The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) said it was wrong for the University of Lethbridge to prohibit fired Mount Royal University economics, justice, and policy studies professor Frances Widdowson from doing a talk. .“In ensuring Dr. Widdowson may speak on campus and explaining the University of Lethbridge’s commitment to academic values and its academic mission, you would have performed your duties as a university president well,” said SAFS President Mark Mercer in a Tuesday letter to U of L President Mike Mahon..“Unfortunately, on 30 January, you updated your statement by retracting it and cancelling Dr Widdowson’s scheduled talk.”.Widdowson said on Monday she will give her lecture at U of L on Wednesday despite the school cancelling it. .READ MORE: UPDATED: Fired MRU professor vows to give talk at Lethbridge university despite cancellation."You will have to haul me away by security to stop me,” she said. .U of L said it would be stopping her from giving a lecture. .The letter said Mahon’s initial statement about Widdowson’s talk not being cancelled violated the principle of institutional neutrality by describing it as conflicting with a number of values held by U of L. It said when a university states a position on a controversial matter, it renders itself inhospitable to robust, candid debate. .Mahon affirmed U of L’s commitment to protect free inquiry and scholarship and to facilitate access to scholarly resources at first. He said guest speakers are afforded the same commitment to freedom of expression as community members. .Mercer said Mahon “expressed disdain for discussion and debate and violated Dr. (Paul) Viminitz’s right, as a professor at the University of Lethbridge, to fair use of university resources.” .The letter went on to say no details are mentioned in his statement justifying his actions. It said some community members being upset over Widdowson giving a speech should have been regarded as irrelevant to the university’s mission to promote inquiry and discussion. .Mahon said it can restrict freedom of expression which violates the law, defames a person, or constitutes a threat or harassment. Widdowson’s talk would have done none of these. .As a U of L professor, Viminitz can invite speakers to campus and organize talks. The letter said cancelling her talk is tantamount to violating his academic freedom. .Mercer said Mahon stretched “the concept of harm so thin and wide that just about anything is covered by it.” He predicted anyone who wishes to shut down a talk in the future can mention harm and make him unable to let it proceed. .Mahon said the talk is an impediment to meaningful reconciliation, which the letter argued militates against openness and candour in discussions about reconciliation. While admirable, it said reconciliation is not an academic value and must respect freedom of expression and academic freedom if it is to be mutual and lasting..“Cancelling Dr. Widdowson’s talk is an outrage that will stain the University of Lethbridge for years,” said Mercer.
The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) said it was wrong for the University of Lethbridge to prohibit fired Mount Royal University economics, justice, and policy studies professor Frances Widdowson from doing a talk. .“In ensuring Dr. Widdowson may speak on campus and explaining the University of Lethbridge’s commitment to academic values and its academic mission, you would have performed your duties as a university president well,” said SAFS President Mark Mercer in a Tuesday letter to U of L President Mike Mahon..“Unfortunately, on 30 January, you updated your statement by retracting it and cancelling Dr Widdowson’s scheduled talk.”.Widdowson said on Monday she will give her lecture at U of L on Wednesday despite the school cancelling it. .READ MORE: UPDATED: Fired MRU professor vows to give talk at Lethbridge university despite cancellation."You will have to haul me away by security to stop me,” she said. .U of L said it would be stopping her from giving a lecture. .The letter said Mahon’s initial statement about Widdowson’s talk not being cancelled violated the principle of institutional neutrality by describing it as conflicting with a number of values held by U of L. It said when a university states a position on a controversial matter, it renders itself inhospitable to robust, candid debate. .Mahon affirmed U of L’s commitment to protect free inquiry and scholarship and to facilitate access to scholarly resources at first. He said guest speakers are afforded the same commitment to freedom of expression as community members. .Mercer said Mahon “expressed disdain for discussion and debate and violated Dr. (Paul) Viminitz’s right, as a professor at the University of Lethbridge, to fair use of university resources.” .The letter went on to say no details are mentioned in his statement justifying his actions. It said some community members being upset over Widdowson giving a speech should have been regarded as irrelevant to the university’s mission to promote inquiry and discussion. .Mahon said it can restrict freedom of expression which violates the law, defames a person, or constitutes a threat or harassment. Widdowson’s talk would have done none of these. .As a U of L professor, Viminitz can invite speakers to campus and organize talks. The letter said cancelling her talk is tantamount to violating his academic freedom. .Mercer said Mahon stretched “the concept of harm so thin and wide that just about anything is covered by it.” He predicted anyone who wishes to shut down a talk in the future can mention harm and make him unable to let it proceed. .Mahon said the talk is an impediment to meaningful reconciliation, which the letter argued militates against openness and candour in discussions about reconciliation. While admirable, it said reconciliation is not an academic value and must respect freedom of expression and academic freedom if it is to be mutual and lasting..“Cancelling Dr. Widdowson’s talk is an outrage that will stain the University of Lethbridge for years,” said Mercer.
