Nuanced. - 224. Marten Youssef: Can Debates Restore Free Speech in Universities?

Episode Date: February 17, 2026

Marten Yousuff joins Chief Pete to discuss declining trust in universities, rising self-censorship, institutional neutrality, and whether debate—not protest—is the antidote to Canada’s polarization crisis. Marten Yousuff is Associate Vice President at the University of British Columbia and the leader behind UBC Debates.Send a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

What is the problem and where did it come from with universities and free expression of ideas? I don't need to tell you this, that trust across so many different institutions is at an all-time, at an all-time low. So the same mechanisms that once helped sort of cool the conflicts in our society are now the same ones, Aaron, that are being blamed for exacerbating it. If you're entering your debate series, you're going in with the understanding that your emotional safety isn't paramount. It's pursuing reality. and truth that is most paramount. In the media landscape that we live in, our news sources are biased.

And yet we keep going back to the same sources. Debates in my conviction, they are the antidote to our polarization. How much do you think courage plays a role in how people respond and where our society is right now? Martin Yusuf, thank you so much for being willing to join us today. Would you mind providing a brief introduction for people who might not be acquainted with your work?

Yeah, thank you so much, Aaron, for, having me on the on the show. So my name is Mark Newsif and I'm the associate vice president of University Relations at UBCOConnoggan. I joined UBCO about four years ago in search of a home to launch a debate series. And today I'm proud to say that it's the flagship event for our campus and has recently expanded even to the Vancouver campus. This mission of civil discourse and debate is something that was born out of my own personal and career experience. My family and I left Egypt at the age of 12 and came here to British Columbia in search of better opportunities. I studied political science at Trinity Western University, went on and did journalism at

Langera, did an executive MBA at Simon Fraser University, and now I work at UBCO. So I suppose you can say the health of our post-secondary institutions is something that I take personal. I started off my career as a journalist across Africa and the Middle East and also here in BC. And then I went on to work with the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which was prosecuting Hezbollah for a series of terrorist attacks in the region. I guess Aaron throughout my career, just to sort of tie it all together, I've observed censorship, you know, right up front, but not the kind that's just often imposed by the state, but the worst kind of all, which is the kind that we impose on ourselves, otherwise known as self-censorship. It doesn't just alter what we say.

It affects and warps the way we think. And this is not just a foreign problem. It's a problem that we have here in Canada. So that's really the drive behind who I am and what I'm doing at UBC Okanagan. The first step to solving any problem is admitting there is one. Would you mind outlining from your perspective, what is the problem with universities broadly? I know we can't paint every. everything with one brush stroke. But when you zoom out and you look at where universities have ended up, your UBC debates are far from what everybody feels like is the norm in universities now. What is the problem and where did it come from with universities and free expression of ideas? Yeah. Maybe, Aaron, I'll zoom out even more than just universities because I think the problem

that we have is more at a societal level. And so let me start with that and then we can kind of talk and I'll certainly bring universities in. Canada's old system is breaking. And what I mean by that is one of the greatest values that we have as a country is our tolerance. We take so much pride in our ability to be able to have different perspectives, different cultures, different ideas.

We celebrate diversity. And until recently, we've managed our differences through a sort of a lacy fair approach. We avoid conflicts, and we sort of don't feel like we need to always challenge opposing views. You know, we're told live and let live. And in fact, one of the first cultural etiquettes that I learned when I moved to Canada

was don't talk politics and don't talk religion. Oddly enough, I went on to study both of those. And I think as a society, what we did is that we sort of delayed these hard conversations. We delayed squaring up our differences. And it was all in the name of tolerance. Now, don't get me wrong, tolerance is a hallmark of every successful society. But when tolerance turns to avoidance or indifference, we sort of stop having these hard

conversations that kind of keep society healthy. And what do we do? We self-censor. We defer our disagreement. And over time, that disagreement doesn't go away. It actually just ends up into polarization. And this model of tolerance has served us well for. for a very long time because it works best also when times are good, when our economic growth is

strong, when our institutions are broadly trusted, and even when the external pressures are manageable. Now, these conditions, I think we both agree, are no longer there. Historically, Canadians have sort of trusted institutions, like universities, like the media, to referee the disputes that we have with one another. But I don't need to tell you this, that trust across so many different institutions is at an all-time, at an all-time low. So the same mechanisms that once helped sort of cool the conflicts in our society are now the same ones, Aaron, that are being blamed for exacerbating it. And now you layer on top of all of that, the challenges that we have with social media, with algorithms, are tribalistic instincts.

You know, psychologists have this term called homophily, which is essentially the fact that We like people who are like us. And that works well in times when times are good, but it ultimately turns into some sort of an echo chamber. And then you layer again on top of that, the global culture wars. All of these pressures sort of put us and as a country at a relatively dangerous place.

So the problem that we are trying to solve is how do we reinstate the art of civil discourse on the most contested issues of our time? How do we bring that art of civil discourse back? Because I think the alternative to us actually talking to each other is not is not pretty then we are now at an inflection point and these pressures as you know have not gone away they've been accumulating and building up which is why i think Aaron what you are doing is a sort of a pressure release valve it actually releases the pressure by

having these kind of difficult conversations so i hope that sort of sets the stage for the problem that we have in in society and universities are certainly a microcosm a microcosm of that You mentioned that there has been a decrease in trust in institutions. Where do you think the roots of that are? Yeah. I think the roots of trust ultimately comes down to a break in communications. And what I mean by that is we talked a little bit about self-censorship, but the most common cause of conflict in any relationship is communications. This is true at home. This is. true at the workplace. This is true in our neighborhoods and this is true across our whole entire country. When communication breaks down, there is a problem. And I think that's the root of polarization. That's what I sort of feel that how do we actually come back to a point where we are able to talk to each other about the hard conversations? I think you would probably agree with me that there's

been so many different topics that are sort of treated as, I don't want to say morally settled, because that sort of takes it into a different realm. But I think there are topics that we as Canadians sort of avoid. And we have not been having these conversations, which is why it's all the more important for us to reinstate the art of civil discourse, reinstate the art of communications, of being able to talk to people who actually disagree with you. And let me, let me be clear. if you are expecting universities or the media or our institutions to resolve that problem for you, I think you'll be sorely disappointed. This is an individual responsibility that we all collectively have. How do we have the conversation? What is my role as an individual in society to be able to have those kind of difficult conversations?

