of professors from Wilford Laurier to
talk about the Lindsay Shepard Scandal
and what happened with professor
rambucana and pimlot and administrator
Adria Joel Adria right Adria Joel who I
think is The Unsung
what would you call it the unsung
villain in this entire process because
she seems to have escaped relatively
unscathed even though I think her role
is more reprehensible than anyone else's
anyways why don't you guys introduce
yourself and talk about what you've been
doing at Wilford Laurie and also just
let everybody know why we're meeting
yeah well uh I'm Dave Haskell and I'm a
prophet Laurier I'm in the faculty of
liberal arts this is my colleague will
will how did we come into this whole
thing like this is this didn't just
happen with the Lindsay Affair like well
to background we support maximum freedom
of expression and we've really found
each other along with a few other
professors who feel the same way that we
do that free expression and free inquiry
is the core value of a university and
but sort of how do we run into each
other business school uh so my exposure
to faculty Arts is minimal and I've been
really sheltered from this
professionally but watching what's
happening in the U.S watching what was
happening to you at UT I'm a grad I did
my PhD here and
um
it was in January that uh our University
leadership sent out an email
um explaining to The Faculty how to
think about the Trump travel ban and
declaring uh it's its commitment to
diversity equity and uh inclusivity and
I was really offended by that that they
would see fit to pronounce on a
political issue in another country uh
offended why
I I'm I got a PhD I'm able to reach my
own conclusions uh about whether these
things are good or bad I don't need my
Administration preaching to me about the
right way to think about an issue a
political issue particularly and so so
why do you think they did that well and
and what do you think they were thinking
when they did that because that sort of
seems self-evident right it's not the
administration's role to dictate a
political stance to The Faculty that's
just clearly not their role so what do
you think they were thinking it would it
seemed like a manifestation of trump
derangement syndrome it seemed like just
the the same reaction that the the
Democrats in the US were having that
they lost to this horrible person and
they couldn't understand why and it was
so reprehensible and here was yet
another
terrible thing that he was doing and we
must all agree how bad it was well I
mean even if the funny thing is even if
you can make that case and say
personally and even socially the idea
that you could make that case and then
be University Administration and then
tell your faculty to think that way I
mean that's taking it in a whole
different that's taking it to a whole
whole different level of presump
presumptuousness did that come from our
Administration or from the diversity and
Equity from the administration from the
leadership the university leadership is
that right
I remember the uh it's confusing because
I remember we also got an email from the
diversity and Equity office when when
Trump won and they said that they've
created a safe space and they were going
to be open for extra hours in case
anybody needed to go and find uh Comfort
right that happened a lot in the United
States eh but you think at least the
Americans have some justification for it
given that it's their country I mean we
need safe spaces because a conservative
was elected in the United States in the
in not even in our country it does seem
to be a little bit on the Absurd side
well it's just to me you know they
didn't send out an email when Justin
Trudeau won and I have to imagine that
there were some students who were
offended like there's got to be
conservative students at Laurier but
it's it's very much a one-sided
conversation when we talk about
Administration when we talk about the
diversity and Equity office they talk
about diversity but they really don't
mean it because they do not want those
students who are ideologically diverse
they talk about inclusion but they
purposely will exclude those students
and an email like that is proof positive
of that kind of exclusion but didn't so
well that was that was the thing that
just got me hopping mad and I was
emailing back and forth with a colleague
of Queens uh and we were talking about
the importance of free speech and this
had outraged me and uh and he sent me a
link to a Star article that David had
written this is now maybe a month later
in February or March about uh this guest
speaker oh Daniel robotic yeah yeah yeah
yeah and that she couldn't speak and was
she was she uh umeshi's lawyer yeah yeah
yeah yeah yeah so merely because she
served as a defense lawyer for someone
she was pilloried well this was another
like when people look at the Lindsay
Shepard Affair this is not an isolated
case at Wilford Laurier this is
something that is
it is a regular occurrence and now it
isn't always as high profile but whether
it's students in my office saying I
can't speak whether it's my colleague
sometimes saying to their students who
believes that they're stifled and every
hand goes up and there have been cases
of that colleagues have come and told me
but we've got these other examples like
when Daniel robatai came to speak at the
Brantford Campus of Wilford Laurier and
some students agitated until she was
forced not to do so and and my my
president right we should provide some
background so that was the gomeshi case
right and so ganeshi was a CBC
journalist who was accused of sexual
assault and sexual misbehavior by a
number of people who was immediately let
go at CBC who has dragged viciously
through the Press I would say and then
was
um
found innocent
in the courts and and but and he had a
defense lawyer and the defense lawyer
had been invited to speak yes she was
part of the defense team she was going
to speak and she wasn't going to speak
about the gomeshi trial in fact she was
going to talk about what it's like to be
a high power powerful lawyer
um in in the big city in Toronto and I
mean that would have been really
valuable for the criminology students
but the students who were agitating
against her really with the support of
several professors uh they were saying
well no if she comes on it will trigger
students it will um it will mentally
harm students and so that was used as
justification for the interesting too to
be to see that these claims of harm and
so forth are are generally put forth by
people who have no clinical expertise
whatsoever and their idea is that the
way that you
first of all that the way to Aid
people's mental health is to protect
them and there's no evidence for that
whatsoever and the second is that
in your attempts to protect them the
best thing to do is to shelter them from
exposure to ideas that would be
challenging or frightening which is
precisely the opposite of what a
clinician does when he's trying to or
she is trying to deal with someone who
has excess anxiety what you do
in a case where someone who has excess
anxiety even as a consequence of a
trauma let's say is you get them to
voluntarily expose themselves to
increasingly larger doses of exactly
what frightens them that's the Curative
root so not only is it
um advice that's being disseminated Say
by people who aren't clinicians it's
actually advice that's being
disseminated who are promoting the
opposite of what an informed clinician
would do and it isn't that isn't my
opinion that's that that's as close to a
consensus as anything you could reach
among clinical practitioners right one
the rules for clinical Improvement is
get your story straight something like
that talk about your past sort it out
and expose yourself to the things that
you're afraid of that you're inclined to
avoid that's the pathway to to
resilience and more robust mental health
okay so tell us the story a bit you guys
have an inside view of what's happened
on the Wilford Laurier campus since the
the Lindsay Shepard Affair broke I
should just say that you know after this
robita event I read David's piece and
immediately emailed him and just said
and that's how hindrance right and uh we
met and we had lunch uh and uh and and
just talked about the you know free
speech in the Chicago statement and how
can we get it implemented the university
but we just couldn't see any way forward
and really right so that's another thing
we want to discuss you guys have
Rewritten the Chicago statement right so
that it's more appropriate in a Canadian
context right we call it the Laurier
Laurier statement for freedom of
expression okay okay and you've been
trying to convince or or you're trying
to being tried you've been trying to
communicate with the university
authorities to have that ratified
essentially adopted as a statement of
principles and have you had any success
with that or what's the consequence they
deferred to a task force that's that's
uh going to be held uh and we can
certainly okay and is that in the
aftermath of the shepherd Affair is that
going to be part of it really do
anything over the summer just because it
just seemed too big a mountain uh and
there seemed to be no way to introduce
the idea right catalyst forward now
you've got your Catalyst and Lindsay
Shepard becomes the Catalyst and oh my
goodness and and you know what
what uh object lesson in what goes on at
Laurier but also what an object lesson
and how you handle these Free Speech
opponents uh she's really given a model
that other students I hope will follow
but it was it was through this robotic
thing that we got to know each other and
and a few others yeah there's a couple
more of you that's right yeah and and so
about five I think you told me that's
right so so the robot eye incident
really brought us out of the woodwork we
started to chat and say you know we see
this problem on our University we don't
know what to do and then when the
Lindsay Shepard Scandal broke uh we all
immediately we were emailing us it's
happened again is essentially what we
were saying we said we've got to do
something about this uh I'd already
the I was out on a on a trip and I came
home and I said to my wife where are the
newspapers this was uh November 12th
when the story broke Christy
blatchford's story and I said hey honey
where are the newspaper she said I can't
let you see them I said why not she said
you cannot read the papers and of course
it was because Christy blatchford's
article was in there so as soon as I
read it I I was beside myself I thought
it's happened again and this time this
is really terrible they've attacked a TA
is what they've done so I contacted with
the full force of the administration and
and claims that she had done mental harm
broken two laws two laws Federal and
provincial
sincerely worried that they were going
to Railroad this young lady or they
could have easily taken her to the
Ontario Human Rights Commission they
would have had a field day what was
going to happen I contacted Christy
blatsford I said can you put me in touch
with her she was kind enough to do so I
got in touch with Lindsay and I said
I know that this is a terrible time but
you've got a professor who supports you
I knew that these gentlemen also would
uh and then quickly I as quickly as I
could I wrote an op-ed for the Toronto
Star that week just again saying this is
happening the world needs to be aware of
it but it was really after that uh that
Monday after the story broke on the
Saturday we started to talk and and how
can we how can we assist Lindsay and and
how can we well the op-ed helped and the
fact that the star ran it was quite
remarkable as well so hooray to the star
the star really does want to do its best
to Champion free expression yeah well
you'd think journalists would actually
be concerned about that to some degree
well and I think they are like one of
the things that's happened to me in the
last year is that although the Press
coverage of what I did and just to
remind people so last year I made a
video about Bill c-16 which was the bill
whose Provisions Lindsay Shepard
theoretically transgressed against just
to be clear about that and when I first
made the video I was a kid used by all
sorts of people including journalists of
well first of all making unnecessary
noise and being unnecessarily alarmist
which were the minor accusations and
then the more major accusations were
that you know I was all the things that
you'd expect at far right
um agitator to be a bigot in a
transphobian a racist and all of these
things and so but what what was
interesting was that the journalists by
and large especially the main
journalists turned around on that issue
really quickly it was probably within
three weeks because what happened was a
couple of them actually went and read
the policy documents that I had referred
to on the Ontario Human Rights
Commission website which are still there
and which are still appalling and have
led exactly to this situation with
Lindsay and as soon as they read what I
had been
uh uh what what outing let's say in my
video then they started to understand
that this what that I wasn't just
ringing a bell for no reason at all it
was actually reasonable I think of
people to go after me to begin with
because Canada is such a safe and
peaceful place in our political
situation an economic situation is being
so stable that when someone comes out
and says look we're in danger of making
a major error The Logical First Response
should be no there's something wrong
with you it's like we're fine there's
something wrong with you I was just
trying to protect these people right
exactly well and and so it's reasonable
I think it was reasonable for me to be
hit hard in the aftermath of doing that
because well generally speaking
whistleblowers in Canada are alarmists
in Canada have very little to be
alarmist about right but this this okay
so now so fine so this thing happened
with Lindsay what what have you seen
happening on the Wilford Laurier campus
things that I'm not particularly proud
of I I would say I mean I knew that will
and some other colleagues were going to
come to the aid of Lindsay but I was
thinking that once her recording became
public that we would just have a flood
of professors coming to support our
cause which is we had a Laurier
statement for freedom of expression
modeled on the Chicago statement we
thought that immediately people would
just say of course we need to reinforce
that this needs to be the primary
Mission free expression free inquiry
needs to be the primary Mission and we
got that up pretty fast we really did in
about 10 days uh and and got it on
change.org and then where I was emailing
everybody that I knew and trying to get
people interested and I would say out of
50 emails I sent I got 15 signatures
from personal uh relationships so even
with personal relationships you could
only get a 30 hit rate so what do you
think's stopping professors from signing
that say or clambering on board
especially in the aftermath of the
shepherd record recording which we
should point out you know and this is
one of the things that's very
interesting is that
outside
Wilford Laurier and perhaps outside
universities that are in the same boat
the reaction to that
recording was Universal right and
National and international and uniform
and the reaction was what the hell this
is scandalous there's nothing about this
that is acceptable right and so what's
