Graduate at Canadian university pilloried - free speech or transphobia?

Watch
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
There is a fascinating media storm taking place in Canada. A graduate teaching assistant showed a clip of a "controversial" professor at another university from a TV show to her class.

A student complained and she was reprimanded by two of her academic superiors and the Uni's Diversity Officer.

But she secretly recorded the disciplinary and leaked it to the press forcing the uni to publicly apologise.

Here is some background:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...of-transphobia

And here is the secret tape in full (fascinating listening!)

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...peterson-video

Thoughts? Who is right here?
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Apparently there was no formal complaint from a student. The profs likely made it up.

Being a graduate of the Canadian higher education system myself, I can tell you this is a massive problem in Canadian universities, particularly in Ontario. There are too many lunatics and Far-Left activists in administration and among the faculties, because all the sensible people left the universities and got jobs elsewhere.

These people claim to be challenging power structures and systemic 'isms', but they're just bullies, bullies who will try to destroy anything that threatens their political bubble. To them, showing a clip from a publicly broadcast debate about gender pronouns makes students "unsafe" and is "problematic."

It's fantastic that she recorded this encounter. We need more students like her shining a spotlight on what's going on in these institutions.
4
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Apparently there was no formal complaint from a student. The profs likely made it up.

Being a graduate of the Canadian higher education system myself, I can tell you this is a massive problem in Canadian universities, particularly in Ontario. There are too many lunatics and Far-Left activists in administration and among the faculties, because all the sensible people left the universities and got jobs elsewhere.

These people claim to be challenging power structures and systemic 'isms', but they're just bullies, bullies who will try to destroy anything that threatens their political bubble. To them, showing a clip from a publicly broadcast debate about gender pronouns makes students "unsafe" and is "problematic."

It's fantastic that she recorded this encounter. We need more students like her shining a spotlight on what's going on in these institutions.
I was shocked.

The disciplinary was Kafkaesque. Like The Trial.

She is a heroine though. A real Canadian heroine. I really salute her bravery, and the fact her accusers scuttled back into the earth to hide after she lifted the stone says it all.

The Uni's humiliating apology was delicious. Sadly it is unlikely to make much difference. From the look of it Ontario's universities are lost to this leftist post modern lunacy.

The guy at the centre of the controvery is impressive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDggKqt3KA
3
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Apparently there was no formal complaint from a student. The profs likely made it up..
It crossed my mind that might be the case when they said that they couldn't reveal just how many had complained due to confidentiality just "one or more". But didn't think they would be so ridiculous and twisted has to go through this without at least one. I can't believe they haven't been sacked out right.
What a role model this young woman is by the way 22 years old and yet took on the establishment knowing they could have messed a life up big time.
Has she not recorded the interview we would never have heard of any of this and she would have been sidelined.
0
reply
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Therefore, under free speech someone can say something transphobic, the consequence of that can then be they are called out/disciplined for their transphobia.

.Organisations all have policies which tend to include things against discrimination, and in support of minority groups and women. This includes universities and their university student unions. It wouldn't be considered against free speech for an organisation to not employ or to fire someone who was racist or sexist o homophobic, but it is often considered up for debate when someone is transphobic.

I don't know the context from the article that the video was played in, but it doesn't seem it was played in a way that put the safety of trans people first and foremost, especially trans people both who could have been in the lecture aswell as those attending that university in general. As such the person who played the video likely did break university (and union) policies of inclusion and against transphobia. As such it's not denying her her freedom of speech to play the video, but merely saying "You chose to do this knowing it was against our policies, now it's only reasonable you face the consequences". That isn't denying freedom of speech, that is merely upholding the contract between the university and their staff.
2
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Just my opinion)
It crossed my mind that might be the case when they said that they couldn't reveal just how many had complained due to confidentiality just "one or more". But didn't think they would be so ridiculous and twisted has to go through this without at least one. I can't believe they haven't been sacked out right.
What a role model this young woman is by the way 22 years old and yet took on the establishment knowing they could have messed a life up big time.
Has she not recorded the interview we would never have heard of any of this and she would have been sidelined.
The public reaction to what happened was largely negative. This essentially forced the university to issue an official apology. I was happy about this, but a lot more work needs to be done to expose the extent of this rot in our academic institutions. We need more people like her standing up to these bullies, otherwise things just going to get worse. Canadian universities already score very poorly on the Campus Freedom Index on average, due to these activist professors, the students they indoctrinate, and their corrupted university administrations.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Kay_Winters)
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Therefore, under free speech someone can say something transphobic, the consequence of that can then be they are called out/disciplined for their transphobia.