Can I just tie in one other diagnosis to this breakdown in trust? And it's to me, they've gotten a lot of issues wrong. and not just sort of wrong, but when we look at the response to the trucker protest by one quick example, now having the court come out and respond and go, that was an inappropriate use, all those people feel vindicated. And there isn't that recognition that at the time they were correct. And then when we look at how, in my opinion, Peter A. Allard School of Law responded to COVID, an institution that at the time I felt was, I was very disappointed in the response because this is one of the premier institutions in Canada when it comes to law and what the state's authority is and what it should not be. The fact that we didn't have a debate about any of those

pieces was just very disappointing. It doesn't matter what you do when you go, hey, we got that wrong two years ago. The people who are right on that feel absolutely betrayed and gaslit in a lot of these circumstances when we talk about, like the we scandal is coming up with more information now. And at the time, it was sold as a very small story not to worry about. And now it's being appealed. And there's, sorry, questions about how it responded. And so I think there's a broader frustration that the institutions that told us how to think about issues and what the correct way to look at it was ended up being wrong over the long term and not in the short term.

And that, I think, has broken down a lot of that trust as well. And then you look at the funding systems for a lot of these institutions. to me, I think where we diverge perhaps a bit is I do think it's possible to have a constitution for a university that sets out principles that they absolutely have to follow. And if they're breached, they lose their funding. Like I feel like it is the individual's responsibility, but we can build in safeguards to prevent these things. And I'm curious as to what your reflections are on that. Yeah, you raise such a good point, but you didn't use the sort of the key word. And the keyword is the neutrality. I think this is a really key point. that often sort of gets lost in the noise. What is the role of an institution in kind of solving the disputes that society has more broadly?

Maybe, Aaron, if I may, just sort of talk about the concept of neutrality. It is, you know, at a university level, but also at a sort of a society level and different institutions. I believe that universities particularly have a heightened sense around the need for neutrality. Now, institutional neutrality

is the sort of the genuine intellectual disagreement. It allows genuine intellectual disagreement to exist. This is an important concept that's sort of been developed over many, many decades. And it's a core principle that allows universities to serve society and to sort of preserve the campus as a forum for free inquiry and not itself the sort of the arbiter of what truth is. So it convenes it doesn't necessarily decide what right and wrong is. Now, you might ask, which is,

kind of what was in your question. If that's the case, if that's the sort of the guiding principle, then why did university sort of, why are they being accused of taking sides? And how did we get here? And I would say institutions, universities, public companies, banks, even coffee shops, sort of went through this phase where there was this immense pressure on them to articulate their position on any given topic. And some might say that they were sort of forced to, to choose sides on a whole host of issues. Russia, Ukraine, Black Lives Matter, defunding the police, COVID, as you mentioned, climate change, and so on.

And this is not a new phenomenon. You know, social media just simply exacerbated that. And I don't think it's unreasonable to understand that people are more likely to support brands that line up with their values. So consumers were sort of wanting to know, are my bank's values lined up with my own values? is the place where I buy coffee. Do they share my values? What about my university?

And so there was this sort of pressure on institutions to articulate their position on these given issues. Now, my personal view is that many institutions sort of out of a desire wanting to be responsive to the community or to sort of show support for their community took positions. And they made these value statements. And for some issues, it was much easier, much easier than others. Russia and Ukraine is a prime example of that.

And now my opinion on this, Aaron, is that I think the Israel-Ghasa war was truly a turning point for many institutions. If you think about the last two years specifically, there was a turning point for many institutions that sort of, I think it underscored, the conflict itself underscored just the intensity of the conflict. And I think it reminded us that in the last two years specifically, there's this sort of been this renewed understanding, if you will, across many institutions, that geopolitical conflicts are far more complicated, far more nuanced. So we're starting to see many organizations sort of go back

to the core of what they do best. So instead of taking positions on these hot, buying issues and this geopolitical conflicts, many public institutions, even banks and coffee shops and so on, are giving more careful thought to what their role is and sort of solidifying. their positions on neutrality. Now, I think it's important, Aaron, to really emphasize the point that neutrality doesn't mean having no values. It just simply means that you're not imposing

or enforcing a sort of a single set of values throughout the institution. Universities are in an amazing place because of the fact that we can actually still be responsive to our community by facilitating debate without sort of being the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, and this is exactly what we're doing through UBC debates. There are, of course, now a number of ongoing conflicts.

For example, events in Venezuela and Iran and Sudan, Greenland and so on. And as a university, our role is supporting our students, our faculty and our staff, and all while maintaining our neutrality. On that point, I'm just curious, you had talked a bit about this, idea of the individual. And one other piece that I feel like has been lacking for a long time because of the peace that we've experienced for such a long period of time. I think the last time probably Canadians felt really impacted directly was Afghanistan and troops going over there. And so we've been disconnected and not faced the type of pressures we faced in World War II,

in Vietnam, in other chapters throughout Canadian history, where things were really, really complicated. And so we've been in a time of peace for a prolonged period of time. And to me, that reduces the amount of courage and bravery and willingness to stand on principle that we see in people. And to me, there's also this gap in those types of people in our society more broadly. Individuals who, when they have a group of people standing outside their office, protesting or getting mad at a decision, are willing to go, I don't care. This is for, this follows our values. This is in line with our principles. And I am not moving. people willing to do that type of thing.

