An Examination of the Positions of Margaret Somerville and Ryerson University
By Sam Patterson
© Sam Patterson 2006. All rights reserved.
There has been a controversy over the awarding of an honorary degree to Margaret Somerville by Ryerson University. While Ms. Somerville is entitled to her opinions, it is incumbent upon any university granting an honorary degree that the basis for granting such degrees is consistent with their mission and grounded in scholarship. It is important in the true interest of academic freedom to examine both Ms. Somerville’s position and that of Ryerson. Finally, it is important that degrees are not handed out based on personal opinions of the recipients but rather on the scholarship merits of their work. In this case, the system seriously failed. Scholarship was lacking as was academic freedom and debate.
Margaret Somerville’s basis for denying same-sex marriage rights is not based in reality, science or fact. Reading her articles and notes, her views appear only to be bigoted and homophobic hand-wringing. Her constant refrain is that it’s “about the children.” Deny the right of same-sex marriage because the children will be harmed if you don’t. Oh, really? There is not one scintilla of evidence that any of the claims she makes will harm the children. Ms. Somerville’s arguments are so farcical and baseless that any rational thinking, and yes, ethical human being can punch holes with little trouble.
Ms. Somerville, in an “opinion” published in the National Post in July of 2005, states “Same-sex marriage, in disconnecting marriage from procreation, compromises this right for all children.” In using this logic, Ms. Somerville declares that the ONLY reason for two people to get married is procreation. Does that mean that childless couples are not legally married in her eyes? Barren couples should be banned from marriage? Ms. Somerville states in the same article that same-sex marriage “will also affect the fundamental rights of children, a vulnerable group of Canadians with no power to protect themselves at the ballot box.” Again, using the logic that marriage is for procreation, Ms. Somerville seems to be saying that children in single-parent households are also at risk, but that somehow is acceptable – presumably because these children are being raised by heterosexuals.
At this point in that “opinion,” Ms. Somerville takes a left turn and begins talking about “new reproductive technologies” which would allow same-sex couples to conceive a child. She has no problem with heterosexual couples using the same technologies. Here, her “logic” not only gets murky but laughably bigoted. She states, “One issue is children's rights to know their parents and, thereby, their own biological identity. Legislation establishing the right of adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents is becoming common in Canada; internationally, the same right is increasingly being accorded to children born through gamete donation (sperm or egg). But in Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 (AHR Act) prohibits disclosure without the donor's consent. In Quebec, where the province's Civil Code recognizes same-sex couples' ‘projects involving assisted procreation,’ and two women can be the parents listed on a birth certificate, the identity of the biological father is not even recorded.” Sounds good. Too bad it’s full of hokum. A similar argument could be made with heterosexuals, but again, because they’re straight, that’s okay according to Ms. Somerville. Ms. Somerville conveniently ignores the fact that these new technologies are being driven by heterosexual couples – not homosexuals. So this issue which should apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals is only an issue to be used to deny same-sex marriage. (And yes, there are conceivably ways in which heterosexuals would need this same technology.) If it’s bad for gay people to do it, it’s bad for straight people to do it. She’s not talking about marriage – her objection is about advancements in reproductive tecnology.
Ms. Somerville rants on “A second issue is children's rights to be born from the union of one natural, unmodified ovum and one natural, unmodified sperm. Technological possibilities on the horizon include making embryos from two ova or two sperm and making gametes from adult stem cells, thus allowing a same-sex couple to have their own "shared baby" -- and even to further fiddle with the genetic makeup of that baby.” “Designer children” are not sole purview of same-sex couples. Scientists and geneticists are already working on ways to allow parents to pick the hair color, eye color, and most likely sexual orientation of their baby through genetic manipulation. Ms. Somerville seems to be fine with this because it is heterosexuals doing the manipulation. If she wants to make arguments against genetic manipulation and new reproductive technologies, that’s fine. But it has nothing to do with ethics of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry. If she is going to make that argument, then she needs to apply the rules equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But she does not. What she has done has used her bigotry and homophobia to launch into a rant about these reproductive technologies. It has no place in the debate about same-sex marriage.
