Opinion
Don’t give campus censors more power — they’ll double down on woke agenda
From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Bruce Pardy
Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them.
Last Saturday, Liz Magill resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania. Four days earlier she had testified before Congress about campus antisemitism. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct? “It is a context-dependent decision,” Magill equivocated. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman launched a campaign calling for Magill to step down, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, who testified alongside her. Their reluctance to condemn revealed a double standard. That double standard, like the titillation of a scandal, has distracted from the bigger mistake. Universities should not police the content of expression on their campuses.
In 2019, I invited a member of Penn’s law school to give a lecture at Queen’s University, where I teach. Some students at my law school launched a petition to prevent the talk. To their credit, administrators at Queen’s did not heed the call, even though the professor I invited, Amy Wax, had become a controversial academic figure. In 2017, she championed “bourgeois culture” in an opinion essay in the Philadelphia Inquirer (with Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego). The piece suggested that the breakdown of post-Second World War norms was producing social decay. Some cultures are less able than others, it argued, to prepare people to be productive citizens. Students and professors condemned the column as hate speech. It was racist, white supremacist, xenophobic and “heteropatriarchal,” they said.
Wax was not deterred. She continued to comment about laws and policies on social welfare, affirmative action, immigration, and race. When she was critical of Penn Law’s affirmative action program, the dean barred her from teaching first-year law students. In June 2023, he filed a disciplinary complaint against her, seeking to strip her of tenure and fire her. It accused Wax of “intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic actions and statements.” The complaint alleged that she had violated the university’s non-discrimination policies and Principles of Responsible Conduct. But unlike others, allegedly, on Penn’s campus, Wax had not called for, nor was she accused of calling for, violence or genocide. She continues to wait for a decision in her case.
For years, North American universities have embraced certain political causes and blacklisted others. To stay out of trouble, choose carefully what you say. You can accuse men of toxic masculinity, but don’t declare that transgender women are men. You can say that black lives matter, but not that white lives matter too. Don’t suggest that men on average are better at some things and women at others, even if that is what the data says. Don’t attribute differential achievement between races to anything but racism, even if the evidence says otherwise. Don’t eschew the ideology of equity, diversity, and inclusion if you want funding for your research project. You can blame white people for anything. And if the context is right, maybe you can call for the genocide of Jews. Double standards on speech have become embedded in university culture.
Universities should not supervise speech. Expression on campus is already subject to the laws of the land, which prohibit assault, defamation, harassment, and more. The university has no need for a policy to adopt these laws and no power to avoid them. If during class I accuse two colleagues of cheating on their taxes, they can sue me for defamation. If I advocate genocide, the police can charge me under the Criminal Code.
In principle, universities should be empty shells. Professors and students have opinions, but universities should not. But instead, they have become political institutions. They disapprove of expression that conflicts with their social justice mission. Speech on campus is more restricted than in the town square.
The principle that universities should not supervise speech has a legitimate exception. Expression should be free but should not interfere with the rights of others to speak and to listen. On campus, rules that limit how, when, and where you may shout from the rooftops preserve the rights of your peers. Any student or professor can opine about the Ukrainian war, but not during math class. Protesters can disagree with visiting speakers but have no right to shout them down. Such rules do not regulate the content of speech, but its time and place. If you write a column in the student newspaper or argue your case in a debate, you interfere with no one. The university should have no interest in what you say.
Penn donors helped push Magill out the door. In the face of rising antisemitism, more donors and alumni in the U.S. and Canada are urging their alma maters to punish hateful expression. They have good intentions but are making a mistake. They want universities to use an even larger stick to censure speech. Having witnessed universities exercise their powers poorly, they seek to give them more. Universities will not use that larger stick in the way these alumni intend. Instead, in the long run, they will double down on their double standards. They are more likely to wield the stick against the next Amy Wax than against woke anti-Semites.
The way to defeat double standards on speech is to demand no standards at all. Less, not more, oversight from universities on speech is the answer. If a campus mob advocates genocide, call the police. The police, not the universities, enforce the laws of the land.
Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
I’ve written frequently here in recent years about the financial fiasco that has hit Ford Motor Company and other big U.S. carmakers who made the fateful decision to go in whole hog in 2021 to feed at the federal subsidy trough wrought on the U.S. economy by the Joe Biden autopen presidency. It was crony capitalism writ large, federal rent seeking on the grandest scale in U.S. history, and only now are the chickens coming home to roost.
Ford announced on Monday that it will be forced to take $19.5 billion in special charges as its management team embarks on a corporate reorganization in a desperate attempt to unwind the financial carnage caused by its failed strategies and investments in the electric vehicles space since 2022.