.Organisations all have policies which tend to include things against discrimination, and in support of minority groups and women. This includes universities and their university student unions. It wouldn't be considered against free speech for an organisation to not employ or to fire someone who was racist or sexist o homophobic, but it is often considered up for debate when someone is transphobic.

I don't know the context from the article that the video was played in, but it doesn't seem it was played in a way that put the safety of trans people first and foremost, especially trans people both who could have been in the lecture aswell as those attending that university in general. As such the person who played the video likely did break university (and union) policies of inclusion and against transphobia. As such it's not denying her her freedom of speech to play the video, but merely saying "You chose to do this knowing it was against our policies, now it's only reasonable you face the consequences". That isn't denying freedom of speech, that is merely upholding the contract between the university and their staff.
The problem is these university guidelines are often broad, vague, and easily abused (case and point).

All she did was show a five minute clip from a publicly broadcast debate for a class discussion about communication and pronouns. For that she got into trouble. There wasn't even any evidence that students were made to feel unsafe. Regardless, if a student cannot emotionally handle ideas that may offend them even when presented in a neutral academic context, they do not belong at university.

There was wrongdoing here, not by the TA, but by the university which then had no choice but to apologise for a blatant act of bullying and stifling of academic freedom.

Edit: And, by the way, there is no indication that she broke any rules and the university has not stated in any official capacity that she had.
1
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
One of them even compared Jordan Peterson to Hitler for showing the clip.

Edit...I mean for what he said in the clip,
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Just my opinion)
One of them even compared Jordan Peterson to Hitler for showing the clip.
Literally Hitler.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Dandaman1)
Literally Hitler.
Haha....... quite.
He seems to be popping up all over the place doesnt he?
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
I find these sort of things a shame. They are often completely mishandled. To an extent, she was out of order for complaining. You would expect short thrift if you complained that your teacher were a woman or a man, or black, or white. But the university has clearly overreacted and in doing so has shot itself in the foot.

Similar thing happened at my work with regard to the conduct of one of the employees who happened to be gay. However, the incident was mishandled so badly, the company is no doubt now on the end of a tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of sexual discrimination. Had they done things by the book, the employee would have been booted out for misconduct.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by ByEeek)
To an extent, she was out of order for complaining. You would expect short thrift if you complained that your teacher were a woman or a man, or black, or white.
To no extent was she out of order in making the recording. If she hadn't this would never have come to light. And if the university did nothing wrong, why would they mind their actions hitting the airwaves in the first place, let alone publicly apologise?

I don't understand your point. Neither of these two professors, nor the university administrator is transgender. Have you even listened to the recording??

If you had you would, I trust, realise that this was a quite appalling abuse of power. A junior employee, whose career was in their hands, was found guilty of "thought crime" by a secret show trial that would have done credit to the Soviet Union under Stalin.

And all she had done was show a five minute clip of a TV debate without expressing an opinion either way as to the merits of the two cases.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by generallee)
If you had you would, I trust, realise that this was a quite appalling abuse of power. A junior employee, whose career was in their hands, was found guilty of "thought crime"
I think we are arguing the same point. I agree.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Haven't listened to the full-length clip yet, but watched the 4 minute one.

While some of the panel's points seem a bit dumb (such as the one about 18 year olds being too young), she really didn't help herself. For example, the silly "all perspectives are valid" balance fallacy was one she really should have known better than to pull out. I don't know if she does in the longer recording, but in the short clip she didn't seem to make any case for why she needed to show the video (though, not having been in the lesson, I can't know the full context), she just seemed to take its mere existence as a good enough reason to show it.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by anarchism101)
Haven't listened to the full-length clip yet, but watched the 4 minute one.

While some of the panel's points seem a bit dumb (such as the one about 18 year olds being too young), she really didn't help herself. For example, the silly "all perspectives are valid" balance fallacy was one she really should have known better than to pull out. I don't know if she does in the longer recording, but in the short clip she didn't seem to make any case for why she needed to show the video (though, not having been in the lesson, I can't know the full context), she just seemed to take its mere existence as a good enough reason to show it.
She didn't say that all perspectives are valid, but that they should be allowed to be presented to establish validity or not.

In fact that was her entire case. Defence if you will. That a university ought to be a place where competing perspectives can be debated.

Do you have a problem with that? Was she wrong? Is university just for one perspective then?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by generallee)
She didn't say that all perspectives are valid
She explicitly says "In a university, all perspectives are valid" at 3:42 in the main (shorter) clip.

but that they should be allowed to be presented to establish validity or not.

In fact that was her entire case. Defence if you will. That a university ought to be a place where competing perspectives can be debated.
Not for their own sake, though. Another part of university is also learning that sometimes there are right and or wrong answers. Virtually everyone accepts that there exist some crank ideas that don't really belong in university, and that presenting them to students as equal sides in a debate would be to mislead them. Which ones those are is something of a different question.

Also, as an aside: the issue of "free speech" is a bit irrelevant here, as it's a question of what was appropriate in the context of her job, not what she was legally allowed to say.

Do you have a problem with that? Was she wrong? Is university just for one perspective then?
Obviously "Only one perspective is valid" and "All perspectives are valid" are not the only two options.
0
reply
MakeEurópeWhite
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
Why do universities even have diversity officers? when was this job created and by who?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by anarchism101)
She explicitly says "In a university, all perspectives are valid" at 3:42 in the main (shorter) clip.



Not for their own sake, though. Another part of university is also learning that sometimes there are right and or wrong answers. Virtually everyone accepts that there exist some crank ideas that don't really belong in university, and that presenting them to students as equal sides in a debate would be to mislead them. Which ones those are is something of a different question.

Also, as an aside: the issue of "free speech" is a bit irrelevant here, as it's a question of what was appropriate in the context of her job, not what she was legally allowed to say.



Obviously "Only one perspective is valid" and "All perspectives are valid" are not the only two options.
You need to listen to the whole clip. If you do you will see that she was clearly arguing for the right to present two perspectives. And at no time stated that the perspective Jordan Peterson argues was correct. In fact she even said that she didn't agree with it on a personal level, but felt it ought to be presented for debate.

You will also see your error in the sentence highlighted. The university administrator explicitly said that she was breaking Canadian law.

Ironically there was a long exchange in the original programme she showed a clip from, between Peterson and a Law Professor discussing that very point. Clearly the administrator had not seen that, or she wouldn't have made such an utter fool of herself..

As to your point that "crank ideas" shouldn't be debated I completely disagree. If an idea is wrong and has currency it should be debunked.

Not that this was a "crank idea." Who are you to say it is?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#19
Here's the Open Letter from one of the two academics.

https://www.wlu.ca/news/spotlights/2...-shepherd.html

When you have to apologise for comparing one of your fellow Canadian academics to Hitler it is clear things haven't been going well...
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by MakeEurópeWhite)
Why do universities even have diversity officers? when was this job created and by who?
Well quite.

Her role is more specific than just the enforcement of general "diversity". I expect they have a whole team to ensure there are no thought crimes on any and every identity group, and to fight white privilege and the patriarchy. Important stuff.

Her job (if you can call it a job) is:

Manager Gendered Violence Prevention and Support


I rest my case.


On the plus side she is well hot. A babe.

Image

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I definitely would.

(If you'll forgive the sexy sexy sexism, and racy racy racism on my part. )
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you experienced financial difficulties as a student due to Covid-19?

Yes, I have really struggled financially (67)
17.77%
I have experienced some financial difficulties (108)
28.65%
I haven't experienced any financial difficulties and things have stayed the same (142)
37.67%
I have had better financial opportunities as a result of the pandemic (48)
12.73%
I've had another experience (let us know in the thread!) (12)
3.18%

Watched Threads

View All