In the National Post article, she claims “‘donor conceived adults’ describe powerful feelings of loss of identity arising from their ignorance of their parents' identity, and describe themselves as ‘genetic orphans.’” Really? Every single donor conceived adult feels this way? Every single one? As a result, their lives are not fulfilling or worth living? This wild and broad generalization is not supported by facts at all. Notice, too, that we’ve now skipped from the children who have no voice at the ballot box to adults who do. Interestingly, since same-sex marriage is new in Canada, it would seem that all of these “donor conceived adults” were raised by heterosexual parents. But she couches the argument in such a way as to appear to say that it’s the homosexuals who caused the donor conceived adults to feel like “genetic orphans.” Again, she’s making an argument that would apply to reproductive technologies which have been the domain of heterosexuals. How come, Ms. Somerville, it’s acceptable for heterosexuals to use these technologies to create genetic orphans? How would it be more damaging for a same-sex couple to do so? Again, she has no science, research or facts to back this outrageous bigotry.
Several studies, on the other hand, have found that children raised in same-sex parent households suffer no significant detriment as opposed to children raised by opposite-sex parent homes. What seems to matter most is the quality of the relationship the parents have to their children.
Ms. Somerville’s argument always starts out with “marriage is primarily about giving each child a mother and a father.” She also declares that Marriage between a man and a woman is the way society institutionalizes and symbolizes and, thereby, establishes those rights of children.” This seems to be centered less on ethics and more on the ancient thought that sex was only for procreation because the species (and the tribe, as a result) needed to be furthered for survival. We are no longer living in that archaic frame of mind. Under this same thinking, women were properties who were married off to men. It was a civil contract. A sale. In fact, the concept of marriage being between “a man and a woman” is a fairly new one. In biblical times, most traditions held that women were nothing but property. The more wives a man had the more he was worth. A man needed a male heir. Wives failing to give their husband a male heir often faced torture or death. (How’s that ethical, Ms. Somerville?) In fact, it could be argued that this was the first attempt at genetic engineering a child since the sex of a child comes from the sperm.
In fact, non-polygamous marriage in the history of humankind is a fairly recent idea. The idea that girl children are somehow “less than” male children, however, still persists in many societies today. But, according to Ms. Somerville’s twisted thinking, because they were born of natural causes and from a man and a woman, those children will have all their rights realized. Yeah, right. (If this were true, would so many people be traveling halfway around the earth to adopt unwanted girl children?) The argument doesn’t fly. Simply because a child is born and raised by a man and a woman as parents doesn’t mean that the child will be any better off. And Ms. Somerville cannot point to any research that will support that position.
In an article in the Toronto Star, Michael Landsberg quotes Ms. Somerville as saying “All religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage, for millennia and millennia.” Again, not true Ms. Somerville. It is also important to note (since Ms. Somerville is a professor of law she SHOULD know this) that marriage is a civil contract. It is regulated by the state – not by religions or religious institutions. It is also not true that religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage. In the history of humankind, marriage as a religious ceremony is also somewhat a new concept. Heterosexual marriage was not recognized in the church until approximately 1200 A.D. (That’s only a mere 800 years out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of human history that this idea has been around.) Until that time, the Church’s view was that marriage was an earthly institution that would not be recognized in heaven. [NOTE: in his groundbreaking book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the SCHOLAR John Boswell notes that there is ample evidence same-sex relationships bearing a strong resemblance to heterosexual marriage were sanctioned by the church prior to heterosexual marriage. But again, this was back when women were looked on nothing more as property and marriage was about the ownership of the woman. Is Ms. Somerville saying women are nothing more than property to be owned by men? Using her process of “logic,” it would seem so. But it also bears repeating that government controls the RIGHT to marry – not religions. Religions control their own distinct “rite of marriage.” A “Right” is a power, liberty or legally recognized claim and individual or thing may have. A “Rite” is a ceremony. Ministers may marry people, but unless those individuals have a marriage license, the marriage is not recognized by the state. This is something a first-year law student should know.
