Corporate partners prioritized

On March 6, Bradley Hughes and Amaranta MacAllister of the Langara socialist club were petitioning against the presence of RBC on Langara’s campus when security asked them to leave. While they have since been able to resume petitioning in the foyer unfettered, the have been asked to move away from the bank's lounge, for the sake of the RBC employee's comfort.

This was not a drama-filled scenario: no fireworks, no arrests, no violence. However, the underlying implications of this incident should be of concern to Langara students.

Freedom of expression on campus is a slippery slope. Hughes claims he has been advocating at the same spot for 20 years and never had any problems before this incident. So what changed? Is Langara’s partnership with RBC more important than free speech on campus? Or perhaps accommodating an RBC employee over members of the Langara community is deemed a priority?

Unfortunately, the relative silence from security and the college means these questions remain unanswered. Hughes and MacAllister have reason to criticize Langara’s relationship with RBC, one of the worst enablers of climate change in Canada.

If the guard simply overstepped, then perhaps we don't need to worry too much. But if he acted under the instruction of the RBC employee or the college, we do.

By prioritizing the comfort of an RBC employee over the rights of a member of the Langara community, the college would have shown where its allegiance lies.

According to a 2021 report by a group of environmentalist organizations, RBC financed over US$200 billion in fossil fuel projects, earning fifth spot in the muchmaligned “dirty dozen” list: 12 banks that stand above all others in their ability to destroy the planet.

RBC declared it “will lead and take action to build a more inclu- sive and sustainable future.” Not to be outdone in the greenwashing competition, Langara claimed it is “deeply committed to being part of a sustainable society.” By partnering with RBC, it appears as though the college’s commitment is about as deep as a kiddie pool.

MacAllister said the security told them to pack their bags because they were “soliciting,” but she made a good point: along with free advertisement, RBC actively solicits at one of the highest-traffic areas on campus.

While higher education campuses increasingly look like corporate boardrooms, they should still be spaces for debate and critical thinking. By removing — or even moving — Hughes, security and Langara set a precedent where freedom of speech is secondary to the interests of the college and security.

In its statement of principles on freedom of expression, Langara suggests it “urges all members of the college community to redouble their efforts to create a culture that celebrates robust and vigorous debate within an academic milieu.”

If Langara had given a reason for Hughes' removal, perhaps we could have a robust and vigorous debate.

Sadly, this debate is unfortunately unavailable to students. We have been left to wonder: was security acting of its own accord or was it under instruction from the top brass of the college?

You may not agree with the socialist club. You may even find them annoying. But to restrict their reach then refuse to disclose the reasons has a hint of authoritarianism. There are limits to free speech; thin lines that divide passion from hatred. There has been no indication that the socialist club crossed this line. Perhaps a more apt freedom of expression statement would be, “We value critical debate, as long as you’re not critical of our partners.”