Further to the mediatised dismantling of the pro-Palestinian camp at McGill on 10th July, I turned up this morning (22nd July) to pick up an item from my office.
To my surprise, McGill’s campus – McGill, let us recall, considers itself a seat of learning and debate open to all – is in lock-down, with limited entry-points, security checks, and card-access-only buildings.
The campus was considerably more convivial a few weeks ago when protesters were occupying a corner of it and people could wander past.
In a message sent on 10th July as the camp was being dismantled, McGill’s principal wrote that:
“McGill will always support the right to free expression and assembly, within the bounds of the laws and policies that keep us all safe. However, recent events go far beyond peaceful protest, and have inhibited the respectful exchange of views and ideas that is so essential to the University’s mission and to our sense of community.”
Unfortunately, this has been a dismal failure, with the campus now prison-like. Free expression has been protected by putting it in a cage and gagging it. This e-mail statement leaves no room for security-related laws and policies to be questioned – yet surely a cutting-edge, innovative, forward-thinking university should not always accept the status quo?
But then, maybe McGill is not as cutting-edge, innovative and forward-thinking as it imagines….
Anyway. I do understand that the pro-Palestinian encampment made some members of the McGill community uncomfortable: that is unfortunate, though others felt comfortable with it.
However, the ‘solution’ has also brought about considerable discomfort to (other?) members of the McGill community: that is also unfortunate. Maybe some feel comfortable with this turn of events.
I guess McGill has chosen which discomfort matters more.
[on 31st July an opinion piece was published in La Presse by professors Dunsworth and Leclerc making these points more forcefully and elegantly than I have]
Richard Shearmur 