Tag: Laurier University

Originally a comment by Dave Ricks on The meeting should never have happened at all.

I appreciate the university addressing the problem as an employment issue:

We hired an external fact-finder with expertise in human resources issues. I have received the report and we are taking decisive action to ensure these events will not be repeated.

The employment issue gave a concrete framework for procedure (including legality). That was different than arguing for freedom of expression in the abstract (which was the popular argument, and maybe valid, but would lead to a different chain of logic, and probably conclude in terms of ideologies).

I see two remaining issues.

One issue is the so-called apology that Shepherd’s supervisor Prof. Rambukkana still has posted here as an open letter to her. He gives his reasons for the meeting (which are invalid), and he apologizes for not being more supportive in the meeting — as if the only thing he did wrong was to make her feel bad, and he was right to have the meeting as if she did something wrong.

My other, larger remaining issue is what motivated Shepherd’s inquisitors on the recording. The university statement says, “Basic guidelines and best practices… were ignored or not understood,” but why? I’ve been reading Facebook comments on the university statement here. Many commenters argue in terms of freedom of expression — arguing for expression, and blaming restriction against expression on ideology in the abstract. But I’ve seen only one commenter Franny Connell articulate this explicitly:

My heart goes out to Lindsay Shepherd. This is likely what she will remember most from her years in the education system. An experience of disrespect, at the hands of people with power over her, and public attack.

Transactivism has created many many issues that we are not allowed to speak of. A clash of rights exists between trans people’s rights and: women’s rights, lesbians’ rights, as well as child protection considerations. But it has become *bigotry* (ad hominem!) to discuss the impact of trans activism on language, freedom of speech, and women’s rights. In order to avoid penalization (which is exactly what happened to Ms. Shepherd) we must place the feelings, gender expression, preferences and sufferings of trans people far above everything else. This is an insult to trans people. It presumes they cannot handle debate and criticism. This line of thinking is a misunderstanding or misappropriation of the concept of intersectionality within feminist thought.

Consider, Canadian Universities, that the other (distinctly separate) minority group, here, impacted by trans rights….are women. Human females. Your students. Lindsay’s feelings. Lindsay’s thoughts. Lindsay’s rights to an education without public humiliation. I’m glad she has received an apology.

Now, please consider women as a separate group from trans people. Because we are. Your centre for women and trans people doesn’t seem to consider women’s issues, such as the Montreal Massacre, worth mentioning. See deleted post from their Facebook wall on December 6. Screen shots are available. Please provide your Centre for Women and Trans People with education on women’s issues. Women’s issues are *not* the same as gender identity and expression issues. They are different. Different is okay. I’m okay, you’re okay….just different. Very basic stuff. Maybe your gender studies program can assist here. Thank you.

Connell added:

Feminism seeks to liberate women from sex role stereotypes. Through whatever means, this is the goal. Trans people *use* sex role stereotypes to express their identity. They value and uphold these stereotypes. The same stereotypes that are used to oppress women. To me, the clash is obvious. It is beyond me how it is thought of as fair and just to conflate these two different groups.

I love the way Connell framed the whole thing. The conflict was created by an institution like the university 1) Conflating women’s issues with gender identity issues, 2) Giving gender identity issues top priority, and I’ll add 3) Not saying this is what’s happening.

I also like her suggestion, at the end of her first comment, that university gender studies could look into what is going on here.

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.

Andrew Robinson, associate professor of Human Rights and Human Diversity at Wilfrid Laurier University, thinks their policy on [what they call] gendered violence needs urgent repair.

The public’s reaction to the treatment of a Wilfrid Laurier University grad student at the hands of two professors and a rep from the university’s Diversity and Equity Office (DEO) has been one of horror and outrage. The resounding opinion was that student, Lindsay Shepherd, was completely in the right when she offered both sides of a debate involving the use of non-gender pronouns.

And while the public has agreed Shepherd was right, she wasn’t. At least not according to a disturbing regulatory policy enforced by my university. In fact, in the meeting where Lindsay was subject to a verbal inquisition, Adria Joel, the DEO rep, cites the policy, known as Laurier’s gendered and sexual violence policy (GSVP) as justification for her claim that Lindsay was guilty of “spreading transphobia.”

