Jordan Peterson is bad news!

377 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Jordan Peterson sues Wilfrid Laurier for defamation following Lindsay Shepherd case

Quote:
Comments in the meeting included a comparison of Peterson’s speech to Hitler, and a comparison of his opinion to that of an anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-women white supremacist.

IANAL, so I don't know if the legal rule is "what happens in the disciplinary meeting stays in the disciplinary meeting".  If it is then we don't so much need laws to protect whistleblowers as we need new laws to punish them further for tattling.

Anyway, while I doubt that Peterson will be cashing a giant, prop-sized cheque any more than Shepherd will be, it would be nice if in the legal dissection of all of this, Laurier could at least tell us why they fabricated claims of complaint when there were none. 

Large institutions typically don't have the resources to aggressively pursue every complaint they receive; maybe Laurier could tell us why they had no actual complaints to act on so they made one up in order to act on it.

6079_Smith_W

Except students did complain, and anyone who questions that can read it in the Macleans article posted at #133.

As for Peterson, this isn't really a surprising move on his part, especially now that he has that monthly patreon funding rolling in.

And while it is his choice, it is telling that the one person he is not naming is the one who made all this information public.

 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Except students did complain, and anyone who questions that can read it in the Macleans article posted at #133.

That same Maclean's article adds:

"Update: On December 18 Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy released a statement admitting no complaint—formal or informal—was ever received and that the meeting with Shepherd should never have taken place."

Quote:
And while it is his choice, it is telling that the one person he is not naming is the one who made all this information public.

She didn't defame him.

6079_Smith_W

Yes I know she said that Magoo. We have been around this before whan Rev claimed at 138 it was "closed up".

Problem is others in that same article contradict her with a direct quote. The university's rainbow centre said that they received a complaint, and someone who was in the class said the end result was students making making fun of trans people.

No mention of the lecturer stepping in and advising students to use a bit more academic rigor or respect for others in their critical analysis.

So regardless of what the university claimed, those supervisors actually had a very good reason for talking to her about not being careful how she presented material to first year students.

And making information public can get someone sued for defamation. You don't have to be the one who said it. She is the one who made a private meeting public.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So regardless of what the university claimed, those supervisors actually had a very good reason for talking to her about not being careful how she presented material to first year students.

If they'd been able to keep themselves to that, they wouldn't be facing a lawsuit.  I think that three senior professionals should have been able to do that without trying to make Shepherd concede that Peterson is a Bad, Bad Man, comparable to Hitler and white supremacists.  But maybe a court will call that fair comment.

6079_Smith_W

See that's the thing Peterson might not be anticipating - that this will compel them to back up their comments by pointing out claims he has made which are false, or made without academic evidence.

As for using the Hitler example as material that would be appropriate to show to a first year class unprepared, it is a bit of a stretch to go from that to claiming they said Jordan Peterson is like Hitler. They didn't. 

Unlike this direct comparison to Mao's authoritarian repression :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DuQbXrSRvg

And they didn't try to make her say anything about Peterson. The conversation was about what material was appropriate for a first year class.

Though it does kind of turn his free speech claims on their head, since his suit is about an allegation of defamation.

 

Ken Burch

6079_Smith_W wrote:

See that's the thing Peterson might not be anticipating - that this will compel them to back up their comments by pointing out claims he has made which are false, or made without academic evidence.

As for using the Hitler example as material that would be appropriate to show to a first year class unprepared, it is a bit of a stretch to go from that to claiming they said Jordan Peterson is like Hitler. They didn't. 

Unlike this direct comparison to Mao's authoritarian repression :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DuQbXrSRvg

And they didn't try to make her say anything about Peterson. The conversation was about what material was appropriate for a first year class.

Though it does kind of turn his free speech claims on their head, since his suit is about an allegation of defamation.

 

And it's fairly easy to show that Peterson is essentially arguing that non-binary people support Stalinism, which is far more defamatory than any comparison to the Lobster Prophet himself and Hitler.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
And it's fairly easy to show that Peterson is essentially arguing that non-binary people support Stalinism, which is far more defamatory than any comparison to the Lobster Prophet himself and Hitler.

That's not at all defamatory in the legal sense -- defamation applies only to identifiable individuals.

And that's a good thing, isn't it?  It's why here at babble we're free to say things like "the rich only care about themselves" or "conservatives would sell their own grandmother if the price was right".

