York University Social Sciences and Humanities Prof Cameron Johnston, in Toronto, created an apparent firestorm when a student, not paying attention, heard him say “all Jews should be sterilized”, when he used the statement as an example of a type of opinion that someone should not be entitled to hold (for the record, Johnston, being Jewish, does not not believe, nor is he saying “all Jews should be sterilized”, as a matter of his personal opinion). The student, offended by what she thought she heard, complained to an on-campus Jewish organization, which immediately called for Johnston to be fired.
Johnston was compelled to issue the following statement in order to put context to his remarks:
Statement from Professor Cameron Johnston
September 13, 2011“In lecture, I discussed that the course focuses on the texts and not “opinions”. In fact, I stated that for this course opinions are not relevant and I questioned the common idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I pointed out that everyone is not entitled to their opinion by giving the example of someone having an anti-semitic opinion which is clearly not acceptable. This was an example of the fact that opinions can be dangerous and that none of us really do believe that all opinions are acceptable.
For the record, I am also Jewish which undoubtedly influenced my choice of this example of a reprehensible opinion.
Regards,
Cameron Johnston
BUT, accusations of bigotry and general handwringing aside, the course gets off on the wrong foot from the beginning, and Prof Johnston has some explaining to do about the opinions he does hold, especially as an instructor at a Canadian, publicly-funded university.
From his statement:
In lecture, I discussed that the course focuses on the texts and not “opinions”. In fact, I stated that for this course opinions are not relevant and I questioned the common idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I pointed out that everyone is not entitled to their opinion by giving the example of someone having an anti-semitic opinion which is clearly not acceptable. [Emphasis mine – Ed.]
Concepts of freedom of expression enshrined in the Charter, Common Law, and the American First Amendment do not speak to the quality of free speech. Indeed, many popularly held opinions, even innocuous ones, are relevant only to certain individuals and allied groups. Who decides whose opinion is not acceptable? I care little for the opinions of truthers, neo-nazis, most liberals, and a whole range of people who don’t think as I do (and arguably, don’t think at all), and while I might not find their opinions acceptable to me, they are their opinions, and they are entitled to them.
By the same token, a good many people don’t share my opinions on many things. That is a matter of fact, not my opinion. As has to be pointed out over and over again, its the actions taken from one’s beliefs and opinions that matter. There was a time when debating opinions used to be called the “Age of Enlightenment”.
The fundamental question at play here is whether a professor at a Canadian university should act as arbiter of what constitutes an “acceptable” opinion at any time. Johnston wasn’t running a course on the impact and sociology of commonly held opinions in western civilizations. His comment was only an aside to whatever the theme of his lecture was.
Its troubling that Canada’s overwhelmingly liberal academia still believes it has a mandate to regulate speech. The fundamental freedoms that give Prof. Johnston the ability to stand in his class and prognosticate, are the very freedoms he’s prepared to deny to others who don’t share his particular group-think.
The irony is that the very dis-entitlement he is willing to apply, would equally apply to him: he’s not entitled to hold the opinion that some may not be entitled to hold their opinion – so say those who find his opinion “unacceptable”.
As for the student – the student is apparently a final year student, whose behavior on several levels in this is certainly below what one would expect from a graduate of a Canadian university, and she is going to have to deal with the fallout of her actions. It would be hoped that she had acquired a more refined sense of clarity in her thinking processes by the time she nears graduation.
But then, that’s just my opinion.
The Editorial Times 
Wayne, absolutely, eschew “jingoistic bumper sticker catch phrases” like “half-educated pseudo-intellectuals”. LOL! what are you on about? Nothing of what you’re ranting about has anything to do with the content of the post.
Why do half-educated pseudo-intellectuals love to go around saying:
“There was a time when debating opinions used to be called the “Age of Enlightenment”.”
Debating opinions has only ever been a means to an end, that end being the use of critical thinking and evidence based reasoning to reveal some kernel of truth or reality
Applying jingoistic bumper sticker catch phrases does a disservice to those dedicated to intellectually honest debate. My experience is that this (not so subtle) point is lost on most conservatives who ignorantly grasp at straws of reason and react to fear and greed. There is no desire to actually learn anything, but rather to (irresponsibly) use the process, not the intent of scientific investigation, to prove a previously held position.
The very process demands that you actively seek to contradict your own original position, not to reinforce it. If, after academic due diligence, you are unable to not only contradict your original position, but you are able to experimentally verify predictions implied by your position, if after this, you now have some evidence that your position is not entirely wrong and it may have merit.
None of us has access to infallible knowledge, the very assertion of it core of the danger of fundamentalism and extremism. Self examination is hard work and requires humility, two qualities rarely demonstrated by the willfully ignorant. When the evidence demands it we must change our opinions.
Interesting case here, Thanks for the read. Cheers.