The complaint against Lindsay Shepherd at Wifrid Laurier University was by its LGBT Center

I’ve posted several times about Lindsay Shepherd, a grad student at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) in Canada.  Shepherd got in trouble with her advisor and the school because in the class she was t.a.ing, she played a short clip from The Agenda showing Jordan Peterson questioning the need to use special pronouns for students not identifying as male or female. Shepherd also showed a counter clip of Nicholas Matte arguing against Peterson, and in fact Shepherd disagrees with Peterson’s views and was simply trying to stimulate discussion in a communications class. For that she got into trouble, and was interrogated threateningly by two professors and a university official. Fortunately, Shepherd secretly (but legally) recorded her inquisition on her computer, and the bullying by the University people was so ridiculous that when the recording was released by the press, WLU looked really stupid and clueless. The President of WLU, as well as Shepherds advisor—one of the inquisitors—had to apologize.

Now Shepherd has become somewhat of a free speech hero, and has given interviews to all manner of sites and stations, including right-wing ones (she doesn’t refuse anyone). But her heroism is questioned by the Regressive Left because, by playing the Peterson clip, she apparently branded herself “transphobic”—even though she isn’t. While she says she disagrees with Peterson, Regressives apparently don’t believe her. But her background in progressive activism, discussed in the piece below, substantiates her views.

What remained a mystery was who, exactly, reported Shepherd to the University. WLU lawyers said there was no record of a formal complaint, which makes one wonder why she was interrogated and investigated. But now it turns out there was indeed a complaint. Here’s Shepherd revealing the Offended Person, which wasn’t a person at all:

Now MacLean’s, a Canadian news magazine, has published an informative account of the whole affair: “What really happened at Wilfrid Laurier University“.  As it turns out, Shepherd is indeed a liberal and activist, is mature beyond her age, and is continuing to be mistreated by members of WLU, both faculty and students.

But the most important new information is who complained about Shepherd: a student went to the Rainbow Centre, the campus LGBTQ organization, which itself filed the complaint:

As for Shepherd, she called her boyfriend to say she thought everything went well and that the students were really engaged. Neither knew one student from the class would soon contact the Rainbow Centre, the campus LGBTQ support community, to complain about the discussion. Toby Finlay, an administrator at the Rainbow Centre, wouldn’t share the specifics of the conversation due to confidentiality reasons, but adds: “It was through us that they made the complaint that led to the situation that blew up in the media.”

It turns out that more than one student got exercised about Shepherd’s showing the clip: many transgender students at WLU see the presentation as intolerable and threatening. In the following, Milas Hewson and Toby Finlay are transgender students and spokespeople for the Rainbow Centre:

It’s been a hard month for both at the Rainbow Centre, a service within the school’s diversity and equity office that supports education and advocacy for queer and trans students. “Students have come to us feeling complicated, upset and invalidated,” Hewson says. “With these young students struggling to figure out how they’re experiencing gender, to be told in a classroom that that’s not valid has a very deep impact because it’s an issue that strikes close to home for these people.”

And even if Shepherd tried to remain neutral in the classroom, Finlay challenges the idea of neutrality in this case, saying it’s wrong “that these are issues of debate and trans students’ identities or experiences are up for conversation—in the sense that their reality is up for conversation.”

Hewson talks about being confronted in school hallways “by people I barely know asking me to justify myself and my positions.” By speaking with media, Finlay and Hewson have become the public faces for the Laurier trans community. “That also in a huge way makes me feel fairly unsafe on campus because I don’t know who might recognize me and approach me out of nowhere and have something violent to say or do,” Hewson says. “I feel generally uncomfortable on campus.”

Neither Finlay nor Hewson is opposed to freedom of speech. However, Finlay says, “we think the ways freedom of speech discourse is being taken up is really functioning to cover over a lot of the transphobia that’s at the core of this issue. It’s being used to justify a lot of hate that’s directed towards trans people.”

Kira Williams experiences something transphobic every day. Some days that’s harassment. Other days it’s sexual assault. “The reality is Dr. Peterson’s speech is targeted at trans people,” says the Laurier PhD student. “And the reality is that when people like Peterson speak, it has consequences in the real world—consequences I have to live through every day.”

