Editor’s Note: This article is a revised and trimmed version of a speech, part of which Franz Kurtzke, a philosophy student at The University of British Columbia, gave in public on campus this February 12, 2020, to save the 1976 statement on academic freedom. The artwork seen in the embedded (online) video version of the speech was attacked twice at the event, breaking its frame, and spat on twice. Franz is the only student activist in Canada who has dared to take on the academic establishment both on Male Rights issues and White Identity issues. He has filed 10 anti-male (with some anti-white component) discrimination claims against UBC. I look forward to the day when all our Canadian universities destroying the souls of young men and women will have one activist like Franz in every Canadian campus.
 |
| Franz Kurtzke |
My name is Franz Kurtzke. I am a Philosophy student here at UBC. I have been an
activist at this university for over 2 years, primarily on free speech and men’s rights issues. UBC is now reviewing the 1976 statement on academic
freedom, which has inspired me to go public on various controversial things I have
encountered during my adventures here at UBC. What is important to know is that UBC,
which has already demonstrated a lack of respect for the spirit of academic freedom contained in the ‘76 statement, is
potentially going to further clamp down on the freedom of students to continue inviting
controversial thinkers to speak for them at UBC, and to explore ideas like those I will
speak about today. Not
everyone will like everything I plan to say today, though I do hope you like some of it,
but the real intention is to show a range of issues which are being suppressed on
campus, and to encourage you to get involved in advancing the free exchange of ideas. Friends of mine will be circulating information about how you can get involved in
improving the situation at UBC.
Demographic Change in Canada
Consider the common campus idea of “white
privilege,” while I inform you of the following: by then of this short century, at the current
rate of change, European-Canadians (broadly, White Canadians) will be 20% of
Canada’s population, or 2 out of every 10 people. Canada has had a sub-replacement
fertility rate (fewer children than are needed to maintain the population) since the
year 1972. “White replacement” is not a “far-right
white supremacist” conspiracy theory; it is a description of what is actually
happening in Canada as a result of low birth rates combined with
mass non-European immigration. Instead of trying to solve whatever is causing the
country’s demographic death spiral since 1972, say, by promoting
sufficiently pro-family government policies, European-Canadians have been largely
responsible for putting in place policies that are causing them to be ethnically
replaced.
Read the headlines: “Canada is experiencing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in
the Western world, say international demographers.” Multiculturalism (which was
introduced by European-Canadians, when Canada was still an overwhelmingly
European society), has ironically become in effect a system for managing the phasing
out of the European-Canadian majority will be reduced
to a tiny minority of the country, if not eventually disappear completely as a distinct
pan-ethnic group. And similar issues are affecting European peoples more widely
now, The Irish Times announced in 2016 that “birth rates in all 28 EU
countries are now below replacement rates”. The ethnically European Western world is in serious demographic
trouble. But in Canada, official multiculturalism and extreme political correctness
prevent us from acknowledging and seriously addressing the demographic implosion
facing European-Canadians.
Race As ‘Just a Social Construct’
While I am on the topic of demographics,
let me counter another campus narrative: that race is ‘just a social construct.’
Actually, race, in the sense of more-or-less related groups of humans with highly
differentiated biological features, is not ‘just a social construct’: it is a highly identifiable product of human biological evolution, a part of physical reality, and
a significant part of many people’s identities, including at least some of the
White, European-Canadian population. And there is absolutely nothing with that.
Everyone is entitled to a healthy identity, an ethnic identity, and this also goes for
European-Canadians. If race is not real, why can we so often reliably tell a
person’s race just by looking at them? If race is not real, how is it that racial
background can be determined with genetic testing? Why did a former New York
Times science editor, Nicholas Wade, write in Time about the fact that race does in fact have a biological basis?:
A longstanding orthodoxy among social
scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological
basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so
long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians
or economists. In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing
wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin
with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race.
Here is
another quote from the same article:
Analysis of genomes from around the
world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official
statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An
illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as
African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome,
and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that
would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.
Saying ‘race is just a social construct’ can be used as a form of psychological
gaslighting, telling especially European peoples “You don’t really exist.” I cannot
help but think that some who peddle such ideas wish us not to exist. Shame on
you folks. Regardless, the typical campus narrative about race is apparently not
the full story, and I know I am not alone in wanting to know the full story.
I have seen indications there may be meaningful differences in traits such as average intelligence across different racial groups. This issue must be considered seriously in order to design informed social policies, including regarding concepts of ‘racial equity.’ This is very important for contemporary social and political philosophy. We need to be able to openly discuss and study these issues at universities in order to design informed social and other policy. If we cannot discuss the issue, and whatever the facts may be, it is hard to see if anything can be done to fix whatever may be the matter. This issue may be more of an open question than how it is typically understood. The idea that all racial groups on the planet are of equal average intelligence, while taken at this point as gospel, was not so far as I can see ever definitely proven at any point, and there are indications this may in fact not be the case. Students should be able to have access to the history of these controversies, at UBC, and the current state of the science.
