Victoria College’s civil discourse
In the world of politics, manners can get a little muddled. Regardless of the spaces in which they are held—online forums, social media platforms, in-person conversations, or even institutional spaces—political debates can spiral out of control, with escalating tones and sharp insults. Just a few days ago, Members of Parliament (MP) from the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Conservative party accused each other of harassment, alleging that representatives on the other side were intentionally disrupting the session and disrespecting both their colleagues and the House itself. Across the ocean, Senegalese lawmakers exchanged blows in 2022 after a physical altercation broke out in Parliament during the passing of the 2023 budget. While fairly uncommon, these incidents demonstrate the drastic turn political conversations can take if not adequately mediated.
Civil discourse, which promotes dialogue between different points of view, aims to mitigate the possibility of an all-out political brawl. It requires parties to develop mutual respect and to build civic trust, hoping to separate people from their own echo chambers by subjecting their beliefs and values to criticism. Ideally, civil discourse should foster understanding across the political spectrum, encouraging people to engage in tough conversations without expecting the miraculous mending of ideological cleavages; it is not about changing someone else’s mind but about comprehending where the other person is coming from.
Yet, like all things politics, it is not that simple. The world has experienced an increasing divide between opposing political groups, where notorious right-leaning politicians, influencers, and think tanks have turned to neo-nationalism as a response to their perceived persecution. In their eyes, anti-liberal policies will bring back long-forgotten national glory, where society was fairer, more equal, and with more opportunities for success. They have now become ‘free-speech advocates’ who intend to defeat the ‘woke armies’ and ‘cancel culture,’ claiming that it is the sensitive and intolerant left who perpetually harms the possibilities of political conversation. These groups, which frown upon ‘political correctness,’ use the banner of free speech and civil discourse to spread ill-intended and malicious messages. At their core, the neo-nationalist right has co-opted civil discourse as a tool to legitimize its harmful messages, generating a false sense of censorship that makes right-leaning citizens feel persecuted and silenced.
Civil discourse, as previously defined, also has its limits.
Hate speech, bigotry, and civil discourse
One of the defining characteristics of civil discourse is that it must take place in an environment where all participants are equally able to engage in politics. Much like free speech, it presupposes the opportunity for everyone to participate under the condition that all parties are joining the dialogue on equal grounds. The moment that this ability is challenged, civil discourse is not possible, as freedom of expression is only possible until one’s individuality violates someone else’s.
Instead, the weaponisation of free speech to undermine equality becomes an instrument of hate speech, which includes “any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are,” according to the United Nations. While this usually implies the use of slurs and insulting comments based on someone’s race, religion, nationality, and gender, among others, this form of discrimination can also encompass subtler acts of intolerance, such as diminishing a person’s political agency by framing their concern as ‘overly emotional.’
It is because of this misapplication of freedom that the rhetoric of ‘civil discourse’ must be looked at carefully. Put simply, hate speech has no place within political conversations, even if it is disguised as a ‘diversity of political thought.’ Still, there are political sectors that continue to hide their harmful ideology behind their legal right to participate in politics, benefiting from unlimited access to online forums to transmit their messages. Infamous names like Andrew Tate, who has 6.9 million followers on X, and Nick Fuentes, whose social media comments following the U.S. elections has been reposted 35 000 times, use their platforms to spread anti-women hate. Rooted in provocative language, their online bigotry thrives on supposed ‘entertainment,’ where their bigotry can be obscured as clickbait.
These worldwide trends are also becoming evident at the University of Toronto and Victoria College, where the line between freedom of expression and hate speech is getting increasingly blurry. As such, these institutions are not free of criticism. On campus, there is a concerning increase in the co-optation of civil discourse rhetoric by bigoted online groups, who claim to be University-affiliated and occupy University spaces under the seemingly permissive stance of the institution. Their presence is not only worrisome, but it also inhibits authentic expression and community participation, as students opt to avoid community engagement in fear of discrimination.
Victoria College: guilty of inaction
At UofT, the presence of far-right ideology in online spaces was first notified to The Strand by the Victoria Organisation for Information, Care, and Empowerment of Survivors (VOICES). In particular, VOICES was concerned about the rise in misogynistic and transphobic content, especially from a university-affiliated group, which also raised questions from the PEARS Project. VOICES Policy Director Sophia Bannon stated they reached out to VUSAC and the Dean’s Office with the hopes that Victoria College would address the harmful messages being shared to ensure student safety and condemn any form of on-campus hate.
While both VUSAC and VOICES communicated their worries to the Dean of Students, Kelley Castle, Victoria College’s response was unsatisfactory. Stating that “The Dean’s Office, along with the broader university administration, is committed to providing an inclusive environment where everyone feels a sense of belonging and is free to express their views” as long as these align with University policy on free-speech and discrimination. Victoria College dismissed VOICES’s concerns by claiming civil discourse “can sometimes be difficult and painful.” Arguing that students have a right to free speech if they follow UofT guidelines, the Dean’s Office refused to take action against online platforms and reiterated their commitment to help students engage in ‘tough conversations,’ even in the form of online harassment.
Interestingly, the University’s guidelines state that students have the right to freedom of speech, as long as it is not discriminatory harassment. According to University policy, UofT students are not allowed to target individuals based on human rights grounds, as the University “acts within its purview to prevent or remedy discrimination or harassment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, marital status, family status, receipt of public assistance or record of offence.” This definition, while consistently vague, reaffirms the limits of free speech within UofT’s campus and demonstrates that the difference between political conversations and hate is acknowledged and documented by University institutions.
