[Kaiserschmarrn]

Please note that the only people being attacked in the media and being harassed are the professor and LGBT students.

Shepherd is not being targeted by anyone, nor has her academic freedom or freedom of speech been threatened.

It is doublespeak to argue that the people attacking the professor and trans people are the ones being victimised.

Of course Shepherd has been harassed and attacked, at least by progressives' standards. She's been called a racist and white supremacist and shunned on campus.

Anyway, not entirely unexpected, there was no complaint, formal or informal, and no violation of any university policy.

Christie Blatchford: Investigator's report into Wilfrid Laurier University vindicates Lindsay Shepherd

'No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video'

Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd has been vindicated, her interrogators sharply criticized, by the independent investigator who reviewed the bizarre incident last month that saw Shepherd called on the carpet for daring to show her class a video clip from a televised debate featuring Jordan Peterson. In early November, the 22-year-old Shepherd, a graduate student, showed a short excerpt from the debate between Peterson, the controversial University of Toronto psychology professor, and Nicholas Matte, a lecturer at the U of T’s Sexual Diversity Studies program, about the use of gender-neutral pronouns. The full debate, moderated by Steve Paikin, had aired months earlier on TVO, Ontario’s public service broadcaster.

Shepherd was hauled into a meeting with her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, the head of her program, Herbert Pimlott, and bureaucrat Adria Joel from the Gendered Violence Prevention and Support Program. During the meeting, Shepherd was accused of the equivalent of “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler” by not first denouncing Peterson and his views, was identified as “transphobic” and told she was not to show any such videos again and that “one student/many students” had complained about her.

The news clearing Shepherd of wrongdoing – and revealing there never was a complaining student — came in an announcement posted Monday on the Wilfrid Laurier University website by university president Deborah MacLatchy. MacLatchy, who is the only person who will see the full report from Toronto lawyer and investigator Rob Centa, was unequivocal. The meeting at which Shepherd was browbeaten “never should have happened at all,” MacLatchy said in the statement. “No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video,” she said. “This was confirmed in the fact-finding report.” MacLatchy didn’t say how, in the absence of a complaint, the interrogation of Shepherd came to be in the first place. But the logical inference is that if there was no complainant, one or another of the professors may have taken the matter into his own hands, and invited Joel to sit in on the meeting to lend it an air of bureaucratic formality.

While Shepherd said Monday in a telephone interview “I was happy when I saw” the announcement, “I could never have imagined there was no complaint at all.” That would mean, as she put it, “It (the meeting) was total abuse.” Howard Levitt, the Toronto lawyer who represents Shepherd pro bono, was concerned by the lack of specificity in MacLatchy’s promised corrections. The university president, for instance, said the incident highlights “the need to enhance our faculty and TA (teaching assistant) training,” and pledged to make such training mandatory in the future for “both TA supervisors and teaching assistants.” That leaves open, Levitt said, the suggestion that “Lindsay’s behaviour was not as they would like and that she should have been supervised better. “If this is not intended as an implicit criticism, then why would they not say that she did precisely what she should have done in showing both sides of the debate…?”

MacLatchy did say clearly “There was no wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Shepherd in showing the clip from TVO in her tutorial. “Showing a TVO clip for the purposes of an academic discussion is a reasonable classroom teaching tool.” But she added that all instructional material “needs to be grounded in the appropriate academic underpinnings to put it in context” and noted “the entire discussion also needs to be handled properly. “We have no reason to believe this discussion was not handled well in the tutorial in question.” But, Levitt said, if MacLatchy believes, as she said, that the conduct of Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel “does not meet the high standards I set for staff and faculty,” why didn’t she make a clear finding of wrongdoing on their parts?

MacLatchy also said “the interviews conducted by the fact-finder confirmed that the rationale for invoking” the new Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy “did not exist.” “It was misapplied and was a significant overreach.” As a result, the policy will be reviewed, its oversight tightened. The fact-finding process was but one of the university’s two-pronged response to the Shepherd incident. The other is to strike a task force on freedom of expression that is to develop a statement for the university. Membership is to be decided by the end of December. Seven seats in total, or the majority of members, are to go to the university’s faculty association, five of whom are to be directly elected. Twenty-three nominees are running for those seats, the National Post has learned, and only three of them appear, from the statements they were asked to submit, to be overt defenders of free speech. A half dozen others appear neutral on the issue, but the majority have either signed petitions of support for the school’s “transgendered community” or expressed support for the non-existent complainant in the Shepherd matter. The task force is to report back by March.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course Shepherd has been harassed and attacked, at least by progressives' standards. She's been called a racist and white supremacist and shunned on campus.

And she has not been fired, nor is there a media campaign to fire her (though her professor is tarrgeted by one), nor did she receive any punishment from the university.