NorthReport

Have you noticed these "free speech warriors" like Peterson, Sheppard and Trump scream for the right to call people whatever they want, but sue when others do it? Cowards

 

https://twitter.com/fraser_brad/status/1009830237775908864

NorthReport

The Free Speech Grifters

 

 

https://www.gq.com/story/free-speech-grifting

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Have you noticed these "free speech warriors" like Peterson, Sheppard and Trump scream for the right to call people whatever they want, but sue when others do it? Cowards

As noted in the post literally right above yours, defamation is between individuals.

And that's good news for you.  Otherwise you'd have been defaming "Liberals" about 3 times per day for the last few years.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Problem is others in that same article contradict her with a direct quote.

I know in your heart you wish you were right, but the MacLatchey statement was an update to the article. That is, her statement was made after the quotes in the article. Which means that as far as she knows, the university had received no complaint at least until after the story had been written. Certainly the meeting was not prompted by any complaint, because she is quite clear that "the meeting should never have taken place." How could she say that if a complaint had in fact been received?

6079_Smith_W

And I know in your heart you wish there was absolutely no reason for those supervisors to talk to the teacher.

But in fact we have someone saying that following the video the biggest response was for some students to make fun of trans people. So whatever the university administration wants to say, it seems to me they had very good reason to talk to her about presenting material to students in an appropriate way, and to be aware if that material had any basis in academic standards.

But be honest now, have you never heard of a head of government or an institution not telling the whole truth, sometimes to sweep it under the rug? Or perhaps to avoid a  lawsuit? As the first editorial I posted says, some believe that is what happened here.

The university might be technically telling the truth in saying there was no formal or informal complaint received by them . But clearly that was not the whole truth. Adding the update of her comments does not erase the other comments unless the update says that they were false.

In answer to your question of how she could say that when in fact there has been a complaint (which there has).  And if there is one thing good that may come out of these lawsuits, it is that we may actually hear the details behind those complaints.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The university might be technically telling the truth in saying there was no formal or informal complaint received by them

If they're not then all someone has to do to prove that is produce any sort of record of that complaint.

Evidently, the independent investigator couldn't seem to locate any such thing.  Did a dog eat it?

Also, what does "technically" telling the truth mean??

Quote:
unless the update says that they were false.

Does the update need to explicitly use the word "false" for you to get that there was no such complaint documented?

If it wasn't false, I have to wonder why the independent investigator found no record of any such complaint. 

But to be fair, if you or anyone else can produce that complaint then I'll walk it back.

6079_Smith_W

Watch this interview, in particular around the 2:30 minute mark, when Shepherd herself acknowledges there was a student who "had concerns".

(very likely the same concerns about trans people being ridiculed as was quoted in that article)

But she dismisses it as "just a discussion", and that the actual complaint was made by the Rainbow Centre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut8NbXeRUeI

So it was not just a case of her supervisors making it all up, and in fact the university may have been trying to bury this on a technicality. In case I need to explain that, a techicality is pretending that there was no complaint just because it wasn't made in a formal way, or informally in relation to university policy.

That is what a technicality is.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So it was not just a case of her supervisors making it all up, and in fact the university may have been trying to bury this on a technicality. In case I need to explain that, a techicality is pretending that there was no complaint just because it wasn't made in a formal way, or informally in relation to university policy.

Except that evidently they scrambled the Mod Squad to deal with it.  Or else who authorized the trio of faculty and staff to shut this Peterson stuff down?

But if there was any such complaint, how can it be that it was never written down in any way, even anonymously?  It alsmost seems like it only came up AFTER Shepherd was called in.  Surely, Universities aren't also obligated to mobilize the A-Team for hearsay?

How did an independent investigator find no record at all of any complaint that would lead to this meeting?  And why, if a complaint actually led to this meeting would the University admit that there was no such complaint, and that the meeting need not have happened?

Is this the world's first (but surely not last) #ZeToo moment???

6079_Smith_W

Gee Magoo, I consider the quote in that Macleans article to be enough of a complaint. I don't think it is very responsible to have a class descend into ridiculing people, which is what was reported. Is that written down clearly enough for you?

And did you watch the video? Shepherd points out that it was the Rainbow Centre which complained to her supervisors.

As for the investigator's conclusions, there are others who have questions about that too:

Administrators of the Rainbow Centre have argued that freedom of speech is being used as an excuse to justify transphobic behaviour in the response to Shepherd’s ordeal.

Toby Finlay, the centre’s administrative co-ordinator, says the debate has become disconnected from the initial argument over whether Peterson’s anti-gender pronoun stance should have been presented neutrally at all.

“These conversations that are framed as debates are really a conversation where one person is denying the existence of the other,” Finlay said Wednesday.

“Engaging in these quote-unquote debates is a request of trans students and an obligation for trans students to engage in a conversation about the validity of their identities and their experiences.”

Finlay says some of Laurier’s trans students have been dealing with “really transphobic and really hateful comments” both on-campus and online since the issue flared up.

They say the school shouldn’t have apologized to Shepherd until it knew exactly what had happened, and want to see the investigation include interviews with trans students.

“By not following through this investigation before issuing an apology, the voices of trans students are being silenced on this campus,” Finlay said.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/wlu-trans-students-facing-hate-on-campus-an...

If you don't interview the people who are most affected it isn't surprising that you don't turn anything up. Well that, and roadblocks like  the requirement that it be delivered formally, with references to university policy.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
“These conversations that are framed as debates are really a conversation where one person is denying the existence of the other,” Finlay said Wednesday.

If anything, more like denying a special, new, official cateogry for the other.

I don't believe in Wolfkins.  That doesn't mean that the people who imagine that they're Wolfkins don't exist, and it doesn't mean that I think that Wolfkins aren't people or aren't entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, including the right to pretend that they're wolves.

It just means that I don't want any part in reinforcing their belief.  If I have to validate that "Wolfkins" are rationally and scientifically wolves then they're just masturbating using my hand.  They're free to believe whatever makes them feel special, but please leave me out of it.  Is that fair?

6079_Smith_W

Mocking people in a university class because of their identity? No I don't think that is fair.

And I don't think academic freedom or free speech extends to being an excuse for stuff like that. In fact, there is a good explanation of that in the tape Shepherd secretly recorded.
 

And speaking of mocking people for fun, seeing as you are pulling  "zee" " Wolfkins" and "masturbating with my hand" out of your bag of throwaway slurs for the umpteenth time, are you going to start yelling "misogynoir" for us again?

Or have you run out of new material to make fun of the freaks?

 

 

 

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Or else who authorized the trio of faculty and staff to shut this Peterson stuff down?

Are you seriously asking who authorized a prof to talk to their TA about the content of a seminar?

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
“These conversations that are framed as debates are really a conversation where one person is denying the existence of the other,” Finlay said Wednesday.

If anything, more like denying a special, new, official cateogry for the other.

I don't believe in Wolfkins.  That doesn't mean that the people who imagine that they're Wolfkins don't exist, and it doesn't mean that I think that Wolfkins aren't people or aren't entitled to the same rights as the rest of us, including the right to pretend that they're wolves.

It just means that I don't want any part in reinforcing their belief.  If I have to validate that "Wolfkins" are rationally and scientifically wolves then they're just masturbating using my hand.  They're free to believe whatever makes them feel special, but please leave me out of it.  Is that fair?

Are these people taking Wolfkins hormones that are having an undeniable effect on their physiology?

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Are you seriously asking who authorized a prof to talk to their TA about the content of a seminar?

Yes.  If there had been an actual complaint (and it doesn't look as though there was) would it have gone straight to the Professor, or would it have come from a higher office?  In either case, wouldn't there have been a record of that complaint in some form?

Quote:
Are these people taking Wolfkins hormones that are having an undeniable effect on their physiology?

Are the "non-gendered" taking special "non-gender" hormones?  Or else what hormones are YOU talking about?

Peterson has said since the very beginning of all of this that his battle isn't with a MTF or FTM transperson.  Are those the hormones you're referring to?

wage zombie

Yes, those indeed are the hormones I'm referring to.

Some people with male genitalia who were socialized as males transition to female.  They take testosterone blockers and estrogen and they have the experience of being female.  Maybe they always felt female.

There are other transpeople who have a very different experience.  Rather than feeling like they are the wrong gender, they don't feel like they're either gender.  So someone in this boat, with male genitalia, socialized as a male, might take testosterone blockers and estrogen, and not have the experience of being female.  They're not men, and their bodies aren't being governed by male hormones.  But they're bodies and socialization aren't female either.  Someone in this boat might have opted for just blocking testosterone, but I think if blocking testosterone, it's safer to also be taking estrogen.

