[foxdemon]

@foxdemon

Earlier in the thread, you claimed that Shepherd had her academic freedom restricted.

Please explain how. Thanks.

This isn’t merely about Shepherd’s acedemic freedom. The thing she is in trouble for is compromising the PC brigade’s efforts to transform education into indoctrination.

Indoctrination is the imposition of uncritical acceptance of a system of belief.

Shepherd offered her students various contradictory view points with the expectation they would argue between those positions. Developing a critical mind is what education (as opposed to indoctrination) is about.

The attitudes and behaviour of the university staff and some students is clearly in opposition to critical thinking. Therefore it is against acedemic inquiry. They are building a culture of indocrination which is detrimental to acedemic freedom.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@foxdemon,

got check out the current convo on longest thread if you want to see some of the head-hunters here on Pofo....

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This isn’t merely about Shepherd’s acedemic freedom. The thing she is in trouble for is compromising the PC brigade’s efforts to transform education into indoctrination.

Indoctrination is the imposition of uncritical acceptance of a system of belief.

Shepherd offered her students various contradictory view points with the expectation they would argue between those positions. Developing a critical mind is what education (as opposed to indoctrination) is about.

The attitudes and behaviour of the university staff and some students is clearly in opposition to critical thinking. Therefore it is against acedemic inquiry. They are building a culture of indocrination which is detrimental to acedemic freedom.

Even worse, they are trying to use the law or at least interpret it in such a way so as to prevent certain views to be aired.

On the critical thinking and academic freedom issue, there is a passage in the audio where the professor basically admits what you describe. He says only when uni students are sufficiently prepared to deal with, say, the pronoun issue should the TV clip be shown with the person showing it staying neutral. Before that stage, they need to be told that Peterson's view is "problematic".

So what he means, of course, is that they need to be imbued with social justice, oppression and victimhood narratives first, otherwise they might actually come to the conclusion that someone like Peterson might have a point.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I am simply saying that if we gauge the significance of her actions by the reactions of the rest of the people involved, it was not seen as a big deal.

The reason that we got into the topic of significance is because you implied that the professor was not t9 be trusted sim9ly because there was no papaerwork.

I pointed out that the reason for the lack of paperwork is because the process was informal. And that was probably because the people involved thought it was not worth a formal hearing and formal complaint.

Also, if the university thought that what she did was a big deal, she would have been punished. She has not been punished.

———————————

This isn’t merely about Shepherd’s acedemic freedom. The thing she is in trouble for is compromising the PC brigade’s efforts to transform education into indoctrination.

Indoctrination is the imposition of uncritical acceptance of a system of belief.

Shepherd offered her students various contradictory view points with the expectation they would argue between those positions. Developing a critical mind is what education (as opposed to indoctrination) is about.

The attitudes and behaviour of the university staff and some students is clearly in opposition to critical thinking. Therefore it is against acedemic inquiry. They are building a culture of indocrination which is detrimental to acedemic freedom.

She is not in trouble.

We know this because she was not punished.

Aslo, there were several reasons why she had to have an informal discussion about her conduct, and the content of the video was only one of those reasons.

Your side seems to want to ignore these other reasons as well as the fact that she was not punished, presumably to construct a narrative where Shepherd is the victim of an oppressive establishment.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn

I am simply saying that if we gauge the significance of her actions by the reactions of the rest of the people involved, it was not seen as a big deal.

Your interpretation is contradicted by what was said at the meeting. Please go back and read the quote since you apparently haven't.

It's unclear why there is no documentation. There is a fact finding underway, so perhaps we will find out soon.

[Pants-of-dog]

How is it contradicted by the fact that they said it contravened the univeristy’s policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code?

I am not even sure what you are arguing here. It seems like you are saying that Shepherd’s actions were significant and that this merited a formal hearing and complaint. This seems unlikely. It is also possible that you are arguing that the university and professor thought Shepherd’s actions were significant and that they were wrong to not have a formal hearing and formal complaint if they thought it was so significant.

In any event, since she was not punished for this, it is very hard to argue that her academic freedom has been threatened.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You are arguing that the people who reprimanded her think causing harm to a minority group is insignificant. I'm pointing out to you that your interpretation is asinine.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are arguing that the people who reprimanded her think causing harm to a minority group is insignificant. I'm pointing out to you that your interpretation is asinine.

No. I am not arguing that.

I will clarify:

1. While I have no idea what the professor and university administrators believe (because I cannot read minds and so neither of us can say what they believe), I will assume that they are generally supportive of equality and therefore also support trans rights. I am also assuming this about the student(s) who complained about Shepherd.