Are you now arguing that being called ”racist” by some people is a restriction of her academic freedom or freedom of speech?

Anyway, not entirely unexpected, there was no complaint, formal or informal, and no violation of any university policy.

Exactly, which is why the only “punishment” she had was an informal discussion with her bosses.

The whole thing is a non-issue that has been blown way out of proportion by Shepherd and the right wing media who rallied behind her, such as the opinion piece by Blatchford you cite.

But that makes sense, if we assume that Shepherd is trying to make money off this like Peterson has.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

And she has not been fired, nor is there a media campaign to fire her (though her professor is tarrgeted by one), nor did she receive any punishment from the university.

Are you now arguing that being called ”racist” by some people is a restriction of her academic freedom or freedom of speech?

I'm arguing, as can be seen in my previous post, that she has been harassed and attacked by progressives' standards. Even worse, if we remember that "words are violence", she's been a victim of violence.

If the professor and the two people who were in the meeting had their way, then benign debates like the one shown by Shepherd would be banned from university classrooms, so yes this is obviously a threat to free speech. They tried to achieve this by claiming that Shepherd had broken the law and violated university policy, and that she was transphobic. As it turns out, not only was there no formal or informal complaint, but these claims have no basis in reality either. Hence, they were motivated by ideological zealotry at best and outright censorship at worst, although the former tends to lead to the latter anyway. The only reason this didn't succeed was the recording of the meeting which exposed their thinking and objectives. One of the implications that obviously worries the general public is that left-wing strongholds like academia are dominated by people like this.

Exactly, which is why the only “punishment” she had was an informal discussion with her bosses.

If it was only an informal discussion, they shouldn't have made claims about university policy and the law. As the report by the university states, the meeting should never have taken place. The recording of the meeting also makes clear that they want to ban certain viewpoints until they have taught students which viewpoints are wrong. In this case, the students hadn't yet been taught that Peterson's views are "problematic", so students might have made up their own minds about this debate, which these people weren't prepared to tolerate.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm arguing, as can be seen in my previous post, that she has been harassed and attacked by progressives' standards. Even worse, if we remember that "words are violence", she's been a victim of violence.

So you are arguing that the professor’s poorly chosen words are the definitive and perfect description of the position of all progressives about this?

Even though he was speaking off the cuff in an informal discussion where he assumed that no one was taping it in violation of confidentiality policies?

Or are you arguing that all verbal conflicts are the same, and therefore being called a racist is just as bad as being racist?

If the professor and the two people who were in the meeting had their way, then benign debates like the one shown by Shepherd would be banned from university classrooms, so yes this is obviously a threat to free speech. They tried to achieve this by claiming that Shepherd had broken the law and violated university policy, and that she was transphobic. As it turns out, not only was there no formal or informal complaint, but these claims have no basis in reality either. Hence, they were motivated by ideological zealotry at best and outright censorship at worst, although the former tends to lead to the latter anyway. The only reason this didn't succeed was the recording of the meeting which exposed their thinking and objectives. One of the implications that obviously worries the general public is that left-wing strongholds like academia are dominated by people like this.

No, they are not trying to ban speech in the classroom. This is an unfounded accusation, presumably so that Shepherd and the right wing media can indulge in victim posturing. In a class that actually deals with these issues, Shepherd would have been fine. In a class where she was supoosed to be teaching writing skills, her insertion of a video showing her political beliefs was out of place. If they were trying to ban such things, she would have been told to not do it any more.

If it was only an informal discussion, they shouldn't have made claims about university policy and the law. As the report by the university states, the meeting should never have taken place. The recording of the meeting also makes clear that they want to ban certain viewpoints until they have taught students which viewpoints are wrong. In this case, the students hadn't yet been taught that Peterson's views are "problematic", so students might have made up their own minds about this debate, which these people weren't prepared to tolerate.

There is no reason why they cannot discuss human rights and law in an informal discussion.

As for whether or not the meeting should have taken place, I think that when an employee does soemthing other than what they are told to do, it merits a discussion between the employee and their supervisor.

The rest of this paragraph seems to be you imagining certain motives for the professor and faculty, which is an unverifable argument that you could only make if you can read minds.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

So you are arguing that the professor’s poorly chosen words are the definitive and perfect description of the position of all progressives about this?

Even though he was speaking off the cuff in an informal discussion where he assumed that no one was taping it in violation of confidentiality policies?

Or are you arguing that all verbal conflicts are the same, and therefore being called a racist is just as bad as being racist?

She was called racist and white supremacist by progressives and progressives claim that "words are violence". Activists also claimed that she was responsible for attacks and harassment against them. She was also shunned on campus after the event. I'm just applying progressives' standards to what happened to Shepherd and according to them this was traumatic and will quite likely negatively affect her for the rest of her life.

