Today I learned about the 2017 case of Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student/teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU) in Waterloo, Ontario. Her crime was to allow an even-handed classroom discussion about a Canadian law compelling the use of particular pronouns according to Jordan Peterson.
Her case also reminded me of the importance of (at least sometimes) secretly recording conversations.
Here is what happened, thanks to her foresight in recording a massively dysfunctional conversation Shepherd was forced to have with her supervisor, Nathan Rambukkana.
Shepherd is now an author. You can follow her at https://twitter.com/NewWorldHominin .
Here is an excerpt from a review of Shepherd’s new book, Diversity and Exclusion: Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis::
This continuing campaign against Shepherd based on a pursuit of ideological purity should be regarded as a dark stain on the entire academic community. Throughout the book it is clear that Shepherd’s love of teaching is what defines her commitment to “open inquiry and the pursuit of truth.” As such, that unnamed college missed an opportunity to hire a first-rate educator – not to mention a heck of a storyteller. Sadly, demonstrable ability and commitment are now less important on campus than political alignment. That said, given her obvious attributes of drive, character, intelligence and sense of opportunity, it seems highly unlikely we’ve seen or heard the last of Lindsay Shepherd. As her experiences at Laurier make plain, she has an awful lot to say. And she’s not afraid to say it.
Ms. Shepherd says “I think it’s getting into really dangerous territory when you can’t show two sides of an issue.”
In the Rogan/Greenwald podcast you recommended (which I’m still working my way through) they said pretty much the same thing, which is, the problem is not any person or group’s beliefs; the problem is their arrogation of the right to stop any discussion of issues about which they hold beliefs. This is something that, in a liberal democracy, we must be very concerned about, and we must fight to allow people to openly discuss dissenting viewpoints.
Bravo, Ruth. Restriction of speech coupled with compelled speech is the very essence of an authoritarian state and the tactics of its thought police. Rambukkana should rot in hell, but just in case that doesn’t actually exist, a jail cell will serve just fine.I’d consider jailers who neither speak, understand, read nor write a single word of English to be a bonus.
Living in the dis-infromation age we seemed to have lost the power of verbal expression. Rhetorical speaking was taught at one time. Having the ability to make your views and beliefs known was a crucial thing. Instead of learning from each other we seem to be hurling bombastic and dogmatic drivel at each other like we are in some sort of a simian food fight.
My parents taught us to defend our ideas using logic and reason. Not a one should need to be silenced for that.
I agree entirely. I think a lot of people who are intelligent and precise communicators are afraid to enter important discussions. They are afraid of getting called names. They don’t know what to do when people attack then personally (ad hominem). They are wired for civil conversations with good-hearted fair-minded others, but not the kinds of things are increasingly passing for “conversation.” Nietzsche sometimes wrote that courage is a component of truth and that is increasingly clear these days.