On Monday, May 12, Convocation Hall hosted a lecture entitled “An Evening of Dialogue on Social Change.” The speakers were University of Toronto Philosophy professor Mark Kingwell and New Yorker journalist Malcolm Gladwell. These men, respectively, are no lightweights when it comes to the topic of social change or the art of debate. Gladwell spoke first, arguing that practical approaches and small steps are the best means of achieving change. Kingwell, on the other hand, highlighted the value of setting aside the shackles of social position. When we recognize our common humanity and expose our vulnerabilities, he argued, we can improve our collective condition.
What struck me was the way that each speaker’s style seemed to juxtapose his message. Gladwell, while speaking about the limitations of mass protest, built clear bridges to the audience. He addressed the audience as equals, discussing common experiences and familiar topics. Kingwell, despite espousing the importance of common humanity, built a towering rhetorical platform beneath himself. Through his frequent use of petty insults and intellectual condescension, Kingwell attempted to establish his superior intellectual stature relative to both his audience and his opponent. In Kingwell’s world, he knows best, and all those wishing to address social change must abide by his rules. The professor forgot, as academics frequently do, that social change does not belong exclusively to the academic realm. Change is made possible by the people who live and sacrifice for it. Academics all too often claim responsibility for activism rather than humbly acknowledging their positions as mediators of social discourse. Problems inevitably arise when people become frozen by this interpretation of social action.
This issue has been reflected through recent campus-wide discourse. Confrontations between student protestors and university administrators came to a boiling point during the March 20 protests at Simcoe Hall. According to the University’s President’s Office, multiple news outlets and several websites, the situation was clearly “out of hand.” That is not the problem. What’s troubling is that we have convinced ourselves that effective protest must remain “in hand.” In whose hand? This institution serves the larger public, and does so only with the public’s permission. University administrators have no right to say that the rules of proper protest have been broken. Whose rules are they? When those who balance figures and push pens adversely affect the lives of others, the situation is “out of hand” long before the protestors march through the doors. In the case of Simcoe Hall, the protestors established their place within the matrix of the administration’s policy-making decisions. Rather than allow the administration to dominate the terrain and dictate the rules of discourse, the protestors stated their side of the argument on their own terms, forcing a debate. Universities should foster the growth of new ideas rather than reproduce old ones. Nowhere is this more true than in the realm of social change. The University of Toronto and Mark Kingwell’s positions on social change are well argued and compelling. But the University’s claim of ownership over the proper conduct of protest is condescending and disempowering to students. However difficult, asking questions and eliciting debate are the only way to weaken this power structure. Whether the debate is won or lost, when something is questioned, it becomes something that can be questioned, and others are forced to take a position. This is the value of protest. I may be wrong, and you may disagree. That is exactly the point.