what struck me as so remarkable is that
even though there's been International
outrage over this and and very and not
and and outrage of A Sort that's only
been disputed by a very small number of
people at least to begin with Wilfred
Laurier responded on Moss let's say as
if this was somehow debatable you know
as if there were two sides of the story
here let's say and I thought well I
thought rambucana and pimlot who were
the professors did what they did I
thought was appalling
for in upgrading her and in the manner
in which they did it and in the language
that they used but I thought what was
truly terrifying was the presence of
Adria Joel at that Inquisition because
she was a administrator who was hired
specifically to do exactly what she was
doing by legislated necessity on the
part of the Ontario liberal government
right because it wasn't just the
university that was involved in this her
position was set up because of
legislative necessity which is something
also to keep in mind when we're going
after the universities okay so you had a
hard time getting faculty on board how
many faculty members did sign it 59 is
it yeah out of out of how many faculty
550 full-time and now and so you say
well what what's going on with them well
I think that some maybe I know this is
hard to believe but maybe unaware even
now I think there's a big proportion
that are unaware I I it's unbelievable
is that it is I think that okay well
that's its own Mystery because I I don't
know where you'd have to have been in
the now last month to not have noticed
that this has happened that people
perhaps in The Sciences the Computer
Sciences the math they they've got their
head down and they're they're doing
their research and and so and so I don't
think there's anything diabolical there
I think that business as well I've got
very few signatures from the the
business faculty I mean some but uh a
lot of people just aren't engaged it's a
bit of a commuter school a little bit
and so I think people are just getting
on with their research and their
teaching maybe not aware of the problem
well that's that's an interesting thing
in and of itself because I think part of
What's led to the occupation of the
University let's say by the radical
post-modern types is the proclivity of
the scientists in particular but also I
would say the more serious Scholars to
be focusing near thoroughly on their
field of inquiry which is essentially
what they should be doing and not paying
attention to any of the broader
contextual issues which is actually a
perfectly fine strategy when things are
going well but a terrible strategy when
they're not and what you also see so
we've got these people who might not be
aware
and we've got the few who are aware and
are supporting maximum free expression
but then you've got these other people
who are convinced that maximum free
expression free inquiry is not a good
thing for a university and and those
people are definitely congregated within
the Arts and the humanities and they
justify it because they are applying a
social justice lens or what they would
call a critical theory lens to this
entire uh this entire entire issue and
and how about a quick summary of
critical theory well critical theory I
mean in a nutshell it's an idea that
came from the Frankfurt School in
Germany it transfers over to Columbia
University uh it is some German Scholars
who are marxists and what they are
saying is that uh Marxism as an economic
unit or as an economic philosophy really
doesn't work it doesn't transfer very
well but let's change it over to a
social theory and it's a it's a theory
of oppressor and oppressed and it's very
bifurcated you've you are either one or
the other and if you are the oppressed
you're good and if you're the oppressor
you're bad and it's as simple as that
there's no Nuance or okay I'm I'm being
as bad as they are to to so I'm giving
you the really broad Strokes on this but
essentially it does set up the villain
and the victim and and it is the idea
that we must do everything to silence
the villain the oppressor and to Center
the to the oppressed yes and then we
will Elevate the oppressed and the same
thing happened essentially with the
French uh deconstructionists in the
1970s it is so this is this is the
motivation behind it but when when you
hear
um them talk about critical theory
it is not critical thinking there's a
big difference and so parents will hear
well they're teaching critical theory
isn't that a good thing no because
critical thinking means I'm going to
show you both sides of this argument
critical theory means I'm going to
deliberately give you one side of the
argument I'm going to tell you who's
right and I'm going to tell you who's
wrong there's an oppressor and a press
the oppressor is the bad guy the
oppressed is the good guy and it's a
very manipulative way of thinking so uh
so so there's let's say two reasons why
people wouldn't sign the the the uh the
petition one is they're doing something
else and and they're just not interested
in it and and fair enough even though I
think that that's dangerous at the
moment the second is that they're
actually philosophically or
ideologically opposed to the
propositions and so to what degree do
you think the latter is the determining
Factor behind the relatively small
degree of support that you that you guys
have been able to drum up that's a big
thing that the the a group of Faculty
signed an open letter to the university
complaining about the violence and and
that the the administration need to make
the campus safe yeah they did the same
thing with me after I I made my video I
was I made the campus unsafe and 200
people signed up signed a petition what
does unsafe mean
I mean this is the problem
the the left the far left are taking
words that have a traditional meaning a
traditional definition and they're
blowing that definition completely
completely away and and at one time harm
meant that there was an infliction of
damage that would have lasting effect
and it would compromise the appearance
or the function right we can think about
damage to a car right lasting and it's
affecting the the appearance or the
function that's what harm is but they've
stretched that definition so that it
becomes meaningless that my an
objectionable idea becomes harm that
that when you show a video you've made a
place unsafe
and that you know that's the language of
trigger warnings and safe space but but
it's disingenuous there was a trans
rally and one of the speakers said that
letting I can quote this properly
letting Peterson's views be heard in the
classroom is violence it is violent yeah
right right
yes you can react with violence yes well
that's often what I think that I've
thought a lot about one of the tenets of
post-modernism
less so I would say of critical theory
but particularly of post-modernism and
it's more Marxist variance is that the
only motivation for the construction of
hierarchies is power you think well
that's
no there's lots of reasons for producing
hierarchies right there's hierarchies of
competence there's hierarchies of
Interest there's higher hierarchies of
aesthetic quality like there's all sorts
of wherever you can make a qualitative
judgment you make a hierarchy so there's
the idea that power is the only driving
force between behind the construction of
hierarchies is absolutely
Preposterous so you think well why in
the world would anyone make that claim
that it's only Power that exists well as
far as I can tell at least one of the
reasons is that it justifies the use of
power if you have your position because
of power which is basically tyranny then
I'm fully warranted in my use of power
against you that's all there is so I
think it's a great justification for it
okay so how many people signed the
petition stating that the campus had
become unsafe that was like 79
79 just like that okay so you got more
people signing a petition claiming that
what Shepard did made the campus unsafe
than you did getting some okay so that's
interesting because one of the things
we're going to address later is the
president's letter as a consequence of
the inquiry into the Lindsay Shepard
Affair and one of the things she says
um people who've tried to downplay what
happened at Linds at Wilford Laurie have
said basically
two or three things one is that
well the shepherd is not to be trusted
and she's really like a a subtle arm of
the right wing that's one one and that
she's a reprehensible character yes yes
sir Peterson I know they directly went
after I'm quite sneaky that way
um the second is that pimlot rambukana
and Joel misinterpreted bill c-16 which
I think is absolutely Preposterous I
think they interpreted exactly the way
that it was written especially if you
consider the surrounding policies and
that's what I was warning about last
September
and the third is that this was an
isolated incident and doesn't truly
reflect the reality either of Wilford
Laurier or other campuses and that
stated explicitly in the president's
letter and so that's one of the things I
wanted to discuss because I don't buy
that I think this wasn't an anomaly this
wasn't people stepping out of line and I
think the proof of that is not what
rambucana did or pimlaw because we could
say yeah yeah they're ideologically
committed professors and they and
they're they're not very professional in
their administrative abilities and they
went after a TA unprofessionally and
stupidly
that's bad
that's not really bad what's really bad
was that there was a paid administrator
at the meeting who was hired to do
exactly that and so the fact that she
was there is the proof to me that this
is not only not an isolated incident
it's actually a logical con and a
logical and inevitable consequence of
legislative moves that made these
bureaucratic positions necessary and the
Practical reality that these
administrative positions do exist on the
campuses so there's no isolated incident
issue there now how do you think
Lindsay's been treated at Wilford
Laurier like what's your what's your
impression of her of her personal
situation there I think that so on the
positive side
there have been students who have
rallied to her support and that's been
really encouraging to see uh it was some
students on campus who are dedicated to
freedom of expression they mostly are
coming from the the conservative
clubs whether it's the conservative
political club or other conservative
groups uh although
definitely invitations have been
extended to other groups of other
political stripes or other they really
haven't rallied to Lindsay sadly so
those students have to a certain extent
befriended her or brought her under the
wing or just have begun associating with
her and saying how can we support you I
think in her classes and I'm just going
from what I've seen I I follow her on
Twitter so I see what's been going on
there
apparently you know and I don't think
this is inaccurate
the other grad students are being quite
scathing yeah yeah that's that's what
I've heard from her and from her tweets
is that at least they're cold at minimum
they're cold and the professors as well
including the one who told her that she
couldn't use her laptop in class because
she didn't want to be recorded I mean
you couldn't script this level of idiocy
but my my thought is students always ask
me uh Dr Haskell can I record these what
you're talking about I say yes yes the
answer is yes yeah the answer is yes
because you know what I don't say
anything in my class that I wouldn't
publicly say because I and I want to be
accountable I want people to know what
I'm saying in my class I want them to
know I'm fair I'm balanced I present
both sides of the argument I'm not
afraid of that I mean why are people
afraid of accountability that that's
beyond my understanding yeah well that's
that's a very good that's a very good
question so okay so
um
I think
I think what we'll do now is go through
this letter because what happened
yesterday I guess is the president had
appointed a third party fact finder to
look into what happened with the Lindsay
Shepard affair right and there were
concerns about that because many people
including Christy blotsford were
concerned and the lawyer that's
representing Lindsay Howard
um Levitt Howard Levitt was concerned
that the person who was appointed to do
the third party investigation wouldn't
be neutral because he had tweeted his
agreement with a variety of let's call
them politically correct issues quite
publicly but it does look like he's done
a credible job that that's how it
appears to me anyways the president who
is very
closed mouth or assiduously neutral
about this whole Affair has released a
report and I thought we could go through
it and talk about whether or not we
think that it addressed the issues
reasonably so because I think it did in
some part but I think it didn't in
others so
this is from
um McClatchy Deborah mcclouchey PhD
who's the president and new and vice
Chancellor at Wilford lurian relatively
new at it so I mean she's really being
raked through the coals that's for sure
but she was a vice president academic
which was the second most senior
physician for the last five years she's
not so she's accustomed to this okay
okay it is I believe it is time for some
clarity around the events of the past
few weeks here at Wilford Laurie
University stemming from the very
regrettable meeting so that's an
interesting turn and phrase to begin
with that followed the showing of a TVO
clip by a teaching assistant during a
tutorial as the newly appointed
President and Vice Chancellor of this
incredible 106 year old institution I'm
here to set the record straight and
announce some important changes the
issue has highlighted some deficiencies
but but as importantly it has created
opportunities yeah well to me that's a
that's a kind of marketing double speak
it's like we could just go with the
deficiencies issue for now opportunities
for Laurier to improve our own perform
governments to lead a broader discussion
on academic freedom and freedom of
expression
and opportunities to work together as a
community to demonstrate the strengths
we have as an institution
when the issue first broke I aired on
the side of caution as a person and as a
president of as the president of Laurier
I'm sensitive to the viewpoints and
concerns of our students staff and
faculty as an employer I am cognizant
that the four people who are in that
meeting room are employees and one is
also a student all four are entitled to
due process I did not want to rush
judgment rather I wanted to ensure we
were able to objectively assess the
facts and make sound to fit decisions
flowing from that assessment that seems
reasonable enough and I would say the
events that have transpired probably
Justified her approach although I had
taken issues with some of the things
that she had said and not said when she
was on the agenda but whatever
we hired an external fact finder with
expertise in Human Resources issues I've
received the report and we are taking
decisive action to ensure these events
will not be repeated the report along
with what we already knew has led me to
the final conclusions following
conclusions and actions
there were numerous errors in judgment
made in the handling of the meeting with
Ms Lindsay Shepard the TA of the
tutorial in question in fact the meeting
never should have happened at all okay
that's probably the most damning
statement in the entire report I would