Men’s Rights Issues
UBC has a goal to make UBC
Engineering 50% female in enrollment, and is offering Engineering entrance
scholarships worth up to $10,000 each for women only. But UBC is actually
minority-male, with males being only about 44% of students at UBC. (I might add that only one out of six UBC students is a white male). There is no such 50/50 gender parity program or male funding of this kind, for either the
school as a whole, nor is there any such gender parity program in e.g. the
Bachelor of Science in Nursing (which is approx. 83% female) or Bachelor of
Social Work (which is approximately 84% female).
UBC is approximately 56% female, with women outnumbering men by over 6,500 people, and at this point almost every university in Canada is majority-female: nationally, there are on average almost three women for every two men on campus. If gender parity is really something UBC cares about, the argument could easily be made that there is a shortage of university-educated men at this point.
For decades, sexism in higher education has been blamed for
blocking women from landing academic positions in STEM (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics) fields. But a new study by Cornell psychologists
suggests that era has ended, finding in experiments with professors from 371
colleges and universities across the United States that science and engineering
faculty preferred women two-to-one over identically qualified male candidates
for assistant professor positions.
Yet, in the year 2020, almost
half a century after the Senate approved a Women’s Studies program, UBC still
has no course on males and male issues, on either campus. I cannot find serious equitable coverage of the Men’s
Movement at UBC.
Males have social justice issues too (see for
example the paper by Samuel Vincent Jones, “Men and Boys and the EthicalDemand for Social Justice”). Yet male social justice issues get little real
attention from the social-justice left. Indeed, there seems to be hostility toward the idea of addressing male issues.
I am one of the most prolific men’s rights
activists in the Canadian higher education system: I have drafted and filed 10
anti-male (with some anti-white component) discrimination claims against the
University of British Columbia, including, in no particular order:
(1) Against Faculty
Women’s Club, for apparently excluding men; there is no Faculty Men’s Club, and
if there were such a Club, it would probably be attacked as sexist.
(2) Against the
existence of the Women Students’ Lounge, in Brock Hall, Vancouver campus;
there is no such Men’s Lounge anywhere at UBC, and the female student majority
not only has this Lounge in Brock Hall, but also still has the AMS Women’s
Centre in the Nest. Let me add, the AMS Women’s Centre apparently pays no
rent, and has received approximately $100,000 in funding just in the decade
from (2008 to 2018); this is an unjustified female privilege, especially in light of
the fact that females are the majority in the Canadian higher education system.
(3) Against inequity in gender-exclusive (or
favouring) funding sources, an inequity which favours women at UBC currently.
(4) Against affirmative action program in Engineering ’50/50 by 2020′ including
entrance scholarships worth up to $10,000 each for women only, while nothing
comparable (including gender-parity goal) exists for men at the University as a
whole, or at e.g. Nursing, Social Work, and Education.
(5) For being unjustly
arrested at the missing and murdered women conference at UBC following asking
questions including advocating for male Indigenous victims.
(6) Against UBC’s
new Sexual Misconduct Policy, especially the commitment to the ‘rape culture’
theory.
(7) Against Women’s Only Fitness Hours with UBC Recreation.
(8) Against
hiring discrimination facing (white) males especially in Nursing, specifically the
position with Job ID #35833, Assistant Professor (tenure-track); this job
posting includes apparent misapplication of the BC Human Rights Code.
(9) Against the Social Justice Institute (Vancouver) and Gender and
Women’s Studies (Okanagan), for lack of any course on male issues, or
equivalent, including especially equitable coverage of the Men’s Movement and
its sub-movements; ideally, I would like UBC to create a ‘Male Studies’ course on
both campuses.
(10) Against the Rise Women’s Legal Centre: a family law focused
legal clinic co-founded by UBC’s law school, and staffed apparently in part by
UBC Law students, this clinic apparently categorically excludes male clients, such
that all males no matter how needy are rejected from receiving aid.
Don’t Let Administrators, Student SJWs, and Professors Silence You
The systemic ideological corruption I am facing doing this activism is intense,
and I will tell you, the freedom to explore and criticize social injustice against
males is also very important. If the 1976 Senate statement on freedom of speech is modified, this could
affect students who may, for example, want to invite a men’s movement speaker
to UBC in the future.
I could possibly add more specific issues, but I will leave it at that, and sum this list of controversial topics by saying that there are definitely issues especially on
race, sexuality, gender, and social justice, being ignored and suppressed at UBC. Some
departments and offices are definitely more guilty than others. We need to protect the
1976 Senate-approved statement on academic freedom, so free speech activists, and
other students, can keep having the freedom to open up topics being ignored, and
suppressed, by the University establishment.
