead to activities which are illegal or which infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.
                   

2.3  By the same token, recognition as a club by the MSU implies neither endorsement of a particular club’s beliefs or philosophy. It assumes only that the MSU has a responsibility to inform itself of organizations, which use University facilities and the MSU name, and to deny or withdraw recognition if the requirements of this policy are not observed

Section 6.1 of the MSU Operation Policy – “Promotions and Advertising” states that advertising must be in good taste: “Good taste advertising shall be defined as that which does not promote violence, substance abuse, oppressive or discriminatory practices, or contravene the McMaster University Anti-Discrimination Policy or the MSU’s Anti-Oppression Policy.”

If a poster is deemed controversial, then the Underground Media & Design staff must go through a checklist to determine whether or not the content is “acceptable”.

The McMaster Student Union does not take official stances on issues outside its mandate.

Student union practices

The Dominion Society is a student group at McMaster University. “The independence of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right, its colonial history, and its British, French and First Nations heritage will be prevailing themes in this club’s activity and pursuits,” the club stated in a cover letter sent to the Student Representative Assembly (SRA), the governing body of the MSU, when it applied for ratified club status on June 23, 2019.

The club’s application was approved in July 2019, along with the applications of over 300 other clubs. On July 24, 2019, MSU President wrote a public letter calling upon the SRA to revoke the Dominion society’s club status, following allegations that members of the club were “associated” with the MacDonald Cultural and Historical Society, an off-campus group describing itself as “a brotherhood of Canadians who hold dear the sympathies of our Founder; that above all else, our nation must be united together under shared bonds of loyalty, strength, perseverance and courage.” Some students accused the MacDonald Society of harbouring white supremacist views because of its use of the Red Ensign, which had been Canada’s official flag until 1965, and its fondness for Canada’s first Prime Minister.

Members of the SRA also raised concerns over the mandate of the club. One member stated that “the celebration of Canada as a sovereign nation in its own right is absolutely false. Canada’s sovereignty is based off the genocide of Indigenous peoples…We have to think about McMaster as a space that we are trying to decolonize.”

On August 13, 2019, the SRA held an emergency meeting and voted to de-ratify the Dominion society.

In March 2019, pro-life students at McMaster University were advised by the McMaster Student Union that they couldn’t display a pro-life sign or anatomically-correct fetus models at a club tabling event.

The Justice Centre advised the students to continue to use the sign and models, in the face of illegal demands from the student union to cease displaying these materials.

At the tabling event, the students’ display was mobbed and obstructed by students opposed to the students’ message.  The Justice Centre advised the students to file complaints to both the University and to the Ontario Government’s new campus free speech Ombudsperson, providing an early test of the government’s commitment to free speech on campus.  This case is still ongoing.

In the 2018–19 financial year,* McMaster University received $451,609,000 in taxpayer dollars in the form of government grants. These taxpayer funds accounted for 37.85% of their annual revenue.

*McMaster University did not make their 2019–20 financial statements available by the time of publication of the 2020 Campus Freedom Index.