No, they are not trying to ban speech in the classroom. This is an unfounded accusation, presumably so that Shepherd and the right wing media can indulge in victim posturing. In a class that actually deals with these issues, Shepherd would have been fine. In a class where she was supoosed to be teaching writing skills, her insertion of a video showing her political beliefs was out of place. If they were trying to ban such things, she would have been told to not do it any more.

There is no reason why they cannot discuss human rights and law in an informal discussion.

This is comical, but I'm not going to start repeating myself endlessly again to explain to you why you are wrong. People can decide for themselves whether your interpretation makes any sense. After all, the recording and transcripts are out there for everyone to listen to and read.

As for whether or not the meeting should have taken place, I think that when an employee does soemthing other than what they are told to do, it merits a discussion between the employee and their supervisor.

Your conclusion here is as wrong as your above interpretation which is why the university disagrees with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

She was called racist and white supremacist by progressives and progressives claim that "words are violence". Activists also claimed that she was responsible for attacks and harassment against them. She was also shunned on campus after the event. I'm just applying progressives' standards to what happened to Shepherd and according to them this was traumatic and will quite likely negatively affect her for the rest of her life.

So, you are using the professor’s off the cuff remarks as the official standard of all progressives everywhere. Or perhaps you are using some stereotypical version of progressives.

Anyway, bigotry is actually physically harmful in a way that other disparaging remarks are not.

So when you apply this historically inaccurate, conservative, “level playing field” approach to speech, you are incorrect.

This is comical, but I'm not going to start repeating myself endlessly again to explain to you why you are wrong. People can decide for themselves whether your interpretation makes any sense. After all, the recording and transcripts are out there for everyone to listen to and read.

Yes, what an amazing and lucky coincidence that Shepherd came up with the idea of taping the conversation in a clandestine manner and then releasing it to the media. It probably has something to do with the fact that Jordan Peterson is making tons of cash from people for his stance on trans rights. Over $60 000 a month if I read that graph correctly. This is above and beyond the $195 230 he made from Indiegogo. Shepherd seems like a smart woman. It is logical to assume that she also thought about this when she decided to tape the conversation.

My claim is that the video was out of context and had nothing to do with the grammar lesson she was supposed to teach.

Here are the words of a student in the class:

To begin, a student in Lindsay’s tutorial wanted to share her perspective on how Lindsay conducted the tutorial, which has led to this entire discussion.

“Lindsay Shepherd showed the video of Jordan Peterson during a grammar lesson in our class. This video had absolutely nothing to do with what we were learning that day and it felt as if she showed the video to purposely start a discussion about something she had opinions on. The video was showed and she asked the class for some of their thoughts. Some of the comments made for an interesting discussion, but mostly students used it as an excuse to make fun of trans identities.”

It is clear that this student was not thrilled with the presentation of the video in her class and further points out that, “The faculty is being demonized while Lindsay is being seen as a revolutionary. Lindsay Shepherd is not a freedom of speech hero and should not be treated as such. She created an incredibly unsafe environment for any trans student in her classroom. Mainly, I just believe that everyone should stop jumping to conclusions on the situation and should understand what actually happened in class.”

https://www.hercampus.com/school/wilfri ... ialnetwork

It is also a fact that Shepherd was not punished for her actions. This supports the claim that free speech is not banned in classrooms.

Your conclusion here is as wrong as your above interpretation which is why the university disagrees with you.

The university is being tried in the media, and there is a presumption of guilt throughout. When I Google “Lindsay Shepherd”, here are the first ten articles or editorials about the issue:

http://www.macleans.ca/lindsay-shepherd ... d-laurier/
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-mur ... air-hardly
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e37377602/
Supposedly objective, only interviews Shepherd, and the university’s side of the story is not mentioned.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/yw5d ... ove-on-now
Pretty objective, though it only tells Shepherd’s side, and the university’s side of the story is not mentioned.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... ebate.html
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... ebate.html
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3931281/comm ... ers-shame/
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/column ... the-bosses
Supports Shepherd, condemns university.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/79 ... shepherd-/
This is an ode to Shepherd.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/18 ... _23311318/
Supposedly objective, only interviews Shepherd, and the university’s side of the story is not mentioned.

In fact, it seems that the cultural orthodoxy is that she is a hero and the university is oppressive, and no one is allowed to say otherwise. And any dissent from the prevalent opinion is an attack on free speech. Lol at irony.

Anyway, the university is under pressure in the media to grovel and abase itself at Shepherd’s feet.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

So, you are using the professor’s off the cuff remarks as the official standard of all progressives everywhere. Or perhaps you are using some stereotypical version of progressives.