What’s perhaps most appalling is that Ms. Somerville attempts to pass herself off as some sort of scientist or authority. In this case, she is neither. Her views on ethics are not based in science, medicine or law. In an article arguing against male circumcision, Ms. Somerville wrote “good ethics depend on good facts.” Where are those “good facts” here? She has none. She only has what she refers to as “a quaint, old-fashioned view” of marriage which is, in itself, incorrect. Again, why are her opinions on this subject any more valid than other peoples. A little bit of research will reveal that there are other ethicists who vehemently disagree with Ms. Somerville – not only on her views on same-sex marriage but a host of her other ethical positions. (Where are the honorary degrees for them?) In her arguments against circumcision, she says “Over the years I have been patiently and respectfully educated by many people who oppose circumcision or genital mutilation of any children.” It’s too bad. She didn’t use the same approach before voicing her ignorance on same-sex marriage.
Now, to address the illogical and indefensible position of Ryerson University. The University has stated that they cannot disinvite because of “academic freedom.” That’s a lie and a weak lie at best.
If the committee at Ryerson seriously looked at Ms. Somerville’s arguments, they would have realized that she is the Ann Coulter of medical ethicists. She says what she erroneously believes rather than basing it in fact or research. Her belief system becomes the “ethics” by which we all must abide. Not fact. Not logic. Her personal belief system. It is highly unlikely that, under the guise of “academic freedom,” the administration of Ryerson would allow any professor to say things so baseless. “Academic freedom” doesn’t mean that people can just say anything baseless. In true academic freedom there would have been a debate. Two sides arguing their positions and supporting them with facts. And, as seen here, Ms. Somerville’s arguments would not have stood the test of scrutiny. Yes, people are allowed to disagree on issues. That is what makes intellectual diversity so important on a university campus – a free exchange of ideas. There was no exchange here. Where was the debate on this argument? Nowhere. They gave this award to Ms. Somerville as a fait à compli. No intellectual diversity. No challenge. That’s what the award committee’s definition of academic freedom is in this case. Then they hide behind the tattered lie that they can’t deny someone an award simply because their views are controversial. Using this logic, Ryerson could (and should) give Josef Mengele an honorary degree for his groundbreaking work in genetics. Oh yes, his views are repellent, but because they are conservative and oppressive, they get “protected” under the guise of “academic freedom.”
Finally, there was the pathetic and laughable claim that the committee didn’t know of Somerville’s views prior to giving her the award. These views are not something new. She didn’t come out after the announcement of the award with this bunk. No, this has been a long-standing position for Ms. Somerville. The committee didn’t know she’d testified before Parliament using this same bigotry labeled as fact? The committee didn’t know she’d published articles on this? It is inconceivable that they were/are this ignorant. This raises the question of exactly what kind of vetting process of candidates did this committee go though? Exactly on what grounds are they giving her this award? Then, as if to rub salt into this avoidable wound, the committee is quoted as saying that if they knew in advance of her position they would have had “serious pause before approving the award.” Notice that they don’t say they would have denied it or given it to someone deserving. It is unbelievable that they didn’t know. They knew. They had to have known. And if they didn’t, why are they sitting on a committee handing out honorary degrees and awards for a university that is supposedly a seat of knowledge? It is one thing to say that academia is life in an ivory tower, but that doesn’t mean you are completely oblivious to the world around you.
According to Ryerson’s own website, their academic mission is:
Scholarship? Research? Ms. Somerville’s opinions have none of that. In fact, it would seem that she is the antithesis of that. If students picketed, disrupted or otherwise protested the ceremony, it is highly doubtfully that Ryerson would view that as “academic freedom.” And Ryerson should be ashamed of its lame defense of honorary degree.
This leaves the question of why would Ryerson want to celebrate and award someone whose opinion is not only repugnant but devoid of scholarly foundation. The only answer is that seems to come up is that the administration of Ryerson has a misguided wish to somehow curry favor with the Harper government. Harper has made it known that he intends to reopen same-sex marriage “debate” in Parliament this fall with what he calls a “free vote.” Really? A free vote? This from a Prime Minister who will not allow his MPs to speak to the press without his consent and direction. It is highly unlikely that any Conservative Party member in Parliament will be “allowed” to vote in favor or same-sex marriage. And, if they do, they will most likely find themselves in a political no-man’s land. But, according to Ryerson’s logic and definition, that would be “academic freedom.”
© Sam Patterson 2006. All rights reserved.
There has been a controversy over the awarding of an honorary degree to Margaret Somerville by Ryerson University. While Ms. Somerville is entitled to her opinions, it is incumbent upon any university granting an honorary degree that the basis for granting such degrees is consistent with their mission and grounded in scholarship. It is important in the true interest of academic freedom to examine both Ms. Somerville’s position and that of Ryerson. Finally, it is important that degrees are not handed out based on personal opinions of the recipients but rather on the scholarship merits of their work. In this case, the system seriously failed. Scholarship was lacking as was academic freedom and debate.
Margaret Somerville’s basis for denying same-sex marriage rights is not based in reality, science or fact. Reading her articles and notes, her views appear only to be bigoted and homophobic hand-wringing. Her constant refrain is that it’s “about the children.” Deny the right of same-sex marriage because the children will be harmed if you don’t. Oh, really? There is not one scintilla of evidence that any of the claims she makes will harm the children. Ms. Somerville’s arguments are so farcical and baseless that any rational thinking, and yes, ethical human being can punch holes with little trouble.
Ms. Somerville, in an “opinion” published in the National Post in July of 2005, states “Same-sex marriage, in disconnecting marriage from procreation, compromises this right for all children.” In using this logic, Ms. Somerville declares that the ONLY reason for two people to get married is procreation. Does that mean that childless couples are not legally married in her eyes? Barren couples should be banned from marriage? Ms. Somerville states in the same article that same-sex marriage “will also affect the fundamental rights of children, a vulnerable group of Canadians with no power to protect themselves at the ballot box.” Again, using the logic that marriage is for procreation, Ms. Somerville seems to be saying that children in single-parent households are also at risk, but that somehow is acceptable – presumably because these children are being raised by heterosexuals.
At this point in that “opinion,” Ms. Somerville takes a left turn and begins talking about “new reproductive technologies” which would allow same-sex couples to conceive a child. She has no problem with heterosexual couples using the same technologies. Here, her “logic” not only gets murky but laughably bigoted. She states, “One issue is children's rights to know their parents and, thereby, their own biological identity. Legislation establishing the right of adopted children to know the identity of their biological parents is becoming common in Canada; internationally, the same right is increasingly being accorded to children born through gamete donation (sperm or egg). But in Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004 (AHR Act) prohibits disclosure without the donor's consent. In Quebec, where the province's Civil Code recognizes same-sex couples' ‘projects involving assisted procreation,’ and two women can be the parents listed on a birth certificate, the identity of the biological father is not even recorded.” Sounds good. Too bad it’s full of hokum. A similar argument could be made with heterosexuals, but again, because they’re straight, that’s okay according to Ms. Somerville. Ms. Somerville conveniently ignores the fact that these new technologies are being driven by heterosexual couples – not homosexuals. So this issue which should apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals is only an issue to be used to deny same-sex marriage. (And yes, there are conceivably ways in which heterosexuals would need this same technology.) If it’s bad for gay people to do it, it’s bad for straight people to do it. She’s not talking about marriage – her objection is about advancements in reproductive tecnology.
Ms. Somerville rants on “A second issue is children's rights to be born from the union of one natural, unmodified ovum and one natural, unmodified sperm. Technological possibilities on the horizon include making embryos from two ova or two sperm and making gametes from adult stem cells, thus allowing a same-sex couple to have their own "shared baby" -- and even to further fiddle with the genetic makeup of that baby.” “Designer children” are not sole purview of same-sex couples. Scientists and geneticists are already working on ways to allow parents to pick the hair color, eye color, and most likely sexual orientation of their baby through genetic manipulation. Ms. Somerville seems to be fine with this because it is heterosexuals doing the manipulation. If she wants to make arguments against genetic manipulation and new reproductive technologies, that’s fine. But it has nothing to do with ethics of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry. If she is going to make that argument, then she needs to apply the rules equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. But she does not. What she has done has used her bigotry and homophobia to launch into a rant about these reproductive technologies. It has no place in the debate about same-sex marriage.
