Free inquiry is vital to preserving our intellectual and cultural heritage: Peter Copeland for Inside Policy

“Peace, order, and good governance” may not carry the global recognition of American, British, or French ideals, but it captures Canada’s commitment to democracy, freedom, and respect for tradition. These values, defined by politeness, tolerance, and moderation, now seem increasingly fragile. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s description of Canada as the “first post-national state,” devoid of core values, highlights this troubling shift in national identity.

Across the Western world, a growing discontent is undermining free expression and open inquiry, replaced by groupthink and censorship in the name of political activism. Misguided equity-seeking has moved beyond academia, permeating K–12 education, universities, businesses, and government, prioritizing activism over objectivity.

To preserve freedom in our institutions, we must revisit its true meaning. Freedom is not mere license, but the cultivation of agency and character in pursuit of truth and excellence. Businesses and governments must refocus on their core missions, rather than becoming platforms for activism, and it is to the formative institutions of universities that we must turn for change. It is time to reclaim freedom as the foundation for truth, excellence, and meaningful reform in our institutions.

Freedom in our political history – freedom for excellence

Freedom is deeply ingrained in our political traditions, tracing back to Magna Carta in Britain and rooted in the intellectual and cultural pillars of Western civilization – Athens and Jerusalem. The Socratic ideal of self-knowledge and the Biblical emphasis on “serving one another in love” highlight how freedom is essential for developing our agency to pursue what is right and good. This historically unique Western emphasis on freedom, connecting it with truth and virtue, is globally admired for affirming human dignity and worth.

Freedom is not only a moral good but also a driver of social and economic well-being. Societies with democratic institutions, free markets, and the rule of law generally exhibit higher levels of happiness, social stability, and trust in institutions, alongside lower crime rates and corruption. However, freedom has never been viewed by the wise as the ultimate good. Its value lies in enabling the development of agency and morally good actions, which must be freely chosen, not coerced. Thus, freedom is a means to higher ends rather than an end in itself.

True free action involves deliberation, mental clarity, and having reasons for acting. Neuroscience supports this view, linking freedom with self-control and the ability to act, while its depletion corresponds to succumbing to cravings or negative emotions. We don’t consider someone truly free if they are dominated by desires, anger, greed, or act out of ignorance or impulse.

This perspective aligns with the insights of Aristotle, Aquinas, John Locke, and the founders of Canada and the United States. They understood that happiness arises from living virtuously and pursuing the good. As Brian Crowley notes in Fearful Symmetry, “For Canada’s founders… one of happiness’s deepest sources sprang from a learned ability to discipline untutored emotions and desires.”

Long-term happiness research reveals that it doesn’t come from fame, wealth, or pleasure but from well-nurtured relationships and virtuous living. Harvard’s Arthur Brooks, summarizing decades of happiness studies, emphasizes that the greatest contributors to happiness are seeking transcendent experiences through faith and philosophy, cultivating family and friendships, balancing work and life, and imbuing both with a sense of vocation.

Today, some view freedom of choice and expression as ends in themselves, equating personal desires with the “true self.” This overlooks how reason and the pursuit of what is best can shape those desires. The notion that freedom means choosing everything for oneself is a misunderstanding; it often leads to submission to lower desires – such as fame, pleasure, honor, or power – and the illusion of self-created values.

Authentic freedom involves conforming oneself to the objective contours of reality. You cannot speak English, play an instrument or sport, become a good doctor, or a loving person by making your own rules or asserting your personal conception of these things. No one babbling in a self-invented dialect, pounding arbitrarily on a piano, kicking a basketball, or mutilating a patient’s body in their mistaken search for fulfillment and health is properly free in each of these domains. In each case, they lack the requisite ability and knowledge of how to do these things because they do not know what it means to do them well. Freedom, then, is about agency – having the skill and understanding to act effectively and meaningfully within the sometimes sharp and sometimes porous boundaries given by the nature of the activity and its inherent standards.

Freedom also extends beyond the personal sphere. We are not “anywheres” but “somewheres,” connected to people and places. Growing up in communities, relying on friends and family, and having networks of care and concern are integral to our lives. The increasing notion of freedom as the liberty to do as one pleases contributes to higher divorce rates, fewer marriages, more children born outside marriage, and more children experiencing divorce in Canada. These things have significant negative social consequences. As economist Tim Sargent illustrates, marriage enhances happiness, longevity, and living standards, and children raised by their biological parents fare better than those who are not.

Freedom is not an escape from responsibility, politeness, or commitment. Instead, it is the freedom to make choices that reflect these values, tailored to our unique circumstances.

Equity activism, the therapeutic self and postmodern relativity

The ideal of freedom as the pursuit of truth and excellence has been central to Western prosperity and happiness for over 2,500 years, though it has been imperfectly realized. Today, free inquiry and the rule of law are often criticized as unjust for not ensuring “equity” or full expression of the “authentic” self.

Modern equity implies that unequal outcomes among groups are inherently unfair. After classical Marxism’s failure, leftist thinkers shifted focus from economic class to culture. Cultural Marxists redefined social conflict, emphasizing culture and identity groups as the primary forces shaping society and viewing formative cultural institutions as key to social change.

