Voices From The Margins Summary

In “Voices from the Margins: The regulation of Student Activism in the New Corporate University”, Elizabeth Brule analyzes how student codes of conduct are used to regulate student political advocacy on campuses in North America. Over the years, there has been an ongoing battle between student activists and institutional policies which regulate social justice advocacy work. Students continuously broadcast political views in an attempt to exercise constitutional rights of free speech. Some in which, have been sanctioned by respective educational facilities. More specifically, York University, Canada’s third largest public university, had its first Student Code of Conduct in 1970. The implementation of the code has emerged to be based on principles

of natural justice in order to mediate students’ non-academic behaviours. York has since used methods such as: managerial technologies and risk management assessments to examine students’ non-academic behaviour. Revisions of policies have played an important role in regulating student activism. For example, after controversial topics were discussed at Vari Hall, previous University President, Lorna Marsden issued academic sanctions, student suspensions, and monetary fines to those involved. Following this, Marsden introduced a new policy which permits the practice of free speech in “an atmosphere of safety and security” (York University, 2006, p. 1). Marsden’s successor, Mamdouh Soukhri, further amended legislation to balance one’s rights with one’s responsibilities. In addition to this, Soukhri created an application in which associations must fill out when needing to use space on campus for events in order to suppress future conflict. Critics believe the application does not have a clearly defined process and as a result of this, there have been concerns of unfairness when allocating space to student groups. Evidently, the line between fairness and personal safety is highly precarious. In summary, with the use of policies and legislation, public discourse and practices of social advocacy on campus is highly affected as illustrated by Elizabeth Brule.

The argument Brule presents, overlooks many relevant factors.

Most important being the relationship between platforming and social advocacy on campus. Generally, the idea of platforming is often seen as an aggressive approach to educate those on something one supports or opposes. An issue in which may seem conscientious or controversial, many people may have different opinions on and of course, voicing these opinions leaves room for others to take offense or feel targeted. Brule, who is most concerned about “how the process of university corporatization is transforming the internal social organization and social relations of students’ political advocacy work” (2), fails to reiterate that these findings have important consequences for the broader domain of marginalization on campuses throughout North America. Upon Brule’s findings, we must focalize the argument around this question: should students feel marginalized by giving others the ability to voice their own subjective beliefs on a public forum? Or should people have their rights to free speech stripped from them in order to protect others? This is a normative question in which we are required to choose what is of more value to us as a society. Moreover, while Brule encourages student activists to “challenge these regulatory policies” (3), she also promotes an environment where retaliation as a result of comments made becomes inevitable. By doing so, Brule contradicts the university's policy of safety and security and happens to further put the safety of opposers at risk. For example, in reference to the situation where Daniel Freeman-Mulroy was expelled from York University for participating in a Pro-Palestine demonstration. York University, being Canada’s third largest university is arguably one of the most diverse institutions. Now, we can see where platforming for “Pro-Palestine” can be oppressive to others, specifically, Israeli’s as we are aware of current relations. Who’s to say that controversial

topics such as this being discussed within the facility cannot be harmful to others? Furthermore, the idea of using the lack of free speech as a scapegoat to disregard university regulations proves an inconclusive argument. Brule concludes that “a new version of student rights diminishes the physical and discursive spaces where student activists can voice their concerns” (14) and I disagree because one can unquestionably voice anything they feel inclined to however, prohibiting the physical platform to do so does not entirely strip them of the right to speak freely. In conclusion, I believe that while Brule presents a clear argument on the effects that these policies have on student activism on campus, she fails to dig deeper and assess the root of the problem and the impact it may have on overall student safety. Surely, Brule takes a position and strongly argues for it, but she does not fully explain the risks behind encouraging social advocacy and how to approach situations that arise on campus because of this. In response to this, I say that although free speech is a right that many people would much rather keep, the policies that are implemented at universities are used to mitigate many harmful reactions to controversial topics, thus ensuring the safety of everyone.