In the National Post article, she claims “‘donor conceived adults’ describe powerful feelings of loss of identity arising from their ignorance of their parents' identity, and describe themselves as ‘genetic orphans.’” Really? Every single donor conceived adult feels this way? Every single one? As a result, their lives are not fulfilling or worth living? This wild and broad generalization is not supported by facts at all. Notice, too, that we’ve now skipped from the children who have no voice at the ballot box to adults who do. Interestingly, since same-sex marriage is new in Canada, it would seem that all of these “donor conceived adults” were raised by heterosexual parents. But she couches the argument in such a way as to appear to say that it’s the homosexuals who caused the donor conceived adults to feel like “genetic orphans.” Again, she’s making an argument that would apply to reproductive technologies which have been the domain of heterosexuals. How come, Ms. Somerville, it’s acceptable for heterosexuals to use these technologies to create genetic orphans? How would it be more damaging for a same-sex couple to do so? Again, she has no science, research or facts to back this outrageous bigotry.
Several studies, on the other hand, have found that children raised in same-sex parent households suffer no significant detriment as opposed to children raised by opposite-sex parent homes. What seems to matter most is the quality of the relationship the parents have to their children.
Ms. Somerville’s argument always starts out with “marriage is primarily about giving each child a mother and a father.” She also declares that Marriage between a man and a woman is the way society institutionalizes and symbolizes and, thereby, establishes those rights of children.” This seems to be centered less on ethics and more on the ancient thought that sex was only for procreation because the species (and the tribe, as a result) needed to be furthered for survival. We are no longer living in that archaic frame of mind. Under this same thinking, women were properties who were married off to men. It was a civil contract. A sale. In fact, the concept of marriage being between “a man and a woman” is a fairly new one. In biblical times, most traditions held that women were nothing but property. The more wives a man had the more he was worth. A man needed a male heir. Wives failing to give their husband a male heir often faced torture or death. (How’s that ethical, Ms. Somerville?) In fact, it could be argued that this was the first attempt at genetic engineering a child since the sex of a child comes from the sperm.
In fact, non-polygamous marriage in the history of humankind is a fairly recent idea. The idea that girl children are somehow “less than” male children, however, still persists in many societies today. But, according to Ms. Somerville’s twisted thinking, because they were born of natural causes and from a man and a woman, those children will have all their rights realized. Yeah, right. (If this were true, would so many people be traveling halfway around the earth to adopt unwanted girl children?) The argument doesn’t fly. Simply because a child is born and raised by a man and a woman as parents doesn’t mean that the child will be any better off. And Ms. Somerville cannot point to any research that will support that position.
In an article in the Toronto Star, Michael Landsberg quotes Ms. Somerville as saying “All religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage, for millennia and millennia.” Again, not true Ms. Somerville. It is also important to note (since Ms. Somerville is a professor of law she SHOULD know this) that marriage is a civil contract. It is regulated by the state – not by religions or religious institutions. It is also not true that religions have always believed in heterosexual marriage. In the history of humankind, marriage as a religious ceremony is also somewhat a new concept. Heterosexual marriage was not recognized in the church until approximately 1200 A.D. (That’s only a mere 800 years out of the thousands and thousands and thousands of human history that this idea has been around.) Until that time, the Church’s view was that marriage was an earthly institution that would not be recognized in heaven. [NOTE: in his groundbreaking book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, the SCHOLAR John Boswell notes that there is ample evidence same-sex relationships bearing a strong resemblance to heterosexual marriage were sanctioned by the church prior to heterosexual marriage. But again, this was back when women were looked on nothing more as property and marriage was about the ownership of the woman. Is Ms. Somerville saying women are nothing more than property to be owned by men? Using her process of “logic,” it would seem so. But it also bears repeating that government controls the RIGHT to marry – not religions. Religions control their own distinct “rite of marriage.” A “Right” is a power, liberty or legally recognized claim and individual or thing may have. A “Rite” is a ceremony. Ministers may marry people, but unless those individuals have a marriage license, the marriage is not recognized by the state. This is something a first-year law student should know.
What’s perhaps most appalling is that Ms. Somerville attempts to pass herself off as some sort of scientist or authority. In this case, she is neither. Her views on ethics are not based in science, medicine or law. In an article arguing against male circumcision, Ms. Somerville wrote “good ethics depend on good facts.” Where are those “good facts” here? She has none. She only has what she refers to as “a quaint, old-fashioned view” of marriage which is, in itself, incorrect. Again, why are her opinions on this subject any more valid than other peoples. A little bit of research will reveal that there are other ethicists who vehemently disagree with Ms. Somerville – not only on her views on same-sex marriage but a host of her other ethical positions. (Where are the honorary degrees for them?) In her arguments against circumcision, she says “Over the years I have been patiently and respectfully educated by many people who oppose circumcision or genital mutilation of any children.” It’s too bad. She didn’t use the same approach before voicing her ignorance on same-sex marriage.