2. I am also assuming that the professor and everyone else think that there is a spectrum of harm that we can cause to trans people. This spectrum would have something like “using state power to set up and run torture/death camps for trans people” on one end, and something like “accidentally using the wrong pronoun when talking to your trans friend” at the other end.

3. I am assuming that the prof et al think Shepherd’s actions were on the less harmful (or if you prefer, less significant) end.

4. This means that while the prof et al thought Shepherd violated the ethical code, it was not significant enough to merit a formal complaint or a formal hearing or any punishment.

Now, I mentioned this in reply to Shepherd’s tweet about the lack of paperwork, because it explains why there was no paperwork (or punishment).

I am also arguing that the lack of punishment shows that her academic freedom is not being threatened.

Why do you think there was no paperwork?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I see that you are backtracking now. It took us several posts to get to this point where you are at least willing to admit that what Shepherd did was seen as significant, when that is obvious on the face of it. This is a form of "attrition debating" and a waste of anybody's time.

At this rate, we would get round to talk about what's actual at issue here in 2019 so I'll leave it at that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that I claimed that they saw it as so insignificant as to not merit a formal hearing or punishment.

If you want to take that as saying that they saw it as significant, i.e. the exact opposite of what I was saying, then you have misunderstood.

Again, the lack of punishment shows that they thought it was not that significant and it also shows that her academic freedom was not threatened.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It makes sense that you want to downplay this incident because it makes your side look as irrational and ideological as it actually is.

Subsequent events continue to demonstrate this as well. Apparently Shepherd is oppressing her professor - with her "white tears" among other things - because she's white and he's not. There have also been claims that there's been increased transphobic violence since she made the recording public. In response to a request for evidence we get the following:

Finlay added that many people have asked for proof of this ‘transphobic’ violence at Laurier, but they believe they shouldn’t have to prove themselves, or relive their trauma.

“I fundamentally refuse to perform my trauma in order for other people to care about, or respect me. I refuse to become the victim that the alt-right simultaneously insists that I become and vilifies, I refuse for my truth to be contingent on the violence that I experience, and I refuse to dehumanize myself for this movement or trans-justice.”

The common characteristic seems to be that evidence is no longer required, something we are also seeing with sexual harassment allegations. The comments I posted earlier were meant to be parodies, but the left cannot be parodied anymore because their actions and beliefs are as absurd in reality.

[Pants-of-dog]

It makes sense that you want to downplay this incident because it makes your side look as irrational and ideological as it actually is.

And it makes sense that you want to portray the professor et al as being irrational and ideological because it supports your victim narrative.

But our biases do not mean that we are wrong, nor do these biases change facts.

For example, your wish to see the professor et al as draconian tyrants who have limited the academic freedom of an innocent teacher is contradicted by the fact that she did not receive a formal complaint nor was subject to a formal hearing, nor was she punished.

Subsequent events continue to demonstrate this as well. Apparently Shepherd is oppressing her professor - with her "white tears" among other things - because she's white and he's not.

Who said this?

There have also been claims that there's been increased transphobic violence since she made the recording public. In response to a request for evidence we get the following:

The common characteristic seems to be that evidence is no longer required, something we are also seeing with sexual harassment allegations. The comments I posted earlier were meant to be parodies, but the left cannot be parodied anymore because their actions and beliefs are as absurd in reality.

As far as I can tell, this is a related topic, but is not the topic itself.

I would like to know why Shepherd wanted or needed this paperwork.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

And it makes sense that you want to portray the professor et al as being irrational and ideological because it supports your victim narrative.

I don't need to do this. Just quoting what they said or people listening to the tape demonstrates this nicely which is why the secret recording was valuable.

I fully support the right using left-wing narratives, if only to appeal to centrists who are inundated with these by the left but who have retained a sense of balance. More importantly, however, it forces the left to come out with their more bizarre ideas to explain why they think the victim narratives only apply to their chosen groups, i.e. the "white tears" comment about Shepherd or your own claim that blacks cannot be racist. Again, it's best to let leftists demonstrate themselves how unreasonable and sometimes borderline insane they are. As far as I'm concerned, juxtaposing the right's position that there's nothing wrong with showing this video clip in a neutral fashion with the left's position that words are violence and questioning "gender pronouns" is equivalent to denying the existence of transgender people, should to the trick all by itself, but if tying this to a person's experience helps, so be it.