You hear events being canceled out of public pressure and stuff like that fairly regularly. I think it's starting to slow down a bit now. But how much do you think courage plays a role in how people respond and where our society is right now? Yeah, a huge amount to answer the question briefly. Courage has a lot to do with it. And I think what's more important is the role, for example, let's bring it back to universities. because I think universities have an amazing opportunity to sort of be responsive to the geopolitical events,

to be responsive to the conflicts that are happening in the world without, as we said, without being the arbiters. And how do you do that? You create the space. You facilitate the arena. I think there is this tendency. Courage and politicization are sort of one and the same. And so I think we do live in a hyper-politicized world.

And there is a moment right now that we're in where everyday sort of symbols, colors, language, gestures, flags, are sort of quickly read and interpreted as a sort of a signal of your political identity. Now, the university's role, though, is not to sort of take part in that contest, but to serve as that arena where those ideas can meet, they can collide and sort of be tested. But every so often, you're right, there is a sort of tendency to stop hosting the conversation and to start joining it. And the courage that universities are showing is here is a space, here is an opportunity for us to create a venue and create space for dialogue, for debate to actually happen.

So instead of the university itself participating in the debate, it becomes the actual arena where that debate can happen. Can we talk a little bit about the function of a university? because I do think that there's incentives and systems in place that encourage or don't encourage what you're describing. Some of that is tenure. Some professors go, oh, I'll just, I'll have my voice once I get tenure. And then by the time that they get to tenure, they've sacrificed so much of their voice that I feel like they lose a bit of the, the chutzpah they would have had at the beginning to stand up for themselves. Like, you have to do that all the way through. And if you're not honest to that, then at the end, you're not going to claim your prize and deliver the way you

should. I've heard the expansion of administrators has been a huge challenge for professors being able to act independently because administrators don't hold the same rigor that professors have to in terms of how they respond. In terms of the university structure, do you see any fundamental pieces that should be reconsidered when we're looking at them to ensure that we do create the space for this? I imagine you see some of these things behind the scenes that I wouldn't see or everyday citizens don't see, but I'm just wondering, we see this extreme move by universities to participate and be on a side and to try and create inclusivity and try and create diversity and all of these different pieces that on their face weren't bad when Canadians and British

Colombians and everyday people heard about them, but then they became tools and instruments that didn't deliver. And when I've spoken at Heterodox Academy and other venues, what I've heard is I'm terrified to say anything in this room. Like people are going to get mad. been invited to speak on things with other participants and they've been like, no, we can't get this over the line. These people are trying to stop it behind the scenes. What is going on in the insides of universities and how do we start to address some of those routes? I love what you're doing, but it's going to be a challenge for other universities to replicate or for universities more broadly to move back to this position. And I think some of it is systematic. Correct me if

I'm wrong. Yeah, really great points and all very valid, and certainly worth discussing. I'd love to tell you a little bit about the debate series because I think it actually serves a model for universities in being able to have these hard conversations because universities are really grappling. And we're obviously, you know, I mean, take UBC for instance. UBC is a community of nearly 80,000 people. It's very difficult to paint them with just one brushstroke. And so I think it's really important to just sort of zoom out a little bit and ask the question of what is the role of a university in society and should the public trust universities. Before I answer that question, I'd love to just tell you a little bit about the debate series and what we're doing with the debate series because I think it underscores the role of a university

in sort of convening the contrasts and convening different perspectives. So the concept behind the debates is we wanted to do something that was different than just sort of speaker series, campaigns, and kind of one-way conversations. As we talked about earlier, we live in this echo chamber where you're rarely exposed to ideas that count. your perspective. And to resolve this polarization, we don't, I don't think the solution to our polarization is just more one-way conversations or being talked at. And you know, you and I know, Aaron, that in the, in the media landscape that we live in, our news sources are biased. And yet we keep going back to the same, the same sources. We talk and we sort of lack that space and that mechanism to have these kind of

hard conversations. Debates in my conviction, they are the antidote to our polarization. They subject ideas to scrutiny. They force us to sort of confront the competing arguments and they test our convictions against evidence. And it gives you an opportunity to hear perspectives that you would otherwise not be exposed to. And they remind us that actually disagreement is not a failure of society, but it's a sort of a condition for a healthy society. They simply prevent ideas from hardening in isolation.

But of course, when people hear the word debates, they often think of, you know, the sort of the Oxford style debates or the sort of the, there are demorgan. That's sort of, you know, Pierce Morgan debates. And so there are different styles of debates. Now, if debates are done well, they are done in service of the audience. They're not centered on the characters, but on the content of the position. That's what's most important about debates in our view, which is why we've developed a model that actually does. not gamify debates. So there's no winner, there's no loser. It's not centered on the character. It's centered on the content. The process goes something very quickly. It goes something like this. We will ask our audience at every single one of the debates, what are the topics that you want to hear debated? My team and I will then sort of identify two to three topics. We'll talk to about 20 different experts across academia, government, media, on sort of key topics. We try to pinpoint where the actual friction is on on any given topic and then we narrow it down to four debaters and we sort of ask

the debaters to present one particular side that they feel most most comfortable with four debaters and these debates are delivered in person in the Okanagan at a community theater so this is not in the ivory towers of a university this is in community and it's a theater of about 850 people and we sell out within a matter of days it's a free community event and we've done now seven debates We recently debated immigration, masculinity, gender roles, BC's opioid crisis, and the role of government. We debated climate change and whether the U.S. is a friend or foe, free speech. And in a few weeks, we're going to be debating the role of AI and whether it will enhance or diminish the human experience. And we're just getting started.

I think my hypothesis, Aaron, is that provided the same degree of care that the team and I put into place, in all of these, that there is no topic that's too big to handle. And so it's a sprint, not a marathon. And so I think all this to say, the role of the university comes back to being a convener, resolving these sort of problems, not itself taking, not itself taking a position. So I don't want to keep on this, but I'm happy to go on to the question of the politicization piece if you want, but I'll let you guide the conversation. Absolutely. I guess, just as a quick follow-up to what you just said, one of the challenges I see with that model, and I'd love to understand it a bit deeper, is this no winners? I mean, if 850 people you said are there

and they all vote at the beginning where they stand and they all vote at the end where they stand, you can also understand the potency of the arguments. How do you resolve that in lieu of a winner and loser? Yeah. So we, great question, because we struggled with that quite a fair bit. We don't ask them their opinions in the beginning. We actually engage with the audience through Slido, which some of your viewers might be familiar with. We ask them questions about the topic, not questions about what side they prefer, which side are they coming in with. And we don't ask them at the end, which questions have they changed their mind or which side do they think they want. It takes the emphasis away from the actual gamifying of the debates to the sort of

the content. And we ask them questions throughout the debate that engage the audience, more than just Our hope after a debate like this is that the audience would leave sort of one, recognizing that the truth is somewhere in the middle, that it's actually possible to hold two feelings at the same time on any given issue. And to also leave with the conviction of, great, I just heard two different perspectives. And they may not change their mind. And that's not what we're after. We're not after changing minds of people that come to the debate. But what we are after is sort of giving them an opportunity to hear narratives. and perspectives that they would otherwise not hear.

Okay, so bringing it back to the polarization piece, you're hosting these events. What is your reaction when you see what happened to Francis Widowson, Dallas Brody, at the Vancouver campus of UBC? I believe Francis Widowson was arrested and taken off the property? Like, how does that make you feel as somebody who's trying to move the university in a different direction? Yeah. Well, thanks for asking that question.

Look, I believe there are ways to have constructive discussions in Canada. And I would say that your interview with Francis about five months ago, as it were, is far more effective in settling these differences than protests. Now, I want to be clear, there is a time and place for protests, for peaceful protests, and it's an important part of a democratic society. but I think how do we move the needle around our ability to be able to have tough conversations? I think it's through debates, it's through one way, one-to-one conversations, not through protests. That's my sort of personal conviction.

Now that said, I do want to go back to the sort of the January 22nd protest at UBC in Vancouver. And I think it's important to note Aaron that UBC knew far in advance that Francis was coming to campus. And we did not try to stop her, even though the university is a private property. and her right to sort of protest is not absolute. We made that deliberate decision because we're committed to free exchange of ideas and the diversity of perspectives. I think the fact that it ended the way it did,

to be honest with you, is a reflection on the absence of a mechanism for us as a society to deal with these contested issues. I think it would be naive to sort of look at it and say, look, there is the university being broken again. Universities are a microcosm of society. They reflect society.

They don't exist in a vacuum. And I think this kind of goes back to the earlier point that we made around the sort of pressure buildup because of all of these unsettled differences that we have as a country. So I think the question is how do we create space for us as a society to resolve our differences, which is why I come back to the debates. If we do have the debates, if we do have shows like what you are. are doing, if we have other platforms and other mechanisms for releasing that sort of a pressure, for demonstrating and modeling civil discourse, I think that is what we should be striving for. And it is so much more important now than ever before. And the university can actually play and has been playing a key role, a key role in convening these kind of hard conversations.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the people. who make conversations possible. And so what I mean by that is back taking the unmarked Graves story reported by the CBC as an example, that was taken as absolute fact very early on. And then a book comes out called Grave Error that starts to try and lay out a counter argument to that fact. That was a very controversial book. You might have heard of some of the responses. I think it was Vernon City Council or another city council within the area that had gone after their mayor for distributing the book to like friends or something like that. And then other people who have held that book have had to pay a price just for reviewing that book, having access to that book,

talking about that book. And then you have individuals like Francis Widowson, Jim McCurdy, and others who have been willing to engage on this topic when nobody wants to touch it with a 10-foot poll. And so in speaking with Francis, one of her pieces of feedback was the only reason I'm going to these campuses is because they won't let me in the building to have the type of debate that you're now starting to host. They won't let me in. And so I have to do something. I can't just, to your point about being silenced, like, if the university won't let her, her point from my understanding is, then I have to stand outside the school because they won't let me in the building to host a discussion and to lay out my arguments in a formal manner.

And so what I heard from, we were, Francis and I were looking at doing not probably a debate series, but a panel discussion where her and I would share the stage. And they basically said, we don't want to host Francis because she's doing all this stuff on campuses. And it's like, well, the reason she's doing everything on these campuses from her perspective is because they won't let her in the building. And so she's caught in an impossible situation where if she does nothing, she doesn't get the opportunity to speak. And if she does something, then universities don't want anything to do with her because her approach is not something that's palest, to them at this point in time. And I just think about like the sacrifice individuals at times have to make in order to allow the conversation to take place.

Now with grave error and with the work Francis has done, I think society more broadly is open to saying, okay, what did happen here? And was that story accurate or not accurate? And universities are willing to invite me, an indigenous person, to come and have this conversation. But we don't want to have the people on who maybe started the conversation because their approach was brash at the time, but it had to be brash in response. And I'm trying to think through how do you find that balance? And I'm not exactly sure what the solution is. I, like you, agree that

one-on-one conversations and that path is to me the most palatable. But there are certain people who have to kind of take the most sticks and stones in order to get us to a place where we think it's worth having the conversation. And I'm wondering, how do we approach those people who have had those sticks and stones thrown at them? Yeah. What a really thoughtful, question because I think sometimes we also end up just sort of, sorry to use that analogy, but preach to the choir, as they say. And so how do you actually facilitate conversations, difficult conversations, to maybe a crowd that's not necessarily interested in having good faith debate, good faith conversations, which is, again, why the work that we're doing is so

incredibly important. I would say to answer your question bluntly, we as institutions, you yourself, Aaron as an indigenous chief, other leaders across the country have a responsibility to model and to champion civil discourse. I think we all sort of know the need for communications. As we talked about earlier, it all comes down to communications. When we are able to model that, when we are able to actually say, look, folks, there is a chance and there is an opportunity to have these hard conversations, which is why I go back to the concept of, I don't think the way to resolve our differences is through sort of one-way conversations, being talked at. I think it's through hearing different perspectives at the same time. I wonder, I wonder what it would be like

if that sort of, if the scenario that you pointed, if it would be more palatable to society to actually say, instead of presenting this, it's just sort of one person sort of talking at you or having a yelling match on campus or, you know, sort of provoking different ideas instead of a particular platform like that, if we are actually able to advance more civil discourse through the art of debate, through going back to the concept of debate and having these ideas, I wonder how our society would respond. And this is why, I think, to be very clear, when we started the debate series, we knew that we were not going to tackle the most divisive issues right off the bat. It's a, as I mentioned, it's a marathon, not a sprint. You have to bring

society and the community around with you to actually demonstrate, look, there's a platform for being able to have these difficult conversations. And this is really year three of the debate series. My hope, Erin, is that our community will look to universities to facilitate these hard conversations. Because, and I think that the question of trust, and I'd love to go back to the sort of the concept of why should universities, sorry, why should the public trust universities? And I would say to that, that the public shouldn't trust institutions or universities blindly. Trust is something that needs to be earned through sort of being relevant, open, and accountable. And when universities are at their best, they don't tell societies what to think. They help societies think better. They help them make

better decisions, they provide evidence, they provide research, they sort of embrace the complex problems. That's when universities are at their best. And this function, as we were just saying, is so much more important now than it ever has been, especially in this sort of polarized world. And I'm not here to tell you that universities have always gotten it right. But I think what makes them unbelievably valuable to society is that they have this built-in mechanism to allow for course corrections to allow for sort of challenges to refine if needed and throughout history that has been that has been going on. It's this and that mechanism that sort of self-correcting mechanism is our faculty. It's our it's our researchers. It's our students who care deeply about the

role of a university in seeking the truth, which is why I think what's happening in universities right now is so important. And now it might appear to you and to some of your audience, that there is no debate that happens on campus. That's the furthest thing from the truth. There is debate that happens on campus. There are student debate clubs. There are debates that happens in classrooms. There are academic forums like senators.

There is board. There is faculty associations. There is different kinds of debate that happen on campus. And I think this is the sort of the internal mechanism that exists within a university to kind of help keep that balance. Unfortunately, though, when universities fail, their failures are magnified. And it often sort of becomes a sort of a proof point

that sometimes society will look and say, hey, see, look, universities are failing. That's the same thing that happens in media. Look, the media is failing. Look, government is failing. I don't know if finger pointing at institutions is when we see their failures is the actual way to drive the change

that we need in society, which is why I always come back to, what is the personal responsibility? I think the personal responsibility is, and you kind of touched on this, Aaron, earlier, what's the personal responsibility versus the sort of, what's society going to do for you? What are the universities?

What's government going to do for you? So maybe I'll stop there. I'm interested in that same vein on how you go about selecting participants for this, because one challenge I've experienced personally is I'm allowed to talk about indigenous issues, but white people apparently are not. And so when I say, I don't love land acknowledgments, I don't think they're productive, and I think they're just lip service. I've been saying that for six years now. And in meetings and in interactions with government

officials or others, they get this look like, oh, thank you for saying that. Like I have been thinking that in my head, and I can't say it. You're allowed to. And so at times I feel like I'm being brought out to say the thing everybody already knows. And to your pressure release valve, I feel like I'm playing that role at times. And part of me goes, okay, I'm a pressure relief valve. I'm willing to play that role in order to try and address this issue. But at the same time, anybody's allowed to have opinions on issues and have a deep understanding. Like Francis Widowson has done a lot of research into indigenization and decolonization and what those terms mean in practice and whether or not that actually works for a university that sole focus is the pursuit of truth and gathering evidence.

Some indigenous belief systems, just like religious belief systems, don't align with the underlying structure of whatever university is supposed to do. And that was her fundamental point. And my understanding is she was pushed out of her university in part for making that point. And so one of the pieces I'm trying to figure out is how do we move forward with some of those realities and how do you go about selecting individuals to participate being mindful that some people do believe indigenous people are the only people who can speak about indigenous issues and white people aren't allowed. And I don't agree with that, but lots of people hold those types of convictions. How do you balance some of those more societally contrived ideas? Yeah. And then there is the question of

who speaks for indigenous people. Because, you know, let's be very clear. Sometimes, again, we do the same mistake. We often paint indigenous people with all one brushstrokes, not recognizing that nations are different. And then within nations, there are differences of opinions. So it's far more complicated. And I think sometimes our sort of our tribalistic nature is to want to not weigh in and out of respect. And I think this is where we need to go back to what is the intention. Sometimes the intention is when people don't necessarily want to have opinions or thoughts on, let's say, issues that are outside of their understanding, I would say it comes of, well, maybe let me use my own personal case. When I don't want, when I don't feel comfortable talking about a specific issue,

it's mostly out of respect for a particular topic. And I sort of reserve the right to hold my opinion, not necessarily weigh in on it. But I think, Aaron, you are hitting the nail on the head because what it comes down to is the self-censorship piece that we talked about earlier, which is, it's interesting because there are no laws. There is nothing that exists that says as a non-indigenous person, you cannot talk about indigenous issues. There's nothing that says that. But I think what we have done is out of this sort of desire to be respectful,

out of a desire, it's good intentions. We have actually allowed ourselves not to have the hard conversations. Now, having the hard conversations doesn't necessarily mean having an opinion on it. It just means there's a sort of a duty to actually listen, a duty to sort of have the conversation. I think sometimes, Aaron, we focus so much on the sort of the, you know, we're kind of obsessed with free speech in many ways. But I think with the freedom of speech comes the duty to listen.

If we want to advance free speech, the foundation to free speech lies not in more speech. It actually is in the art of listening and in the duty to listen and to ask thoughtful questions to sort of reserve the right to not hold an opinion on something. I think that's sort of a moment that many Canadians, thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney and his speech at Davos, sort of comes back to this concept of the role of being in the middle and what it means to be in the middle. And I think this is a moment to be informed.

It's a moment to be pragmatic, to ask questions, not to be defined by your extremes. And we have to sort of reject this notion of tribalism and the forces that are kind of trying to get you to sort of choose sides. I'm not saying don't take a position, quite the opposite, actually. I think being pragmatic is in itself a position, seeking knowledge, understanding, opposing views, championing civil discourse, doing what you're doing, having hard conversations. This is a position in and of itself.

The gold standard of wisdom isn't how we hoard facts and well-crafted arguments or sort of take our position on the sand on any given issue. I think it's our ability to hold our convictions loosely, to sort of be open to changing our mind if the facts lead us in one way or another. I think our individual responsibility in this polarized world isn't to abandon our convictions, it's to not be defined by them. I really appreciate you saying that because I've been trying to figure out where I fit into this very complicated world. Some people have described me as a journalist. I don't, I've never gone to journalism school.

I hear Lankera is amazing. Not my background, not my area of expertise. Then I look at like, am I a media pundit? Like, I'm not obsessed with what the media is doing all the time. I'm interested in ideas. And then I look at like political pundits or influencers. I don't feel like I fit into that crowd because I don't really care if an interview that really interested me gets 10,000 views or 100,000. Like, I don't care about, I'm more focused on understanding.

exactly what you're explaining and being able to digest that. And so I like to think of myself as perhaps more of like a philosopher or somebody who's interested in understanding things because I don't think I have the right answer. I don't think political parties have the right answer. I think all of this is very complicated. And I enjoy trying to see how the conservatives and the liberals, if put together, would have an idea worth digesting by Canadians. Like I don't feel like any of them have the correct position on any one issue. I think all of this is very complicated and I enjoy the complexity of it all. I enjoy kind of soaking that in and it seems like we're kindred spirits on that front that you're not necessarily, of course we both have perspectives, but we're more interested in

the exchange than we are on the final outcomes. That's right. Well sad. I'm far more interested in being able to have the conversation than what you walk away with and your opinion is on a particular I think that's what's most important, and that's what's missing. But how do we actually do that on these tough topics? I want to come back to the question that you asked about how do we select debaters? Because I think that's a really important topic around who speaks on particular issues. As I mentioned, one of the key focuses that I have is how do we focus on the content, not the characters? So we're not pursuing topics that are controversial for controversy's sake.

That's not what we're after. where we want to bring our community along with us on this sort of journey to championing civil discourse. This is not something that we are staking in our position in the sand and saying, we've got it figured out. We have it all right and we've done it right every single debate. I think these are tough topics to be able to have. I would say there have been certain debates that we've done where there's been opposition to particular speakers, being on stage, given their position, given their content on social media. but what was so interesting is that for every single one of the debates that we had,

for all of the sort of the characters that some people might consider contested or controversial, for every single one of them, we anticipate that there might be some comments, disruption, sort of yelling in the audience. We've not had that. My hypothesis is that Canadians want to hear different perspectives. My hypothesis is that Canadians by and large understand that they, live in this sort of echo chamber. And they're actually trying to figure out ways to seek and to get out of that and to escape that, which is, again, speaks to the popularity of your program

because people are curious about different perspectives. And people are curious about how do you sit across someone who disagrees with you and be able to have that hard conversation? My conviction is that if you build that platform, if you actually build that platform and champion civil discourse, that Canadians by and large will be able to actually actually, actually sit across from someone who they disagree with. I think we can actually do this. And this is, we're modeling it. And it's amazing to see the reception.

And the fact that it's expanded, the debate series is expanded to Vancouver. Just highlights that the, and this was a debate on immigration, not an easy topic to start with. But it was a full house. People came and it was an incredible, an incredible debate on a particularly divisive topic. So to answer your question very pointedly, we focus on the content, not necessarily on the characters. And the way to do that...

Would you run from the characters if they had good content? Like, would character, like, would character rule somebody out in a circumstance where they still have the content? Like, I, again, I go back to this mass grave story and think, like, some of the content is coming from some characters, right? And so how do you, when those are the strongest voices on it, do you avoid those because they're characters? No, no, really good question. I think our number one focus is it's not necessarily how do we give a stage for someone who is, let's say, some people might consider controversial. Let's go with that for now. Our focus is how do we have a civil debate? That's the number one sort of guiding principle. How do we create a space for the conversation to be had? What would that look like for us to put someone on stage that has those particular views that can still present the same kind of narrative? In fact, when I do think about one of the topics that we're we want to have a debate on, let's say the topic of indigenous issues, I would most certainly be looking to someone like yourself to come onto this particular series and to be able to present

that particular narrative. And not because you're indigenous. That obviously has a fair bit to do with it, but also because you're nuanced, because you actually understand, there's a pun on your podcast right there, but because you actually understand the need for breaking down complex issues. That's what we're sort of after. We're not after provocation for the sake of provocation. We're actually after how do we champion civil discourse. And I believe you can do that and balance who's on stage as well. You've shared a bit of the reaction. I'm curious what topics stood out to you as getting an interesting reaction. What have those moments been that have stood out to you throughout these three years that you go, I couldn't have seen that coming. I learned a lot from that. What are some

of the standout moments. Yeah, the masculinity debate was was a prime example of that. There is no way we would have started the debate series talking about gender and gender roles as a first debate. But given that it was our sixth debate, there was a lot more opportunity for us to say, look, we can actually have this conversation. And here's how we, here's how we do it. There were, of course, naturally, as you would expect, people that were opposed to it. They didn't want to see the debate happened. There were people that were opposed to it, but in the end, they ended up coming to the debate itself. And I think we struck an amazing chord with a lot of people that were in the audience. I will also tell you that one of the things we started off the debate series, not actually

live streaming them. So the idea was, how do we cut through the noise? Because there's so much noise online on different topics, but we wanted to create this kind of space for in-person conversations, for these sort of in-person experiences. We are exploring ways of how to actually, you know, expand that later on down the road. But that's a conversation for another time. But the reception from the community, as I mentioned to you, our tickets on the AI debate go live today. And my suspicion is that by the end of the week or early Monday, they will have been sold out. So the community is very interested.

So great reception from the community, great reception from our campus as well. and AI is not a controversial topic for sure. However, it is such an incredibly important topic. And so in many ways, you can have these tough conversations without sort of pursuing controversy for the sake of controversy. Can you describe some of the other topics you're hoping to cover over the next couple of years just to give people a taste of where you're heading? Yeah.

What we try to do with the debates is we try to line them up with certain conversations. that are happening in society. So obviously, doing the work that I do, I'm sure you are as well. I read multiple news sources every day. I try to figure out where we do two debates a year. And so one in the spring and then one in the fall. And so we try to figure out, so for the fall edition, for instance, we're thinking through what time will it be, what kind of things will be happening in Canada at that time, what do we think will sort of be the public discussion or conversation and then how do we line it up in a way to serve our community? And in addition to that, we ask the audience at every single one of the debates, what are the topics that they want to see

and hear debated? And then that also gives us an opportunity to feed into that. I think we know there are probably about four or five topics that are, I think you and I know what they are exactly, that are sort of, I don't want to say taboo, but maybe let me say they're urgent, they're urgent conversations that need to happen because if they don't, if we don't facilitate them, they happen anyways. They happen on online. They happen in the comments section. They happen behind closed doors. And so how do we then create that space to have these hard conversations? And how do we do it with respect? Because look, I think there's a, take the topic of medical assisted dying, made, and I saw your podcast that you just did on that recently. This is such an incredibly important

topic and it's a personal one. Having experienced this topic on a personal level, it is probably not the best topic for a debate discussion. So there are topics that are important for more of a dialogue, for sort of different perspectives that are shared, not necessarily a debate. And so I think we're trying to figure out where are the topics that are ripe for debate and where are the topics that there are other platforms that we have in our toolkit as a university to be able to have these hard conversations. Another piece I'd love to get your understanding of, because I did mention it to Francis,

was I see universities as the place for pursuing truth, which is different than having conversations, right? So when we were talking about the unmarked grave story or any other controversial topic, you're going there into a university setting, with the understanding, this is a place where truth seeking is paramount. It comes above your personal feelings, your personal emotions, your background.

You have to not leave those at the door, but you have to understand that the North Star isn't your emotional safety. It is the pursuit of truth. And I wouldn't host this debate of unmarked graves in a First Nations community that have experienced trauma and abuse because of Indian residential schools. That would be inappropriate. But that is the place for universities. And that's where I feel like that gap has been for universities where the only path was doing podcasts. And there's been, as I'm sure you're aware, a huge growth in podcasts because they're willing to have conversations. Universities perhaps weren't as eager to be involved in.

And so I'm just curious a little bit about your understanding of the media landscape, but also this disconnect as you're trying to address right now where it's the pursuit of truth. If you're entering your debate series, you're going in with the understanding that your emotional, safety isn't paramount. It's pursuing reality and truth that that is most paramount and that being a key piece. Yeah. You know, when people who are outside of the university, when they think of university, they often think of it as sort of one particular body. And it is. But I think it's important here, sorry, just to get into the weeds for a second, there is the administration of a university and there's sort of the faculty, the researchers, the students. And it's important when we talk about neutrality in this particular piece, the reason why the administration holds neutrality as an

important value is to not to infringe on the researchers, on the faculty, on the students seeking the truth, which is sort of a distinction here that needs to be made. So the university itself, when we say the university itself should be neutral, we're talking about the sort of the administration of the university. When we're talking about the search for truth, that is the role and responsibility of faculty, of researchers, of students and student researchers. So that's an important delineation that I think is key to highlight. Now, to the issue of how do you have a debate on these sort of tough topics? And you touched on a key point.