Cancelled is the Ford F-150 Lightning, the full-size electric pickup that few could afford and fewer wanted to buy, along with planned introductions of a second pricey pickup and fully electric vans and commercial vehicles. Ford will apparently keep making its costly Mustang Mach-E EV while adjusting the car’s features and price to try to make it more competitive. There will be a shift to making more hybrid models and introducing new lines of cheaper EVs and what the company calls “extended range electric vehicles,” or EREVs, which attach a gas-fueled generator to recharge the EV batteries while the car is being driven.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“The $50k, $60k, $70k EVs just weren’t selling; We’re following customers to where the market is,” Farley said. “We’re going to build up our whole lineup of hybrids. It’s gonna be better for the company’s profitability, shareholders and a lot of new American jobs. These really expensive $70k electric trucks, as much as I love the product, they didn’t make sense. But an EREV that goes 700 miles on a tank of gas, for 90% of the time is all-electric, that EREV is a better solution for a Lightning than the current all-electric Lightning.”
It all makes sense to Mr. Farley, but one wonders how much longer the company’s investors will tolerate his presence atop the corporate management pyramid if the company’s financial fortunes don’t turn around fast.
To Ford’s and Farley’s credit, the company has, unlike some of its competitors (GM, for example), been quite transparent in publicly revealing the massive losses it has accumulated in its EV projects since 2022. The company has reported its EV enterprise as a separate business unit called Model-E on its financial filings, enabling everyone to witness its somewhat amazing escalating EV-related losses since 2022:
• 2022 – Net loss of $2.2 billion
• 2023 – Net loss of $4.7 billion
• 2024 – Net loss of $5.1 billion
Add in the company’s $3.6 billion in losses recorded across the first three quarters of 2025, and you arrive at a total of $15.6 billion net losses on EV-related projects and processes in less than four calendar years. Add to that the financial carnage detailed in Monday’s announcement and the damage from the company’s financial electric boogaloo escalates to well above $30 billion with Q4 2025’s damage still to be added to the total.
Ford and Farley have benefited from the fact that the company’s lineup of gas-and-diesel powered cars have remained strongly profitable, resulting in overall corporate profits each year despite the huge EV-related losses. It is also fair to point out that all car companies were under heavy pressure from the Biden government to either produce battery electric vehicles or be penalized by onerous federal regulations.
Now, with the Trump administration rescinding Biden’s harsh mandates and canceling the absurdly unattainable fleet mileage requirements, Ford and other companies will be free to make cars Americans actually want to buy. Better late than never, as they say, but the financial fallout from it all is likely just beginning to be made public.
- David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
President Trump on Tuesday ordered a “total and complete” blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers moving into or out of Venezuela, sharply escalating pressure on the socialist regime of Nicolás Maduro and framing the move as a national security response to terrorism, drug trafficking, and the theft of American assets.
In a Truth Social post, Trump announced that his administration has formally designated the Venezuelan regime a Foreign Terrorist Organization and directed U.S. forces to interdict sanctioned oil shipments tied to Caracas. He said Venezuela is now “completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” adding that previously announced airspace restrictions remain in effect. Trump accused the Maduro government of using oil from “stolen Oil Fields” to finance “Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping,” warning that the blockade will only expand until the regime returns “all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”
“For the theft of our Assets, and many other reasons, including Terrorism, Drug Smuggling, and Human Trafficking, the Venezuelan Regime has been designated a FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, today, I am ordering A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela.” Trump also tied the move to immigration enforcement, saying the “Illegal Aliens and Criminals that the Maduro Regime has sent into the United States during the weak and inept Biden Administration are being returned to Venezuela at a rapid pace,” and adding that America “will not allow Criminals, Terrorists, or other Countries, to rob, threaten, or harm our Nation.”
The announcement comes days after U.S. forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, an incident that sparked an angry response from Caracas. Maduro denounced the seizure as piracy, comparing it to “Pirates of the Caribbean,” and, moments before Trump’s statement was released, called for a coordinated international protest by oil workers. Speaking at a regime event, Maduro urged labor groups and maritime organizations to mobilize against what he called U.S. “piracy,” saying the oil working class must defend Venezuela’s right to trade its main export in international forums.
Following Trump’s order, the Maduro regime issued an official statement condemning what it called an “irrational naval blockade” and accusing Washington of attempting to steal Venezuela’s national wealth. The statement said Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations would denounce the action and urged people in the United States and abroad to “reject this extravagant threat by any means necessary.” Trump’s move marks one of the most aggressive steps yet in his renewed confrontation with Maduro, signaling a willingness to use direct military and economic pressure to choke off the oil revenue that keeps the regime afloat.
(AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)
Western Campuses Help Build China’s Digital Dragnet With U.S. Tax Funds, Study Warns
Common Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s
Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots
Alberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks
-
Community2 days agoCharitable giving on the decline in Canada
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s recent economic growth performance has been awful
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
armed forces1 day agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Health1 day agoSaskatchewan woman approved for euthanasia urged to seek medical help in Canada rather than US
-
Indigenous1 day agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Daily Caller1 day agoParis Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster