The Ben Mulroney Show - Lawyer Tim Haggstrom fighting to clear his name amid DEI mess

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Tim Haggstrom If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://link.chtbl.com/bms Also, on youtube -- https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I remember when I was in university one of the things that I loved about being in college when I found an issue that I was passionate about was having my ideas and my opinions collide in the arena with somebody who felt as passionately about their ideas but were completely different than mine. And we would duke it out and the best ideas won. And it was a safe environment to challenge people and to learn from people and to have your position changed and swayed. And over the past few years, from my position, my removed position, I feel like we've witnessed

a corroding of that safe space, if you will, to use the parlance of our times, where the collision of ideas is not welcome in a lot of university spaces. And in fact, if you do not subscribe to the orthodoxy of the school, then you could find yourself on the wrong side of right. And last week I read a story about

exactly that on a campus that surprised me, the University of Saskatchewan. I did not, I guess because, you know, because of the government in place there, I did not think that the University of Saskatchewan would be a hotbed of exactly the worst case scenario I envisioned, but there it was.

And one student wanted to have a conversation about that and put forth what a lot of people viewed as sort of a fair, calm, measured, neutral letter to the powers that be expressing concern over the path and direction of the university. The reaction by the university, the reaction by certain student groups was swift and intolerant and in my opinion, scary.

And that student graduated and became a lawyer and is now taking that university to court to clear his name. So please welcome to the show somebody who I believe needs a national microphone and that is Tim Hagstrom. He is the National Director of Running Mead Society. He is a lawyer. Welcome to the show, Tim.

Thank you so much for being here. Well, thank you so much, Ben, for having me on. And I should specify, I'm an inactive lawyer. I do work in not-for-profit, and I'm just meeting you today only speaking in my personal capacity. Absolutely. Well, thank you for clarifying.

And look, I gave very broad strokes of how I see the situation. Please fill in the blanks with any salient information that you think would help with our conversation. Well, I'd like to think that the legal case I'm pursuing now is actually cracking open a subject that should have been in public view probably for multiple years now. I think it's timely. Some of your viewers may be aware that a former president of the

University of Saskatchewan and former Dean of the Law School, Dr. Peter McKinnon, put out an opinion piece in the National Post a few weeks ago, reproaching the university of engaging in what he called an ideological crusade. If a former president of any university, I would think, does something like that, it's worth discussing, it's worth paying attention to. It did catch the attention of the current university president, President Peter Stoichef, who called that critique misguided. And it's interesting, in his written response, President Stoychev said, there is an institutional commitment on the part of the university.

And what's at issue in my case is, what is the nature of that institutional commitment? And was I punished simply for expressing a different view? So give us, if you can, Tim, sort of a flyover of the environment in which you were studying, the forces at play that you, I won't even go so far as taking issue with, but you wanted to talk about them. Tell me about the letter you wrote and the reaction. So this takes us back to 2022, which is a little while ago now, but that's when I was in third year of university and

sort of discovering what I'm calling now an institutional commitment in real time, sort of unfolding in front of me layer by layer. But what I observed at that time was that a number of my classmates were really, really deeply concerned about this phenomenon called colonization. They felt that it had some role to play in almost every interaction between people, especially if a white person is talking to a non-white person. And what concerned me most is that the students who believed in this worldview were really so distressed about it.

And at the same time, I saw that the university was teaching about this stuff students who believed in this world view were really so distressed about it. And at the same time, I saw that the university was teaching about this stuff and not really giving a good, what I would say, a scholarly understanding of what colonization is, you know, its nature, its causes, and most importantly, what can actually practically be done to confront it. So I saw this strange combination where students were deeply, deeply concerned, passionately wanting to do something about colonization and at the same time, not being given tools to do anything about it. I believe in dialogue.

I think as a starting point, dialogue would have been a great tool to have in the mix. And unfortunately, that's where we came to this disagreement. I wrote a letter saying, why don't we talk to each other? I really believe that people can overcome disagreement when they just talk to each other and try to understand each other. And what I've come to understand is that both Stute fellow classmates and I think the entire institution is not interested in that view. Also, there's great irony because there was something prescient in what you wrote.