Now, to address the illogical and indefensible position of Ryerson University. The University has stated that they cannot disinvite because of “academic freedom.” That’s a lie and a weak lie at best.
If the committee at Ryerson seriously looked at Ms. Somerville’s arguments, they would have realized that she is the Ann Coulter of medical ethicists. She says what she erroneously believes rather than basing it in fact or research. Her belief system becomes the “ethics” by which we all must abide. Not fact. Not logic. Her personal belief system. It is highly unlikely that, under the guise of “academic freedom,” the administration of Ryerson would allow any professor to say things so baseless. “Academic freedom” doesn’t mean that people can just say anything baseless. In true academic freedom there would have been a debate. Two sides arguing their positions and supporting them with facts. And, as seen here, Ms. Somerville’s arguments would not have stood the test of scrutiny. Yes, people are allowed to disagree on issues. That is what makes intellectual diversity so important on a university campus – a free exchange of ideas. There was no exchange here. Where was the debate on this argument? Nowhere. They gave this award to Ms. Somerville as a fait à compli. No intellectual diversity. No challenge. That’s what the award committee’s definition of academic freedom is in this case. Then they hide behind the tattered lie that they can’t deny someone an award simply because their views are controversial. Using this logic, Ryerson could (and should) give Josef Mengele an honorary degree for his groundbreaking work in genetics. Oh yes, his views are repellent, but because they are conservative and oppressive, they get “protected” under the guise of “academic freedom.”
Finally, there was the pathetic and laughable claim that the committee didn’t know of Somerville’s views prior to giving her the award. These views are not something new. She didn’t come out after the announcement of the award with this bunk. No, this has been a long-standing position for Ms. Somerville. The committee didn’t know she’d testified before Parliament using this same bigotry labeled as fact? The committee didn’t know she’d published articles on this? It is inconceivable that they were/are this ignorant. This raises the question of exactly what kind of vetting process of candidates did this committee go though? Exactly on what grounds are they giving her this award? Then, as if to rub salt into this avoidable wound, the committee is quoted as saying that if they knew in advance of her position they would have had “serious pause before approving the award.” Notice that they don’t say they would have denied it or given it to someone deserving. It is unbelievable that they didn’t know. They knew. They had to have known. And if they didn’t, why are they sitting on a committee handing out honorary degrees and awards for a university that is supposedly a seat of knowledge? It is one thing to say that academia is life in an ivory tower, but that doesn’t mean you are completely oblivious to the world around you.
According to Ryerson’s own website, their academic mission is:
The special mission of Ryerson University is the advancement of applied knowledge and research to address societal need, and the provision of programs of study that provide a balance between theory and application and that prepare students for careers in professional and quasi-professional fields. As a leading centre for applied education, Ryerson is recognized for the excellence of its teaching, the relevance of its curriculum, the success of its students in achieving their academic and career objectives, the quality of its scholarship, research, and creative activity and its commitment to accessibility, lifelong learning, and involvement in the broader community. [Emphasis added.]
Scholarship? Research? Ms. Somerville’s opinions have none of that. In fact, it would seem that she is the antithesis of that. If students picketed, disrupted or otherwise protested the ceremony, it is highly doubtfully that Ryerson would view that as “academic freedom.” And Ryerson should be ashamed of its lame defense of honorary degree.
This leaves the question of why would Ryerson want to celebrate and award someone whose opinion is not only repugnant but devoid of scholarly foundation. The only answer is that seems to come up is that the administration of Ryerson has a misguided wish to somehow curry favor with the Harper government. Harper has made it known that he intends to reopen same-sex marriage “debate” in Parliament this fall with what he calls a “free vote.” Really? A free vote? This from a Prime Minister who will not allow his MPs to speak to the press without his consent and direction. It is highly unlikely that any Conservative Party member in Parliament will be “allowed” to vote in favor or same-sex marriage. And, if they do, they will most likely find themselves in a political no-man’s land. But, according to Ryerson’s logic and definition, that would be “academic freedom.”
posted by samintoronto @ 2:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home