say because she and then she says no
formal complaint nor informal concern
relative to a Laurier policy was
registered about the screening of the
video this was confirmed in the
fact-finding report okay so we could
take that apart a little bit
no formal complaint okay so rambucana
claimed that one or more students had
complained he wouldn't say how many and
he wouldn't say what the nature of the
complaint was now what this document
seems to indicate that is that well if
there was a complaint which it leaves
vague there was nothing that would
constitute a genuine complaint in an
administrative sense and that's why the
meeting should have never happened so I
guess one question would be
um
what if any appropriate disciplinary
action should be taken against rambakana
and pimlood and I don't know the answer
to that because you know
they're not administrative experts and I
don't think faculty can be but by the
same token I don't feel like I
understand exactly what happened to
bring about the meeting to begin with do
you guys know
I mean whatever we do know we've had to
piece together from different media
reports because as has been said uh our
president is not releasing the findings
of this like this is this is going to be
this is a secret the independent
investigation we will never know what it
actually says we don't know what all the
recommendations are we I think we can
take her at a word that she's telling us
what's going on why is she making it
secret or keeping it secret is that is
that this concern with what do you call
it confidentiality that seems to be the
the what the the camouflage behind which
these things are always hidden that
seems to be implied and or even said
explicitly but I've seen other cases
where there's been disciplinary measures
and and we we get more details than this
right so so I don't know I don't know
the level of confidentiality that is
required under law but what I can say
and I'll let will talk about what the
disciplinary actions can be let's keep
in mind that
when Ram bukana said that there had been
a complaint and it says here that there
wasn't
he then Echoes that in his apology to
Lindsay he then says of course and I'm
I'm paraphrasing here so I'm not being
completely accurate in terms of what he
exactly said but he said something like
of course there are things I can't
discuss because of the complaint that
was made by a student right so he's
echoing what seems to be an untruth yes
and while this is about as close a
statement as you might imagine in a
statement like this stating that it was
an untruth I mean he said she said no
formal complaint nor informal concern
relative to a Laurier policy was
registered I mean that's that's
huh that's as close as you can get to
coming right out and saying that the
statement that there was a complaint was
a falsehood and I just want to follow
that thread for a second so here we have
a controversy that was started
on an untruth
and it seems to be that this is part of
the whole modus operandi here when we
hear and there's been harm right and
it's unsafe right
daily violence although again when the
media global national news Globe and
Mail checked in to see if there were any
police reports related to any harassment
or any threats no police reports
so so at some point don't we have to say
there's a boy who cried wolf well this
is even this is more egregious even
though than claiming harm I mean because
you know maybe people were getting nasty
tweets and so forth and I suspect they
were
um but the thing is is that rambukana
and pimla directly claimed that there
had been a complaint right and so that's
a big problem that isn't thoroughly
addressed here well and and either
somebody heard about the tutorial and
the fact that a Peterson video was shown
uh and uh or or Randall kind of found
out somehow but he decided that was
unacceptable and that the right way to
approach it was to claim that a student
had complained because it's not a
problem that he found it it's not such a
big problem that he found it
unacceptable let's say it is his class
like he has a right to talk to his ta
about what's going to be shown and
what's not going to be shown even though
he handled it I think reprehensively in
that meeting but
he could come out and say look like that
isn't what the sort of thing I want to
be discussed in my class I don't agree
with Peterson I think he's a jerk and
like here's the other things you should
be concentrating on but to come out and
say a student complained and then to
buttress that with the accusation that
she had violated Federal and provincial
law as well as the universe
exactly and I don't understand why Joel
was there without some sort of formal
paperwork or evidence of a of a
complaint well I I think that the the
the the reason for that is that the
positions that people like Joel occupy
are so ill-defined and so fundamentally
reprehensible in their organization in
their in their aims is that this is
exactly the sort of thing that you would
expect and so I thought she didn't say
much in that little inquisitorial
recording but I thought the things she
did say were spectacularly
um
concerning let's put it that way so what
is what's the discipline what is the
Discipline Do you have any sense of this
like I I can't speculate I don't know
Communications or uh well what I don't
what happens when somebody lies or when
somebody brings you know forth a
complaint that wasn't a complaint I I
don't well that is that well that's one
of the things this document does not
address like it's a big problem it's a
big problem if there was no complaint
and the reason she was disciplined was
because there were because there was a
claim that there was a complaint like
that's well we can we we don't have to
if there's a claim that there's harm
what about if there's a claim that the
campus has daily violence what if
there's a claim that such and such area
has become unsafe does that need to be
proven or should we be seeking
disciplinary action against people who
are making those claims well that's
that's a very good that's a very good
question okay so so that's it that's a
that's a problem that isn't addressed in
this report it's a big one okay and and
I mean the president is all obviously
not how happy with this because she also
says
um
the errors in judgment
okay no formal complaint no informal
concern was registered about the
screening of the video this was
confirmed in the fact-finding report so
they're not beating around the bush
about this they're stating it very
clearly the errors in judgment were
compounded by misapplication of existing
University policies and procedures basic
guidelines basic guidelines and best
practices on how to appropriately
execute the roles and responsibilities
of staff and faculty were ignored
not just not understood ignored or not
understood okay that's a pretty damn
damning statement there too so I I don't
even know all the particulars here I
heard Howard Levitt say that she was
entitled to some sort of represent
Lindsay was entitled to some
representation under the bylaws of our
University she was supposed to have had
that and that nobody offered that right
so that's an administrative follow-up at
the level of employee employer
relationships to say nothing of the
academic issues at stake so we don't
have policies and procedures about how
to carry out an inquisition okay that's
not what she's saying I think there's a
medieval document that you can
but but one thing Jordan I want to point
out here is that the errors in judgment
were compounded by misapplication of
existing University policies
misapplication of existing University
policies at the end of this document
she's going to say that our gendered and
sexual violence policy needs to be
reviewed so which is it
was right was it an error in application
or an error in policy and and that's
this is confusing yeah it is because my
suggestion would be the policy is
terribly flawed we have a colleague
who's uh one of the free speech
proponents at our University Dr Andrew
Robinson he is an expert in human rights
law and he went through our gendered and
sexual violence policy with a fine-tooth
comb and he says this document is
unworkable it makes thought a crime and
and he wrote an op-ed to that effect so
my point would be and what and who did
he what organization is he part of yeah
but which which sub which which uh human
rights and human diversity right I mean
that's exactly it this is his field yes
exactly and so when he looked at this he
says this goes beyond what the Ontario
government was even asking for and it
gets to the point where it actually
makes
you can be guilty of
thought crime you can be guilty of
transphobia
without any intent that's the same if
someone if someone says I've been harmed
mentally that is enough for conviction
under this particular policy
so this isn't misapplication I'm I'm
saying
Adria Joel actually get it right and so
is it a misapplication or do we so it'll
be interesting if the university does
discipline her if she gets legal
representation who claims that she was
actually applying the policies correctly
because that is the question right so or
but it could be two things it could be
the policies are flawed and this is the
consequence and they were misapplied we
don't know but there's definitely
ambiguity here and that and that's a
crucial issue I think Lindsay was guilty
under the gendered sexual violence
policy and she was Adria was right and
accusing her she was wrong about c-16 uh
it would have been a Ontario Human
Rights uh code violation but GSB she was
right if there had been a complaint
right right
yeah okay okay and how many angels can
dance right okay procedures in how to
apply University policies same issue
here and under what circumstances were
not followed the training of key
individuals to meet the expectations of
the university and addressing such an
issue is an issue such as this was not
sufficient and must be improved okay the
question is
who are these key individuals do they
mean rambakana pimlot and Joel is there
are they putting all three of those in
there and then the next question would
be how are they going to improve the
training of key individuals because that
actually worries me as a faculty member
right because I
whenever the administration decides that
it's going to engage in some additional
training of Faculty members then that
raises the hair on the back of my neck
like is this unconscious bias training
is that what they're talking about which
has been well I think uh I can't
remember I've just read recently nozek
himself who who developed the IAT just
published a review paper stating clearly
stating clearly that attempts to reduce
unconscious bias by explicit explicit
training there's no evidence whatsoever
that they have any positive effect and
that was nozek himself who helped
develop the IAT because the little
cotery that developed that test
um uh the chair of the Harvard
psychology department I'll remember her
name in a minute green walled Anthony
Greenwald and nozek what's her name
mazarin banaji three of them developed
it they're starting to fragment a bit
because the thing has been pushed way
too hard right it's not a test that's
valid for the purposes that it's being
put to and they know it perfectly well
even though they're Consulting about it
and have made that Enterprise out of it
but nozek is you know seems to be a
pretty credible scientist and he's
actually looking at the data and it's
clear that the these unconscious bias
training programs have zero positive
impact there's some evidence that they
have negative impact because of course
people don't like being accused of being
unconscious racists right so I wonder is
that the kind of training and there's
nothing in here that says this but this
is the problem that it says there will
be training unconscious by is that the
same as systemic discrimination well
it's the it's the neurological
equivalent of systemic discrimination so
imagine systemic discrimination is built
into the structure of the system right
unconscious bias is built into your
perceptual structures so even before you
act or think you're biased towards
against the members of an out group
that's the claim and not only biased in
against the members of out Group which
is a different claim than biased in
favor of your in-group which of course
almost every human being is especially
if you think about your family but that
that that implicit bias also manifests
itself in behaviors that would
essentially be categorizable as
racist at least at a low level and
there's very little evidence that the
implicit bias that this test
hypothetically measures manifests itself
in measurable Behavior so we went
through a thing in the Summer where they
ran a regression on salaries at Laurier
and found that uh women were paid a
little bit less than men by about four
percent and so they gave all the did
they include did they include age as a
covariate uh the answer to that would be
no the model was uh it had um rank
uh and I don't know that it had e it
only had four categories of Professor
when this has been done at University of
Michigan for instance because I looked
at comparables they had 21 categories of
Professor uh or 21
departments and and at ours we had four
so you were comparing people for
instance within the business school who
might be in marketing versus someone who
yeah well I know I know from setting up
regression equations ad nauseam that the
the covariates that you include in the
equation determine the outcome of the of
the of the equation well the conclusion
they reached the explanation for the the
statistical significance of the gender
coefficient was systemic discrimination
right right of course well that that
wasn't the conclusion they reached that
was the conclusion they stepped into the
inquiry with and they gerrymandered the
statistics until they found a regression
equation that supported their their
initial claim so that was that's not an
inquiry but so there's what I hear you
saying is there's really no scientific
basis for this idea that there could be
this unconscious bias that could drive
there is evidence that we're full of
unconscious biases I mean we couldn't
even see if we didn't have unconscious
biases because we have to use shortcuts
and heuristics to just process the world
the issue is what measurable impact does
that have on behavioral that's the first
thing and it's minimal at best first of
all it's not easy to distinguish between
racial bias and Novelty avoidance right
because what you'd have to do is you'd
have to find a person in a racial group
say a white person who is just as
familiar with black people as with white
people and then show that there was a
bias because otherwise you can't
distinguish it from a novelty novelty
aversion and people are characterized by
novelty aversion you already have
developed a preference for that cup over
this cup I mean it happens that quickly
and it's that it's that subtle and and
great and Grand let's say so the first
issue is we can't really distinguish
unconscious bias from perceptual habit
let's say or from or stereotyping from
categorization for that matter and that
literature has been under assault in a
major way in the social psychology
literature but even assuming that an
implicit bias does exist which you might
there might be grounds for by noting
that people do have an in-group
preference say for their family members
and perhaps even for their racial