Some trans people know they've always wanted to be the opposite gender, and when they transition they go very masculine or very feminine.  Other trans people have always felt othered by gender, and when they transition they may choose to present very androgynously.

Hormone therapy is pretty intense.  If somebody's serious enough to go through that, I'm willing to call them however they want.

There is this idea you seem to have that people want to change the way they're addressed every day and it's all "on a whim".  That is not the experience that I have had with the trans people I know.

6079_Smith_W

Here's a piece from back in November that is worth reading, from the perspective of one of the people having their identity debated in class.

For transgender folks, this positions us in a precarious reality. A great portion of Canadian society doesn’t recognize trans folks as real persons. And when they recognize us, it is often filtered through crude stereotypes that emphasize perversion or mental illness. The point is, we must go to great lengths to justify and defend our very existence in everyday situations. This extends to the classroom where many undergraduate trans students, who already face risky social situations, may find themselves working under prejudiced instructors.

To have the existence of your identity made into a debate within a classroom setting directly impacts trans students. And due to the number of us who are forced to stay in the closet for fear of the impacts of discrimination—an instructor can’t even be certain who is and isn’t transgender in their class.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/pa3jzg/for-trans-folks-free-speech-ca...

Rev Pesky

wage zombie wrote:

Are you seriously asking who authorized a prof to talk to their TA about the content of a seminar?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So whatever the university administration wants to say, it seems to me they had very good reason to talk to her about presenting material to students in an appropriate way, and to be aware if that material had any basis in academic standards.

Deborah MacLatchey, president and vice-Chancellor of Laurier University said:

...the meeting should never have taken place...

That just can't be that hard to understand. And, wage zombie, this wasn't just a meeting between a prof and a TA. There were three members of Laurier staff in addition to Shepherd, and they lied about the cause of the meeting.

It's just a damn lucky thing Shepherd had the smarts to record the proceedings of that kangaroo court, or it would have been just another 'he said/she said' thing I know the left hates.

 

6079_Smith_W

People don't tell the truth sometimes Rev. That can't be too hard to understand, can it?

I understand that there was a student in the class who didn't appreciate that other students in the class responded by making fun of trans people. But the university says there was no reason to talk to the TA about it. I have a hard time believing they actually took a good look at the situation. And a number of other people at the university have also said the investigation was either incomplete, or the university just decided to cave and abandoned its responsibility to students in the process. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Hormone therapy is pretty intense.  If somebody's serious enough to go through that, I'm willing to call them however they want.

OK.  But I don't think it's more intense than this:

Meow!

While I can respect that commitment, that alone isn't reason enough for me to refer to him as a cat.

Quote:
To have the existence of your identity made into a debate within a classroom setting directly impacts trans students.

I'm sure it does.  The problem is, you can't just make up (or discover, or adopt, or however we wish to describe it) a brand new identity and expect people to immediately be on board with it and validate it for you.  It's really not reasonable to just expect that of everyone else in the world.  Homosexuality existed in ancient Greece, and finally about 15 years ago, two men could marry in Canada.  I think the "non-gendered" or "fluid gendered" or "______-gendered" can't just skip over the steps where everyone else understands and approves and nobody thinks twice about "xe" anymore.

I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant, or priveleged, or consdescending, but expecting others to change is usually a pretty slow process.

6079_Smith_W

No one is expecting you to change, Magoo.

And for that matter, if any of these people feel the need to walk down the street and exercise their freedom to  show what fucking jerks they are, fine. I suppose we should be patient with that crowd in Charlottesville too.

But it is another matter in a classroom. It isn't a free-for-all for those with a flawed understanding of rights legislation any more than it is a free-for-all for climate change deniers. I know you say you read that transcript, but you might want to take another scan.

It actually is the responsibility of the teacher to make sure that material meets academic standards, not just some guy's opinion that students might be inclined to take for truth just because he has a degree. And it is also the teacher's responsibility to make sure that any discussion doesn't turn to abuse.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
No one is expecting you to change, Magoo.

Then what are the new pronouns about?

If it's about the non-gendered using the pronouns of their choice to refer to themselves, of course I have no issue with that.  But I thought that somewhere in there I was expected to, too.