Anyway, bigotry is actually physically harmful in a way that other disparaging remarks are not.

So when you apply this historically inaccurate, conservative, “level playing field” approach to speech, you are incorrect.

No, I'm using the standard of progressives everywhere and applying it to Shepherd. And of course progressives would also have a double standard when it comes to the effects of bigotry, as you demonstrate above.

The article you linked is a good example of the nonsense progressives constantly produce for the sole purpose of justifying their world view. The prevalence of illnesses such as diabetes has gone up dramatically while there has been no corresponding increase in racism; rather the opposite has happened. It seems they try to get around this inconvenient fact by claiming that subtle racism is actually worse than overt racism. There is apparently no limit to progressive stupidity. As for mental health, it's perfectly plausible that people with depression and anxiety report more negative experiences because they suffer from these illnesses rather than the latter causing the former. The article also mentions socioeconomic status as a factor early on only to subsequently ignore it. And as usual, the possibility of a difference in predisposition is not mentioned because it stands in the way of their motivated reasoning.

But regardless, progressives are so fanatical about proving harm that they don't even realise that if all of this nonsense were true, it would be a strong argument against multiracial societies or at least for segregation. Most importantly, the fragility that they think they are proving is completely at odds with human history. How on earth did humans survive and even build great civilisations in environments where they were exposed to many more and more severe stressors, if we are so prone to the most subtle adverse events that diseases reach epidemic proportions?

Yes, what an amazing and lucky coincidence that Shepherd came up with the idea of taping the conversation in a clandestine manner and then releasing it to the media. It probably has something to do with the fact that Jordan Peterson is making tons of cash from people for his stance on trans rights. Over $60 000 a month if I read that graph correctly. This is above and beyond the $195 230 he made from Indiegogo. Shepherd seems like a smart woman. It is logical to assume that she also thought about this when she decided to tape the conversation.

It's logical to assume that when progressives run out of arguments they will resort to character assassination. I'm pleased to see all the voluntary contributions to Peterson, although he certainly gets a disproportionate amount of attention and hence money compared to others with similar insights. It would be great if the professors and researchers you are citing and defending would do the same instead of using predominantly tax payers' money to fund their terrible so-called research.

My claim is that the video was out of context and had nothing to do with the grammar lesson she was supposed to teach.

No. It's actually a great teaching device to use controversies to get people interested in what is otherwise a relatively boring subject.

It is also a fact that Shepherd was not punished for her actions. This supports the claim that free speech is not banned in classrooms.

They obviously expected that she would no longer dare to teach and say anything the people present at the meeting disapproved of. Her professor made clear that he would monitor this. There is nothing surprising here, as this is a common second stage in enforcing allowed and disallowed speech or behaviour, which obviously leaves room for escalation if the person does not comply. The first stage is general social pressure to conform with what peers regard as acceptable and respectable.

The university is being tried in the media, and there is a presumption of guilt throughout.

There's no presumption of guilt. The recording is the evidence.

It's also likely that this is just one of many cases of enforcing progressive orthodoxy at every level in academia across the west. Hence, it's right and good that Shepherd gets credit for exposing it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I'm using the standard of progressives everywhere and applying it to Shepherd. And of course progressives would also have a double standard when it comes to the effects of bigotry, as you demonstrate above.

The article you linked is a good example of the nonsense progressives constantly produce for the sole purpose of justifying their world view. The prevalence of illnesses such as diabetes has gone up dramatically while there has been no corresponding increase in racism; rather the opposite has happened. It seems they try to get around this inconvenient fact by claiming that subtle racism is actually worse than overt racism. There is apparently no limit to progressive stupidity. As for mental health, it's perfectly plausible that people with depression and anxiety report more negative experiences because they suffer from these illnesses rather than the latter causing the former. The article also mentions socioeconomic status as a factor early on only to subsequently ignore it. And as usual, the possibility of a difference in predisposition is not mentioned because it stands in the way of their motivated reasoning.

But regardless, progressives are so fanatical about proving harm that they don't even realise that if all of this nonsense were true, it would be a strong argument against multiracial societies or at least for segregation. Most importantly, the fragility that they think they are proving is completely at odds with human history. How on earth did humans survive and even build great civilisations in environments where they were exposed to many more and more severe stressors, if we are so prone to the most subtle adverse events that diseases reach epidemic proportions?

So you think that being called racist is just as bad as racism? This ignores the fact that racism has had a profound effect on history in the last few centuries, while being called racist has almost no impact on anyone.

Anyway, are you arguing that no one should be allowed to criticise or insult Lindsay Shepherd?

Also, it is logically inconsistent to believe that progressives think all words are violence, and also believe that progressives think that some words are harmful and others are not.

It's logical to assume that when progressives run out of arguments they will resort to character assassination. I'm pleased to see all the voluntary contributions to Peterson, although he certainly gets a disproportionate amount of attention and hence money compared to others with similar insights. It would be great if the professors and researchers you are citing and defending would do the same instead of using predominantly tax payers' money to fund their terrible so-called research.

As long as we agree that there is a direct financial benefit to appealing to the right wing through the media, and that Shepherd probably considered this when she chose to secretly tape the informal discussion she had.

No. It's actually a great teaching device to use controversies to get people interested in what is otherwise a relatively boring subject.

Since it did not at all help the people develop the writing skills they were supposed to learn (i.e. the actual objective for the class), it actually fails as a teaching device.

Please note that student testimony also disagrees with your claim.

They obviously expected that she would no longer dare to teach and say anything the people present at the meeting disapproved of. Her professor made clear that he would monitor this. There is nothing surprising here, as this is a common second stage in enforcing allowed and disallowed speech or behaviour, which obviously leaves room for escalation if the person does not comply. The first stage is general social pressure to conform with what peers regard as acceptable and respectable.

You are assuming motive and biases here. This is not an argument. It is merely your biased description of what you think is going on in their heads. They are secretly trying to brainwash her, apparently!

Anyway, none of this contradicts my point that Shepherd was not punished. The absolute worst part of her “punishment” was to have her teaching plans looked at before the class begins. Since she completely ignored the actual class objectives when she showed this video, this is perfectly logical. It makes no sense to ignore that fact and assume (with no facts to support this claim) that this is all a secret ploy by leftists to destroy free speech in academia.

There's no presumption of guilt. The recording is the evidence.

It's also likely that this is just one of many cases of enforcing progressive orthodoxy at every level in academia across the west. Hence, it's right and good that Shepherd gets credit for exposing it.

As long as we agree that the media has universally condemned the university without any trial or discussion of their side of the story, and that this places the university under pressure to kowtow to conservative critics.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

So you think that being called racist is just as bad as racism?

I obviously think that words are not violence, so all of this is hogwash. It's also not my fault that progressives are illogical; I'm just using their argument against them.

As long as we agree that there is a direct financial benefit to appealing to the right wing through the media, and that Shepherd probably considered this when she chose to secretly tape the informal discussion she had.

You are assuming Shepherd's motives which according to yourself is not an argument. This is just your biased description of what you think is going on in her head.

Since it did not at all help the people develop the writing skills they were supposed to learn (i.e. the actual objective for the class), it actually fails as a teaching device.

Please note that student testimony also disagrees with your claim.

It's fine as a teaching device. Some people apparently use tweets of celebrities to get students interested. Both can be used as a starting point to discuss grammar.

You are assuming motive and biases here. This is not an argument. It is merely your biased description of what you think is going on in their heads. They are secretly trying to brainwash her, apparently!

Anyway, none of this contradicts my point that Shepherd was not punished. The absolute worst part of her “punishment” was to have her teaching plans looked at before the class begins. Since she completely ignored the actual class objectives when she showed this video, this is perfectly logical. It makes no sense to ignore that fact and assume (with no facts to support this claim) that this is all a secret ploy by leftists to destroy free speech in academia.

As long as we agree that the media has universally condemned the university without any trial or discussion of their side of the story, and that this places the university under pressure to kowtow to conservative critics.

The recording makes what I said obvious, unless one strenuously wants to downplay what happened and paint the people in charge of the meeting as victims.

And again, by progressives' standards she was oppressed and traumatised. She also is, according to the article you linked earlier, now at an increased risk to develop diabetes and mental illnesses and her future academic performance will likely be compromised.

If you are right about the media reaction, then that would be good news, although I've seen quite a few articles that were critical of Shepherd. I also can't speak for Canadian television apart from the segment that I linked earlier in this thread where a professor claimed that white TAs are oppressing non-white professors. However, it was the recording that put the university under pressure. Without it there would have been no reaction at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

I obviously think that words are not violence, so all of this is hogwash. It's also not my fault that progressives are illogical; I'm just using their argument against them.

As long as we agree that being called racist is not nearly as bad as actual racism, and that Shepherd is not actually dealing with any significant negative repercussions.

You are assuming Shepherd's motives which according to yourself is not an argument. This is just your biased description of what you think is going on in her head.

Yes, I am assuming that she is an intelligent woman who had done her research, and that she also likes to make money. These assumptions are not unreasonable, so it makes sense to assume that money is one of the reasons why Shepherd decided to secretly tape the conversation.

It's fine as a teaching device. Some people apparently use tweets of celebrities to get students interested. Both can be used as a starting point to discuss grammar.

