Subject: Re: MORE CENSORSHIP AT U.ofT.
From: [email-masked] (Bruce Rolston)
Date: 06 Apr 1995 09:13:57 GMT
Newsgroups: ut.general

John Furedy ([email-masked],internet) writes, presumably in response
to our editorial of April 3:

You shouldn't blame the poor commissar.  His actions are fully consistent
with UofT's new speech code, according to which speech which offends one
or two members of any designated group is impermissible.  I wouldn't be at 
all suprisired if the poor man actually consulsted one of the equity
officers,
as I was advised to do when I asked whether a particular prposition would or
would not be contrary to the speech code.  And of course the forces of
velvet totalitarianism will win as long as students can be convinced that
these concerns are raised only by a bunch of right-wing racist white anglo
saxon homophobic professors seeking to protect their own power.  

Dear Dr. Furedy,

Thank you for your input. I assume it was in response to our Varsity
editorial of April 3, and I always appreciate input on our editorial stances.

I put it to you that the seizure of the Medium II is more significant than
many seizures of this type, which actually happen quite frequently, and in
secret. By identifying a responsible individual, the University has for the
first time laid itself open to judicial action towards its tolerance of
censorship of the campus media by individuals and groups. In 1988, the
University moved to censor the Toike Oike on similar grounds; this is the
first time since then (if you discount Fred Case's silly seizure of the New
Edition print run two years ago) that a university official has admitted to
being involved.

Several months ago, I said the university had no right to censor electronic
mail without informing the users of its acts, and reasons for doing so. I
automatically gave a certain amount of leeway, because by legal definition
the U of T computer system is their property, and we are obliged legally to
respect their rules as a result.

However, I would suggest that the acts of Mr. Walker at Erindale are not the
management of property, which I have a tolerance for, but the outright
seizure of the property of an independent corporation. By not disavowing Mr.
Walker's acts, the university would therefore be complicit in theft. As
someone who loves this university, I find such a tolerance for criminality
unacceptable.

Finally, I am pleased to see you are monitoring this aspect of campus life. I
have in the past criticized your organization for discounting student speech
freedoms while championing those of the faculty; if SAFS does anything to
prove me wrong in this matter, I would be more than happy to admit my error.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Rolston
Editor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CampusLife - University of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------