Quote:
not just some guy's opinion that students might be inclined to take for truth just because he has a degree.

I doubt anyone would change their mind because some talking head on a TV screen in a classroom has a degree.

But aside from that, does anyone know whether the snippet of The Agenda that Shepherd played in class was solely Peterson speaking?  Or whether she also played/discussed the counterpoint?  If she only played Peterson and then said "well, there you have it" then I'd agree that's worrisome.  But if he was rebutted, or if similar class time was given to the opposing point of view then it's hard to imagine how Shepherd somehow created an "unsafe space" or whatever.

And FWIW, if someone says "I have no gender", I don't specifically disbelieve them.  I don't believe that they're being dishonest, but I retain doubts about what "non-gendered" is supposed to mean.  Is it like a "third" pole on a magnet, between north and south?  Is it like some "middle ground" between "off" and "on"?  My beliefs on this aren't carved in stone, but personally, I need to hear more.

Also, FWIW, I'm not mentioning things like Cat Guy (AKA "StalkingCat", RIP) or "wolfkins" in order to mock or belittle the non-gendered.

But in the same way that the Flying Spaghetti Monster serves as a way to try to show the faithful how all religions look to an atheist, or anyone who doesn't already believe in God or Allah or Buddha, I think that these other "lived identities" might similarly demonstrate what "fluid gendered" looks like to someone who doesn't already believe that we can be "fluid gendered" (or whatever).

If you're reluctant to refer to a "wolfkin" as a wolf, perhaps you can better understand my reluctance to refer to anyone as "xir".  I trust there are no "anti-lupines" here, so if there's reluctance, it must be something else.

6079_Smith_W

Well the result, according to the student who was there, was that people in class started making fun of trans people.

So yeah, something went wrong. And if you are wondering what it is about, it is not letting that entitled fucking jerk attitude hijack what is supposed to be a place for education. It should be left outside the door.

 

 

 

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

If people wish you to call them "moron", it is unjust to call them anything else. After all, they asked for it.

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

Well the result, according to the student who was there, was that people in class started making fun of trans people.

What if she had shown a video that only featured someone expressing pro-inclusive views, but it still led to some students making fun of trans people? eg. "Can you believe that crazy bitch likes those tranny freaks?" Should she still have been disciplined in that case?

6079_Smith_W

There was actually no discipline. The only action taken was that they wanted to see her lesson plans.

pookie

I'm not sure that the fact that some people made fun of trans people can necessarily be linked to the video, and certainly not to the particular perspective of what a particular person in the video says.  The fact is that the trans experience is still pretty foreign to alot of people and simply mentioning that existence, even in the most respectful of ways, could also have garnered that response.

But, and I'm sorry to say this, but I would need a bit more detail as to what "making fun" means in this context.  Was it a joke that might been meant innocently enough but was offputting? Actual targeting?  Mocking? 

6079_Smith_W

When those sorts of things start happening in a classroom there is some responsibility on the part of the instructor to deal with it. Personally, I don't think there needs to be a smoking gun connecting those comments to the video for it to be problematic. But the issue was raised by the video.

And I agree completely, it would be very helpful if there was a bit more information about what happened. That is also the concern raised by the representative of the Rainbow Centre about the lack of a complete investigation, and Mohammad Akbar's editorial, also upthread.

But there's the other side of this...  the administration saying there was no complaint and therefore no reason for the meeting to have happened. If the details on what happened in the class are thin, that is at best evasive, and at worse, absolutely false.  For one thing they disregard the fact a campus organization  did come forward to relay a complaint they received. How is that not a complaint?

As for there being no reason, the concerns I heard on that tape seemed reasonable and valid. The claim that it should never have happened seems frankly bizarre.

Why do I keep repeating the fact that a student did have concerns about what happened in that classroom? Because every other voice seems determined to shut it down and insist nothing happened. Whatever did happen, it is simply not true that no one was concerned.

And if anything good will come out of these lawsuits it may be that questions that may not have been asked will be.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

People don't tell the truth sometimes Rev. That can't be too hard to understand, can it?

Are you saying Deborah MacLatchey lied when she said no complaint was received, and the meeting shouldn't have taken place? If not, who is the person who lied?

further from 6079_Smith_W:

For one thing they disregard the fact a campus organization  did come forward to relay a complaint they received. How is that not a complaint?

