For the background on this story, please read my previous article. https://freespeechmonika.com/native-rights-mobs-at-canadian-universities/
Dear Reader, if you are short on time, please skip ahead, to the letter from a concerned mother of a student.
I received the following email from the Department of Advanced Education in Alberta on April 28th, 2026.
Dear Monika Schaefer:
Thank you for your email to the Honourable Myles McDougall, Minister of Advanced Education, regarding recent events at the University of Lethbridge. The Minister has asked the Governance, Policy and Engagement Division to respond on behalf of Advanced Education. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with some information.
Albertans have the right to express themselves and their opinions freely, and Alberta’s government is committed to ensuring there are strong protections for freedom of speech. It is important that post-secondary institutions foster a strong culture of free speech and diverse viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are deemed controversial, barring speech intended to incite hatred or violence.
As directed by Alberta’s government, all publicly funded post-secondary institutions in the province implemented free speech policies as of December 2019. The University of Lethbridge’s website includes the institution’s Statement on Free Expression.
Furthermore, as of spring 2023, Advanced Education has introduced new annual reporting requirements for all post-secondary institutions to collect data, declare intended outcomes, and report on the implementation of free speech policies. With this information, Advanced Education hopes to emphasize the commitment of Alberta’s government to protecting free speech at post-secondary institutions.
The directive of Alberta’s government to all publicly funded institutions is to align with the University of Chicago principles on free speech, which include the following limitation: “The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.”
The University of Lethbridge has implemented free speech policies and is currently reviewing the handling of the events you cited to determine whether improvements on the implementation of these policies can be made in the future.
The Ministry of Advanced Education provides strategic guidance and direction to Alberta’s post-secondary systems but does not have a role in day-to-day institutional management or operations. Post-secondary institutions, including the University of Lethbridge, are responsible for developing and implementing policies and procedures related to the management of campus activities. For this reason, we encourage you to continue working directly with the University of Lethbridge to find a resolution.
To share your concerns, you may wish to contact the Office of the Provost and Vice‑President (Academic), given its responsibility for oversight of academic operations. The Provost and Vice-President (Academic) at the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Michelle Helstein, can be reached by phone at 403-329-2202 or by email at provost@uleth.ca.
Thank you again for your email.
Sincerely,
Governance, Policy and Engagement
Advanced Education
cc: Honourable Myles McDougall, ECA
Minister of Advanced Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response:
2026 May 25
To the Minister of Advanced Education in Alberta,
The Governance, Policy, and Engagement Division responded on your behalf to my concerns about events which took place at the University of Lethbridge on February 4th, 2026. I appreciate having received a response, and will consider that response as coming from yourself, the Minister of Advanced Education in Alberta, and I am thus addressing this to you.
The Minister’s proxy suggests that I direct my concerns to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic) at the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Michelle Helstein. I will point out to you that she was indeed one of the recipients of my letter of concern April 2nd of this year. Thus far, I have not heard back from her, nor from anyone else within the University administration.
Your proxy writes, “The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.”
However, the Minister does not address the reverse, in other words when the University causes rather than “restricts” these bad things.
As outlined in my April 2nd letter, the University was promoting the mob behaviour (sending a mass-email to students that a controversial person was coming) and then praising the mob behaviour afterwards (Professor Leroy Little Bear’s ceremony). It seems unlikely that the University will respond to my concerns in any meaningful and honest way. I hope my misgivings are wrong.
The Minister says “The University of Lethbridge has implemented free speech policies.” They may claim that, but they have done precisely the opposite. I could write reams about how that statement is a complete reversal of what the University has really done. It beggars belief, that anyone who can observe, who can still think straight, and who can say two plus two equals four could make that statement with a straight face.
I have read the University of Lethbridge Statement on Free Expression. It is beautiful, erudite, inspiring. It truly is wonderful. The motto Fiat Lux, “Let there be light” lifts us up. Our joy and our hope for enlightenment upon entering an institution of higher learning with that motto evaporates when we learn that every single principle within the Statement on Free Expression of the University of Lethbridge has, in reality, been negated and reversed.