I don't think that the place of having debate, again, is to just pursue the topic that the sort of key individuals are sort of pushing. I think, you know, for example, you talked about the 250 engraves. In my view, I think the bigger issue that's more important to have is reconciliation. Have we gotten reconciliation right as a country? Are we doing the right things? Are we able to have, and to your question, are we able to have these kind of conversation? Whether that's the right platform for that is a debate or not, I think it still comes back to

this issue of how do we as a country have this conversation? There needs to be more platform like yours, Aaron, to be able to facilitate these discussions. The last piece I want to ask about on this debate series, I just feel like it would be inauthentic of me not to talk about Charlie Kirk because he was such a key player in advocating for civil discourse and being willing to take on ideas that he didn't agree with. And obviously what happened was an absolute tragedy. and hopefully, and I think this is true, reminded people of how important civil discourse is, being willing to speak with people, being willing to humanize people. That's what I see a lot of political pundits do is they dehumanize the other side. And so I haven't gotten to hear a lot of comments from universities or reflections from professors. So I'd like to welcome you to share what were your reflections on the work he was doing and what ended up happening to him for advocating for a lot of the same values that I think you share.

Yeah, thanks for asking that question. You touched on the point of and the importance of being able to facilitate hard conversations. This is more important now than ever. It's important that it happens at universities. It's important that it happens in our own sort of social circles. If you look back at COVID, for instance, Aaron, there were so many things that we talked about privately that we just did not have in open, in open settings. And it's sort of, I don't know if you're familiar with the book, private. truth's public lies, which is a really interesting concept, that there are a lot of things that we sometimes hold to be true and private, but publicly we're not able to talk about them. We're not able to have the hard conversations. I am heartened and I'm optimistic that there are a lot of people, yourself, Charlie, and a whole host of others that are kind of there, thank you, that are recognizing the need for us to be able to talk about things. And as I said, off the top, the most common cause of conflict in any relationship is a breakdown in communications. And whether that's at home or at universities or at societies, we have to be able to address that.

We need to be able to start talking to those who disagree with us and who, I think, not to convince them, not to sort of to stamp our right on being able to have free speech and to kind of emphasize that, look, we're not, this is not a competition for who's more oppressed. and I want to be clear about that. There's no oppression jealousy. What we need to be able to do is we need to be able to, one, educate ourselves, understand. When we're talking about free speech,

as I mentioned earlier, I think we need to come back to the principle of the sort of the duty to listen. How do we educate ourselves? How do we ask questions not to convince others, but for us to be able to understand, to raise our own awareness. The hallmark of wisdom, as I said earlier,

There isn't our sort of ability to just sort of stake our position on the sand on any given issue, but to actually just hold our convictions loosely, to be able to ask questions, to be able to challenge ourselves. I think we can actually do this. And I'm heartened that there are people who are out there that are sort of saying it is possible for us as a society to hold different views. And I'm optimistic that as Canadians, we will be able to do this. Martin, would you mind sharing where does this, where do the roots come from for you on this issue? Education is a piece, but where did this become something that you were passionate about? Like, where did the beginning of that come from? And how did that flourish for you? Yeah, I've sort of staked my career on it. It's, I saw it first as a problem. And as I mentioned to you, I worked as a journalist for, for some time. And when you grow up in a culture like I did in the Middle East and Egypt specifically where self-censorship is a sort of a prominent way of, or at least it was in the time that I was there, it affects the way you speak. It affects what you say in private, but it also warps the way you think. And when you work as a journalist in certain parts of the world where the freedom of the press isn't there, you sort of start to see the damage.

that self-censorship caused. And as I said, this is not a problem that just happens in the Middle East and Africa and certain parts of the world. It happens here. It really is a problem here. And we saw it on so many different levels with so many different issues. And you see it. You've highlighted the need for us to be able to talk about this.

It's not because there are laws that are telling you do not talk about these issues. It's because we've actually censored ourselves. Whether it's for good reason or for whether we're doing it out of fear of being sort of cancelled or we're doing it out of a fear of social isolation or whatever it might be. I think we've imposed that on ourselves. And so I've personally seen the damage that self-censorship can cause to society. And it alarms me that that trend is live and well in Canada. But I'm optimistic, as I said, about what we are doing. And I'm optimistic about what UBC is doing in being able to facilitate these hard conversations. How can people follow along with your

work, how can they start to attend these events and start to get involved? Follow UBC debates. All you have to do is just Google UBC debates, and you'll get to our website, find out about some of the debates that we're doing, attend, but most importantly, engage with hard conversations, whether it's with your family members or your extended family or whoever it might be, but have the hard conversations, not for provocation, but just for the importance of keeping civil discourse alive. Martin, I'm very grateful that you're doing this work when I saw that LinkedIn post that mentioned

to me, I was like, oh, this is so exciting and something I've been really eager to see. I imagine that the journey you've been on to get this started has been a lot of work, and I hope it continues to flourish and people start to participate. I completely agree with you. What I hear from people is they're just relieved that we're having the conversation. They're just grateful that people are willing to take on tough conversations. And I think there's a lot of admiration to be found in what the work you're doing, that your team's doing, and the people willing to participate in that. Because I think this is where strong democracies are found.

It's how we grapple with the toughest issues. And it's not by grandstanding and it's not pretending we have all the right answers. It's by willing to humbly participate in the conversation and put our ideas forward for scrutiny, for feedback and for thought. And to try and reunite ourselves. And I think it's done through exactly what you're describing. I think that's how we become a stronger Canada. And I loved how you tied that in with Canadian values and how we do want to be a place that welcomes everybody to the table.

But that doesn't mean we sacrifice disagreeing. That doesn't mean that we throw out discussions on what the common good is going to be. And that doesn't mean we avoid speaking on topics that make us uncomfortable. So I really appreciate all the work you're doing. I hope we get to collaborate on some of this work because I think we're a very similar minds on these pieces. And I'm just very grateful to see this happy. within the university, and I think many of the viewers of this will feel the same way. Thank you so much, Erin. I thank you for the work that you're doing.

I sincerely do hope we get to collaborate on some of these important topics, and thanks for having me on the show. I really appreciate it. The honor is all mine. Art and Yusuf, everybody. Thanks, Aaron.