The conduct on online platforms presented by VOICES to the Dean’s Office—such as the use of slurs, sexist rhetoric, and transphobic content by student groups—falls under the definition of discrimination provided by University faculty. The lack of immediate action from Victoria College poses the question of what, exactly, is being labeled as discriminatory.
After all, this is not the first time that Victoria College disavows the danger of promoting bigotry under the disguise of ‘civil discourse.’ Recently, The Strand was informed that on September 18 of this year, New York Times columnist Pamela Paul was invited to speak on a panel about ‘civil discourse’ along with Randy Boyagoda (Provostial Advisor on Civil Discourse), Ian Williams (Professor at the English Department), and Janice Stein (Professor at the Munk School). This panel was held and organised by the University of Toronto, but Victoria College brought first-year students to it as an optional plenary on the Vic One program.
Pamela Paul has published several opinion pieces and columns about trans individuals, most of which engage in anti-trans politics and are supported by transphobic themes and references. On February 2, 2024, Paul published an opinion piece titled “As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do.” Her work discusses cases of detransitioners and their regrets in seeking out trans-affirming care in their youth. Detransitioners are often commodified in anti-trans agendas to substantiate the false claim that most transgender individuals ultimately identify with their birth-assigned gender after they transition. Transphobic actors claim that detransitioners are far more common than they actually are. In reality, statistics show that the majority of individuals who undergo gender transitions continue to identify that way for the rest of their lives. A longitudinal study conducted by Olson et al. (2022) at Princeton observed gender identities in transgender youth over the span of five years. The research found that out of 317 individuals, 94 percent maintained their transgender identity. Further, 3.5 percent identified as non-binary and 2.5 percent identified as cisgender, most of whom had transitioned before the age of six and detransitioned before the age of ten.
On July 12, 2024, Paul published another opinion piece titled “Why Is The U.S. Still Pretending We Know Gender-Affirming Care Works?” where she argues that there is no evidence to support that gender-affirming care has longstanding positive effects. This piece is yet again conspicuously transphobic and is negated by empirical evidence. A Cornell review by the What We Know Project involved a meta-analysis of 72 studies on the satisfaction rates of gender-affirming care. The results showed that those who have received gender-affirming care display a regret rate ranging from 0.3 to 3.8 percent. Most regrets were likely to result from surgical complications or lack of support after transitioning, rather than their gender affirmation. Overall, the study found that gender transitions are effective in alleviating gender dysphoria and improving the mental health of trans individuals.
Based on this information, including Paul in the Vic One panel demonstrates a lack of understanding towards trans students who may be affected by her perpetuation of misinformation and transphobic rhetoric. Although attendance to this event was not mandatory and Victoria College confirmed to The Strand that they did not pay Pamela Paul for her participation, this event was still advertised to Vic One students. At its core, it gave a platform to a journalist who has previously engaged in harmful rhetoric under the guise of ‘civil discourse.’
When The Strand asked about this issue at Caucus, President Rhonda McEwen and Principal Alex Hernandez described Vic One’s participation as an opportunity to engage with different perspectives. Although the Principal’s Office stated that they do not agree with her views, McEwen defended Paul’s involvement by arguing that “it was very intentional to have someone like Pamela Paul on that panel, as it was not genuine without having a variety.” Similarly, Hernandez argued, after it was brought up that Paul has been condemned by various human rights groups, that “[Paul] is a subject expert in being cancelled, as she brought a very interesting perspective,” which placed her as a perfect candidate to partake in difficult conversations, regardless of the harmful nature of her opinions.
These actions set a concerning precedent. By tolerating hate speech on campus, UofT and Victoria College ignore the negative impact it can have on students, fostering an environment that normalises and accommodates the expression of hateful views. The University is permitting the presence of discriminatory perspectives within campus discussions, ultimately exposing students to hurtful discourses that invalidate their feelings while alienating them from the rest of the student body.
So, where does this leave civil discourse?
If done properly, civil discourse is a promising concept. At its most simple form, it can keep tough discussions and political debates as a conversation between equals, while in its most ambitious scenario, it can help people achieve a middle ground. The reality is that on university campuses, this is increasingly important: political tensions and divisions have been on the rise, and there is a necessity to encourage polite communication across the political spectrum. Students come to these institutions to broaden their perspectives, and the only way to do so is by engaging in dialogue with different points of view, backgrounds, and upbringings.
Yet, civil discourse is also a double-edged sword. If not properly defined, it risks allowing the unabashed use of discriminatory, harmful, and factually inaccurate rhetoric under the assumption that it is merely a clash of ideas, completely ignoring the difference between contrasting opinions and hateful sentiments. At times, there are perspectives that—due to the nature of their discriminatory basis—violate the equality under which civil discourse takes place, completely removing the possibility of engaging in conversation with those who think certain groups of people should not be allowed to speak.
As the University of Toronto moves towards facilitating spaces for political disagreement, it is necessary to guarantee that the new Working Group on Civil Discourse recognises the dangers of fomenting the presence of any form of political statements on campus. It is also a call for the institutions that uphold these policies—such as Victoria College and UofT itself—to reassess what they consider to be discriminatory, as there are opinions, perspectives, and beliefs that threaten the safety and integrity of university students.
The Strand reached out to the Victoria College Office of the Dean of Students and the Principal’s Office for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
