The tragedy that the state of Israel has unleashed in Palestine is an injustice that merits—even demands—discussion, especially in a law school. Osgoode’s motto is “Per jus ad justitiam: Through law to justice,” but discussion of Palestinian causes remains taboo, never mind association or advocacy. Even this newspaper, built on the freedom of expression, had a hand (intentional or not) when its editors disallowed the use of the Obiter Dicta as a platform to discuss the “Israel-Hamas” war.
Even if Obiter framed this as “absolutely not a silence on the matter,” the statement must be read in the context of a general atmosphere of hostility and (self) censorship. Career opportunities for students were reportedly withdrawn or denied both in the private and public law spheres due to student associations with pro-Palestine causes. Rumours circulated of a list of pro-Palestine students deemed undesirables to firms. Support given to students, such as mentorship, was also affected. I personally had a mentor ask to end our relationship after I informed him of my position on the conflict in Gaza. Some of Osgoode’s faculty—many of whom are highly esteemed within their respective fields—called for punishment of law students for the method in which they expressed support for Palestine. In this context, could it really be said that disallowing discussion was not silence on the matter?
Equity-seeking groups, in particular, are harmed by the general hostility to pro-Palestine speech. When diversity comes from culture, race, sexual identity, disability, or lived experience, it invites those who hold the experience of oppression and associated values learnt from their background. It is unsurprising, then, that they would have empathy for or support others who are also oppressed. Though equity-seeking groups also generally haven’t spoken up to alleviate the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech, it is difficult to blame them when your career, professional reputation, and finances are at stake. It forces groups seeking equity to forsake that part of their identity and conform to be equity-seeking in representation only.
The threat of compliance also creates apathy toward causes not deemed acceptable. Long-term cognitive dissonance between your values and actions can shift values or beliefs to better align with your behaviour. If the forced behaviour is silence, then the solution could be conformity, apathy, keeping your head down, and working to be the model minority. Yet, this runs counter to the purpose of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and creates stagnation in the legal profession—and, consequently—our legal system, which is tasked with protecting our right to freedom of expression.
I apologize for any mistakes, discomfort, or harm from my shoddy writing. This is my second round of political speech suppression in a law school, and the status quo ought to be considered.