Category Archives: Writing
I started writing Coventry 2091 in 2018, just when my last book, The Dragons of Sheol was in the final stages of editing. Since I was starting a new series I began by asking a number of “What if” questions to help flesh out the plot.
What if, in the year 2051, a sustained, peaceful protest took place in Canada that threatened the plans of our Federal Government and alarmed many urban voters? How might the government react? Answering these questions led to the story that became Coventry 2091.
As the plot developed, I realized that our legal system could not efficiently process and jail thirty thousand peaceful but determined protesters, so I imagined a extra-judiciary tribunal which I called the Peace, Order, and Good Government Tribunal which quietly and efficiently sent thirty thousand to a Canadian Penal Colony.
Imagine my surprise when I read the front page news last week in the National Post and in particular Colby Cosh’s article on a ruling in Ottawa’s favor on Carbon Taxes citing “Peace, Order, and Good Government” (POGG) from the British North America Act justifying this huge transfer of control over resources from the provinces to the Canadian Federal Government.
From the point of view of my novel’s story, I suppose this precedent which essentially is a Carte Blanche for enabling the Canadian Federal Government to override any explicit provisions of the British North America Act, with Canadian Supreme Court approval, makes my imaginative story line more plausible and in some senses disturbingly prophetic. The government, particularly if supported by a majority of a sympathetic electorate, could override any protections we currently enjoy by using the POGG card.
I’ve only had one other time when one of my story lines seemed disturbingly prophetic in this way. Check out a previous post in the link below.
Since high school, one way or another, I have been associated with universities. First as a student (undergraduate and graduate), then as a Postdoctoral Fellow, as a research collaborator, and also as an Adjunct Professor. I have also participated in academic pursuits such as writing and refereeing papers. Organic Chemistry was my focus and through that discipline I met many fine people.
A writer of futuristic fiction is concerned about where things are headed
As a writer of futuristic fiction, I am driven by “What if …” questions. Since universities have played such an instrumental role in our culture in molding the sequential generations, naturally enough, some of the “What if” questions deal with trends or potential trends I have observed in higher education.
In my novel, The Halcyon Dislocation, the movement and isolation of a hypothetical University of Halcyon to a parallel world sets up an experimental literary sandbox. One can ask the question, what would the university elites do if they had the opportunity to channel the thinking of their students in any direction they chose? What would they choose? How would they get there?
What would university elites choose if they could mold student thinking in any direction they wanted?
One of the problems that plagues science, indeed culture and politics as well is the question:
If I can do something, how do I determine if I should do that very thing?
The “can” is usually determined by data, experimentation, and collective scholarship, but the “shoulds” remain elusive since they depend on the question of objective right and wrong which is inaccessible to data and experimentation. In the absence of an objective right or wrong, the answer often becomes: “Because I have the power and I want to, I will do it and no one can stop me.”
The danger then, for universities, is the tendency to becoming factories of conditioned students rather than nurturing educated students who have learned to thoughtfully consider opposing points of view in humility and respect.
Becoming factories producing conditioned students, rather than educational institutions that enable students to thoughtfully consider different viewpoints with respect, is one of the dangers universities face
The antidote to this tendency to become ever more efficient conditioners of students as our manipulative skills and technology increase, is to make sure opposing voices (including religious voices) are not only allowed to speak, but are heard and considered. Free speech is the best safeguard against conditioned speech.
A Recent Example That Hits Close to Home
I know of Organic Chemistry Professor Tomas Hudlicky by his fine reputation. He wrote, and had accepted a paper in Angewandte Chemie (along with the Journal of the American Chemical Society, Angewandte Chemie is arguably one of the two best journals in chemistry). However, after the Twitterati ignited a Twitter storm (Twitter Gewitter?) everything changed for Professor Hudlicky, According to an article in the National Post by Peter Shawn Taylor, the accepted paper was withdrawn by Angewandte Chemie, the two referees were taken off the referees list (I’m sure as volunteers they have better things to do with their time) and the editor was suspended.
I respectfully suggest you read the whole paper, as I did, or at least read up to page 4, along with Note 2 which seemed to cause all the offense and then think about discussing the points Professor Hudlicky is making.
The text of the paper if it’s still available … Hudlicky Paper
In my view, the proper way to proceed is to have everyone, first read the paper, then present their best arguments in respectful discussion. A view or position that is not permitted to be questioned, is likely indefensible. If the case for the other side were compelling, why not make it? Is that not the mission of universities to encourage students to properly discuss opposing points of view with respect and leave the final convictions that come out of the discussion to the students? Apparently not.