I’m sorry, but just hearing Jordan Peterson should not make you feel “invalidated”—any more than Zionist Jews hearing Palestinians and BDSers opposing their positions should make them fearful.  What is it with students that they cannot bear to hear anything that they don’t find personally or ideologically congenial—even if they hear the opposite and supportive viewpoint (one that Shepherd presented)? Note, too, that Finlay says that some things like transgender pronouns are not only NOT fit topics for discussion, but also make students feel “unsafe.” We also hear the usual free speech buttery in Finlay’s claim that “transphobic speech” is not free speech but hate speech. Finally, although we know that trans people experience a lot of nastiness and bigotry, I find it hard to believe that Kira Williams is either harassed or sexually assaulted every day, and I wonder if she’s stretching the meaning of those terms.

Like Shepherd, I’m fine with using whatever pronouns a students wants (if I can remember them), and strongly believe that trans people should be treated just like everyone else. But but the issue of how to deal with them vis-a-vis sports and the like is still one that merits discussion. Feminists, for instance, are deeply divided about how to regard trans women (some say that, not having experienced oppression from birth, they don’t have “real woman credibility”), and I’m content to let them fight that out. In the meantime, I’ll call them “she.” But the Rainbow Centre is demanding that WLU’s President recognize and apologize for transphobia on campus (if she does that, she’ll have to apologize for all forms of bigotry); and they’re asking for what I see as unreasonable concessions on top of that:

The Rainbow Centre continues to demand an apology from President MacLatchy for refusing to acknowledge the existence of transphobia on campus. They also want more safety measures installed at diversity and equity office buildings, such as a panic button and reinforced glass, and—among other asks—the school to hire a trans person of colour full-time as a counsellor within the diversity and equity office to offer mental health support for students.

Why a trans person of color? Are there more trans people of color than white trans people? Or are trans people of color extra oppressed and thus need their own counselor?

Shepherd has further been the victim of  both intimidation and distressing snark at WLU, to wit:

As faculty picked sides, Shepherd was readying herself to face her students for the first time since she went public—and she was hoping to open up the class with a talk about, well, everything that was going on.

The chair of the department of communications, Peter Urquhart, showed up at her tutorial that day to address the class. Shepherd remembers he opened by acknowledging the situation and while he couldn’t go into specifics because of confidentiality reasons, he told the students if they needed emotional or mental support, they should feel welcome to go to the campus wellness centre. He then asked if anyone had questions—they didn’t—and sat at the back of the room for the rest of the tutorial.

“The problem I had with it was he was shutting down the conversation right away,” Shepherd says. “He was making it so that we could not actually talk about what was going on.”

“When asked via email if he would like to comment on the record about his appearance in class that day, Urquhart declined. But then added: “Anyway, I assume she recorded them – why not ask her for the recording?” A second email, unprompted, came soon afterwards: “Sorry, you’re a pro— I should have assumed that you’ve already heard that particular recording.”

Well Urquhart is a jerk, not just for monitoring her class, but for his snark about recording. He clearly is upset that Shepherd made her original recording, since that’s what got WLU in trouble—and rightly so! And Urquhart is the chairman of Shepherd’s department.  (This is one thing that makes me think that she has no future at WLU.)

The rest of the article gives details about Shepherd’s early life, mentions her Middle Eastern boyfriend (she’s learning Farsi to be able to talk to his parents), and shows how she’s now in the center of a maelstrom: denigrated by Regressive Leftists and idolized by free-speech advocates, who, sadly, mostly comprise right-wingers.  There’s also an intimation that this principled young woman doesn’t have much of a future at WLU, which I think is true. Like Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State, I think she’ll find ever greener pastures at another place. But I do admire her and wish her well.

It’s early December and a professor in one of Shepherd’s courses asks her to put away her laptop. She tells Shepherd she doesn’t want to be recorded. Shepherd says she isn’t. This could be a glimpse of her future—one where she feels alienated.

Shepherd has talked about what happens when she enters the working world, if this suspicion could follow her. Which workplace wants to hire someone known to secretly record superiors?

At the same time, she’s become a bit of a celebrity. Some suggest she’ll inevitably open a Patreon account, where followers will give her donations to keep speaking up for free speech, but she’s dismissed any such suggestion. She’s already turned down offers for crowdfunding, saying this is about principle, not money.

What she knows now is she wants to continue her schooling. “I want to get a master’s degree. I like my brain being challenged,” she says.

She’s just not sure that degree will come from Laurier.

TA Lindsay Shepherd addresses the crowd during a free speech rally at Wilfred Laurier University on November 24, 2017. (Photograph by Cole Burston)

 

54 Comments

  1. jay
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    Years ago in one of the Futurama episodes, a pan sexual alien mandated that all gendered pronouns be eliminated (not surprisingly in the episode, humans reacted very negatively to that idea and the being was chased away). Life steps farther into the absurdity of cartoons….