This shift coincided with the rise of therapeutic and expressive individualism, which prioritizes self-expression and subjective choice at the heart of personal dignity, demanding constant affirmation. Advocates of this world view often see objectivity, critical inquiry, and disagreement as harmful or discriminatory. The self is no longer guided by reason toward fulfilling objective human potential but is viewed as an emotional core that withers under challenge.

Postmodernism, with its emphasis on skepticism, relativism of moral, aesthetic, empirical and logical truth alike, and the rejection of grand narratives, has significantly undermined free inquiry, objectivity, and academic rigour. It promotes the idea that truth is subjective, constructed through language, culture, and power dynamics, and that all viewpoints are valid. The Sokal hoax and the grievance study affair illustrate the rejection of objective truth and the view that scientific inquiry is merely one of many competing narratives.

Postmodernist thinkers view the world through power structures and identity groups, favouring the “marginalized” or “oppressed” while dismissing traditional authority. This has fostered ideological conformity, political correctness, and censorship, leading to cynicism and apathy.

Recently, postmodern relativism, equity-seeking, and therapeutic individualism have merged into a powerful activism that often replaces objectivity and rigorous debate. These currents have real consequences in universities and governments, leading to a culture of “safetyism” that eliminates perceived harms without considering trade-offs, as seen in pandemic lockdowns. This extends to children’s over-managed lives, businesses weakened by social justice imperatives, and institutions prioritizing activism over excellence and effectiveness.

Counteracting postmodernism, equity-seeking and therapeutic individualism in our culture: reform in the university

Since their inception in medieval cities like Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca, universities have sought to advance education, shape character, and contribute to objective knowledge. This mission is now at risk due to a declining environment of free inquiry.

Professors Christopher Dummitt and Zachary Patterson revealed in a survey that 88 per cent of Canadian university faculty self-identify as left-leaning. While intellectual diversity isn’t essential for rigorous scholarship, its absence can lead to self-censorship and fear of expressing dissenting opinions, undermining academic rigour.

Dummitt also found that universities increasingly require candidates to submit statements affirming their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), a trend that has spread to government and the private sector. Similarly, Professor Dave Snow’s research showed that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), which funds millions in grants, now prioritizes projects with activist aims under its DEI Charter, often at the expense of objective, falsifiable research.

This is all the more troubling, because research indicates that DEI training programs do not reduce bias or change workplace behaviours and can even increase prejudice and bigotry.

To prevent further polarization and preserve institutional rigour, reforms in universities and government should emphasize balanced discourse, reinforce academic standards, and foster a more grounded cultural environment.

Universities must reaffirm their commitment to knowledge by emphasizing empirical research, logical reasoning, and rigorous methods. Integrating courses on critical thinking, philosophy of science, and epistemology will help students evaluate arguments and evidence objectively. Promoting interdisciplinary peer review can prevent echo chambers and encourage a balanced assessment of scholarship. Although postmodernism and DEI ideologies are now influential in the sciences, interdisciplinary review can counteract the insularity and narrow assumptions and methods that can ossify in disciplines.

Policy-wise, universities and governments should protect academic freedom and support open exploration of ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. At federal and provincial levels, reducing or eliminating the now-pervasive DEI policies that mandate diversity in the name of equity considerations in hiring and program funding could help balance these priorities with academic rigour.

 Reforming universities requires internal changes but also external intervention. Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at the University of Buckingham, suggests that government action is essential to restore academic freedom, as universities have struggled to address this issue on their own. In Canada, the tri-councils – Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council – administer $1.8 billion in core research grants over the next 5 years. Legislators could consider restructuring these councils, revising their governance, and redirecting funding towards research that prioritizes rigorous methods and objective analysis.

Provincial governments, which oversee education in Canada, could implement or strengthen standards that emphasize academic rigour, objectivity, and intellectual diversity. Regular assessments of university programs could ensure adherence to these standards.

Addressing the balance of power within universities is also crucial. Currently, there is no independent body in Canada tasked with ensuring universities uphold free and open inquiry. While quality assurance systems focus on degree status and course reviews, they do not specifically address the maintenance of rigorous academic standards and freedom from ideological constraint. Provincial governments could establish such an entity to oversee adherence to these principles.

These reforms must balance promoting intellectual diversity with ensuring academic rigour and protecting freedom of inquiry. Their aim should be to foster a robust academic environment that supports knowledge pursuit, respects diverse perspectives, and maintains ethical standards.

Conclusion

Free and open inquiry’s strength lies in its ability to self-correct. Historically, it challenged rigid cultural norms; today, it must address ideological conformity and subjective attitudes toward lifestyle, culture, ethics, and knowledge.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Defenders of freedom have focused on procedural neutrality, leaving a void in shaping culture and education that has been filled by postmodernism, expressive individualism, and equity-driven activism. Substantive discussions about the true, good, and beautiful are unavoidable, and universities and public discourse are crucial venues for this discussion.

Renewing and rearticulating the ideals of free inquiry is vital to preserving our intellectual and cultural heritage. A society grounded in these principles can reach its full potential by fostering agency and rejecting both rigid conformity and aimless dynamism. The time has come for bold, balanced public policy to renew these ideals.