Of course, the real victim here is society at large because it will have to deal with legions of infantilised graduates who apparently cannot be exposed to a benign video clip. The claim that showing this clip is transphobic/"gendered violence" and causes harm is absurd and if it indeed violates the law, the law clearly has to go. There have been concerns about the Ontario human rights code which Shepherd has allegedly violated precisely because it is so vague and all-encompassing. Another reason why the recording is useful, as it shows that these concerns are justified and SJWs use it to ban ideas they don't like from classrooms.

Who said this?

Here are the relevant quotes in an article shared widely on social media that made these claims:

"Shepherd seems almost willfully blind to the ways by which speech acts, including the loaded history of white women tears, can indeed, incite physical and verbal violence. […] Others, myself included, who reached out to her to highlight the way in which historically rooted theatrics of white tears were mobilized to ultimately dismiss an untenured professor of colour, she dismissed and lampooned these allegations, questioning the basis of claims that she might be transphobic or racist. […] It’s true that Laurier did a rather poor job of handling all of this, but I do think they threw an untenured professor of colour under the bus to avoid media scrutiny. His only mistake was comparing Jordan Peterson to someone who committed genocide, when in reality, he is better compared to someone who denies genocide ever happened."

The quoted article was written by Aadita Chaudhury, a professor at York University who made valuable contributions to the research literature with papers such as "Tampons as omens: Anticipating the deluge".

Rinaldo Walcott, associate professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, in a TV debate (skip to 31:26).

As far as I can tell, this is a related topic, but is not the topic itself.

Relevant because requiring no evidence is increasingly becoming the modus operandi of the left. A related issue is hate crime reports being treated as facts.

I would like to know why Shepherd wanted or needed this paperwork.

If I was her and accused of harming people, then I'd like to see some evidence that somebody was actually harmed. But at the very least I'd like to see the claim based on which the allegation of causing harm was made. According to you, it was just "annoyance" and if you are right that by annoying one or more students one can violate the gendered violence policy (note the word violence there) and Ontario law, we all have an interest in knowing the details. After all, these things have a habit of spreading beyond universities and to other countries in no time.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't need to do this. Just quoting what they said or people listening to the tape demonstrates this nicely which is why the secret recording was valuable.

I fully support the right using left-wing narratives, if only to appeal to centrists who are inundated with these by the left but who have retained a sense of balance. More importantly, however, it forces the left to come out with their more bizarre ideas to explain why they think the victim narratives only apply to their chosen groups, i.e. the "white tears" comment about Shepherd or your own claim that blacks cannot be racist. Again, it's best to let leftists demonstrate themselves how unreasonable and sometimes borderline insane they are. As far as I'm concerned, juxtaposing the right's position that there's nothing wrong with showing this video clip in a neutral fashion with the left's position that words are violence and questioning "gender pronouns" is equivalent to denying the existence of transgender people, should to the trick all by itself, but if tying this to a person's experience helps, so be it.

Of course, the real victim here is society at large because it will have to deal with legions of infantilised graduates who apparently cannot be exposed to a benign video clip. The claim that showing this clip is transphobic/"gendered violence" and causes harm is absurd and if it indeed violates the law, the law clearly has to go. There have been concerns about the Ontario human rights code which Shepherd has allegedly violated precisely because it is so vague and all-encompassing. Another reason why the recording is useful, as it shows that these concerns are justified and SJWs use it to ban ideas they don't like from classrooms.

None of this is an argument. It seems to be just a rant about those immature leftists.

You seem to be buying into the right wing victim narrative.

How is Shepherd a victim? If I deliberately refused to do what my immediate supervisor told me to do, and did something less that did not have anything to do with what I am being paid to do, I would be reprimanded. I would be lucky if the consequence was a conversation between memand my boss about how I made a mistake and how to avoid doing the same mistake in the future.

This is what happened to Shepherd.

I guess that having to deal with the consequences of doing your job badly is “oppression” by the draconian left wing academy.

The quoted article was written by Aadita Chaudhury, a professor at York University who made valuable contributions to the research literature with papers such as "Tampons as omens: Anticipating the deluge".

Rinaldo Walcott, associate professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and the Director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto, in a TV debate (skip to 31:26).

So the professor was reprimanded, but here you guys are complaining about how Shepherd was punished?

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Relevant because requiring no evidence is increasingly becoming the modus operandi of the left. A related issue is hate crime reports being treated as facts.

I see. You feel it is related because you feel the left is victimising and oppressing you and yours.

If you want evidence that trans people are receiving more hate at Laurier, go to their Facebook page and see the hate for yourself.