    It’s frightening that there is such a negative reaction to Jordan’s commentary. He is quite polite and generally quite rational (hence the anger, perhaps). One of the few sensible voices coming out of academia. “You can’t say that” is becoming the new watchword.

    I don’t know if you’ve seen this one:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/06/dont-call-us-snowflakes-damages-mental-health-say-young-people/

    And another bit of academic nonsense:

    http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2017/12/the-clown-quarter-now-has-an-engineering-division.html

    As the hard sciences start to catch the academic rot. Some of the comments display insightful humor.

    • Posted December 13, 2017 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      From the post referenced in that second article:

      To fight this, Riley calls for engineering programmes to “do away with” the notion of academic rigour completely, saying, “This is not about reinventing rigour for everyone, it is about doing away with the concept altogether so we can welcome other ways of knowing. Other ways of being. It is about criticality and reflexivity.”

      https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10257

      These are the people who will build our bridges.

      • Posted December 13, 2017 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        You should re-read that piece. Riley is not an engineer and she is part of Purdue Engineering Education department. I’m not exactly sure what they do, but they aren’t engineers.

        • jay
          Posted December 13, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

          This is true, and that was discussed in the comment train. Riley does, however, seem to be one of those who define, or try to define, how the material will be approached.

          We’ve seen that in other areas where such things as grades, punctuality, etc. are attacked and there is strong leverage placed on instructors.

          • Posted December 14, 2017 at 3:32 am | Permalink

            My degree is from Purdue, STEM field, ect…
            To think, I thought I earned it through study and hard work, but instead it turns out I was just oppressing people somehow..

            • Craw
              Posted December 14, 2017 at 10:09 am | Permalink

              I shudder with shame and horror to think I proved> the Jordan Curve Theorem.

        • jay
          Posted December 13, 2017 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

          Also, however, in 2005, she received a NSF CAREER award on implementing and assessing pedagogies of liberation in engineering classrooms. One of those meta instructors who tell the actual subject experts how to teach.

          Appalling, I would think.

          • Travis
            Posted December 13, 2017 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

            Not Safe For Career Award

      • scottoest
        Posted December 13, 2017 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        Don’t be silly. America doesn’t build bridges any more. It barely staffs anyone to make sure the existing ones won’t fall down.

        • BJ
          Posted December 13, 2017 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

          A bridge was just finished about fifteen miles from me. A very big one servicing about 135,000 vehicles a day.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted December 14, 2017 at 1:30 am | Permalink

        Hopefully, engineering students – who of all students should be grounded in physical reality – will recognise “other ways of knowing” for the bullshit that it is.

        I recall that, when I was an engineering student, we were fairly intolerant of anything in the course that didn’t appear to be relevant to our subject.

        Even then, certain individuals would lament how ‘uncultured’ engineering students were – to which our response was that we had plenty of outside interests, some cultural, some not, but all different. They were *ours*, not what some self-appointed culture-vulture thought we should be interested in.

        cr

        • Posted December 14, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

          I was a philosophy and computing student as an undergraduate. While a few of my colleagues in philosophy did share (though usually for “money” reasons) my interest in computing and although it was also true that many of the computing students did not enjoy philosophy, what *was* true is that there were many more computing people interested in social sciences and humanities than the people enrolled in that were in computing, engineering, etc.

          I think it was Henry Petroski (_To Engineer is Human_) who said that he’s all for engineering students taking more social science, humanities, literature, etc. but that students of those disciplines should take courses in engineering too. I’ve wondered ever since how to create a suitable “joy of thinking and building” course for humanists, especially. I think Lego would play a role. 🙂 I am no longer an academic, so I’m now not able to followup much, but …

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted December 14, 2017 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

            I wasn’t arguing that engineers *should* be uncultured, just that our studies (as students) were onerous enough that the limited spare time we had was precious to us for relaxation – which could very well include something ‘cultural’, but of our choosing.

            I do think non-engineers would benefit from a modicum of basic engineering knowledge. Although I’m not a specialist structural engineer I can look at a bridge or a building – or an aircraft – and visualise the forces in it – see how it ‘works’ – and it does add much interest. Anyone who uses a lever is instinctively applying the principle of moments.

            Apropos of which, there are two excellent books by J E Gordon – “The New Science of Strong Materials” and “Structures” – written in a highly readable style, I’d rate his writing as good as Dawkins – which range from mediaeval cathedrals to bows to ancient ship-building to how bones and trees are made.