Yes, videos about contentious issues can be used as teaching devices, and if Shepherd had used the film to teach grammar, it may have been even less of an issue. Unfortunately, she did not, as shown by the testimony of the student.

The recording makes what I said obvious, unless one strenuously wants to downplay what happened and paint the people in charge of the meeting as victims.

Yes, the recording corroborates the fact that Shepherd was not punished.

She was criticised for her actions. If you are arguing that she should not have been criticised, then you are ironically arguing that critics of Shepherd should not have free speech.

And again, by progressives' standards she was oppressed and traumatised. She also is, according to the article you linked earlier, now at an increased risk to develop diabetes and mental illnesses and her future academic performance will likely be compromised.

Actually, the article says that racism and other forms of discrimination are far more harmful than simply being called names. Again, this is not a significant punishment in any sense.

Are you seriously arguing that being called names is such a horrendous violation of free speech and academic freedom that it warrants all this media attention and a thread? No. Instead you are arguing that a few comments from her professor, but no other punishment, are such a horrendous violation of free speech and academic freedom that it warrants all this media attention and a thread.

If you are right about the media reaction, then that would be good news, although I've seen quite a few articles that were critical of Shepherd. I also can't speak for Canadian television apart from the segment that I linked earlier in this thread where a professor claimed that white TAs are oppressing non-white professors. However, it was the recording that put the university under pressure. Without it there would have been no reaction at all.

Anyway, it is clear that there is intense media pressure for the university to bow to conservative pressure, and no comparable preasure in the media or academia for the university to stand firm.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

As long as we agree that being called racist is not nearly as bad as actual racism, and that Shepherd is not actually dealing with any significant negative repercussions.

She has been harassed, attacked and shunned by people on campus who were previously friendly with her. She has also experienced racism, as most of the accusations were made only because she has white skin. Not that it matters though, as your article put forward the idea that subtle bigotry can be worse than the overt form, so again by progressive standards her experience, regardless of your assessment of what's worse, can be expected to have grave consequences in terms of her health and future career.

Yes, I am assuming that she is an intelligent woman who had done her research, and that she also likes to make money. These assumptions are not unreasonable, so it makes sense to assume that money is one of the reasons why Shepherd decided to secretly tape the conversation.

Sure, assuming her motives and being biased is reasonable if a progressive does it, otherwise "it's not an argument". Is there any issue at all where progressives don't have a double standard?

Yes, videos about contentious issues can be used as teaching devices, and if Shepherd had used the film to teach grammar, it may have been even less of an issue. Unfortunately, she did not, as shown by the testimony of the student.

Yes, she did. It's reasonable to assume that the student whose quote was cherry picked for the article was a snowflake.

Yes, the recording corroborates the fact that Shepherd was not punished.

She was criticised for her actions. If you are arguing that she should not have been criticised, then you are ironically arguing that critics of Shepherd should not have free speech.

Actually, the article says that racism and other forms of discrimination are far more harmful than simply being called names. Again, this is not a significant punishment in any sense.

Are you seriously arguing that being called names is such a horrendous violation of free speech and academic freedom that it warrants all this media attention and a thread? No. Instead you are arguing that a few comments from her professor, but no other punishment, are such a horrendous violation of free speech and academic freedom that it warrants all this media attention and a thread.

Anyway, it is clear that there is intense media pressure for the university to bow to conservative pressure, and no comparable preasure in the media or academia for the university to stand firm.

This is your biased interpretation and not an argument. If roles were reversed, progressives would laud her as a hero who stood up to speak truth to power in the face of severe danger for her health and career.

It doesn't matter that she is as left-wing as they come on pretty much every issue, since she has deviated ever so slightly from progressive dogma, she must have had sinister and nefarious motives to begin with and the victims are apparently the university and the people who ranked much higher in the university's hierarchy. There is really no better demonstration for the fact that progressives demand absolute loyalty and conformity in thought.

[Pants-of-dog]

She has been harassed, attacked and shunned by people on campus who were previously friendly with her. She has also experienced racism, as most of the accusations were made only because she has white skin. Not that it matters though, as your article put forward the idea that subtle bigotry can be worse than the overt form, so again by progressive standards her experience, regardless of your assessment of what's worse, can be expected to have grave consequences in terms of her health and future career.

Lol. Now you are assuming that her so called attackers are motivated by anti-white racism. Do you always make stuff up when you run out of verifiable arguments?

Anyway, even if this is true, it is not any significant punishment. There is no impact on her professionally, and the “racism”she is supposedly dealing with is not based on a historical pattern of oppression and is essentially powerless.

Sure, assuming her motives and being biased is reasonable if a progressive does it, otherwise "it's not an argument". Is there any issue at all where progressives don't have a double standard?

Accusing me of having double standradds is an ad ho inem and not an intelligent rebuttal of my claim.

Do you disagree with my assumptions? I.e do you think she is actually unintelligent or did not do her research? Or do you think that she does not want money?

Yes, she did. It's reasonable to assume that the student whose quote was cherry picked for the article was a snowflake.

Please provide evidence for the claim that the video helped people learn writing and grammar skills.

This is your biased interpretation and not an argument. If roles were reversed, progressives would laud her as a hero who stood up to speak truth to power in the face of severe danger for her health and career.

It doesn't matter that she is as left-wing as they come on pretty much every issue, since she has deviated ever so slightly from progressive dogma, she must have had sinister and nefarious motives to begin with and the victims are apparently the university and the people who ranked much higher in the university's hierarchy. There is really no better demonstration for the fact that progressives demand absolute loyalty and conformity in thought.

It is a fact that she was not punished. Your emotional outburst about what you imagine progressives secretly think is not a rebuttal to that.

It is a fact that the only impact from her video is that she has to show her plan before each class. Your victim narrative about her does not change this fact.

It is also a fact that the university has been tried in the media and found guilty without even a trial. The fact that you are ignoring this, even though you have previously described this as attacking a basic tenet of western civilisation, is also not a rebuttal.

[Baff]

@Kaiserschmarrn what is more important: acedemic freedom or prevention of discrimination?

Depends on the circumstances.

In this particular circumstance discrimination is vs the school teacher.
The academics prosecuting her should be dismissed. Censored. Not given a platform on which to be taken seriously.

Academic freedom is not to be used as a medium for an agenda of hate.
To do that is to undermine it.
Basically, there is no place for contentious politics in education. Inappropriate subject matter

We educate our children to be able to independently evaluate and research these issues for themselves. And then we let them.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Lol. Now you are assuming that her so called attackers are motivated by anti-white racism. Do you always make stuff up when you run out of verifiable arguments?

Anyway, even if this is true, it is not any significant punishment. There is no impact on her professionally, and the “racism”she is supposedly dealing with is not based on a historical pattern of oppression and is essentially powerless.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just applying contemporary progressive logic to Shepherd's case. Your amused incredulity is what people like me think and feel all the time when listening to progressives.

Accusing me of having double standradds is an ad ho inem and not an intelligent rebuttal of my claim.

Do you disagree with my assumptions? I.e do you think she is actually unintelligent or did not do her research? Or do you think that she does not want money?

Pointing out your double standard is not an ad hominem, although I probably shouldn't be surprised by this. When progressives run out of arguments they usually just make stuff up.

Your questions are hilariously illogical, another common feature of debates with progressives. I don't have to regard Shepherd as unintelligent to not go along with your attempt at character assassination.

Please provide evidence for the claim that the video helped people learn writing and grammar skills.

It is obvious. Just use your logical faculties.

It is a fact that she was not punished. Your emotional outburst about what you imagine progressives secretly think is not a rebuttal to that.

It is a fact that the only impact from her video is that she has to show her plan before each class. Your victim narrative about her does not change this fact.

It is also a fact that the university has been tried in the media and found guilty without even a trial. The fact that you are ignoring this, even though you have previously described this as attacking a basic tenet of western civilisation, is also not a rebuttal.

It understand that this is alarming for progressives but the usual "nothing to see here, move along" narrative doesn't work in this case. My side would do well to keep the pressure up and not become complacent again. Hopefully this incident is indicative of future developments.

[Pants-of-dog]

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just applying contemporary progressive logic to Shepherd's case. Your amused incredulity is what people like me think and feel all the time when listening to progressives.

No, you are applying your incorrect strawman of progressive beliefs. When I explained what progressives actually believe, you accused us of having a double standard.

Anyway, there is no evidence for your allegations about her being called racist, or any evidence that this is somehow detrimental to her, or any evidence that she has been punished in any way.

Pointing out your double standard is not an ad hominem, although I probably shouldn't be surprised by this. When progressives run out of arguments they usually just make stuff up.

Your questions are hilariously illogical, another common feature of debates with progressives. I don't have to regard Shepherd as unintelligent to not go along with your attempt at character assassination.

As long as we agree that there is a clear financial reward for being a “free speech advocate” (i.e. arguing we can say mean things about minorities, and whining to the media when anyone criticises you for it).

It is obvious. Just use your logical faculties.

No, it is not obvious, and your claim is directly contradicted by a student who was in the class.

It understand that this is alarming for progressives but the usual "nothing to see here, move along" narrative doesn't work in this case. My side would do well to keep the pressure up and not become complacent again. Hopefully this incident is indicative of future developments.