If I was her and accused of harming people, then I'd like to see some evidence that somebody was actually harmed. But at the very least I'd like to see the claim based on which the allegation of causing harm was made. According to you, it was just "annoyance" and if you are right that by annoying one or more students one can violate the gendered violence policy (note the word violence there) and Ontario law, we all have an interest in knowing the details. After all, these things have a habit of spreading beyond universities and to other countries in no time.

Well, since she was not formally accused of anything, why does she need paperwork?

Also, did she sign a contract as a TA to support the code of ethics that the university has adopted?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

None of this is an argument. It seems to be just a rant about those immature leftists.

You seem to be buying into the right wing victim narrative.

How is Shepherd a victim? If I deliberately refused to do what my immediate supervisor told me to do, and did something less that did not have anything to do with what I am being paid to do, I would be reprimanded. I would be lucky if the consequence was a conversation between memand my boss about how I made a mistake and how to avoid doing the same mistake in the future.

This is what happened to Shepherd.

I guess that having to deal with the consequences of doing your job badly is “oppression” by the draconian left wing academy.

You are assuming that people like me believe that the university's policy and interpretation of the law is reasonable. This is one of these times where you seem to be willfully missing the point as well as ignoring what I've written:

Of course, the real victim here is society at large because it will have to deal with legions of infantilised graduates who apparently cannot be exposed to a benign video clip. The claim that showing this clip is transphobic/"gendered violence" and causes harm is absurd and if it indeed violates the law, the law clearly has to go. There have been concerns about the Ontario human rights code which Shepherd has allegedly violated precisely because it is so vague and all-encompassing. Another reason why the recording is useful, as it shows that these concerns are justified and SJWs use it to ban ideas they don't like from classrooms.

So the professor was reprimanded, but here you guys are complaining about how Shepherd was punished?

If I was you I wouldn't want to comment on professors seriously claiming that white TAs or white women's tears are oppressing them either.

I see. You feel it is related because you feel the left is victimising and oppressing you and yours.

If you want evidence that trans people are receiving more hate at Laurier, go to their Facebook page and see the hate for yourself.

I explained the commonality: the insistence that nobody should be required to provide evidence. Another thing to note is the artificial language many of these people are using when talking about their victimhood. It has a cultish quality whereby people are initiated not only to think but also talk in a certain way and can no longer use our common natural language. Of course, this doesn't come easily to everybody as one of the people in the meeting demonstrates when she tries to explain what the actual policy violation was and starts to stutter:

Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.

Well, since she was not formally accused of anything, why does she need paperwork?

Not sure why I'm replying to you if you just come back and ask the same question again.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are assuming that people like me believe that the university's policy and interpretation of the law is reasonable. This is one of these times where you seem to be willfully missing the point as well as ignoring what I've written:

If your argument is that this is a poorly written code, fine. Then I am confused as to why we are discussing Lindsay Shepherd at all.

Having said that, the university has to live with it just like anyone else in Ontario, and presumably they are on the hook if any of their teachers violate it.

Considering that, please note that Shepherd was not punished, which implies that the university itself did not see Shepherd’s actions as being harmful. If they did see Shepherd’s actions as being so harmful that it was a problem, they would have been obligated to report Shepherd to the tribunal that handles these cases.

So even if the code is vague and all encompassing, it did not lead to anyone being punished in this case.

As to your comment concerning banning ideas from clasrooms, please note that Shepherd was supoosed to be teaching a class on writing skills. She did not do that. Instead, she showed a video that had nothing to do with the class, she did not contextualise it, and did not tie it into the class context in any way.

It is like arguing that Aristotle’s poetics is banned in engineering classes.

If I was you I wouldn't want to comment on professors seriously claiming that white TAs or white women's tears are oppressing them either.

Since the professor never claimed that, I could not have commented on it.

The white tears comment you quoted was from a third party who was correctly pointing out that portraying white women as victims has been used to rationalise hate speech and violence. The whole Muslim “rapefugees” thing is one example. So is the whole thing where posses would lynch black men who were suspected of raping white women. It is probably why Fox and Rebel Media and other right wing news outlets love hiring pretty white women.

I explained the commonality: the insistence that nobody should be required to provide evidence.

That’s because different contexts require different amounts of evidence. When conservatives get together to complain about SJWs, they do not demand any evidence at all because they are just socialising and reaffirming their tribalism.

Having said that, it is easy to go get evidence of transphobia without demanding that a specific trans person go through their personal life in a public venue for everyone to pick apart and criticise. That was what the trans person you quoted was talking about: not having their personal life used as bigotry porn, and the fact that arguments against transphobia should not require trans people to do this to themselves.

Please note that I have continually asked for evidence that Shepherd was in any way punished or is in any way a victim and no evidence has been supplied.

Another thing to note is the artificial language many of these people are using when talking about their victimhood. It has a cultish quality whereby people are initiated not only to think but also talk in a certain way and can no longer use our common natural language. Of course, this doesn't come easily to everybody as one of the people in the meeting demonstrates when she tries to explain what the actual policy violation was and starts to stutter:

Your feelings about how people talk are not relevant.

Not sure why I'm replying to you if you just come back and ask the same question again.

As long as we agree that she was not formally accused of anything, has not been punished, still has her job, and there is no media campaign against her like there is against the professor.

She is obviously hoping to cash in on the comtroversy like Peterson has.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

If your argument is that this is a poorly written code, fine. Then I am confused as to why we are discussing Lindsay Shepherd at all.

Having said that, the university has to live with it just like anyone else in Ontario, and presumably they are on the hook if any of their teachers violate it.

We are discussing Shepherd because she was accused of violating the policy and the law. Furthermore, the people who accused her clearly don't have a problem with either, as demonstrated by the recorded conversation. The professor also explicitly states that students should not be exposed to Peterson's views unless his views are denounced or they have been indoctrinated sufficiently to come to the "correct" conclusion by themselves.

Since the professor never claimed that, I could not have commented on it.

The white tears comment you quoted was from a third party who was correctly pointing out that portraying white women as victims has been used to rationalise hate speech and violence.

They both claim that Shepherd is the one who has "power" by virtue of having white skin colour, which automatically translates into the role of oppressor for her and oppressed for them as non-whites. That's a central theme of progressive ideology. As mentioned earlier, I'm very happy for them to come forward with those charges because it makes it plain for the average person how unreasonable, ideologically rigid and borderline crazy progressives are. It's hilarious to see this professor whining about his suffering caused by TAs like Lindsay Shepherd.

That’s because different contexts require different amounts of evidence.

And some contexts apparently require no evidence at all. That's the "context" we are talking about.

Your feelings about how people talk are not relevant.

Not my feelings but my observation. Progressives are increasingly creating their own language and it's becoming impenetrable for a normal person. This is quite likely not entirely intentional but a function of their tribalism.

As long as we agree that she was not formally accused of anything, has not been punished, still has her job, and there is no media campaign against her like there is against the professor.

As long as we agree that progressives want to indoctrinate students and ban certain views from university classrooms.

[Pants-of-dog]

We are discussing Shepherd because she was accused of violating the policy and the law. Furthermore, the people who accused her clearly don't have a problem with either, as demonstrated by the recorded conversation. The professor also explicitly states that students should not be exposed to Peterson's views unless his views are denounced or they have been indoctrinated sufficiently to come to the "correct" conclusion by themselves.

I do not see how it is relevant that the professor and the other people present do not share your opinion about the code.

And your biased paraphrase of the professor’s position is not an argument.

More importantly, you are ignoring the fact that the university did not see Shepherd’s actions as being so harmful as to warrant any action by the university, and how this contradicts your claim that the code is a big problem.

They both claim that Shepherd is the one who has "power" by virtue of having white skin colour, which automatically translates into the role of oppressor for her and oppressed for them as non-whites. That's a central theme of progressive ideology. As mentioned earlier, I'm very happy for them to come forward with those charges because it makes it plain for the average person how unreasonable, ideologically rigid and borderline crazy progressives are. It's hilarious to see this professor whining about his suffering caused by TAs like Lindsay Shepherd.

This thing about oppressor and oppressed and race is something you are projecting onto the discussion. The only way that this has anything to do with it is that Shepherd is using conservatives in her attack on the university, which is something she would not be able to do if she was a woman of colour.

And some contexts apparently require no evidence at all. That's the "context" we are talking about.

Like the SJW thread here, or an informal discussion, some contexts do not require the same evidence protocols as a trial.

As long as we agree that progressives want to indoctrinate students and ban certain views from university classrooms.

I noticed how you ignored my argument explaining how Shepherd did not follow the class context when introducing Peterson’s video. Just like Aristotle is not applicable in an engineering class. So no, I do not agree.

You also ignored how trans people have a right to their privacy and should not be expected to have their personal trauma pored over in a public forum.

And you ignored my request for any evidence that Shepherd has had her freedom of speech or academic freedom restricted, despite your claims about the importance of evidence.

Since you have not refuted the facts that she was not formally accused of anything, has not been punished, still has her job, and there is no media campaign against her like there is against the professor, I will assume you agree.

When I say that Shepherd is obviously hoping to cash in on the controversy like Peterson has, I am referring to how Peterson is making some sweet cash from conservatives who support his position.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Well, as usual we are going in circles. I know you have the stamina to go back and forth for ages, ignoring your opponent's point and repeating yours with slight variations. Since I wouldn't follow a conversation that reaches this stage as an observer and progressives make the divisive basis of their ideology ever more obvious anyway, I don't see any value in continuing this. After this incident the public is clearly more aware of the insidious developments going on in and increasingly outside our universities and that's obviously positive.

Here's hoping that progressives remain oblivious and defensive about issues like this and don't learn anything from them. You certainly do give the impression that that's the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: A good article about the language distortions of the left in the context of this controversy:

Words Lose Their Meaning at Wilfrid Laurier University

I know that references to George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 have been overused in reference to the current crisis over freedom of expression at Wilfrid Laurier University. But I’m hoping my position as a Laurier professor will win sympathy from readers so that that they might indulge just one more tip of that hat to Orwell. Orwell wrote 1984 not as a standalone work but as the fictional counterpart to an essay he had written titled: “Politics and the English Language.” The piquant ideas of the essay, published in 1946, were repackaged in more accessible form two years later in the exciting narrative of his novel. Though different literary forms, the key message of both works was the same: beware any person or group that redefines words so that they no longer align with facts, common sense, and common usage. In the novel this idea is made blatantly obvious in the paradoxical mottos the totalitarian government requires its citizen to recite, such as: “War is Peace” and “Slavery is Freedom.” In the essay Orwell is equally straightforward stating: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

As one of a small group of professors pushing for maximum freedom of expression and inquiry at my university, I’ve been personally frustrated by my colleagues who claim that some topics are “not up for debate” and that censorship is required when a counter-argument offends the feelings of certain individuals or groups. However, professionally, as a researcher in the area of communication, I’ve been fascinated by the way my university’s free expression opponents provide a vivid illustration of Orwell’s theory of political language. The examples are numerous, but I’ll focus on just two.

Details of the Controversy

On November 10th the National Post broke the story of a Laurier Grad Student, Lindsay Shepherd, who got into trouble for showing her class a video clip from TVOntario that featured Jordan Peterson. It was a debate where Peterson argued against compelled speech, saying why he would not be forced to use non-gender specific pronouns like “Ze” and “Zer”. These newly created pronouns are now used by some transgendered people who prefer not to identify as either male or female.

The trouble for Shepherd came from two professors, Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, and a representative from the university’s Diversity and Equity Office, Adria Joel. They said the video should not have been shown and that doing so had created a “toxic environment” in the classroom. Reaction from other media and the Canadian public grew slowly at first, but after a secret recording of the meeting was released by Shepherd, interest accelerated. The overriding opinion was uniform: Shepherd was right for neutrally showing two sides of a debate and her three interrogators — two professors and one administrator — were wrong. Despite the overwhelming popular consensus that Laurier, and universities in general, should fairly present both sides of an argument, a substantial group of Laurier profs and students, bound by a far-left ideology, felt compelled to educate the public otherwise and so launched a counter-media campaign. Their first communications strategy, I’ll call it “the appeal to safety,” illustrates Orwell’s concepts of political language better than some of his own examples.

The Appeal to Safety

In “Politics and the English Language” Orwell describes how those hungry for power and position will use “meaningless words” to achieve their desired goals. He writes that they use words “which are almost completely lacking in meaning” that if used as intended, or substituted for clearer terms, would reveal “at once that language was being used in an improper way.” In media interviews, op-eds, and public letters posted to social media the leaders of this opposition group sought to redefine the meaning of harm. In popular understanding, harm to a human involves infliction of long-term damage that compromises normal appearance or function.

But this group jettisoned the established criteria and instead equated harm with taking offence and having one’s feelings hurt. Thus, under their new definition, they claimed students who found the ideas of Jordan Peterson objectionable and were exposed to them in a four minute video had been severely injured. Furthermore, the injury was not isolated to just those who saw the clip of the debate. Even hearing that such a video had been aired on campus was enough to do mental harm to others. Echoing the party line with hyperbolic flourish, the op-ed of one Laurier activist proclaimed—

"We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment."

In addition to “gendered violence” the term, “epistemic violence” was also used in their communiques. In his essay Orwell makes us aware of those who use “pretentious diction” as a method of manipulation; they use special words “to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments.” Certainly, “gender violence” and “epistemic violence” have the ring of clinical authority and suggest the claims of the free speech opponents have empirical backing.

Unfortunately, clinical authority is not on their side. Their attempt to “give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” was exposed when news reports began citing the most up to date psychological research. Existing research suggests that, for the average person, no lasting harmful effects arise from exposure to ideas they might find offensive. Amongst clinical psychologists, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is currently considered the gold standard treatment for anxiety disorders, including PTSD. A core component of CBT is exposing a person to their fears as well as reducing behaviors which encourage avoidance. The underlying logic of this technique is that avoidance increases mental fragility while exposure decreases it.

One article debunking the concept of rampant “mental harm” being perpetrated on campus referenced the work of Emory University professor of psychology, Scott Lilienfeld. Reviewing all the scientific literature on “microaggressions”— innocuous actions, comments or facts perceived to be racist or sexist slights — Lilienfeld concludes those claiming such phenomena cause psychological harm are wrong; “there is little to no empirical evidence to support such claims.” While their definition of harm and related claims were incredibly flawed, the logic of my campus’ free speech foes was not. They knew that proof of harm, mental or otherwise, would bolster support for their campaign to restrict certain ideas. So, when it was clear the public-at-large wasn’t buying the claim that videos from public television make classes unsafe, they changed tack and began claiming discussion of freedom of expression itself puts whole campuses under physical threat.

For example, in an open letter to university administration released November 24th and updated the 26th, a group of pro-speech-restriction Laurier faculty claimed the heated public discussion over freedom of expression had caused “our campuses to become unsafe.” They called on administration to “ensure the safety and protection of students and faculty who are being subjected to discrimination, harassment, and threats on their lives.” I categorically condemn illegal activities done under the guise of freedom of expression. When I read this open letter my response was revulsion toward the perpetrators and sympathy for those targeted. In solidarity with those affected, that day I posted to my twitter account: “I always say: be civil, criticize the idea don’t attack the person, & never threaten.”

However, my sympathy diminished when, on the evening of November 26th, Global TV news investigated the “unsafe” state of my campus. They reported Waterloo Regional Police had received no complaints of harassment, let alone threats to life, from Laurier faculty or students. A similar piece in The Globe and Mail the next morning stated no complaints of harassment or threats had been filed with Laurier Campus police. While I continue to abhor threats and harassment, in the absence of supporting evidence I’m left to wonder whether the faculty and students who claimed “threats on their lives” were sincerely concerned for their personal safety, or simply concerned that their position would gain popular support.

My campus’ free expression opponents probably realized their assertions of harm were reducing, not increasing, their credibility in the eyes of the public. Accordingly, around the end of November I noticed a refocusing of their messaging. The political language strategy that I now saw being emphasized I’ll call: “the appeal to contextualization.” It’s a strategy that again combines Orwell’s twin concepts of “meaningless words” and “pretentious diction.”

The Appeal to Contextualization

I say they refocused and began emphasizing this strategy, but it wasn’t new. It was employed right from the start of the controversy. In fact, it first makes its appearance in the recorded comments of professor Rambukkana. Explaining to Shepherd why it was wickedness to air a debate that allowed equal time to Jordan Peterson’s views on gender-pronouns, Rambukkana says that Shepherd’s “neutrality” is “kind of the problem”; it’s wrong, he explains, “bringing something like this up in class not critically.”

Here, his use of “critically” does not reflect the common meaning of “presenting opposite views.” Instead, it’s a reference to the leftist ideology of critical theory. Critical theory was created largely by a group of Marxist academics who started out in Germany but ended up at Columbia University. It posits groups and ideas must be presented in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor with the position of the former being elevated and that of the latter being muted or silenced completely.

That his notion of what constitutes “critical” differs from most people’s becomes clear when he openly refutes Shepherd’s claim that the purpose of “university is to challenge ideas you already have” in the neutral spirit of open, two-sided, debate. Rambukkana says that some ideas are not “up for debate” and that the proper way to approach certain views is to tell students, “this is a problematic idea that we might want to unpack.” When pressed by Shepherd if this form of contextualization isn’t tantamount to “taking sides”, Rambukkana, unphased, responds, “Yes.”

In one last plea to reason, Shepherd asks if it does not demean the intelligence of university students to believe that they must be told how to think about an issue because, after all, they are “adults.” Rambukkana replies, “Yes, but they’re very young adults. They don’t have the critical toolkit to be able to pick it apart yet. This is one of the things we’re teaching them, so this is why it becomes something that has to be done with a bit more care.” Rambukkana’s insinuation that “teaching” equals indoctrinating summarizes how “the appeal to contextualization” works. But I’ll “unpack” it a bit further.

As the dialogue between Shepherd and Rambukkana shows, this strategy is simply a version of “leading the witness” or “priming the candidate.” In a court room setting, leading the witness is an illegal practice in which an attorney presents information in a biased way to elicit the right responses from a witness on the stand. Similarly, in an academic setting, priming the candidate occurs when a researcher asks certain questions, or shows particular images, in order to motivate specific thoughts or responses in a human subject. In both cases, an authority figure is putting words or ideas into the mouth or mind of someone under their control.

While they try to give it a coat of respectability, “leading” and “priming” is exactly what those promoting “the appeal to contextualization” strategy believe should happen in the classroom. As I’ve said, Rambukkana introduced the “appeal to contextualization” but increasingly it’s found in the latest open letters and op-eds crafted by Laurier’s free expression opponents. In an open letter to the student body issued November 28th, the presidents of Laurier’s undergraduate and graduate student unions issued a joint statement calling for “proper contextualization and intentional facilitation by instructors” to ensure “challenging material should not willfully incite hatred or violence.” We should probably keep in mind that their point of reference when they mention “challenging material” that “willfully incites hatred or violence” is the showing of a four minute clip from public television. Similarly, in a national op-ed published December 5th, one of Laurier’s sociology professors threw her support behind “the appeal to contextualization” describing what enlightened censorship looks like in her class. She wrote:

"When I show videos of controversial speakers like [Jordan] Peterson and Anne [sic] Coulter in my classes, it is within a critical context where students can deliberate on the boundaries between free speech, hate speech and human rights in a democratic society based on social justice ideals."

I don’t think I’m misinterpreting when I repackage this professor’s classroom ground rules as: we can discuss controversial speakers but only within a critical [theory] context [of oppressed and oppressor] that judges the speakers on [my] social justice ideals.

Sadly, we know what happens. Students challenging concepts such as white privilege—regardless of their intent or the quantity or quality of their facts—are labeled racists, those debunking the gender wage gap are labeled misogynists, and those giving equal time to an argument opposing compelled pronouns are labeled “transphobic.” (Again, “transphobic” is the actual label university representative Adria Joel used to describe Shepherd despite her insistence that, ““I know in my heart, and I expressed to the class, that I’m not transphobic.”)

Next, after receiving their obligatory label, these non-conforming students will be accused of spreading hate speech. Besides Shepherd’s case at Laurier, a quick Google search provides scores of examples from of universities where this has also happened. Then comes the final step in the process whereby those making the accusation of hate speech will say they now have the right to shut down their ideological opponents. To be sure, my Laurier colleague says as much when, in the same op-ed, she writes:

"As an academic, I support free speech as well as academic freedom. But these are not without limitations. Freedom of expression is limited by the consequences of that speech. Spreading hate is not free speech."

It doesn’t matter to these free speech foes that their interpretation of what constitutes hate speech is completely at odds with the facts. I imagine that they rationalize their “noble lie” because the ends justify the means. But they willingly ignore that in the history Canada no one has ever been convicted of hate speech for statements that use civil language, are absent threats or incitement of physical violence, and reflect fair comment or factual evidence. While there are moves from those on the far-left to change the current legal status-quo, it’s currently the law of the land that Canadians are free to challenge and criticize any idea, person, or group provided they adhere to the criteria I’ve described.

The Appeal to Common Sense

The bulk of my essay has explored how political language has been used by a significant group of professors and students at Wilfrid Laurier University to craft two appeals meant to stifle free speech. In keeping with the theme of this essay, I’ll conclude with a final appeal of my own—an appeal to common sense. I’m making this pitch to those on my campus who feel restrictions on free expression and inquiry—beyond the bounds of Canada’s current laws—are needed. To my faculty colleagues, in particular, I say: Please reflect on the history of the marginalized people and groups that you’re seeking to protect through your calls for enlightened censorship. Consider how it is that they now enjoy the enshrined rights they do. If you’re honest, you’ll admit that the single greatest factor in their collective advancement has been the ability to articulate their arguments freely.

In light of that evidence alone, it’s absurd to think that restricting free expression at this time will come to any lasting good.

Mind you, it was George Orwell who said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

David Millard Haskell is an Associate Professor of Liberal Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.