            I’m not sure Lego is the most apt medium since such models often mimic the shape – but not the form – of the originals – in particular, Lego will not take tension. If there is a version of Lego that includes wire ties, that would be useful.

            cr

            • Posted December 15, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

              I think I’ve read the first of those – the first edition, anyway. But then I’m a computing person turned philosopher turned computing person etc. a few times around and around.

              Interesting about tension – you’re right, I don’t think that would cover all the bases then.

              I seem to remember this plastic construction set thing that a friend had that had cords and the like – maybe that sort of thing?

              • infiniteimprobabilit
                Posted December 15, 2017 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

                The old ‘Meccano’ (perforated strips of metal that bolted together) would certainly have satisfied the tension requirement. But what it lacked was ‘blocks’.

                If there was some way to combine Meccano and Lego it would be ideal, I think.

                cr

  2. mwomack
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    We have to be able to discuss ideas openly, especially regarding emerging issues of cultural relevance, or we’ll never get anywhere. Closing the door to any meaningful dialogue is counterproductive.

    Having an expectation that no one else challenges or disagrees with you – or is even allowed to do so – is straight up authoritarian.

    • Posted December 13, 2017 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      I agree with you completely. Also, I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that closing down discussion is just going to engender greater hostility over time; clearly people cannot come to understand someone if they’re “forbidden” even from speaking about the subject in an inquisitive way.

  3. Ryan
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to thank the Laurier for collecting crazies and putting them on display so that our better universities can take notes.

  4. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    Cheeses H. Kryasst.

    I remember in 1973, when the a black student group at the University of Pennsylvania had a showing of….(VERY LOUD drumroll bah-dum!!)….D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”!!!

    You were supposed to know the other side.

    I myself on a Saturday afternoon in 2006 “treated” myself to a double bill of that film and Leni Reifenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”. (Both are online for free at the Internet Movie Archive.)

    I learned a lot I didn’t know!!!

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted December 14, 2017 at 1:32 am | Permalink

      Crypto-fascist!

      cr

      oh, 😉

  5. Scott
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Nice to see that institutions of higher learning can choose to simply create problems where there were none in order to enforce a political agenda. What “progress” you have there!

    No wonder the right calls universities centers for indoctrination–those in academia appear to be actively proving them right.

  6. Richard Sanderson
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    The regressive left have such a huge problem with Lindsay Shepherd because she won’t submut to their dictats and demands, and is much closer to an actual liberal.

    The Jordan Peterson thing sends a lot of regressive lefties nuts, a bit like Dan Arel with “Nazis”. There is one (mildly popular) regressive called Eiynah (Nice Mangos) who actually tweeted recently, that “Peterson is one of the most dangerous extremists today”. This was endorsed by Mister Humanist himself, Peter “Evergreen was a hoax” Ferguson. I’d love to know how these nutjob plonkers would react if they ever faced ACTUAL extremists.

    There was also Thomas Smith, of SeriousPod non-fame, who was confused as to why Lindsay decided it was pertinent to record the conversation! Stunning genius from this skeptic, eh! Lol. He must struggle with the concept of whistle-blowing, and the fact that whistle-blowers secretly record stuff. The Eejit.

    • jay
      Posted December 13, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      Peterson terrifies them somewhat like Ben Shapiro does, because he soft spokenly builds a case for his position. This is why the church felt the need to attack heretics so vehemently, because there was no way for the church to disprove the heresies.

      On a humorous side point, I saw a video of a small anti Trump rally, one troll (in the good sense of the word) got up and gave a speech entirely of quotes from Hitler. They loved him, the organizers tried to get him to sign up for the group. He wisely got out of there fast before someone caught on. Apparently they didn’t recognize a Nazi if they heard one.

      • Jenny Haniver
        Posted December 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        Can you give a link to this video?

        • Posted December 13, 2017 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          It’s here https://youtu.be/qNMAp8kXWrc but it isn’t anywhere near as impressive as the lead in suggests. One could string together similarly modified anodyne quotes from absolutely anyone, if one is careful enough.

          Still, it’s pretty funny.

          • Jenny Haniver
            Posted December 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

            Thank you. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted December 14, 2017 at 1:42 am | Permalink

            Even without hearing of that video, I would have been prepared to bet that maybe half of what Hitler said was commendable and good. Simply on the grounds that it’s impossible for anyone to carry an audience with them (as Hitler did) without invoking concepts generally accepted as good.