members although it's hard to
distinguish that from novelty or from
familiarity preference
putting all that aside which you count
there's no evidence that these courses
that are put in place to reduce that
bias have any effect whatsoever on the
bias it's complete even the people who
are pushing the IAT and the idea of
implicit bias are willing to say well
all these things that we're doing to try
to reduce it have absolutely no effect
or if anything a negative effect and
again just we don't know that what the
training is going to be I guess where we
went down this Rabbit Hole was we don't
know what the training is going to be
right we don't know it's it's we have no
evidence to assume we have no reason to
assume that the training is going to
address the proper problem and every
reason to be skeptical that it won't
okay so next
um there is also institutional failure
that allowed this to happen well we
don't know what that means because I'd
like to know what the institutional
failure was but that's a pretty Broad
and she says when when there is
institutional failure responsibility
ultimately starts and ends with me well
that's a nice statement and okay she's
taking responsibility for it but unless
it's specified what the institutional
failures are it's just hand waving going
forward we will Implement improved
training and new procedures and engage
in a very specific administrative review
details would be nice to strengthen and
enhance confidence in what students and
employees can expect at Laurier
specifically 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 well thank God for that
given that TVO is a publicly funded uh
middle of the road left-leaning liberal
news media establishment a credible one
for sure I wish that
early on
immediately following this story
breaking that administration had said
exactly that because remember for more
than a month now
the public the Canadian public has
wondered can you show TV Ontario videos
in classrooms at Laurier
and I'm not I'm not joking yeah like
this was right this is a question and
and there has not been an answer from
Administration on that very basic
question and so people who are thinking
about sending their kids to Laurier are
thinking is that the place where they
didn't know whether or not you could
show public television in a classroom is
that the place where it took a
independent investigation to come to the
conclusion that it's okay to play a clip
from the agenda that well we still don't
yes exactly it is the place where all of
that was in doubt that is Wilfred
Laureate is the place where those things
were in doubt and so they're not quite
as in doubt but we also still don't know
what else is what else is still in doubt
right because if that can be you wonder
well you know that's pretty damn
innocuous okay any instructional
material needs to be grounded in the
appropriate academic underpinnings to
put it in context for the relevance of
the learn learning outcomes of the
course
yeah well the question there is any
instructional material needs to be
grounded in the appropriate academic
underpinnings to put it in context the
question there is who decides what the
appropriate academic underpinnings to
put it in context are because that's
supposed to be the that's supposed to be
the bailiwick of the professor period
right and with some leeway for the for
the teaching assistance and so on but I
worry when I hear about context because
I've seen opinion pieces from some of my
colleagues who tell me that the
appropriate context is within the frame
of social justice or within the frame of
critical theory well that's what
rambukana said to Shepherd was that well
part of the reason you were wrong was
because you portrayed it neutrally if
you had contextualized it essentially if
you had connectionized Peterson as
Hitler which was rambakana's statement
then it would have been perhaps
appropriate to to to air the video and
that is equivalent to leading the
witness right and leading the witnesses
when we have a a lawyer an authority
figure telling the person on the stand
what to say taking my ideas and putting
them into that person's mouth right well
that's how you produce unconscious bias
well
but but my point would be so I'm not
saying that this is in here but we
really need clarify yeah well that's
that's a that's a sentence that doesn't
that I'm not happy about appropriate
academic underpinnings to put it in
context for the relevance of the
learning outcomes of the course Jesus
it's just administrative double speak
the whole way through you present in
class you know what are the criteria for
evaluating that I I write I show videos
all the time in a class
yeah I don't know if they have the
adequate underpinnings yeah well that's
that's the question is who decides that
the the answer to that there's a simple
answer to that the professor that's the
answer there isn't another answer
there's no board there's no higher
authority there's nothing else you know
when I show I do show clips from Hitler
in my class in my personality class when
we talk about orderliness and
totalitarianism I show clips from the
Triumph of the will and I show this
other documentary called crumb which is
about uh an underground cartoonist from
the 1960s named Robert Crum and it is an
absolutely shocking documentary like if
you ever want to know more than you want
to know about rapists and serial killers
that documentary will tell you it's
really
it's a tough it's a tough watch you know
and I can't
I can't imagine a
like a committee reviewing my teaching
materials and allowing those things to
go forward without challenge it'd be a
disaster okay the ensuing discussion
also needs to be handled properly
yeah well
we have no reason to believe this
discussion was not handled well in a
tutorial in question okay so whatever
handled property means Lindsay Shepard
Managed IT which I think is a good sign
here because if we take that as the
model Lindsay did present the
information neutrally and and she was
not taking sides and if that's our model
that's that's a good sign okay that's
good so that's acceptable well so I'm a
bit troubled by this because we're gonna
in three or four paragraphs find out
that we need enhanced training for TAS
great so did she handle it properly
right why do we need to treat the
training yes that's right and again
who's going to do the training because
it's not going to be the faculty because
the faculty don't have time or the
inclination for that matter to run that
kind of training is it going to be the
diversity and Equity yeah right well
that's the question who's going to do
the training I have apologized to Ms
Shepherd publicly as has Dr Ram buchana
her supervising professor
the university has conveyed to her today
that the results of the fact-finding
report to make the results of the
fact-finding report to make sure she
understands it is clear that she was
involved in no wrongdoing yes well for
someone who was involved in no
wrongdoing she sure bloody well got
raped over the coals for the last month
so the university is taking concrete
steps to make changes to ensure this
doesn't happen again yeah well good it
has been made clear to those who were
involved in the meeting with Ms Shepherd
that their conduct does not meet the
high standards I set for staff and
faculty well that is a big question
there right
how has it been made clear to those who
were involved in the meeting with Ms
Shepherd that their conduct does not
meet those high standards because we
don't know does that mean did the
president talk to them has there been
disciplinary action like we we because
if it was I don't even know what would
be appropriate
but I would say that not
knowing what was done is not appropriate
so
and I think it deserves specifics I mean
that's what got me into this was you the
the Christy blacksford's article was was
very accurate because she already had
the audio but then when we heard the
audio it was so appalling what was done
to her in that room it was such horrible
bullying uh and just such a violation of
what the university should stand for
that's what coalesced all of the anger I
mean in Canada yeah the devil's in the
details
so it's the same with the
how it has been made clear to those who
were involved so because I don't
I mean maybe this is something we could
talk about too I don't know what would
constitute appropriate disciplinary
message measures as a concept I mean you
have here three people acting on a
non-existent complaint who produced an
international Scandal that damaged
Lindsay in a real sense although it
might have also made her stronger but it
certainly it certainly didn't have to
because a lesser person would have
crumbled I don't know if she would feel
that she I I think she might take
exception to that she certainly has not
claimed any kind of victim status
through this whole thing and I think
that's no but that's more a testament to
her character than than anything else
because I mean she was subject to the
kind of attacks I would say that would
have snowed under a lesser person yes
but she has risen to this challenge yes
definitely definitely well and and thank
God for that but then there has been
real harm done to the university as far
as so and I I don't know how you would
quantify that in financial terms but I
suspect it's substantial but
reputational terms I mean now I would
say internationally this is what Wilford
Laurie is known for so maybe that's an
overstatement but I don't think so
as these are individual employment
issues I cannot go into greater detail
on any individual case well that could
be but know that the university has and
is taking action to rectify the
situation and send a clear signal that
this cannot and will not happen again
that sounds pretty that's very
forthright yeah it is
one key Improvement highlighted is the
need to enhance our faculty and ta
training
yeah well
like I said as a faculty member whenever
I see that I don't see the role of the
administrators at a university to to
train the faculty that's not their role
their role is to move paper around for
the faculty fundamentally
it is the responsibility of course
instructors to develop guidelines for
the roles and expectations of their Tas
fair enough the university also has high
expectations of professors as ta
supervisors we recognize the need to do
more in this area
we Rec uh the University's intent is to
enhance the training and support for
both ta supervisors and teaching
assistants making these mandatory and
standardized
Jesus dismal so that so my suspicions as
a skeptic are that the
making of training for faculty
mandatory and standardized will do more
harm
than this Scandal has done over the long
run so we don't know what the training
is we don't know who's going to do it we
don't know what it's going to be about
but the one thing we do know is it will
be mandatory yep mandatory and
standardized right yeah mandatory and
standardized be interesting to see how
they'll do that too because it isn't so
easy to make training mandatory for
faculty members right you can't just do
that by Fiat because they can generally
tell you to go to hell and should
gendered and sexual violence policy
it has become clear to us that managing
the new gendered and sexual violence
policy now that's the one that's
mandated by the provincial government so
it was Bill uh 163 the provincial bill
that said you need to have a policy on
gendered and sexual violence
according to our colleague Dr Andrew
Robinson he says we go Way Beyond what
the province even asked for uh to the
point where it becomes unmanageable and
and you have instances of thought crime
so so that's what we have like this like
this yeah where you can claim that
somebody is transphobic
for simply showing a video can I can I
read you the definition is this from the
gendered yes it is this is from our
policy this is from our policy it is an
action that reinforces gender
inequalities resulting in physical
sexual emotional economic or mental harm
okay so what's the first part of that
again yes yeah you got lost don't you it
is an action that reinforces gender
inequality okay so let's start with that
an action that reinforces gender
inequalities okay so the first thing we
might point out is that no one knows
what the hell that means right it's a
box that you can put anything in so
actions that's a problem
because what it isn't obvious what
constitutes an action or an inaction for
that matter so I mean and and then that
reinforces gender inequalities
right so that that's that's the sort of
sentence that only someone who's
ideologically possessed to the maximum
would create because you can't parse it
gender inequalities like what does that
mean exactly
I don't I well anyways discrimination
and sex or gender it doesn't talk about
discrimination it talks about inequality
right which is which is it would be
different if if the the phrasing had
included the words discrimination okay
and the next part is resulting in
physical sexual emotional economic or
mental harm right right so it's as
broadly construed both both Clauses are
as broadly construed as they can be and
the reason for that is to allow maximum
scope for interpretation which is
exactly what happened with Adria Joel
well mental harm again mental harm and
and as you pointed out
mental harm
is not backed up by the empirical
evidence apart from
post-traumatic stress syndrome like
cognitive behavioral therapy would
suggest that you actually can do mental
good by exposing someone to
objectionable ideas when they've in
moderation in order to help them become
less mentally fragile uh Scott lillifeld
out of Emory University we're a very
very scholarly well he is one of the
mass he's written several textbooks on
Psychopathology right he knows his stuff
and just this year he put out a paper
where he explored the the empirical
evidence around microaggressions and he
did all of the literature and
microaggressions are of course these
innocuous actions that are deemed to be
bigoted or or somehow sexist
well they are actually it's showing a
video of from TVO is what a
microaggression is and what he said was
there is absolutely no evidence there's
no evidence that microaggressions these
objectionable ideas lead to mental harm
he also said that the the concept itself
is extraordinarily ill-defined which is
also a big problem right that was the
beginning of our conversations
everything is ill-defined yeah while
that if you make the Box big enough you
can put anything into it so and and what
you see uh in this gendered and violence
policy that will is reading from they
are they're actually go on to say that
Um this can include
heterosexism like you can be your your
mental crime could be heterosexism yeah
so what if I said something in class
like the empirical evidence strongly
suggests that raising children in a
two-parent family leads to better
outcomes which it does by the way like
it like and seriously it does then then
well so that's the question well
arguably right arguably I've
transgressed that policy now here's an
interesting thing too so
it has become clear to us that managing
the new gendered and sexual violence
policy has led to a confusion in its
application right okay so this is back
to the issue we described earlier is it
a confusion in the application or in the
policy now you just read the damn policy
now it seems to me that there's no way
you could apply that policy without
confusion so it's not a confusion in its
application it's it might also be that
but it's a confusion in the policy
written right into it okay so that's
that's of crucial importance right in
fact the interviews conduct by the fact
finder confirmed that the rationale for
invoking the gsvp did not exist it was
misapplied and was a significant
overreach yeah I'm not so sure about
that because I know that these kind of
policies emerge from the same sort of
policy framework that characterizes the
Ontario Human Rights Commission it's the
same people doing it and the Ontario
Human Rights Commission policies are
written so that they can be broadly
misapplied with no significant over
reach so so okay so that's a problem
to provide Clarity of the policy's
intent
and to strengthen accountability we will
engage in an administrative review with
the goal of finding the appropriate
structure to oversee and execute the
gsvp and its accompanying procedures we
will also undertake a full review of the
policy and its procedures okay so good
so there they're saying well it might
have been misapplied but maybe the
policy itself also has some problems I
think this is really good news and we
had a a meeting with our colleague
Andrew Andrew Robinson today and we said
well you know what do you think about
this and he was pleased he said you know
if some good has come out of this
controversy this is one of those good
things because definitely the gendered
and sexual violence policy we have at
Laurier isn't workable it is prejudiced
against certain people and and certain
ideas and so it needs to be reworked
because at this it is not an inclusive
document it excludes and so it needs to
be fixed so this is a good thing well
and it's also a canary in the coal mine
for similar policies at universities all
across Canada we'd say and may be
broader because one one thing you'd hope
is that the Lindsay Shepard Affair has
produced enough negative repercussions
to set people back on their heels a
little bit and make them dig into these
policies because I can't imagine that
there's another University in Canada who
would enjoy partaking in a scandal of
equivalent magnitude what I would hope
and on that point Jordan
if someone is a student or if someone is
a faculty member ask for the evidence
that's what I've learned from this there
are a lot of claims out there mental
harm our campuses become unsafe the
ideas that are contained in the the
gendered and sexual violence policy I'm
saying okay
what is the evidence that proves this
because this is this is what a
university is supposed to be based on
from the enlightenment to today we are
supposed to be able to say here's the
evidence for why we do this and the
further we get away from evidence and
the more we Embrace ideology we
completely remove what the mission of a
university is supposed to be well and
the idea of evidence we remove the idea
of evidence which means we remove the
idea of knowledge because there's no
distinction between knowledge and
evidence right right so so if you are a
student and you want to say what what
can I do say what's the evidence of
mental harm what's the evidence that
that this that I'm transphobic right
well well so partly what you're also
saying there is a restatement of the old
presumption of innocence idea it's like
okay you're accusing me of something
prove it I'm innocent buddy yes prove it
where's your evidence yeah I know we do
I know I mean well part of that's tied
up with this with the sexual harassment
issue because increasingly and this is
this is this has started I think most
particularly in the United States we're
moving towards a preponderance of
evidence standard instead of a
Assumption of Innocence standard that's
especially true with these sexual
harassment policies that are being
derived by
um derived
from
institutions and administrators
concerned with such things as the
gendered and sexual violence policy and
that that's related to the comment you
made earlier about the lawyer who wasn't
allowed to speak right because she had
the temerity to offer someone who was
accused of a crime a legal defense right
when when apparently what we were
supposed to do was just assume that the
people who were making the accusations
were right because they claimed that
they were wronged so and and to be I
mean we always have to do our caveats
don't we we say
I know that we want to protect people
who are victims like I each of us would
agree but it can't be done at this by
sacrificing truth well you don't protect
people from being victimized by
undermining the rule of law quite the
contrary because ultimately it comes
back to bite you in the Bahamas yes
that's for sure and very very rapidly so
okay in the interim we will ensure
access to the existing support and
complaints procedures by providing
management and oversight through the
office of dispute resolution and support
okay I'm not sure what that well it's
actually very good news okay okay it
means that uh the oversight of this is
being removed from the diversity and
Equity office and put under the
president's Direct Control so she
doesn't think that they're responsible
um and I'm very worried about diversity
and Equity office overreach this
suggests that the president as you
should be it suggests the president is
also worried about the diversity and
Equity office that she has said we're
not imagine why but but the fact that
she has done this is really uh a strong
sign that that she is aware that that
office needs to be it needs to be rained
right or at least that she's concerned
enough about the reputation of the
University so that she's not going to
let the same mistake happen again which
is a good thing like I don't care why
she's doing it particularly but it's a
good thing that it is being done okay so
fine so that's a that's a that's good
news the this has the added benefit of
improved accountability as that office
reports through to me as president yeah
okay well you can see in those lines
that she's not particularly happy about
what's happened I wonder what sort of
financial hit Wilfred Laurier took
because you could imagine that while the
donors are going to be a lot more
conservative than the than the
professors and the administrators and
the students well there we have uh we've
been contacted by a group of alumni who
have now organized they haven't yet
released what would be their their press
release but slowly they've been reaching
out to other alumni and it's the Laurier
alumni for free expression and what they
have said is their mandate is one to
withhold all donations until Laurier
accepts the Laurier statement for
freedom of expression and uh I I haven't
checked in it was just someone acting on
her own uh she's a Laurier alumni
she has I guess contacts within the
Alumni Association and she just she sent
us some contact information and said
here's what I'm doing wanted you to know
I support your efforts and I'm I'm
working on this I'll let you know when
I'm ready to go and so that was really
encouraging I have a colleague who does
a survey of uh Chief Financial officers
quarterly to gauge their optimism about
the economy and it started down at Duke
and he's doing it now for Canada and he
got responses from two uh he because he
sent out an email just shortly after
this broke he got responses from two
alumni who just said you're you know why
should I participate in this why should
I help you this is not so I don't have
any respect for you these are alumni of
of Wilford Laurier University yes well
and I can imagine too that enrollment is
going to take a pretty vicious hit you
know our business school is quite
excellent we have a great common program
we in the finance area attract a lot of
very strong students and we compete for
top tier students in Ontario the entry
average is like 89 or something and and
we really compete for the what we call
the high fly tires and they can choose
any school right in the province all
right right yeah well it doesn't take
much of a hit to a reputation to give
people who have options the reason to go
elsewhere right and then you lose the
best people and that's when things
really start to fall apart and what you
might begin to see and I would say that
this is something that uh the general
public might look at watch what happens
to the entrance averages in the Arts and
Humanities that so so so we might not
take a hit
but let's see if the averages take a hit
of course because suddenly and and
currently the entrance average to get
into our general arts program uh in
Communications let's just talk
Communications is mid 70s with an
average of 60 in English
so so I I don't I mean right which is
basically a failing grade right because
if you hand in an essay in high school
you'll get 60. you really will right so
it's it's basically the grading
basically runs from 60 it goes zero you
didn't hand it in 60 to 100 you handed
it in and let's keep in mind that the
tutorial that Lindsay was running was a
grammar tutorial the content of which
looked a lot like grade six curriculum
yeah yeah well that gets us into a
discussion of the schools in general but
we're all right I'm thinking that maybe
it's not a good idea to lower standards
any anymore right right right okay okay
so academic freedom and freedom of
expression for those who have chosen to
use this incident as an indictment of
Wilford Laurier University or the plight
of Canadian universities in general I
say your assertion is unreasonable and
unfounded well we better stop this
interview yeah yeah well you you can say
that all you want I I would say in
instead that what happened at Wilford
Laurier is a precise manifestation of
exactly the sort of rot that both
produced Bill c-16 and that I was
warning about last September and so I
don't think the assertion is
unreasonable and unfounded at all and
here's one piece of data 80 percent of
humanities papers are not cited once
so
so let's just translate that for the
viewing public yes that means that
they're producing scholarship that
nobody looks at yes that that even their
friends don't look at and and because
okay so what a citation is is I read
someone's paper and I find a good idea
in it and then I use that idea to
buttress an idea of my own or to or to
or to riff off or to or to or to
criticize even for that matter and then
I cite them I say who they were and when
they published it and then the paper the
sign that there's a huge bureaucracy
that keeps track of citations and it's a
major indication of academic ability to
be cited right it's it's the it's like
it's academic payment to be cited okay
so eighty percent of humanities papers
don't get cited once it's absolute
failure it's absolute failure as a game
if someone wanted to play a game uh I
would suggest that they go and they look
at the publications of the professors in
a particular area and see if the titles
all sound the same
and if they all say something about
intersectionality
uh colonialism and and these other
various uh
social justice words you might wonder am
I going to get taught the same course
again and again by every professor in
this program because it seems to me that
all of their research is is very similar
uh and and how can that be when there's
such a broad base of knowledge in the
world that we can have
similarity between every publication
which then goes on why why do I need to
read my colleague stuff when it's
exactly like my own
which which we see so just just as a
baseline Jordan how much what would you
say is is someone who's doing some good
research what's how many citations would
would they be receiving maybe uh
collectively like what what are we
looking thousands thousands yeah well a
good like if you if you write a good
paper
then like a great paper paper will get
you 100 citations right an outstanding
overwhelmingly outstanding paper I'll
get you a thousand citations
um 10 isn't none you know it you
register with 10. but zero is that's
failure right it means your work had
zero impact it it means your work wasn't
worth the paper it was published on and
this this brings us to a kind of
interesting little issue with regards to
the rot in the universities which which
Deborah mcclouchy says does not exist
it's like here's how the game works is
that we set up a little ideological
Garden right the 10 of us play in and
then we all publish in the same journal
and WE peer review each other's articles
and we just publish them there's no
critique or very little so the the
barrier for publication is very very low
when it should be very high like a good
Journal a good Journal will reject 90
percent of the papers that are that are
are are are submitted to it right so
um rejection rates really matter
so the question is why do the these
papers get published since no one reads
them and they have nothing to offer and
the answer to that is very
straightforward
the journals are extremely expensive
they're way more expensive than they
should be so just to buy a single Paper
online for the ordinary person is like
forty dollars which is more than a
hardcover book that's just to download
the PDF and so the journal itself the
libraries are full of them are very
expensive and the subscriptions are very
expensive and so what happens is the
professors pressure the university
libraries to buy the journals and the
library funds the publisher and so the
Publishers will publish anything
Routledge is a good example of that much
to my chagrin because they published my
first book but and they used to be a
great publishing house but they'll
publish damn near anything and the
reason for that is that the libraries
are forced to pay radically inflated
prices for the Publications that no one
ever reads and so people write
to publish in journals that libraries
have to purchase at inflated prices
to produce knowledge that no one will
ever read and that's the little Scandal
that plagues the humanities I think it
characterizes the humanities more than
plagues them so the idea that there's no
systemic rot let's say in the
universities especially in the
humanities it's just not this is just
far too General
um there there is rot and it's not
everywhere and this just reveals that I
don't think she's that familiar with the
situation she's in and and I've been
listening to some of your work and and
Jonathan hate and trying to understand
what's been going on over the last two
years in universities
protected as I am in a business school
and starting to realize that it's not
everywhere it's the social justice
perspective the stem fields are fine so
far right yeah and the Business Schools
although there there are moves into the
Business Schools but they're still doing
all right philosophy is not doing too
badly like there are disciplines that
have still remained untouched and mostly
what's happened so far is that if the
discipline has a strong economic or
scientific footing it's proved much
harder to corrupt an empirical yeah
that's true for my part so I play in the
playground of Sociology of religion but
all my stuff well most of my stuff is
quantitative so I actually I wasn't
familiar with what was going I don't I
go to conferences where everybody has to
have strong empirical evidence I publish
in journals that are international
journals that are the scientific study
of Religion is what we do so you know
I'm familiar with Foucault and and that
stuff but that's not where I play so I
wasn't really exposed to what's going on
and you don't and you don't really think
