Recent debates over the now infamous Danish cartoons have sparked many impassioned civil libertarians to scream out for the necessity of free speech in our modern world. Certainly, in Canada, where our media is relatively free of government control (so far, Mr. Harper…), this right is a key marker of national identity. But, sometimes, some of us should just bloody well hold our tongues.
The opening event this past Friday of the Trudeau Centre’s Peacebuilding conference is a case in point. Its agenda: to create a dialogue between the audience, host Thomas Homer-Dixon, and policy-gurus Michael Ignatieff and Lloyd Axworthy’s commendable last-minute replacement, on the project of Peacebuilding in shattered societies.
The behaviour of the packed public audience at the event demonstrates the proficiency with which numerous community members have come to wield their right to freedom of expression on a perpetual offensive mission, even when the structures of social debate and discussion respectfully request them to lay down their swords and engage in a more civilized manner. En garde!
During the evening’s conclusion, in which the audience was invited to join the high-stakes and intellectual discussion, audience members were chosen to ask policy- or philosophy-related questions. What resulted was an Ignatieff skewer-fest.
As the microphone was passed through the Hart House Great Hall, numerous respondents aired their grievances with the particular policies of Ignatieff as I.R. giant, and as newly-elected MP. Very few of the questions were posed with a genuine interest in the Peacebuilding dialogue. Even fewer of these came from members who were not Homer-Dixon’s students edging for those extra participation marks!
These embarrassing audience-member offerings are not particular to the Peacebuilding event, but instead are indicative of a greater flippancy of the public in question-and-answer periods. For some reason, community members removed from the institution of university mores tend to disregard the etiquette of dynamically structured academic events, and instead sally forth into an irrelevancy free-for-all.
One United Jewish Appeal Holocaust Education event last November, for example, was snowed under by angry community member shrieks of “Talk louder! Talk LOUDER!!!” This sense of entitlement, while appropriate in venues of public policy such as municipal meetings where one must be assertive to see results, is jarring and unwelcome in an academic environment. When engaging in an education event, the “talking stick” must be passed with more grace and respect between those who are learning, and those who are teaching, as they contribute to an organic learning process.
Clearly, the answer to these conflicts of behaviour is the implementation of an intense audience education initiative for all academic events. While many may advocate the distribution of etiquette cards with convenient informational diagrams, it seems that the more effective solution is usher-led information sessions complete with physical demonstrations such as one would find on Air Canada.
To show your support for these or similar education programs, be sure to comment loudly to this effect in the Q&A at the next available, and totally non-related, public event.