            But that trick of quoting the enemy to the general acclaim of all, is always a good one.

            cr

            • Posted January 27, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

              I found it noteworthy that Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf that his speeches had far better success if held in the evening than if held in the morning, and explained this with his audience’s too sharp critical thinking in the morning hours. By the evening, the same people were tired, less critical and more receptive to suggestions.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted December 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

        amusing!

    • Posted December 14, 2017 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Even if Peterson were *actually* Hitler, what happened to LS is reprehensible.

      Peterson is a buffoon and suffers from massive Dunning-Kruger, from what I can tell, so, _a fortori_. But …

      • Jonathan S
        Posted December 14, 2017 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

        I certainly don’t agree with many of Peterson’s views, though that is a bold claim to suggest that he is not intelligent.

        • Posted December 15, 2017 at 11:20 am | Permalink

          Sorry: I was imprecise. Buffoons aren’t necessarily stupid, perhaps I should have said “boor”. Ordinary language is hard. 😉

  7. Nicholas K.
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I felt complicated, upset and invalidated… I’d have a lot of nickels! Of course, most days I feel complicated, upset and invalidated. But then I eat lunch and I feel much better and go on with my life.

    • jay
      Posted December 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      I have no obligation to affirm anyone’s life choices, and they have no obligation to affirm mine.

    • BJ
      Posted December 13, 2017 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      These idiots need to eat a Snickers.

      Snickers: “You’re not you when you’re feeling complicated, upset, and invalidated.”

  8. Taz
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Well Urquhart is a jerk

    I’ll say – what petty asshole. I hate to break it to you, Prof. Urquhart, but Lindsey Shepherd is also one of your students.

  9. Posted December 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned yet regarding this whole kerfuffle with Shepherd and WLU is how it underlines the need to have Teaching Assistants unionized.

    The original “inquisition” between Shepherd and her department superiors would have never happened as it did if TAs at WLU were unionized. A union representative would have been present (and likely someone from HR) and there would be very explicit procedures outlined in the union contract with the university as to how such a “complaint” could be handled between the worker and her employers.

    Moreover, the absurd behaviour of her department chair would never be allowed. Monitoring her classroom performance and preambling her instruction with his own ideas (not to mention the snark) would violate any reasonable employee contract. You can be sure that if such a complaint was made against a faculty member, the situation would be handled entirely differently. The Chair would have to follow very particular protocol for supervision, and the Faculty Association would have to act in the best interest of Shepherd (if she were part of such an association).

    To underline this point, why hasn’t Jordan Peterson suffered a similar institutional inquisition at UT? Precisely because he is part of a kind of labour union (most FA’s are not formal labour unions in Canada, but they enjoy many of the same rights and protections). Likewise, this situation would have played out very differently if Shepherd were a TA at a school where those workers are unionized (e.g. UT or UBC).

    Without joint labour protections in place, a worker under fire is left to fend entirely for herself.

    • BJ
      Posted December 13, 2017 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      Very interesting post. This issue had not come to my mind. Thanks for bringing it up.

    • Craw
      Posted December 14, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      I am afraid I doubt this. Her union would be taken over and controlled by regressives. My experience at Canadian universities is that the extremists control student organizations. My last year on campus at one the campus was riled by a rape accusation. Eventually, after about a year of uproar, the woman admitted she had lied. The student council president said she should not have admitted it! Her crime, to the student government, was not making a false accusation but admitting to doing so.

      • Posted December 14, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

        That is not how labour unions operate. Most labour unions are not student-run organizations; they are not comparable to student governments.

        For instance, a majority of TA unions in Canada are simply locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the largest public-sector union in Canada. As such, these locals all have CUPE staff and facilitators and are bound to uphold CUPE policy, which most certainly includes advocating for the union member regardless of the situation.

        You’re right that some regressives enter into the TA executives, since these are always composed of TAs themselves. But they cannot simply “take over” union policy. I had to deal with several of these regressives myself when I was involved with my own TA union as a grad student, but they were not the majority of the executive, and there was nothing they could do to prevent the union from advocating for those they found “impure”. Our union advocated for members accused of sexual misconduct, sexism, and racism because that’s what unions do – always advocate on behalf of members. Even if regressives controlled the entire executive, they could not simply change greater union policy; nor they could they ignore it without drawing the wrath of the greater union.

        • Posted December 14, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

          Right – we were a sister union to the facilities maintenance staff and even did a solidary action with them once when I was at UBC.