You said, and tell me if I'm mischaracterizing this, but you said it's something to the effect of, we're creating an environment where if somebody encounters an opinion they disagree with, they won't even go talk to that person. They will view themselves as attacked. They'll view themselves as being in a hostile environment and they will seek institutional redress. And it turns out that's exactly what happened to you. Knowing the people, you know, I'm sure some people came to talk to you directly,

but the impact that you felt was institutional, not from individuals. I think that's right. And it's interesting. that you felt was institutional, not from individuals? I think that's right. And it's interesting. I tried to engage individually with some of the students who disagree with me or who I felt were at least needing to be consulted before I sort of came onto the stage

at a meeting of the Law Students Association and read an open letter, which is what I ultimately did. And by the way, anybody can go find it online. As I said, when I say it's neutral, any good faith actor will view this with the... I can hear the intent in what you're writing. It's a genuine desire for dialogue and to have questions answered,

and for one side to understand the other. And the fact that anyone ascribed ill intent to you, in my opinion, demonstrates bad faith. But go on. Well, I'm glad it came through that way. Obviously not everyone took the letter that way. But truly, I was speaking from the heart there. This is going to be an issue in a legal sense in this case.

I'm a classical liberal. I believe that the inherent dignity and worth of a person comes from their humanity. It's repugnant to me to think that a person's dignity or worth or any kind of moral judgment about a person could be based on their race. And when I was deciding what to say in this letter, basically I settled on sort of describing a controversy that had flared up at that moment, but then really focusing on this deeper point that I think it's worth talking to people

and that any two human beings are capable of talking to and understanding each other. And the more I've come to understand what I'm now calling the institutional commitment of the university, which on my reading involves a commitment to post-colonial scholarship, I just can't believe in it because it does involve making moral judgments of people based on their race. it does involve making moral judgments of people based on their race. And yeah, so you write this letter and, and, and you think you're, you're hopeful that it's going to lead to dialogue.

How quickly did you realize that that was not going to be the case, that the scenario that you envisioned was not going to come to pass. And in fact, a worst case scenario was going to play out. I would say quite quickly, it surprised me what I decided to share in the letter I thought was very gentle very innocuous and I still think most people agree with what I said deep down. I knew from talking with a variety of classmates privately, that they not only agreed with me, but they shared my concerns and they were glad somebody was speaking up. But in that, in the initial meeting where I gave this presentation, I knew there were people in the room who agreed, but it became clear to me that the pressure by that time was so great that they weren't

willing to stick their neck out even to say a couple words to say, I agree. So Tim, hold that point. We're going to say a couple words to say, I agree. So Tim, hold that point. We're gonna take a break. On the other side of that break, we're gonna talk about the pushback that you received, the punishment that you received, and what you're seeking now.

Don't go anywhere, this is the Ben Mulroney Show. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. Prior to the break, we were talking with Tim Hagstrom. He's the National Director of Running Mead Society. And in 2022, whilst a student at the University of Saskatchewan, Tim noticed that perhaps identity politics were playing too great of a role in sort of his educational journey.

And in an attempt to have a dialogue about that, he came up against some forces that he probably didn't expect. So to continue that conversation, we are joined again by Tim. Tim, talk to me after you sent that letter in the hopes of opening up a dialogue, talk to me about the impact on you.

There was an investigation, and then there were calls on you to change your behavior, apologize, all sorts of stuff. Tell us about that. Well, I think I don't want it to be missed in the story that there was a really, really high level of social pressure at the time. That's part of what I didn't expect. It's maybe the most stressed out I've ever been,

just feeling that some students thought I was a bad person. We're talking about it in some circles, but not with me. And nobody was really willing to speak up and say they agreed with me. Now you say bad person, but it got pretty specific. I mean, you were tarred and feathered as a racist. That's right. And by the way, like I feel you, I promise you, I mean, you were tarred and feathered as a racist. That's right.

And by the way, like, I feel you. I promise you, I've been there. But so go on. Well, thanks for saying that. And I guess I can say that to others now, too, because I'm not the only person who's experiencing this. But what happened is a student who had never met before filed the complaint with the university's governance office who deals with non-academic misconduct.

I got notice of the complaint just after I was finishing exams. I responded within a couple hours to give a little bit more explanation about the facts and to suggest that we could have a mediated conversation. I figured there might be some misunderstanding, and if we could just get into a room, maybe with a mediator, we could resolve everything. And that turned out not to be the path that was made available. Yeah, based on the information I've read, at every opportunity, whenever there was a fork in the road, you were the one calling on to turn the pressure down, to turn the volume down, to turn the temperature down, to say, let's have a conversation.

