Pertaining to compiling the articulated contextualization and intentional facilitation
The presidents (two, apparently) of the Laurier Student Union have issued A Statement. It is exactly what you’d expect – loaded with the dreariest bureaucratic jargon imaginable. It’s as if they’re afraid even to talk in a human way, let alone saying anything that might trouble The Orthodoxy.
To undergraduate and graduate students of Wilfrid Laurier University,
Laurier has been the center of a contentious debate pertaining to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
See what I mean? “Pertaining to” ffs – what’s wrong with “about” or “on”?
Now that the University has publicized the composition of the Task Force on Freedom of Expression, the student body has an opportunity to directly contribute to this important discussion. As Presidents of your Union and Association, and student representatives on the task force, we have a duty to listen to our membership and ensure your perspectives are heard.
Whose perspectives? Which perspectives? All of them? Something tells me they don’t actually mean all of them.
We want to acknowledge that the events of last week, and the subsequent discourse associated with this topic, has caused harm for some Laurier students. The dominant narrative surrounding this story has too often discounted the lived experiences of transgender and non-binary students, and as a result, questioned their very existence.
Emphasis mine. No. Questioning people’s claims about themselves is not denying their existence. That dishonest bit of rhetoric ought to be retired.
Normally, all things being equal, of course we take people’s claims about themselves at face value, and of course it’s rude not to. But sometimes things turn out not to be equal and then we do ask questions; that’s just how these things work. We follow the social rules in general, but there may be exceptions. If people make eccentric claims about themselves, there may be reasons to question those claims. That’s not denying the existence of the person making the claim.
The principles of academic dialogue and freedom of expression are integral components of university learning. While debate is a productive tool of learning, it requires proper contextualization and intentional facilitation by instructors and teaching assistants. In this environment students learn to think critically, understand the nuance of complicated topics, and listen to the perspectives of their classmates. Educational engagement with challenging material should not willfully incite hatred or violence.
What are we supposed to think after reading that paragraph? That Lindsay Shepherd willfully incited hatred or violence or both.
Over the coming weeks and going into next semester, our goal is to facilitate sessions for students to ensure all voices are heard. We will then compile the feedback and articulate it to the committee to assist in the process of achieving their mandate.
Well that’s reassuring.
It certainly wasn’t when Rachel Dolezal and transracialism was being discussed.
True as far as it goes. Too often though, “proper contextualisation” means framing the discussion in such a way that only one outcome from the discussion can be deemed acceptable. There are times when only one view is acceptable of course. Disagreement over fundamental human rights for instance (right to life, food, shelter, liberty, equal treatment) isn’t something I will ‘discuss’. The boundary between individuals rights, or the rights of society against the individual – there is of course discussion to be had.
The social and political Right is just as guilty of this as the Left, but they do tend to say things in much more direct language.
Why do I suspect they don’t mean literally that all voices shall be heard, but that all voices that they think are acceptable are heard?
And the idea that no one is listening to the trans activists and trans students? The fact that this discussion is happening is proof that they are and were listening – otherwise, Lindsay Shepard would not have become the center of the maelstrom. It is precisely because trans voices (or at least the voices of non-trans trans activists) are being heard that this conversation happens, that Lindsay Shepard gets reprimanded, that OB gets drive off FTB, etc etc etc ad infinitum. (Pardon me for no italics; I am not sure how to do that here).
I am tired of all the loudest people (angry white men, Christians, trans activists) who suck all the air out of the conversation and then complain they are not being heard, when in fact it is nearly impossible to hear anyone else.
Oh, I see. They want more nuance. Why do I doubt that?
@ iknklast
Agree absolutely.
(and re: italics
“open angle bracket” “i” “close angle bracket” “TEXT TO BE IN ITALICS” “open angle bracket” “/” “i” “close angle bracket”
Obviously, remove the inverted commas! (The terms can be regional so angle bracket = pointy bracket = inequality sign [open being less than, close being more than] = broken brackets = brokets)
For blockquote you replace the “i” with “blockquote” and the “/i” with “/blockquote”
It always takes me ages to clue into this kind of thing. It’s mah age…)
Thanks, Steamshovelmama. I’ve been doing the blockquote for quite a long time now, so it sounds like I just replace “blockquote” with “i”, right?
Yep, that’s right.
I tried to type it in a simpler way but even putting the angle bracket in inverted commas made it disappear! As far as I’m aware that’s the standard format for all html tags, you just replace the “Blockquote” with the instruction you want.
Just want to add my voice to the chorus of skepticism that “all” voices will be heard. Of course they fucking won’t. We already know that Jordan Petersen’s voice isn’t allowed, and that the voice of anyone who thinks Jordan Petersen’s voice should be allowed also won’t be allowed. It’s that familiar stitch up: no one is allowed to say P, so no one can question we can say P either. It’s a blasphemy to oppose blasphemy laws; the number one rule is don’t question the rules.
@Rob #2
Even then, it depends. I don’t want to waste my rime arguing with a rabid polemicist, and some viewpoints deserve disrespect. But a critical thinking class can be a good place to analyze arguments for even the most unsavory positions.
But then as Ophelia and everyone has noted, the LSU clearly isn’t really interested in analyzing arguments reasonable, outre, or in-between. Not when it comes to the political axiom de jour.
Steamshovelmama: you can display angle brackets with < and > (note the semicolons) thus:
<i>italic text</i>
(and ampersand is &, so above I actually typed &lt; to display <)
Lady Mondegreen @9, fair point and yes to your second (also fair) point.
Well, I tried that italics things, and guess what? It worked for me! Thanks.
With Madness on this issue is such that people who should fucking well know better are siding with the University Administration, calling them feckless victims of a Machiavellian conspiracy by an over privileged and too clever by half white girl who couldn’t shut up and take discipline well. It’s insulting, as well as disgusting.