    • Posted December 14, 2017 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      Are the TAs not unionized at WLU? You raise an interesting point – I had taken it for granted (my bad!) that they would be, since they are at UBC – and were when I was there. It was a change from there to CMU – fortunately I was not in need either place, but …

  10. eric
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    …“that these are issues of debate and trans students’ identities or experiences are up for conversation—in the sense that their reality is up for conversation.”

    And here I thought people’s reality was up for conversation on college campuses…

  11. Thanny
    Posted December 13, 2017 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    I call BS.

    Until proven otherwise, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that the “Rainbow Center” is lying through their teeth. They never received a complaint. They’re just trying to stifle the refreshed outcry over the revelation that no formal complaint had been made. They’ve made it amply clear up to this point that they are not on speaking terms with truth and accuracy.

    As for Lindsay’s “street cred” in SJW circles, I’m afraid a Persian boyfriend just won’t cut it. He’s still white. She’d need to date an Arab to take away a notch from her white privilege (which is totally a substance, not a discrete noun, so plurals are superfluous).

    • Craw
      Posted December 14, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      They must have received some notification from someone. Of course, it might not have been someone in the class but only someone who heard about it, so you have a fair point.

      More pertinent, their involvement was not disclosed by Rambukkana and Pimlot, even after she asked. I think that shows duplicity on their part.

  12. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted December 14, 2017 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Well, *I’m* pissed off at the rainbow being hijacked by the queers.

    I like rainbows. I even have an umbrella in rainbow colours, and now I can’t use it any more because I might be mistaken for a gay or some indeterminate gender-bender. I might carry it as a political statement but I don’t choose to make a political statement every time I go out.

    I sympathise with gays (though I’m absolutely not one myself). Gay marriage, fine. Just leave the bloody rainbow alone!

    cr

  13. nicky
    Posted December 14, 2017 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    Finally checked up on Mr Peterson’s pronouns. There is really nothing to it. He concedes he will use either ‘he’ or ‘she’, but refuses being forced to use non-existing phantasy pronouns such as ‘zir’ or ‘zip’. An entiresly reasonable stance IMMO.
    I feel for Trans-people, they have difficult lives, but the ‘zip”zapp’ pronouns will not make their lives easier and it is unreasonable to ask non-trans people to use them, echoes of Humpty Dumpty…
    I think too that ‘he’ or ‘she’ should suffice, if not, English has a pronoun for not-he nor-she: ‘it’.
    Hence I go a step further in conceding than Mr Peterson, and will use ‘it’, if ‘he’ or ‘she’ are unacceptable. 😆😆

    • Craw
      Posted December 14, 2017 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      Peterson does go farther in an important way. He denies that others have a right to *compel* him. He is, as you note, willing to use pronouns when *asked*. He denies the right to compel.
      And that is why the regressives hate him so.

  14. Craw
    Posted December 14, 2017 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    So, campus advocacy groups can now have professors punish students?

    • Posted December 14, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      I have no problem with advocacy groups informing that students have violated rules. I have a problem in this case since at best LS made a minor faux pas of introducing extra material she shouldn’t have in her tutorial section. I didn’t really give tutorials but when I gave office hours it was understood I could use any material that was at the appropriate level (e.g., any 100 level logic text for the logic and critical thinking course) to illustrate a point, have a student work a problem from, etc.

  15. Dana
    Posted December 14, 2017 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Actually why leave feminists to sort out that trans women are women? Why not support the truth that biology is real? The language us being changed and erases the ability to question sex based oppression. Why don’t men care that women’s voices are being silenced in this debate? Trans ideology sees lesbians and gay men as bigoted because we love the same sex. Get it. We need tenured faculty to support all the female academics who have been no plqtformed and fired for being gender critical!

    • Posted January 27, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      I have long wondered about the “LGBT” umbrella, because, to me, some members of this community have conflicting interests. I know a couple of lesbians who are not thrilled that their individuals with penises are to be let into their bathrooms.

  16. Posted December 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Why a trans person of colour? Because the rainbow centre is supposed to support all so-called marginalised people. They need a lesbian transsexual of colour (preferably very dark, as their is a hierarchy within the “colour” category) with a weight problem and a physical disability. That would cover all their bases. And since when can you hire someone based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender etc. anyway? I thought such discrimination was illegal…

  17. Posted January 27, 2018 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    I think Shepherd must get out of Laurier ASAP.


%d bloggers like this: