The University of Windsor’s agreements with encampment protesters and a student group have rightly raised concerns about antisemitism given their double standard treatment of Israeli institutions and impact on academic freedoms. While much of the initial emphasis has focused on the ill-advised decision to effectively establish a ban on agreements with Israeli institutions and establish conditions not required for any other country, there is another aspect that deserves attention since it undermines the university’s position as a neutral forum for discussion, debate and learning. In light of the diversity of views on campus and the desire for mutually respectful dialogue and engagement, many universities have tried to remain neutral on matters of sensitive politics post-October 7th. But by committing to engage in political advocacy, including issuing a political letter to the governments, lobbying other universities, and releasing a highly charged public statement, Windsor has abandoned the widely accepted fundamental principle of institutional neutrality, thereby constraining academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus.
Archive for July 18th, 2024

Law Bytes
Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
byMichael Geist

May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles
The Government Tries to Make the Case for Bill C-22: Why Its Own Use Cases Reveal Disproportionate Overreach
Tech Exodus: Why Bill C-22’s Privacy and Security Risks Will Drive Digital Services Out of the Country
The Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal”

