Open Letter

The Response from the  College 

An Open Letter to the Board and President of MHC

The letter below has been signed by 274 members of the MHC community and sent to the Board of Governors and the President of the College.

Open Letter to the Board of Governors and the President of Medicine Hat College

13 February 2026

We write as members of the Medicine Hat College community, including faculty, staff, students, alumni, and residents of the region, and we share a serious concern about the College’s decision to afford campus space for the “Alberta Independence Tour” event scheduled for 27 February 2026.

We oppose this decision on three connected grounds.

First, we disapprove of the aims and methods of the organisation hosting this event. Rebel News presents the evening as “candid, interactive, and unscripted,” with ticketed access, merchandise sales, and a programme focused on political mobilisation, recruitment, and partisan advocacy, rather than scholarly enquiry, balanced deliberation, or public education. Giving this organisation the imprimatur of a campus venue predictably amplifies a polarising media brand by placing it within an institution that exists to serve learning, research, and the public good. While venue rental doesn’t imply institutional endorsement, we believe it’s legitimate to ask the College to exercise responsible discretion about which external events it facilitates and normalises through its facilities. When the College rents campus space for a highly political event, reasonable members of the College and the public can interpret the venue as a signal of institutional acceptance or alignment, despite a disclaimer. This isn’t just about “allowing speech”; it’s also about stewardship and judgement regarding which external events the College facilitates. The College explicitly acknowledges this responsibility, stating in policy that if it believes an external organisation’s request conflicts with its mandate, values, or policies and procedures while on campus, the College has the right to refuse to rent. Therefore, without an explicit statement to the contrary, a reasonable person may reasonably infer that Medicine Hat College supports Rebel News in advancing the project of Alberta separation.

Second, we disapprove of the manner in which the substance of the event is framed, namely the promotion of “Alberta independence.” Regardless of one’s views on federalism, equalisation, and interprovincial fairness, the contemporary politics of secession in Alberta relies on grievance, simplification, scapegoating, and antagonism. The tour announcement frames the topic as a campaign against “Ottawa,” “legacy media,” and an allegedly silenced populace, signalling a strategic, movement-oriented project rather than a balanced civic forum. (rebelnews.com) We regard this framing as incompatible with the intellectual virtues the College ought to model, including epistemic responsibility, charitable interpretation, and a serious commitment to evidence. If the College wishes to host rigorous discussion of constitutional change, sovereignty, and political legitimacy, we want that conversation to occur through academically credible formats, with disciplinary expertise, and a demonstrable commitment to pluralism and intellectual standards.

Third, we disapprove of the fact that, on the tour’s own published schedule, Medicine Hat College appears to be the only post-secondary institution venue listed among the tour stops. (rebelnews.com) This is not a trivial reputational detail. It invites the reasonable inference that other public institutions of advanced learning in Alberta have declined to lend their premises to this travelling event, while Medicine Hat College has not. In our view, that fact alone should have triggered heightened scrutiny, and a transparent explanation of how the College concluded that this booking served the institution’s mission and the interests of its diverse community.

It seems that the College has characterised its actions as merely following the standard public rental process, considering only policy compliance, safety, and operational constraints, and claiming that this approach is required by institutional neutrality and freedom of expression. We reject that framing. The College’s own facility-booking policy gives MHC the right to refuse rentals when an external organisation’s request is not consistent with the College’s mandate or values while on campus. This is therefore not a value-neutral, mechanical decision. It is an exercise of institutional judgement. The College decided that this was a good idea that is not inconsistent with the College’s mandate and/or values.

However, this does not resolve the question of what the College should do when it is not merely tolerating expression, but actively facilitating it by renting institutional space. A principled commitment to freedom of expression does not require the College to act as a convenient platform for any external group with financial resources for a room booking. The Chicago-style approach that many institutions cite was never intended to be a blanket endorsement of institutional self-abdication. It presupposes that post-secondary institutions also retain governance responsibilities, duty-of-care obligations, and a mission-specific commitment to education that extends beyond providing a stage. We expect a clear public explanation of why the College concluded that hosting this event was consistent with its mandate and values, despite manifestly foreseeable reputational harm, and the consequence of community distrust.

Accordingly, we request that the Board of Governors and the President take the following actions:

We ask you to provide a written and public explanation of the criteria and process by which the College approved this booking. This should include the role of reputational risk assessment, consultation undertaken with relevant internal stakeholders, and the conditions imposed to protect the learning and working environment. We also request that you release, to the extent lawful and practicable, the relevant facility-rental policies, procedures, and decision rationales that govern external political events on campus so that the community can understand the standards being applied.

We request that you reconsider whether this event should proceed on campus. If contractual obligations prevent cancellation, please state this clearly and explain how you will prevent the event from being reasonably perceived as institutionally sponsored. This should include prominent disclaimers, signage, and public communications consistent with the College’s Freedom of Expression statement.

We also ask you to commit to concrete countervailing measures that reflect the College’s educational mission rather than mere venue neutrality. At a minimum, we want the College to support and visibly enable peaceful protest and principled counter-speech by members of the community, consistent with the statement’s emphasis on vigorous contestation without obstruction. We also want the College to sponsor a genuine educational public forum on the constitutional, economic, and social realities of secessionist politics. This should include relevant scholarly expertise and an explicit commitment to intellectual diversity and evidentiary standards.

We recognise that members of our community will disagree about Rebel News and Alberta independence. That disagreement is not at issue. The College’s decision to use its resources and authority to support a political event that many of us believe conflicts with its mission and the trust needed for a healthy learning environment is a serious governance issue, not just a public relations problem.

Sincerely,