well they can't there's no reason to be
that concerned about it until about
three years ago well this is it and but
then I'm trying to get into the
headspace of some of my colleagues so I
got out a textbook it was called race
class and gender and it's it's an
anthology that's used in cultural
studies courses in women's studies
courses and it's sort of the go-to text
so I'm told and I'm reading it and I
turned it and I
I turned to page 14 and I can tell you
it's page 14 because I was so astounded
by what I found
and it said uh we the oh it says
objectivity as found through rational
thought is a Western and masculine
concept that we will challenge
throughout this text yeah right yeah
yeah and I said it's too bad it's too
bad that you're shocked by that because
so you want to go for irrational the PC
types have been saying exactly that
since the 1970s like that is exact they
make no mistake about this this is why
McClatchy is wrong this isn't this isn't
something they're secreting in
this is the dead statement oh yeah it's
that
um the the whole notion of logic and
coherence and empirical data for that
matter evidence the very nature evidence
let's question let's question the
definition of evidence because the
underlying idea remember the underlying
idea here is that all hierarchies are
predicated on power so if the reason
that I put forward something as evidence
isn't because it's evidence it's because
it's evidence that I get to have that
position of power and so if you're a
post-modernist and you say well I'm
going to question your evidence what you
think you're saying is you're going to
question my claim to that arbitrary
power the whole idea that there's
evidence outside of claims of arbitrary
power the postmodernist dispensed with
that in the 1970s that's derida
that's exactly what he said in all this
time I've been trying to get samples of
thousands so that I could say you know
this is a little bit
we can say something not just in
generalizing no no that just
demonstrates how thoroughly entrenched
you are in the reigning patriarchal
ideology I guess and I was just hoping
to get Beyond anecdotal there's no
beyond that you there's no Beyond
anecdotal that's become a methodology
that's auto experience it's called
autoethnography
a technical term for it an
autoethnography is the publication of a
journal of a of a private diary
essentially in a
hypothetically reputable
reputable academic Journal just I
it's only because of in the last three
or four years that these things have
been happening and I say well where do
they get this how do they how do they
find these thoughts yes well we don't we
don't want to fall into the mistake of
making of making the assumption that
this hasn't been thought through no
people are not just misunderstanding
what evidence is that isn't what's
happening at all when they say they want
to question the definition of evidence
that's exactly what they mean when they
say we want to question the definition
of evidence because the definition of
evidence currently supports the
scientific power structure in chemistry
say and that's fundamentally dominated
by let's say white men we can go after
the definition of evidence itself and
that's how we're going to bring it down
and so the next people on The Hit List
are going to be the biologists they're
already under attack paper that said
that mathematics is whiteness yeah yeah
yeah definitely I didn't know that
mathematics could have a race yeah but
this thing the thing is there's nothing
illogical about these frames once you
accept this Central axioms the axioms
are straightforward the world is a
battleground of power hierarchies that's
what it is there isn't anything else
outside of that
and each power hierarchy generates its
own internal
narrative including rules for what
constitutes evidence that support and
buttress the structure of that hierarchy
and because the hierarchies exclude then
it's in the best interests of the people
who are excluded to invert the hierarchy
and of course they also regard that as
just even though that's part of the
incoherence of the entire argument
that's where they have to turn to
Marxism but make no mistake about it
this isn't this isn't accidental it
isn't people misunderstanding what
constitutes evidence
not at all now I've been listening to
some of your lectures on this for the
last year and thinking you sound a
little deranged
well I I might be a little deranged but
I'm not deranged about this and and then
this whole episode with Lindsay Shepard
just just proves it every dimension of
this is about power uh the Double speak
the the changing of terminology from
harm the the exposing people's ideas
could be violent uh the circling the
sacred circling around the victim group
well look look at what happened at
Wilford Laurier one of the things that
was so bloody interesting that I thought
was just fascinating was the
unbelievably strategic attempt to
transform Shepard into the perpetrator
and rambakana and pimla into the victims
especially rambakana as a professor of
color right so so what what happens the
reverse narrative was well Lindsay
Shepard was using something like her
white privilege and her white tears yeah
to to harass a poor professor of color
untenured professor of color yeah yeah
and that and there was every attempt
made on the part of the people who were
going after Shepherd to make that the
narrative so well and they they started
accusing everyone of of being
transphobic just right out of the blocks
within days of this we were all tired
with that epithet uh immediately the
labels have been just flying and without
any regard to the intent of the person
or even the content here's something
interesting about the transphobia issue
too so I've had at least now a number of
good discussions with trans people by
the way but also a number of letters
from trans people over the last year
about 40 of them as a matter of fact
which is a lot of letters because there
aren't that many trans people and every
single one of them I think I got one
letter from a trans person who wasn't
happy with what I was doing but every
single one of the other letters said the
same thing we are sick and tired of
being the poster child for these
activists who claim to speak in our name
because that's another thing that we
should be very aware of is just because
an activist comes out and says I'm a
member of this minority group and
therefore I speak for them it's like the
first claim might be true but the second
claim is not only unjustifiable it's
actually I would say it's
it's not racist exactly but it's it's
groupist because it's predicated on the
assumption that just because you happen
to be the member of a class that you're
a representative member of that class
that class is so homogeneous that
everyone in it is the same enough so
that all the members within it can speak
for all the other members right used to
call that racism when it was applied to
racial categories absolutely but Lindsay
has been very good to point out and so
have some of the media that there have
been uh transgendered students at
Laurier who have spoken out in support
of Lindsay and we have to keep this in
mind that this is not a transgendered
issue no neither was my comments on Bill
c-16 it's not because I mean all
I know that Lindsay as she even said she
is not transphobic she supports the
rights of transgendered people this is
she's unequivocal in that uh and and I
think that that's just cover story for
her true right-wing beliefs and and
there are transgendered students who
have come to her support and at Great
personal cost to themselves like those
are some brave people there right to
break with that group that the hostility
in that group is real in the activist
end of the group you bet they were so
quick uh to take over this uh issue as
their own and claim that the the debate
itself was violence and that it was just
cover for this uh transphobic climate uh
that existed and it has nothing to do
with transgendered people well you know
it's it's funny too you saw the same
thing with um Reynolda Walcott when he
was on the director of the women's and
diversity women's and gender studies at
the at oyzia at the University of
Toronto he claimed that he claimed like
four times in that interview that the
University of Toronto was a white
supremacist organization and I thought I
just don't know what to make of that
like I traveled down to my office about
a week after that that uh that interview
and I happened by some students who were
standing outside waiting to write an
exam so there's about 100 of them may
and
like this is particularly true at the
University of Toronto I would say that
you you could look at that group of
students for more than two seconds and
think that that was a white supremacist
organization I mean it's so ethnically
diverse if you think that the University
of Toronto is a white supremacist
organization then what that essentially
means is that the most tolerant
institution in the most tolerant City in
the most tolerant province in the most
tolerant country in the world is white
supremacist
so it's like
well then
well I don't well I don't I don't even
know what you could especially when you
say that as
someone who's a full professor
I don't know if he's a full Professor
who's a professor at that Institute it's
like where's your evidence for this that
same Professor was using racial slurs
against Lindsay uh oh yes the white
tears thing Mike they're also
misogynistic right because it's white
girl tears I could never
ever
do something like that to any student of
any race I just don't understand how the
people on the far left can rationalize
that kind of behavior it it just it's
well I think they can rationalize it
with power but in terms of Civility just
in civility in recognizing the humanity
in every person
how can you resort to those kind of
racial slights I just I don't I don't
understand how you can say don't be
racist and then you make racial comments
terribly racist comments I just I don't
under do people well no there's the idea
there is straightforward
you cannot utter racist comments against
the dominant group
that's the rule if there's a dominant
group so once you identify them as
oppressor you can say anything you want
about them because by definition this is
axiomatic in in the ideology you can't
say anything racist about the oppressors
that that's like a rule it's it's it
it's a rule of discourse so here's where
I go with this for self-interest do you
not realize when you say I don't care
about your effin white fragility now
that was not waldecott is that his did I
get his name right no no
but others other pundits have said that
and it's appeared on Lindsay's Twitter
page where they've assaulted her there
or at least that's too dramatic where
they've made insulted her there insulted
her there uh but my point would be even
in your self-interest do you not realize
that you are giving ammunition to the
real white supremacist do you not
realize that there are really dangerous
people on the right who are looking for
that exact kind of comment to
rationalize their behavior well if
you're trying to burn something down
what makes you think you're going to be
so careful about how it burns down and I
really mean that look I mean I've I've
I've have interactions with the right
wing racial supremacists online they're
not very happy with me and it's because
I call them out for the same sort of
behavior that the leftists Manifest
which is like I don't I'm not impressed
by your manifestation of group identity
Uber all let's say but I understand
that the radical right-wingers are
playing the same game as the radical
left Winger so you might say well why
would the radical left Wingers play into
their hands I would say well if you're
trying to if you're trying to burn the
whole damn house down then why not
inflame the people who are most likely
to do it and you might think well no
that that's not in anybody's best
interest it's like it's the stated aim
of this ideology right they want to
invert the they want to invert the
patriarchy essentially well what's the
patriarchy well it's the white
supremacist University of Toronto
so who cares if you're handing your
opponents weapons you're hoping that it
will escalate that the people on the
left as well as the people on the right
escalated
yeah that's the point so that it's power
because uh this is the same thing has
happened at Evergreen State and the
whole uh justification there was racism
not I know and they went after Brett
Weinstein who is about as I mean Brett
is he's a Bernie he's a Bernie supporter
right exactly well they eat their own
last week from Mike Paris who is the
only colleague of his that publicly
defended him and he emails me and he
says I've been following the story
closely and I just want to reach out and
just you know
commiserate with you and wonder is there
anything we can do or talk about
together and I thought no you're from
Evergreen State you know that's a
nightmare and I thought we're not that
bad
but but it's the same pattern repeated
it it's not about transgendered people
and and their rights and and so just the
victim
no the threat the transgender people as
far as I'm concerned we're we're like
sacrificial animals on the altar of Bill
c-16 the activists have a new group
that's oppressed to wave the flag for to
push forward their ideology and and I
and as I said the consistent message
I've got from transsexual people is I
wish they'd just shut the hell up and
quit putting us out in in the in the
public eye in that guys because all
they're doing is making our life more
difficult it's like well it doesn't
matter we're trying to tear down the
patriarchy who cares if your life is
being made more difficult it's like you
have you don't make an omelet without
breaking a few eggs we want to keep that
in mind okay Lori prepares our students
and instructors for difficult
discussions yeah
probably not we support our teachers in
navigating complex and divisive issues
with care and confidence
that's a more credible statement I mean
especially given the outcome of this I
just want to take you back to the last
sentence of the previous paragraph
Laurier has only a commitment to
academic freedom and freedom of
expression well that's unequivocal
perfect yes except that they won't adopt
the the Chicago principles and something
else to keep in mind that
I think this is the first time anybody's
talked about this when we were
established in 1973 the Wilfred Laurier
Act says specifically
that this University
will be dedicated to research and
teaching in the spirit of free inquiry
and free expression that is the
establishing Act of our universe Charter
Charter statement and and that is what
it says is our mission so in fact we are
breaking the law
by not
standing behind maximum free expression
and Max free inquire because it it is
right in our very founding principle our
very founding Charter and the fact that
we are so hesitant
to to just Embrace that and say we know
that it's within this contest of ideas
that the best facts come forward and
knowledge is Advanced why are we afraid
of that why are we afraid what's made
made
every University a great University
because we're doubtful about the
Integrity of the institution like this
this critique that whose claim is that
our institutions our patriarchal
institutions are fundamentally corrupt
and oppressive is sufficiently
what would you say makes people
sufficiently guilty so they're perfectly
willing to
circumvent their adherence to policies
to Charter policies like that I just
think that at some point you have to say
this is why you were created
maybe we should get back to this and
maybe I mean maybe there's a someone who
is in the provincial Parliament who's
going to say I'm kind of upset that
you've actually rejected the very
founding Charter I I would hear well
there's no one in the current well in
the current legislature that would do
that certainly not in the current
government not by any not by not no
chance at all okay we support our
teachers in navigating complex and
divisive issues with care and confidence
we are leaders in ensuring our students
faculty and staff have the necessary
supports and tools to help those who've
experienced marginalization and
discrimination to engage fully okay so
now you see the reversal right right
away here is and this happens every time
now that a modern University virtually
every time that a modern University
comes out with a statement in favor of
free speech the next thing they do is is
bring in this competing set of claims
like the uh to help those who have
experienced marginalization and
discrimination to engage fully as soon
as the word marginalization is in there
then you know that that post-modern
ethos is in has has what has has has
manifested itself within the within the
confines of the document properly
grounded academic debate at Laureate
occurs every day and encourages critical
thinking and civil discourse yeah ideas
that one finds objectionable should be
challenged and debated the common good
of society depends on the search for
knowledge and its free expression hey
fair enough
free expression in academic University
academic freedom at the University
require accompanying responsibilities
and accountabilities to be met by
members of the university community
well even that statement's not so bad I
mean okay
faculty members have responsibilities
and they should be accountable I think I
think that University should be a civil
place I think that it should be civil
yes right yes definitely and I think
that there should be tolerance but
tolerance is very different from an
Embrace and a complete Embrace of what
diversity is now defined as or Equity is
defined tolerance means I disagree but
I'm going to let you speak anyway and
that really is the goal of a university
uh so anyway yeah okay we we will
continue to ensure that we are protected
against protecting against and dealing
with hate and intolerance these have
those have no place in Civil Society see
that I'm not so sure about
that hate and intolerance have no place
in Civil Society the problem with that
is hate hate and intolerance is not
defined here that that is the problem
and and the I keep hearing
hate speech is not free speech and then
when I ask well what do you mean by hate
speech yes that is the problem well the
other thing too is I'm actually allowed
to hate you
it's okay you might have done something
that makes me hate you but that but
there are limits on what I can do as a
consequence of that hate and that is not
so there's two problems right the first
problem is this is a big one who defines
hate that's a major problem and the
second is well you don't limit hate you
can't limit hate any more than you can
limit anger or aggression but you can
limit the manner in which people conduct
themselves when they're motivated by
those emotions and let's be clear there
is really a clear definition of hate
when you look at the criminal code under
sections 3 18 and 319 it says you cannot
Advocate physical violence against an
identifiable group I am totally on board
with that like let's let's be clear
you can't say go and hurt these people I
got that but that's really clear
where's that definition well I just want
to see well the issue there is something
we discussed earlier is well then we can
gerrymander the definition of hurt
right well I'm talking physical
advocating physical violence right
physical I throw that physical in there
because the criminal code also does I
think it does it in such a way to say we
can harm what is harm again harm is
long-term infliction of damage that
compromises your ability to function or
your appearance right it's a pragmatic
definition and it's grounded in common
law so we actually have a history of
defining it so that's safe and let's not
move away from these definitions because
they're the thing that allow us to have
conversations that are uncomfortable but
needed
okay good they uh these have no place in
Civil Society let alone on a University
campus they will not be tolerated at
Laurier yes well we say we saw an
example of that not being tolerated with
the Lindsay Shepard case
I remain concerned by the way faculty
staff and students involved in aspects
of this situation were targeted with
such vitriol now now things are starting
to get out of hand I remain concerned by
the way faculty staff and students
involved in aspects of this situation
were targeted with what with such
vitriol vitriol that's acid eh so um is
she you think she's talking about the
tweets that Lindsay has received then is
that faculty staff and students so not
just Lindsay but I just wonder is this
does this apply to those who have been
advocating free speech and and I I'm I'm
just I'm pointing it out there I mean
all of us who have come out in favor of
Maximum Free Speech have been subjected
to a lot of vitriol uh both emails and
and it's always anonymous emails it's
always from people who will not say who
they are so but my point would be I and
unless there was something that simply
said I am threatening your life I just I
delete it that's what I do because this
is what happens I mean I wish people
were civil but they're not there's no
discussing heart issues without conflict
like that's just not happening the
question is how you limit the conflict
and you can't limit it to none because
then people can't have a conflict they
can't solve a problem so what you do is
you you limit it well as we've limited
quite successfully in our country to
date right we use the definitions of
violence that have prevailed throughout
the establishment of English common law
and that works just fine my concern
about that paragraph is is that she's
cow Towing let's say to concerns about
the way that the people who actually
let's say perpetrated this event were
um dealt with by members of the general
public so
okay member members of the university
community must be supported to work and
study in an environment free of
discrimination and harassment that's a
tougher one and they have my commitment
we will continue to make this a
university priority
yeah that's a sentence that worries me
in an environment free of discrimination
and harassment and they have my the
problem is it's so difficult to
distinguish that between real dispute
you know I mean if you're if you're
committed to a line of argumentation
you've staked your whole your whole life
on it say your your whole academic
career and you're engaged in a dispute
with someone else who holds a contrary
Viewpoint there's going to be heat and
Sparks generated by that exchange there
has to be because otherwise you're not
talking about anything of any importance
yeah if we all agree we don't need free
speech I mean that's sort of the
standard that's the thing right but when
I read this line
uh members of the university community
must be supported to work and study in
an environment free of discrimination
and harassment
and and I just wonder how equally that
idea has been applied at my University
so far because certainly we know that
our president has sent out letters of
support to the lgbtq community which she
was right to do if if they are feeling
harassed I have no problem with that but
at the same time there are official
bodies at our University the Women's
Center uh and other bodies that are
under the auspices of the diversity and
Equity office if I'm correct that are
petitioning to have uh there's a
pro-life group on campus and and they
are petitioning to have them defunded
and shut down right so so did Deborah
mclachy send out a letter to all the
people who are supporting Lindsay
Shepard to say well we're pretty sorry
about all the harassment you're
receiving this is my point
our president is aware that there's a
group on campus that are
marginalized these are the the pro-life
students and I don't care what your
position is pro-life or or pro-choice
whatever your position is you bloody
will have to admit that there's at least
a debate there is a debate but and the
point I would make is here truly is a
marginalized group of students who have
received no support from our University
none and I know my president is aware
because early on in this controversy I
said in another matter is that these
students are being attacked or I'm sorry
I don't want to use hyperbolic language
these students are being harassed and
they are being harassed because they're
they're being threatened with having
their funding removed by official bodies
of the University yeah well this the
pro-life students are real canaries in
the coal mine as far as I'm concerned
regardless of what you think about what
they're doing really represent diversity
its ideological diversity but we're not
seeing any reception of these diverse
students do they are they being included
in this diversity and inclusion no
they're being excluded purposely by
actual offices of my University
so I'm saying yeah that standard
practice I would say on campuses across
the country it's just uneven yeah it's
uneven and I think that what what we
need to see uh is just a policy that
applies to all students and not just
those who smell right or are Orthodox to
the social justice or who are in the
what would you call acceptable class of
victims that's right okay it Bears
repeating in the current context that
laurier's support for our lesbian gay bi
trans queer and two-spirited Campus
Community and transgender people in
particular is unwavering it isn't
obvious that it Bears repeating in the
current context because the issue here
fundamentally is that Lindsay Shepard
was was subject to an administrative
Inquisition despite the fact that she
was 100 Innocent by the University's own
standards and so it doesn't bear
repeating in the current context that
Lori's support for our lbgt to
lgbtqts Campus Community unity and
transgender people in particular is
unwavering it actually isn't about them
it's not about them at all it's about
the fact that she got pilloried for
doing something that she was actually
right to do so I'm not happy with the
fact that this paragraph was inserted
into here I think it's an indication of
exactly the kind of administrative
weakness that allowed this sort of event
to occur to begin with now this is the
theme though right of the Justice
Warriors is that this is the victim
group they've repeated over and over
that there's been violence harassment
vitriol everybody's picking up on that
the union president said that it was
daily occurrence the president's
repeated she's issued a campus-wide
email and response to the open letter
saying uh we're going to make this a
safe campus she's repeating it here it's
a validation of their Narrative of
victimization emerging from the Lindsay
Shepard event without evidence we we
actually sent an email to our faculty uh
the union the union president and we
said
we're concerned about this daily uh
violence on campus could you please
Supply us with evidence of this and she
wrote back and she said uh what did she
say well something as I'm telling
everyone in the Press no yeah because it
would inflict didn't she say because it
would inflame the it would if you're in
the situation even further yes with
something like that so how how in the
world providing evidence that something
like that we're members of the Union
we are paying uh our fees just like
everyone else and we just we wanted
substantiate some some substantiation to
these claims that there was violence as
a daily whole premise is that there's
injury happening and that's why we can't
speak about these things so if they can
establish the violence then maybe we're
sympathetic to the argument that the
speech shouldn't occur but but that's
susceptible to bogus claims if there's
no substantiation
you can't build policy that way
yeah not without getting into the kind
of trouble that's already emerged in
light of recent events we have added
measures to improve campus safety well
it is by no see that that that actually
seems to me to be
the one sentence in this article so far
that's actually a mistake because by
going forward with
um
what practices that are going to improve
campus safety then
the president is validating the claims
of the people who claim that this
occurrence produced an unsafe
environment on the campus it's like so I
I think
that that was weak
we will ensure that all students staff
and faculty know exactly what our
commitment to academic freedom and
freedom of expression means in the
classroom that would be good to us in
that end we have established the task
force on freedom of expression to take
input from our community we should point
out which won't include Lindsay Shepard
right because she asked to be part of
that task force in fact I believe that
they offered it to her I'm not exactly
sure about she was some some grad
students nominated her and it was prior
to the Revelation being made that it
would be the position would be filled by
the president of The Graduate Students
Association who and I think this was
poor form uh just before that
announcement was made
the president of The Graduate Students
Association
put out a statement where I I'm not sure
if it's a he or a she or I'm not sure of
the the gender pronoun used but um
that they were standing 100 behind the
trans and lgbtq yeah and that the fact
that they were going to sit on the on
the task force would indicate that all
students would be represented properly
but it's just they they showed this
incredible uh
foreign
bias and and then they said and we're
going to be sitting on this I just don't
I don't know that that does a service to
all the grad students who they represent
all right
look at Best Practices Beyond Laurier
hey they could look at Chicago that'd be
good and develop a clear tangible and
you never know maybe they will you never
know and develop a clear tangible set of
practical implementable guidelines that
will bring Clarity to this issue for our
own classrooms and we'll have the
potential to serve as best practices for
others well that's exactly what you guys
are recommending that is my commitment
to you well and it's not like the
University of Chicago is a lightweight
and it's not just the University of
Chicago over 30 universities many of
them ivy league have adopted right the
Chicago statements to great effect right
right and so so this is
this is something that has worked that
is working yeah it's clearly something
that should happen in Canada it would be
a wonderful thing it would be a
wonderful thing it would be it would be
so wonderful so it's not like we're
trying to Institute this policy that
hasn't worked and that hasn't been been
accepted by really prominent
universities in the U.S and it doesn't
it doesn't involve U.S uh law or
legalese it is simply a statement of
philosophy about what we want and which
is maximum free expression and free
inquiry within the bounds of the law
yeah and I just think this task force is
going to be a disaster because the
Justice uh Advocates aren't interested
in free speech they they want to forbid
certain forms of speech and it's just a
question of which topics and who's going
to control them well there might be
enough public scrutin like I don't think
interest in Wilfred Laurie I'm sure that
the president would be real happy if
this went away but I think the
probability that it's going to go away
is very low because I think Wilford
Laurie is now being watched and being
watched by very many people to see what
the genuine outcome of this will be and
I think that even if it was ignored by
the mainstream media which it might be
it's not going to be ignored by people
on YouTube and the people who've been
who've been generating content
associated with Lindsay Shepard and the
the magnitude of that content online is
absolutely overwhelming I don't know if
the Wilford Laurier administrators know
because you know people older than 40
usually don't know much about online
media but the amount of commentary this
has been generated this is generated on
YouTube is absolutely beyond belief like
it was a major Scandal back to the task
force though and will you've said this
in the past the freedom of expression
proponents we already are the
compromised position because we are
saying we want you to be able to
articulate whatever position you have we
want you to be able like we are the
compromise position we're not saying we
want to shut down anybody whatever your
position is let's hear it that's that
that is where we are so we're already in
that compromised position within the
boundaries of the law within the
boundary of the law instructions of the
and out of respect to the university and
its operations of course so so we're
already saying we want all these sides
to be able to be heard I don't
understand it's already a pro diversity
of it is it is and and so what I have to
look at is many of the colleagues that I
have who are on the left and are hoping
for restriction of free expression are
really to a certain extent linguistic
imperialists that's exactly why I
objected to Bill c-16 I said that I
wasn't going to let the linguistic
imperialists take control over my voice
the fact that it happened to be about
transgender pronouns was well that was
just how that problem manifested itself
at that period of time but that that
what did you call them linguistic
imperialists that's exactly right and
and these the the these idio ideologues
on the radical left who are so good at
neologisms are unbelievably good at
grasping the linguistic territory I mean
the the propagation of words like
cisgendered is a perfect example of that
so yeah it's just I don't understand how
they can be so against colonialism and
imperialism and they'll want to do that
in in the sphere of language put in an
authoritarian structure which can only
be abused well that's that's part of the
weird see there's this weird marriage
between post-modernism and Marxism right
which makes no sense because you
actually can't be a post-modernist and a
I guess you can be a critical thinker
and a Marxist but you cannot be a
post-modernist at a Marxist at the same
time because the post-modernists
hypothetically are critical of grand
narratives right they don't believe that
they that they have any universal
validity of course the problem with that
is that without a grand narrative you
can't act but they sneak the Marxism in
through the back door and then the
justification I think is for these
author authoritarian impositions is that
well it doesn't matter as long as the
right people are being hurt by them and
the right people would be the people who
are in positions of power
now who who have no justification for
being in those positions of power right
because they don't stable solution
but you're making the assumption that
what's being sought after is a stable
solution and I think that's I think
that's a dangerous assumption because I
think that the university activists mean
exactly what they say
when they say that we should be flipping
over the patriarch they've put no
counter proposal forward throughout this
right it's like they don't have a
solution uh they're not even talking
about a list of forbidden topics and
who's gonna adjudicate it and what the
appeals process no that's always that's
always done post talk yeah that way you
can keep the level of fear you can keep
it heading to the list as well
definitely that would because it's way
better it's way better if you it's way
better if you want to exercise power
over people to never let them be sure
which policies they are violating and I
think that what happened to Lindsay
Shepard is an excellent example of that
so it's a it's a canonical example of
that and free it's it's the orwellian
idea freedom is the ability to say two
plus two equals four and they want to
keep avoiding the ability to say two
plus two is four by creating new answers
and moving on obviously just went
through this whole process it came up
with a statement on free expression and
goes on for paragraphs and paragraphs
and then the last nearly the last
sentence is freedom of expression does
not Trump all other rights in the
university community freedom of
expression can only Thrive
constructively when accompanied by other
rights including the equality rights of
equity diversity there you go there you
go that's right and so now you no longer
have free expression man that's the
snake in the garden right there reading
that yeah so there's there's this but
how I mean those those are so
complicated there's individual rights
and group rates there's positive rights
and negative rights and they're all in
this salad with no guidance as to how
you're going to trade them off against
each other it's it's like you say just
ad hoc as we go forward we'll we'll yeah
well it's so funny to produce an entire
document talking about freedom of
expression and then to put a sentence
like that in as a codicillin it's and by
the way also this it's like wait a
second it's not also this it's that
little admixture of poison uh destroys
the Integrity of the entire argument and
and to and to put all those words in
there diversity okay what the hell do
you mean by that exactly inclusivity
that's a word that really uh that's when
I really have a trouble with because
it's very difficult to understand even
what that means and Equity Equity is
equality of outcome and so that's an
impossible goal to begin with because it
multiplies in difficulty as you add
number of measurement Dimensions right
so and that's the intersectionality
problem so to speak so all right well
well with the task force the interesting
thing is Will didn't want to sit on it
because having looked at what had
happened I I suppose it was the
experience at UBC that that well I just
saw a big arguments happening with no no
possibility of a constructive outcome
and so but I was more hopeful and I
understand Will's position completely
right uh yes while it's easy as a
faculty member to get pulled into
interminable administrative duties that
have no positive outcome whatsoever in
fact it's pretty much par for the course
well he makes the I mean your most
compelling argument well two one look
what happened at UBC and two were
already the compromised position you
mean what what more can you want and and
I get that but I I have let my name
stand for nomination uh we'll see this
week I guess whether or not I I'll I
don't know if I'll get voted well one of
the things we should find out and and
publicize is whether any people who have
a strong Free Speech orientation will
end up up on that task force yeah I mean
that that's a that's of absolutely
critical important well they'll
certainly get their work done quickly if
no one from the Free Speech side is on
it because they'll just say right but
maybe they'll have to create a list of
their own about what can't be talked
about right who knows where that will go
one thing that strikes me though is just
the disregard for history people who uh
are marginalized or would be considered
in the marginalized group if we look at
how did they get the rights that they
have today right how did that happen
it was because of free expression right
actually
the easy case to make for free speech is
left wing it's like powerful people
don't need their free speech protected
they're powerful they're rich they can
say whatever the hell they want it's
people who are precisely marginalized
and oppressed who need all the
protection of the law of course they
want to weight it against saying yes we
want to have
people without power to have the freedom
of expression but let's make this a
quicker process by making sure those
that have power can't speak whoever
those who have power is right well
you know you could say well wouldn't it
be wonderful if those who had unfair
power weren't allowed to speak it's like
well maybe it would be wonderful but who
the hell is going to decide who has
power and who has unfair power like the
devil's in the details there so the only
fair application of this principle is to
let everybody have equal opportunity
right not equal outcome by the way well
that's the free market solution right
because you can't determine these by
Central Fiat because it's technically
impossible which is actually something
postmodernists should know because
that's actually one of the logical
consequences of their philosophy right
things are too complicated to decide by
Fiat in some sense but all right is
there anything else that you guys want
to say that that you've observed as a
consequence of this Lindsay Shepard
Affair or that or that you're hopeful
about or pessimistic about what what
what's the how do we solve this just the
way we're solving it this is the way to
solve it is to is to have I think this
is a textbook case of the utility of
free speech
Shepard was able to make her case
publicly there's been a huge debate
about it there's been some moves made on
the part of the University that looked
positive we've got ample opportunity
everyone has ample opportunity to have
their voice heard you know this video
we're making tonight will probably be
watched by 150 000 people it's like and
we had a perfectly reasonable discussion
you know I think we gave credit where
credit was due with regards to this
document and and are jointly hopeful
that something positive will come of it
and made some pointed critiques about
about what it does contain and what it
doesn't but we don't want to
underestimate the utility of doing these
things it's useful and I think the fact
that you guys have this little cabal of
people at Wilford Laurier who are
willing to speak I was shocked when when
you wrote that op-ed and when the
Toronto Star published it I mean nothing
like that from an academic happened in
relationship to me last year in Bill
c-16 we've seen such uniformity of
outcry about this from all the
newspapers Globe star sun which which
really just shows you the disconnect
between what is happening in the academy
and what is happening it's a disconnect
of Staggering magnitude people outside
the academy say well how can you believe
that yeah what they've been saying is
really this happened this actually
happened that's the universal response
and and you know the response on the
campuses is well yeah it happened it's
and we were right I have a solution I
have a solution I mean it's not a
solution but it's
I call it an inoculant actually so yes
let's get the Laurier statement for
Freedom expression at our University and
similar statements at all universities
why the federal government is not tying
funding to this I know that the
conservatives mentioned the suggestion
that I made to the conservatives well
this is this is what needs to happen but
in addition to that I think that young
people and and parents of young people
need to look at what's happening and
they need to start educating their their
kids at home and they need to start and
I've written several op-eds where I've
said people ask me what is the solution
and I say start watching the videos of
Jordan Peterson start watching the
videos uh there's a Jonathan height
Jonathan hi you bet look into the
heterodox Academy they know what they're
doing who who definitely are Scholars of
repute the they they are moderate in the
like incredibly civil uh there are also
some people outside of Academia there's
a um a fantastic YouTuber uh my name is
Jose she's a Canadian political science
student who is at U of T moderate really
well spoken articulating classical
liberal ideas my name is Josephine okay
yeah okay I'll have to remember so
another she's actually been the reason
that I know she knows you she was at one
of your rallies I saw it in a video
there she is in the background
um there are another uh young lady uh
sorry woman who is her name is roaming
Millennial yeah I know roaming
Millennial I've been on her show oh
fantastic yeah she's articulous yeah you
bet you bet yeah he is and she's a tough
cookie that girl you bet and I would say
start watching these people yeah well
their young people are watching them in
droves you know she has a big following
Roman Millennials and I'm grateful for
that because in fact when these students
go into the university classroom if they
choose to go into the Arts or the
humanities they're going to go in with
knowledge where they can they I realize
it's tough to challenge a professor but
start a Facebook group and say hey did
you know that there are other ideas too
do you know that there's an opposite
side to this debate well and we should
all we could also encourage parents who
might be listening or students thinking
about going to University who might be
listening to this is that check to see
where the university stands on free
speech and if they dampen down their
support for free speech and for your
inquiry with statements about diversity
inclusivity and Equity then go somewhere
else it's a worry another uh thing and
this is just beginning in Canada there
we have a society for academic freedom
and scholarship that professors can join
if sorry if a professor has joined the
society for academic freedom and
scholarship you can be pretty sure they
are going to be wanting to give you both
sides of the story so that's not a bad
check either yeah boy do they have to do
their research though the students to
due diligence well that's good it'll
educate them yeah right I mean Lindsay
Shepard definitely got educated over the
last two months
no kidding no kidding she's got her PhD
thesis in communication pretty well
demonstrated there's an auto ethnography
for you yeah I caused an international
Scandal by just revealing what had
actually happened yeah all right all
right good
my pleasure thank you guys for coming
and also for it's not common
for faculty members well to talk to me
first of all like this certainly not on
record and it's certainly not common for
them to be writing and speaking openly
about such issues so I don't know what
the hell got into you guys it's really
good that's happening at Wilford Laurier
too we realize we're finished now by
being associated with you yeah yeah yeah
I I said uh well it's earlier good of
you to offer yourself on the sacrificial
altar I you've got to look your kids in
the eye eventually yeah and uh how are
you going to say that you need to stand
up for truth if you actually don't stand
up for truth that is a problem yeah yeah
all right guys good
thanks a lot