Let me just give one single example. From the Statement on Free Expression:
“Mutual respect, tolerance, and civility are valued within the University but do not constitute sufficient justification for closing off the discussion of ideas or shielding students from ideas or opinions, no matter how offensive or disagreeable they may be to some members of the University community, or those outside of the University.”
Sending out a warning email to the student body about a controversial person, and then praising the students afterwards for their terrible behaviour completely negates the above statement, and that is putting it mildly. The mob did not demonstrate respect, tolerance nor civility that fateful day February 4th, to the four elderly and peaceful people who came onto campus to have a civilized dialogue with students.
Universities receive public money, from the government, and that means we are paying for this public institution. There must be accountability. Thus far, we have seen precious little accountability.
I appreciate your urgent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Monika Schaefer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As of today, 2026 June 11, I have had no response from the University of Lethbridge on this serious violation of any and all civilized standards of conduct, and the condoning of criminal behaviour on the campus of this publicly funded academic institution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, I will share a letter written to the University of Lethbridge by a concerned mother of a student.
Dear Members of the Board of Governors, Members of Senior Leadership, and Academic Deans and Associate Deans:
I am the parent of a student at your institution. My email is concerning the intimidation of and what appeared to be physically aggressive and confrontational treatment of professors on your campus on February 4 2026. My understanding is that these professors were attempting to engage with students on a controversial issue using a
critical thinking exercise. My son was at class and upon hearing loud yelling, horns, and drumming, went over to find out what was going on. He did not know who Dr. Widdowson was, or what she was talking about, only that she was a controversial figure that travelled to campuses to try to engage in critical thinking discussions. My son called me and said “I’m going to go and speak to her and find out what she has to say. I want to have a talk.”
His next call to me was one of a very different tone, marked by personal distress and disbelief at what he was witnessing. By the time he arrived, the crowd was highly escalated, agitated and disorderly, with Dr. Widdowson surrounded. He then met the other professor, and they had a discussion. The professor struck my son as kind, deeply concerned about social issues, and holding a measured, rational view.
I have seen numerous videos of the crowd. I want to pause here to focus in on the deeply disturbing and volatile behaviour of your students. To work themselves into a frenzy over the potential of someone speaking, to engage in what appeared to be threatening and physically aggressive behaviour, over words, is not only deeply concerning on a mental health and legal level, but it is difficult to believe that such extreme and aggressive behaviour could arise in a vacuum. This kind of thinking and its resultant behaviour raises serious questions about what may be being fostered within your institutional culture. Your students, who are under your tutelage, appear to believe that if someone says something that upsets them, or with which they disagree, they are now entitled to respond with what appeared to be threatening, physical aggression. It appears that many students lack the resilience and intellectual discipline expected in a university environment, reacting with escalation rather than engagement. They appeared to collapse under the crushing weight not of intellectual disagreement itself, but the mere potential for it. It raises concern about whether students will be adequately prepared for reasoned participation in civic life.
But worse, they can be observed in these videos in a heightened frenzy. Individually perhaps none of these students can be taken seriously (or perhaps they should), but as a group of perhaps hundreds, the situation appeared volatile and unsafe. What we witnessed on February 4 appeared organized, sustained, and aggressive, in a way that prevented the event from proceeding, thereby forcing the shutdown of freedom of expression.