Who am I?
Again, my name is Franz Kurtzke. I am a Philosophy student and activist at UBC,
on free speech and men’s rights issues/male social justice issues. My activism has been
covered in the Globe & Mail and Vancouver Sun, and I’ve been interviewed by governmentradio, and I’ve been reported about in the Ubyssey at least 10 times, if I remember correctly. During my
time at UBC I’ve been involved in protest lettering, student politics (ran for an AMS
position), and I named and advised the UBC Students for Freedom of Expression. For
this group, I recommended and invited speaking guests including Dr. Ricardo Duchesne. I also invited and recommended Dr. Frances Widdowson (co-author of
Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural
Preservation). I also recommended and invited as a speaker, UBC alumnus Armin Navabi
(ex-Muslim founder of Atheist Republic). Plus, I was involved in co-sponsoring and
co-hosting feminist Meghan Murphy. My friend Dr. Janice Fiamengo, who is a UBC
alumna, former professor from the University of Ottawa, will be speaking at UBC in
March, on the topic: “Is Intersectional Feminism Incompatible with Freedom of
Expression?” Tickets are available through the UBC Students for Freedom of
Expression.
Why am I telling you this?
I am in a unique position. I’ve been an activist at UBC for over 2 years in some
unusual areas, and nobody else at UBC is willing to show up in public and talk about
these topics. Overall, I want to inform you that UBC is planning to review the
1976 statement on academic freedom. UBC currently has strong academic
freedom protections, including enabling (at least in theory, is my understanding)
students to invite controversial speakers to campus. In this way, students can have an active role in expanding the
campus discourse beyond what UBC is providing. Students can insist that we continue
to have the freedom to be able to address in public events, as part of our educational
experience, the kinds of issues many of us are already thinking and talking about in
private.
However, let me say from years of experience that the campus social-justice
left and radical intersectional feminists would like to impose more
restrictions on our campus freedoms, ideally to ban discussion of certain
controversial topics on campus (including at least some of the topics I’ve
mentioned.) They want to silence their intellectual opponents, instead of
engaging with them by asking questions and debating them. Silencing your
intellectual opponents is bad for viewpoint diversity on campus, and the quality of
education at UBC; it is not helpful to ban views outside of standard ‘progressive’
orthodoxies, both because it is important to learn the skill of debating your intellectual
opponents instead of censoring them, and also because there may be useful information
beyond these rigid (sometimes almost religious) social justice belief systems of the
campus progressive left, and their theories need to be responsive to evolving science,
and open critical discussion.
Above all, this is a battle for the soul of UBC.
What can be done?
First, familiarize yourself with the current (1976) statement on academic freedom. This passage is worth quoting at length:
The members of the University enjoy certain rights and privileges
essential to the fulfilment of its primary functions: instruction and the
pursuit of knowledge. Central among these rights is the freedom, within
the law, to pursue what seems to them as fruitful avenues of inquiry, to
teach and to learn unhindered by external or non-academic constraints,
and to engage in full and unrestricted consideration of any opinion. This
freedom extends not only to the regular members of the University, but to
all who are invited to participate in its forum. Suppression of this
freedom, whether by institutions of the state, the officers of the University,
or the actions of private individuals, would prevent the University from
carrying out its primary functions. All members of the University must
recognize this fundamental principle and must share responsibility for
supporting, safeguarding and preserving this central freedom. Behaviour
that obstructs free and full discussion, not only of ideas that are safe and accepted, but of those which may be unpopular or even abhorrent, vitally
threatens the integrity of the University’s forum. Such behaviour cannot
be tolerated.
If you want to protect students’ freedoms to encourage wider exploration of views
than UBC is providing, then you should consider contacting the working group
reviewing the statement, sending an email to the address indicated on the papers being
handed out by my friends, and in the description of YouTube video linked below. Send a
message such as:
“I want UBC to protect the 1976 Senate statement. Please do not change this
strong academic freedom statement. Thank you.”
Vice-chair, Vancouver Senate Agenda Committee.
To those who have any questions, I am happy to answer questions following this
speech, especially on the issue we are concerned most about today, the 1976 statement
review. I will be taking a break first, before addressing questions. If you disagree with
anything, please remember to do so respectfully. I’m not easily offended, but I mean to
ask that you attempt to remain calm and intellectual, do not yell at me, etc.
Thank you very much for that, and to everyone else, I encourage you to get
involved with the UBC Students for Freedom of Expression, whom you can find on
Facebook. As a reminder, you should come to the event with Dr. Janice Fiamengo, in
March: “Is Intersectional Feminism Incompatible with Freedom of Expression?” But
for now, I would like to wish you all a good evening. Thank you very much.
Author
