Yes, this is the general trend in universities and administrations. Some deny it, but indulge in the practice quite extensively.
I'll give you a simple example, that of Frances Widdowson, who was supposed to give a lecture on the culture of awakening, I believe, at the University of Lethbridge and had to deal with 700 students. At the outset, the rector, Michael Mahon, made it clear that there could be disturbing ideas in lectures on which we could totally disagree. He made a clear distinction, which I mentioned earlier, between speech that propagates hatred or may cause harm—that's what's in the Criminal Code—and offensive or hurtful speech that you don't necessarily want to hear. I can easily understand that. However, two days later, just as the protests were gathering momentum, along with protests from certain colleagues, Mr. Mahon finally relented. Sometimes you can cancel a conference for security reasons, but in this case, that wasn't the case at all.
That's the trend we're seeing. The problem is that universities are places where you can't guarantee the safety of ideas. We have an obligation to ensure the physical safety of individuals, that's true, but it's a place where ideas clash. This ties in with what Mr. Le Blanc was saying. There are ideas that are unpleasant, but it's impossible to ensure safety on the level of emotions or ideas.
The great tendency, which is linked to the managerial, neo-liberal and client-centred logic of administrators, is to accede to the demands of a group that is not necessarily in the majority and that may be on the fringe of the student public. This undermines the foundation—