I think the point is that it was no complaint had been made by the time of the meeting. In other words, the excuse used by the three Laurier staff to justify the meeting, didn't exist. So if we're looking to see if someone lied, that would be a place to look.

And it wasn't 'the administration' who said the meeting shouldn't have taken place. It was the president of the university, who, by the way, would have had no reason to say what she did if it wasn't the truth. The university would have been much better off if MacLatchey could have found a reasonable excuse for the meeting. 

6079_Smith_W

Did you watch that cbc interview with Shepherd? She said the Rainbow Centre complained to them. Why do I need to keep repeating these basic things?

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There was actually no discipline. The only action taken was that they wanted to see her lesson plans.

Okay, asked to show her lesson plans then.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
She said the Rainbow Centre complained to them. Why do I need to keep repeating these basic things?

Because this was conflated with a complaint from a student in Shepherd's tutorial.

ed'd to add:  the "tell" here is that when Shepherd asked to see the complaint, none of the three could produce it.  Nor, it seems, could they even paraphrase it.  They didn't seem to even know if there was one complaint or more than one.

If a University-funded organization were to lodge a complaint that would be sufficient to warrant a meeting such as this one, wouldn't policy and procedure expect some sort of record of that, even if the name of the actual student is redacted?  Otherwise, what specifically separates such a third-party, unverifiable complaint from hearsay?

Seems to me a similar question formed part of the Erin Weir/Christine Moore discussion.  She wasn't involved, but she brought the complaints forward, anonymously, then Weir was accused, not duly informed of what and by whom, and the rest is history.

Quote:
People don't tell the truth sometimes Rev. That can't be too hard to understand, can it?

It's true.  People often lie.

6079_Smith_W

Actually an accusation of sexual misconduct is not the same as raising questions about appropriate material in class. One is directed at a person. The other has the potential to influence a whole class.
And clearly the author of the Macleans article spoke to a real person since there is a direct quote. And even if the person who complained to the Rainbow Centre did now want to come forward it is still entirely in order for the students of that organization to complain. No different than if the women's centre or Indigenous or international students centre had raised concerns about class content.
I get why the university fell back on technicalities here, but why do you not think anyone should be able to bring a complaint about something they feel may be discriminatory - especially, as in this case when they are student members of the association concerned with LGBT issues? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I get why the university fell back on technicalities here, but why do you not think anyone should be able to bring a complaint about something they feel may be discriminatory - especially, as in this case when they are student members of the association concerned with LGBT issues? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Fell back on technicalities??? You mean fell back on the truth, don't you? The truth was no complaint had been received, even though that was the justification for calling Shepherd to a meeting to 'justify her lesson plans'.

You can dodge and weave all you want, but you can't deny the clear statement from the president of the university.

I wonder why no one appears to have spoken to someone who was in the class the day the dreaded two minutes of Jordan Peterson was played for the students. If indeed nasty things werre said about trans people, all who were in the class would have heard it, and most would know who actually spoke the words.

6079_Smith_W

To repeat again, someone who was in that class was quoted in the Macleans article, Rev. That is how we got the information that comments about trans people were made.

This is kind of weird, because what we are talking about is a supervisor advising a TA about how to be careful about presenting problematic information to the class. Seems simple, right? Not something that should require a formal complaint regimen, or sworn in witnesses. Or really, any excuse at all, to my mind.

So now we have comparisons to sexual assault complaints, and a need to get to the bottom of who said what and track down all the students' names... from tthose of you who are claiming the supervisors overreacted. Don't you think you might have this a bit backwards?

As for why the administration did what they did, of course I don't know for sure. But really, I am not sure what kind of sheltered life you have led, but my dad was a teacher, so I saw plenty of examples of administration knuckling under to one pressure or another, be it the board or a parent, and not backing up  teachers (and students) in cases where they should have acted.

 

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:
Fell back on technicalities??? You mean fell back on the truth, don't you? The truth was no complaint had been received, even though that was the justification for calling Shepherd to a meeting to 'justify her lesson plans'.

You can dodge and weave all you want, but you can't deny the clear statement from the president of the university.

I wonder why no one appears to have spoken to someone who was in the class the day the dreaded two minutes of Jordan Peterson was played for the students. If indeed nasty things werre said about trans people, all who were in the class would have heard it, and most would know who actually spoke the words.