My son, for his part, did the right thing. He saw what appeared to be intimidation, physical aggression, and destruction of property, and he stood by in some attempt at protection. He was genuinely afraid because the mob started to turn against him too. Suddenly, he was on ‘the wrong side.’ He tried to ask the people screaming, now in
his face, what they were so activated by, but all they could do was scream “Racist!” He then went and found some earplugs that were being distributed to the crowd and brought some back to the professors and their spouses. Evidently, this act of human decency was forbidden, and one for which he is still paying the price as he believes a
number of your students have continued to select him out for negative attention since then. I want to add here that my son is also of Indigenous heritage, some generations removed, but nonetheless a part of his cultural and genetic history. And there is nothing about his ancestry, or any other part of his identity that would change how he would treat the humans who were being violently mistreated–that is with kindness, dignity, and respect for their humanity. I have seen this from him repeatedly, selfless kindness, protection of others, and care for strangers, especially those in trouble. His courage has historically entailed risk as he has put himself in harm’s way to help, and even save, others. I cannot take credit for the moral character he possesses; he is a better person than I find myself being many times. But I can say we have worked hard to instill in him good foundations such as that there is equal dignity and worth in all human life – regardless of a person’s ethnicity, sex, skin colour, belief, or any other factors related to identity. We also have tried to teach him that the pursuit of truth is worthy, encouraging critical thinking and open discourse on tough topics, none excluded.
I ask each of you as leaders to step back and ask yourselves what you have done. Freedom of expression is not just a constitutional right–it is the foundation of a just and functional society.
For such a display of disorder to unfold there appears to be a serious institutional failure. Universities exist, by design, as institutions devoted to disciplined inquiry: the systematic examination of claims through evidence, argument, and open debate. Critical thinking is the condition that makes it possible. And at the foundation of critical thinking is first learning to listen well. Your job is to teach students to listen carefully to competing perspectives, and then, to seek and evaluate relevant facts, to distinguish assertion from argument, and to deliberate with intellectual honesty. From there, students must learn to reason coherently, weigh alternative interpretations, and arrive at judgments that are defensible in light of evidence and logic. Without these practices, a university may transmit information, but it cannot fulfil its defining role as a community committed to rational inquiry. Some would say the university exists to pursue truth itself -an afront to postmodern ears, perhaps. Whatever language we use, the aim of disciplined inquiry cannot be realized apart from intellectual humility, reasoning, and the freedom to test ideas against counterargument.
Your institution hit top news cycles on social media for days, with all able to witness what many observers perceive as the prioritization of ideology over critical thinking. Across the globe people have watched students seen in widely circulated videos online. My son also witnessed directly that people were spitting in elderly professors’ faces, in their spouses’ faces, tearing apart their books, throwing items at them, screaming “racist” at them, elbowing them, shoving them, and blowing deafening horns in their ears.
The events that occurred on your campus – including reported shoving, spitting, and destruction of property – constitute conduct that, if substantiated, meets the definition of assault and related offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. Such behaviour is not protected protest; it is unlawful.
As a publicly funded institution, the University of Lethbridge has both a duty of care and workplace safety obligations to ensure that faculty, students, and anyone present on campus can participate in academic life without fear of physical intimidation or violence. A failure to respond decisively and transparently to such conduct raises serious legal and governance concerns.
Any individual found, through proper investigation and due process, to have engaged in assault or destruction of property should face appropriate disciplinary measures and, where warranted, referral to law enforcement. Likewise, if any administrator or faculty member failed to respond appropriately to unlawful conduct, that conduct warrants independent review and appropriate recourse.
Given the seriousness of these events, it would be appropriate for provincial authorities to ensure that the university is fulfilling its statutory mandate as a publicly funded institution committed to lawful and safe academic inquiry.
The reason we need to vehemently defend everyone’s freedom of expression is precisely for times like these. Can you argue that you are operating an institution of higher learning when you cannot uphold dialogue when it matters most: where disagreement exists?
This presents a profound failure of leadership. And for all who stayed silent–this is also a failure. Bystanding is not without moral and practical consequence.
While it is not your job to defend what anyone is saying, it absolutely is your job to defend their right to say it.
My son and I have spoken at length regarding his feelings about being a part of your institution. He has felt what he has described as “disbelief, horror, and shame,” at what he has described as “violent” and “frightening” in the mistreatment of human beings on your campus, and of his deep concern in being associated with a university where this can take place. I am actively encouraging my son to leave your institution, but that is up to him. Not only does your university appear to be in a state of deep dysfunction, but February 4 demonstrated that it is a frighteningly unsafe place for people like my son, who dare to ask Can we talk?
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