Yes, I noticed that when I transcribed some of the inquisition. I wondered how they were defining their terms.

While Laurier’s president is avoiding talking about the Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy, I won’t.

The policy has its roots in government legislation. Ontario’s Bill 132, passed in 2016, required universities to have a policy on sexual violence. That law defined “sexual violence” in terms of assault and harassment “targeting a person’s sexuality, gender identity or gender expression.” This is laudable; harassment and assault are wrong (and I condemn in advance anyone who would use this letter as justification for harassing or threatening anyone).

Apparently not satisfied with a definition of sexual violence that was good enough for the Wynne Liberal government, Laurier’s board of governors approved a policy that innovated by creating the following definition of gendered violence:

“An act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm. This violence includes sexism, gender discrimination, gender harassment, biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism, intimate partner violence, and forms of Sexual Violence.

A student group at Laurier University, Lspirg Waterloo, has posted an essay explaining its positionality. LSPIRG stands for Laurier Students’ Public Interest Research Group; it identifies as a social justice group.

Dear Laurier Community,

Due to recent events on the Laurier Waterloo campus and the heightened media coverage, we feel it is our responsibility to speak out against the level of transphobia that has been emerging on campus and in on-line forms.

We have spent a lot of time over the last while speaking about “freedom of speech”. We have, however, not spent much time questioning how the increase of transphobic rhetoric on campus has been impacting students and the larger community. If there is one thing we request of the Laurier community at this time, it is to acknowledge whose voices are being left out when we see these constant articles hitting the news. Who is getting the most amount of air time. Who is getting lots of time to explain their side of the story. And who is not?

Trans students have, without a doubt, been silenced throughout this process. There have been a small handful of articles or interviews released that provide any sort of context from their perspective. And when they do get coverage (such as in the Cord), entire stacks of newspapers are destroyed and returned to the steps of the Cord. So we ask you again, who is being silenced in this situation? Who is having their right to share their side of the story taken from them? And who has little or no ability to change the public discourse?

But is the story in question about “trans students”? All of them? Do we know that? If so, how do we know it? Lindsay Shepherd is the one who was hauled before a tribunal of three people berating her for ridiculous reasons; why are “trans students” supposed to have equal coverage?

The post is framing the issue as if Shepherd had abused “trans students” but that of course is not the case. The three sanctimonious goons who bullied her are the Other Side of this story; the story is not directly about trans people or “trans students.”

The discourse of “freedom of speech” is being used in order to strip the ongoing situation of all its context. We need to shift that discourse so that we can actually see the underlying issues. We need to see what is at the root of this discussion and why trans students feel so passionately about it.

Or to put it another way, we need to claim and insist that this story about three academics bullying a grad student is actually about [all] trans students so that we can claim the “underlying issues” are quite different from the ones being discussed.

We need to acknowledge that “debates” that invalidate the existence of trans people or dehumanize trans people based on their gender is both a form of transphobia and a form of gendered violence. And we need to acknowledge that there is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their existence and their right to a safe educational environment.

Nah, you don’t. You don’t need to acknowledge claims that are not true. Nobody invalidated the existence of trans people or dehumanized trans people; that’s just the familiar irrational catastrophizing bullshit that everyone is so tired of.

For these reasons, we stand in solidarity with the trans students on campus who are continuing to make their voices heard despite brutal and harsh opposition. We stand in solidarity with the trans and non-binary students who are not making their voices heard. Who are keeping to themselves or staying silent out of fear, intimidation, exhaustion, or a range of other valid justifications.

Or, perhaps, because they have enough sense to realize the bullying of Shepherd is not about them and they don’t need to make everything about them.

We stand in solidarity with every trans and non-binary individual (student or not) who has been caught up in the whirlwind of social media and mainstream news that so consistently tells them that they are not important or worthy of having a voice in this discussion.

Nobody is telling them any such fucking thing. The melodrama is not persuasive.

Behold Nathan Rambukkana’s open letter to Lindsay Shepherd:

Dear Lindsay,

I wanted to write to apologize to you for how the meeting we had proceeded. While I was not able to do so earlier due to confidentiality concerns, including your privacy as a grad student, now that the audio of the meeting is public I can say more. While I still cannot discuss the student concerns raised about the tutorial, everything that has happened since the meeting has given me occasion to rethink not only my approach to discussing the concerns that day, but many of the things I said in our meeting as well.