As long as we agree that she was not punished, that the media has universally condemned the professor and university without even presenting their side, and that this whole thread is about how conservatives should not even be criticised.

The implied argument is that since criticism of conservative positions is an infringement of free speech and academic freedom, progressives should not be allowed to criticise conservatives. You are basically saying that we need to silence progressives in order to protect free speech. Doublespeak.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

No, you are applying your incorrect strawman of progressive beliefs. When I explained what progressives actually believe, you accused us of having a double standard.

Anyway, there is no evidence for your allegations about her being called racist, or any evidence that this is somehow detrimental to her, or any evidence that she has been punished in any way.

There's no strawman. Part of my logic comes straight out of the article you posted in support of one of your points. The rest is just an application of the most common progressive positions.

It's a bit rich for a progressive to ask for evidence. Obviously, no evidence for allegations is required. We must believe the accuser. The evidence that her experience is traumatising and detrimental to her health and career also comes from progressives and some of it, again, directly from your article in this thread.

As long as we agree that there is a clear financial reward for being a “free speech advocate” (i.e. arguing we can say mean things about minorities, and whining to the media when anyone criticises you for it).

I don't agree, but I'm glad to see that you are admitting the character assassination attempt.

No, it is not obvious, and your claim is directly contradicted by a student who was in the class.

I disagree. As for the student, I have already responded to this: it's reasonable to assume that the student is a snowflake whose comment has been cherry picked.

As long as we agree that she was not punished, that the media has universally condemned the professor and university without even presenting their side, and that this whole thread is about how conservatives should not even be criticised.

The implied argument is that since criticism of conservative positions is an infringement of free speech and academic freedom, progressives should not be allowed to criticise conservatives. You are basically saying that we need to silence progressives in order to protect free speech. Doublespeak.

You are welcome to criticise us. But if you do, you must accept that we use your own arguments and positions against you. Conservatives and right-wingers cannot afford to take the high road any longer and treat progressives like children whose temper tantrums must be tolerated.

[Pants-of-dog]

There's no strawman. Part of my logic comes straight out of the article you posted in support of one of your points. The rest is just an application of the most common progressive positions.

It's a bit rich for a progressive to ask for evidence. Obviously, no evidence for allegations is required. We must believe the accuser. The evidence that her experience is traumatising and detrimental to her health and career also comes from progressives and some of it, again, directly from your article in this thread.

None of this is an argument. This is just you whining about progressives.

I don't agree, but I'm glad to see that you are admitting the character assassination attempt.

This is also not an argument. It is simply an ad hominem.

I disagree. As for the student, I have already responded to this: it's reasonable to assume that the student is a snowflake whose comment has been cherry picked.

This is also not an argument. You are simply repeating your opinion and casting aspersions on the students who you are supposedly championing.

You are welcome to criticise us. But if you do, you must accept that we use your own arguments and positions against you. Conservatives and right-wingers cannot afford to take the high road any longer and treat progressives like children whose temper tantrums must be tolerated.

If criticisms are acceptable, then why did you start a thread arguing that these criticisms are a threat to free speech and academic freedom?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

^ By your own logic, none of what you said in this thread is an argument either - you are just whining about conservatives or using strawmen and ad homs.

I understand that you'd like to reserve the right to assign victimhood status and claims about great harm to your own side. It's what makes a person valuable and worthy of attention in your world after all, and of course you'll reject anybody you perceive to be in the out-group assuming such a high status. It's fun to see the irritation and helplessness of progressives when they suddenly find themselves in the role of the perpetrator.

[Decky]

If PoD really cared about helping oppressed people he would be on the first flight back to Spain.

[Pants-of-dog]

^ By your own logic, none of what you said in this thread is an argument either - you are just whining about conservatives or using strawmen and ad homs.

No, that would be assuming we both made the same logical fallacies and made no arguments.

I have presented arguments:
1. Shepherd has not been punished in any way, and that this lack of punishment contradicts any claims that her academic freedom or freedom of speech have been constrained.

2. While Shepherd’s presentation of the video could have been useful for teaching the writing skills she was supposed to teach, it was not useful due to the lack of contextualisation and Shepherd’s inability to tie it to the actual class.

3.The only consequence of her behaviour from the university was criticisms. If, as you say, this is a threat to her academic freedom of speech, then you are implicity arguing that progressives should not be allowed to criticize people.

I understand that you'd like to reserve the right to assign victimhood status and claims about great harm to your own side. It's what makes a person valuable and worthy of attention in your world after all, and of course you'll reject anybody you perceive to be in the out-group assuming such a high status. It's fun to see the irritation and helplessness of progressives when they suddenly find themselves in the role of the perpetrator.

Your weird assumption that alll progressives love victim narratives is wrong.

And this is just you looking down at progressives and is not an argument.