The school fucked up. They unethically targeted a student and really made some dumb decisions. Were the political roles reversed here I think we'd see a hell of a lot more outrage over this. I hope the school takes a beating in court if anything then to prevent this kind of bullying in the future.

6079_Smith_W

How about we look at this from a different but more realistic perspective?

You are at work, and your boss tells you your work is not meeting standards, and may be discriminatory to the people you are serving. Then asks if you understand and says s/he will monitor your work.

I might be a bit embarrassed to have that happen, but I'd probably say thanks for letting me know, I wasn't aware of that. I wouldn't challenge it, secretly tape it, demand witnesses, and sue them.

Perhaps the administration thought they were avoiding trouble by going this route, but just made the problem a lot bigger by giving them the indication they were in the right.

And threw the responsible supervisors, and the people being discriminated against under the bus.

And this G&M article shows Peterson's suit is far from a slam-dunk:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-jordan-peterson-sues-wilf...

Paladin1

How about this.

You're at work and your boss calls you in the office with other supervisors and lies about your work not meeting the standard. They then take turns telling you you're wrong meanwhile circumventing you asking exactly how you failed to meet the standard (because they're lying about it).  Then they make libel statements about who trained you and deflame them repeatedly.  What do you you think a union is going to do about your bosses lying to you about you not meeting the standard required of you then ganging up on you in an office?

 

Have you listened to the whole recording? I just listened to 42 minutes of it.  It's 100% the university staff having a problem with Jordan, lying about a complaint in order to push their personal views and beliefs on a student and bullying her in an envrionment she shouldn't have been placed in.

The realistic thing here is they screwed up big with their treatment of a student, their professional integrity and committing what sounds very much like libel. . Now the court system will figure out damages (if any) for their behavior.

Lindsay is right. The unethical actions of the university made her a pariah.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I listened to the entire thing, Paladin.

Who did they defame? Who did they make "libel statements" about? Is Jordan Peterson a scholar in human rights legislation? If not then why should he be presented in class as an authority on the effects of Canadian Law?

And it was an English class, right? An English language scholar would probably know there is a long history of using "they" as a singular pronoun. He isn't that either.

(Correction: Communications. But the class was about English language)

And to be a pariah is to be shamed in front of others. How they managed that in an in camera meeting is something else you might want to explain.

Paladin1

The thing with libel is that it usually gets fluffed off, I think because we collectively insult so many people as a society, but when someone takes offenses and actually doesn't let it go or drop it they have some very real legal backing to take action. If someone has money to burn in a civil suit or whatever then they can really push someone through the ringer.  If the court finds in Jordans favor and those staff members cost the school a million and a half dollars plus legal fees they might need to find a new job.

 

 

Quote:

Common-law provinces

At common law, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.[1] The perspective measuring the esteem is highly contextual, and depends on the view of the potential audience of the communication and their degree of background knowledge. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions unless explicitly stated as such.[2] Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. Where a communication is expressing a fact, it can still be found defamatory through innuendo suggested by the juxtaposition of the text or picture next to other pictures and words.[3]

Broadly, Canadians can be held liable by English-Canadian courts for comments on public affairs, about public figures, which are factually true, and which are broadly believed.[citation needed] They cannot be held liable for opinion, inference, hyperlinking without explicit agreement with the content, reportage when this is based on honest research and journalistic ethics.[citation needed] Plaintiffs need not prove falsity, malice or damages

 

Ezra Levant called  Khurrum Awan a liar and an anti-Semite. Cost him $80'000

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And to be a pariah is to be shamed in front of others. How they managed that in an in camera meeting is something else you might want to explain.

Pariah is an outcast. A person who is avoided or not accepted by a social group.

The backlash she endured and continues to do so after defending herself against false accusations will effect her schooling and career in the field she chose. I believe I read she feels she has to change that too.

They managed that by putting her in that position in the first place. But I guess the courts will decide if that's accepted or not.

voice of the damned

Smith:

Did Shepherd justify her use of the TVO clip by saying that Peterson is an authority on Canadian law?

 

6079_Smith_W

Maybe you should listen to the tape Paladin is talking about. Because this relates directly to that.

The notion that if an instructor doesn't explicitly say so, some of the things taught in class might not be true, or have no evidence to back them up, is simply ridiculous. What do you think a university IS?

 

Pages