Let's bring this to a place where we can engage person to person, human to human. And those, it seems to me, those opportunities were not available to you. That's right. So we tried that. And then what actually happened is the complainant had filed only in her own name and said that she was complaining on behalf of others. So I think

what happened is the university said, actually, you have to name everybody who's involved. So then a group of up to 16 students were complainants. Again, I said, well, why don't we try some form of a mediated conversation? I don't know how that happens from one person against 16, but let's try it. The university said they weren't willing. Later, the university said, okay, now we're going to require alternative dispute resolution, including maybe a mediated conversation. I showed up to meet with the university's team who was meant to facilitate that just with me and them. And they told me, unless I accept responsibility

for the harm that I was alleged to have committed, it wasn't going to be possible. God, I've heard this story. So then we went to a formal hearing. Tim, I can't believe it. Like you're, I've heard this story before from different people under different circumstances, but the language and the tactics are exactly the same. I've heard this story before from different people under different circumstances,

but the language and the tactics are exactly the same. I know you did it, just admit it. I can't help you unless you admit all the things you did wrong. Well, first of all, I mean, it hearkens back to very undemocratic countries at darker times in our history, but admit that you did it and only then can we move forward.

That's right. So maybe I should talk about how this all comes into the actual legal case now. Before you do, I wanna just take a moment to appreciate that you are a person who is at this school with a very specific goal of becoming better, learning more, growing as a person, growing as a student. And all while you were studying for your final exams,

you were dealing with this pressure of being tarred and feathered as somebody that you weren't. Talk to me about the impact that this had on you, on your mental health, on your studies. Well, I don't want to discourage people who are in a situation like I was from speaking up. So I think what I want to say first is I have no regrets about what I did.

I lost sleep then, it's true. I think it's the most stressed out I've ever been. As a point of reference, around the same time I was doing an oral evaluation in what's called a moot. So you have to present legal arguments. I was doing this in French, which is not my first primary language spoken. One of my judges was a former, Merci, one of my judges was a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. And that's objectively a stressful thing. But by comparison, that didn't even register

compared to just the level of stress, constantly and lost sleep over this. So they told you that, so yeah, real quick, because I do want to get to the case that you're bringing forth. What was the judgment about you, in bullet points, tell me what exactly you were, I mean, for lack of a better expression, convicted of.

Yes, found guilty of non-academic misconduct. So the complainant group said, I engaged in a campaign of hate, I think they called it. And there were a number of things alleged. The one thing that the university said did constitute misconduct was sharing that three-page letter to classmates, which people can find online. They took issue with the fact in their view that I had been warned not to do it, and then I persisted in sharing it.

And for them, that was misconduct. Sharing thoughts and wanting to have dialogue. And OK, so let's fast forward to today. And we only have a little bit of time left, so I'm going to give you the floor. Tell me what the state of play is as it relates to you versus a university. So it took a couple of years to exhaust

all the different ways we could try to win in the university. Now we're at the stage where we've filed in court. We're at the court of King's bench for Saskatchewan. And there's a number of issues being raised. Two of them have to do with this institutional commitment. So in part, we're saying it's not consistent at the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan. And there's a number of issues being raised. Two of them have to do with this institutional commitment. So in part, we're saying it's not consistent with the principles of academic freedom. So the university wasn't allowed to do what it did. And the other thing we say is that this institutional commitment is putting so much pressure across the university that no panel at the university could fairly

decide this case, which involves my disagreement with that commitment. And have you heard from the university, I have to assume that they are still very self-assured and self-righteous, that they've done nothing wrong and that you are what ills the student body. You know, I don't know. The strange thing about litigation is it goes between lawyers and then the parties don't talk to each other. Not that we've been talking before. But essentially, you're looking to clear your name. Yes. So there's been no admission that the university did anything wrong. I think we'll have to get that out of the court.

And how are you feeling today? The fact that your story is out there, we are in a different place in terms of a society where back then it was brave to speak. And I think it's more, it's less brave today because I think a lot of people have turned the page on the intense identity politics that so governed our lives for so long.

I don't think we're there as a society anymore. How do you read it? I think that's about right, but I still think it's so valuable. I think there are a lot of people who have been in a situation like this who are still keeping their mouth closed. I think it's so important to say something,

even if there's nobody that you've talked to privately, go talk to somebody. And if you've got the courage, say something publicly, because I think there's a lot more underneath this that we still haven't discussed. Yeah, I listen, I completely agree. I'm really glad to have had you on the show for what I think is a long and but important conversation. You know, a long and but important conversation. You know, our academic institutions are vital to helping, you know, kids become the people who are gonna take over and run this country and shape this country and build the businesses

and build the institutions that will further this country into further into the 21st century. And I see what happened to you. And you sir, seem to me like one of those people who should be in a leadership position. You're measured, you seem empathetic, you seem understanding, and you seem to value dialogue above all else. I really do hope you have a resolution to your satisfaction in this case, but I hope you join us over the course of the litigation to give us any

updates that you think might be valuable. Thank you very much. Well, thank you, Ben. I'd be happy to be back on when it makes sense. Yes, absolutely. That was Tim Hagstrom and his story is one that everyone should know.