First, I wanted to say that when I was made aware of the concerns, I was told that the proper procedure would be to have an informal meeting to discuss it. In the process of arranging this, others indicated they should attend as well. This is one of the facets of working at a university, that meetings can often become de-facto committees due to relevant stakeholders being pulled in. My main concerns were finding out why a lesson on writing skills had become a political discussion, and making sure harm didn’t befall students. However, in not also prioritizing my mentorship role as the course director and your supervisor, I didn’t do enough to try to support you in this meeting, which I deeply regret. I should have seen how meeting with a panel of three people would be an intimidating situation and not invite a productive discussion. Had I tried harder to create a situation more conducive to talking these issues through, things might have gone very differently, but alas I did not.

Second, this entire occasion, and hearing from so many with passionate views on this issue from across the political spectrum, has made me seriously rethink some of the positions I took in the meeting. I made the argument that first-year students, not studying this topic specifically, might not have the tool kit to unpack or process a controversial view such as Dr. Peterson’s, saying that such material might be better reserved for upper-year or grad courses. While I still think that such material needs to be handled carefully, especially so as to not infringe on the rights of any of our students or make them feel unwelcome in the learning environment, I believe you are right that making a space for controversial or oppositional views is important, and even essential to a university. The trick is how to properly contextualize such material. One way might be through having readings, or a lecture on the subject before discussion, but you are correct that first-years should be eligible to engage with societal debates in this way. Perhaps instead of the route I took I should have added further discussion in lecture, or supplementary readings. But instead I tried to make a point about the need to contextualize difficult material, and drew on the example of playing a speech by Hitler to do it. This was, obviously, a poorly chosen example. I meant to use it to drive home a point about context by saying here was material that would definitely need to be contextualized rather than presented neutrally, and instead I implied that Dr. Peterson is like Hitler, which is untrue and was never my intention. While I disagree strongly with many of Dr. Peterson’s academic positions and actions, the tired analogy does him a disservice and was the opposite of useful in our discussion.

Finally there is the question of teaching from a social justice perspective, which my course does attempt to do. I write elsewhere about reaching across the aisle to former alt-right figures as possible unexpected allies in the struggle to create a better more just society for all. But hearing all of the feedback from people and looking at the polarized response I am beginning to rethink so limited an approach. Maybe we ought to strive to reach across all of our multiple divisions to find points where we can discuss such issues, air multiple perspectives, and embrace the diversity of thought. And maybe I have to get out of an “us versus them” habit of thought to do this myself, and to think of the goal as more than simply advancing social justice, but social betterment and progress as a whole. While I think that such a pedagogical approach must still work not to marginalize some students, I think the issues are too complex to leave as a binary with protection of students on one side and protection of speech on the other. We should be striving for both, which is why I look forward to participating in Dr. MacLatchy’s task force looking into these issues at Laurier, and I hope perhaps you might consider doing the same so we could together work towards an even stronger institutional future.

I’m sorry this came to pass the way it did, and look forward to moving past this and continue working with you as my TA and perhaps in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Nathan Rambukkana

The first thing that strikes me?

That is such terrible writing.

It’s so dead, so airless, so dull, so institutional.

Yet his field is Communication.

Bread and roses. We need bread but we also need roses, god damn it. We need justice and we also need beauty. We need equality and we need play. We need fairness and also humor.

That guy’s got no roses at all.

The substance? Well, take this sentence for a start:

I should have seen how meeting with a panel of three people would be an intimidating situation and not invite a productive discussion.

Come on. He couldn’t have not seen at the time how intimidating it was. You can hear it in her voice every time she speaks. You can hear it in their smug voices every time they speak, the three of them. Hello? “Communication”? Don’t try to tell us that a communications scholar was completely in the dark about how intimidating that setup was until well afterwards. Shorter: give me a fucking break.

Then take this half-sentence:

I’m sorry this came to pass the way it did…

Ah no you don’t. It didn’t “come to pass”; it was an act performed by agents, principally Dr Rambukkan himself. “Communication”?

I give it a D, and that’s being generous.