Wilfrid Laurier University full recording

Previous Thread Next Thread
S

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
oagre said:
You don't understand the way the Constitution works. It prevents the government from passing laws preventing free speech. It doesn't force the government to compel free speech everywhere in the country. If your boss says that you can't talk about Muslims at work, Trudeau doesn't sue your boss to make him allow you to talk about Muslims.

It's up to the provincial government to draft a set of free speech guidelines for universities and include it in their charters. The Feds can't do that. They have no jurisdiction over universities. Universities are constitutionally subordinate to the provinces. Not the feds.

Just like the provinces can't draft laws about international trade or about citizenship. Those are in the federal constitutional domain.

Even for the provinces to do that, it's kicking over an ant heap. The courts may say - like it or not - the government cannot regulate what professors teach and do in the lecture hall and they may use the Hitler analogy - no one wants a dictator to control the universities at some potential point in the future.

So... "it's complicated".
Click to expand...
Oh I think I understand the way the Constitution is supposed to work. lol
I did not say or suggest that it was the duty of the Feds to bring suit against those that don't comply with the articles.
Nor did I say that the Feds should compel policy of any nature from Universities.
My point was simply that the Feds should not have a problem stating unequivocally that the principle of Freedom Of Expression and Thought should be adhered to by Universities.
A simple statement by the Minister or PM to that effect was all that was requested. It should not be that difficult to say without the nonsense about safe spaces.
It isn't that complicated.
"Do you agree with Pt I 2(b)?", "Yes, I do, absolutely!" See simple. lol

And parenthetically, regarding the opportunity to make political capital out of the situation by asking the question, the Libs missed an opportunity to slap the question done for being so ridiculous.
 
mandrill

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,873
85,300
113
Smooth60 said:
Oh I think I understand the way the Constitution is supposed to work. lol
I did not say or suggest that it was the duty of the Feds to bring suit against those that don't comply with the articles.
Nor did I say that the Feds should compel policy of any nature from Universities.
My point was simply that the Feds should not have a problem stating unequivocally that the principle of Freedom Of Expression and Thought should be adhered to by Universities.
A simple statement by the Minister or PM to that effect was all that was requested. It should not be that difficult to say without the nonsense about safe spaces.
It isn't that complicated.
"Do you agree with Pt I 2(b)?", "Yes, I do, absolutely!" See simple. lol

And parenthetically, regarding the opportunity to make political capital out of the situation by asking the question, the Libs missed an opportunity to slap the question done for being so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I think Duncan's gibble-gabble was the type of platitude you refer to. Bear in mind too that the opposition asked the question the day after the video was released and this all blew up. I doubt either Duncan or Trudeau knew wtf was going on when they were put on the spot.

The real difficult issue here is whether a university can be compelled to make a prof teach a course in a way that is sympathetic and palatable to the vast majority of people outside the academic environment - i.e. you, me and the rest of the people on TERB. That's a tough question.

If this was litigated, I suspect most judges would find the profs stupid, arrogant, silly and annoying. But those same judges would recoil at the idea that a properly accredited and qualified prof could be compelled by the provincial government to teach a course in a way he / she did not wish to. Its the fundamental concept of Academic Freedom.
 
S

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
oagre said:
I think Duncan's gibble-gabble was the type of platitude you refer to. Bear in mind too that the opposition asked the question the day after the video was released and this all blew up. I doubt either Duncan or Trudeau knew wtf was going on when they were put on the spot.

The real difficult issue here is whether a university can be compelled to make a prof teach a course in a way that is sympathetic and palatable to the vast majority of people outside the academic environment - i.e. you, me and the rest of the people on TERB. That's a tough question.

If this was litigated, I suspect most judges would find the profs stupid, arrogant, silly and annoying. But those same judges would recoil at the idea that a properly accredited and qualified prof could be compelled by the provincial government to teach a course in a way he / she did not wish to. Its the fundamental concept of Academic Freedom.
Click to expand...
Yes you may be right about whether they were aware of the incident at the time of the question. Regardless, I think the appropriate answer is "You're goddam right I believe in Freedom of Expression. Are you an idiot?"

As for Universities ensuring what is taught, that indeed is not the issue per se, to my mind it is how stuff is taught. Certainly a prof cannot be expected to present every point of view on a particular subject as the time constraints to do so prohibit that kind of comprehensive undertaking, especially at the introductory levels (1st 2nd year). But they (profs and Universities) should touch on the major schools of thought or contentious ideas that are present within the discipline and their impact on the society today, which will all be different depending on the subject under study. But by 3rd year, and I am going by my own experience here in a seminar I was part of in Cognitive Psych, the entire course was devoted to one area and the readings consisted of every published article extant, which at the time was ~65. So that the narrowing of focus that begins in third year begins to train the person for grad studies when they can then certainly entertain more perspectives on a single particular area.

Your last point may not stand the rigours of the courtroom but this is where the University needs to step in and monitor their respective departments to ensure that not only one perspective is being taught or actively promoted over another, or all others, which now seems to be the case in a large number of departments in Universities all over NA. And this is why the Free Speech and Expression movement is critical to maintaining Academic Freedom.
 
mandrill

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,873
85,300
113
Smooth60 said:
Yes you may be right about whether they were aware of the incident at the time of the question. Regardless, I think the appropriate answer is "You're goddam right I believe in Freedom of Expression. Are you an idiot?"

As for Universities ensuring what is taught, that indeed is not the issue per se, to my mind it is how stuff is taught. Certainly a prof cannot be expected to present every point of view on a particular subject as the time constraints to do so prohibit that kind of comprehensive undertaking, especially at the introductory levels (1st 2nd year). But they (profs and Universities) should touch on the major schools of thought or contentious ideas that are present within the discipline and their impact on the society today, which will all be different depending on the subject under study. But by 3rd year, and I am going by my own experience here in a seminar I was part of in Cognitive Psych, the entire course was devoted to one area and the readings consisted of every published article extant, which at the time was ~65. So that the narrowing of focus that begins in third year begins to train the person for grad studies when they can then certainly entertain more perspectives on a single particular area.

Your last point may not stand the rigours of the courtroom but this is where the University needs to step in and monitor their respective departments to ensure that not only one perspective is being taught or actively promoted over another, or all others, which now seems to be the case in a large number of departments in Universities all over NA. And this is why the Free Speech and Expression movement is critical to maintaining Academic Freedom.
Click to expand...
I think we agree that free speech needs to be protected. It would be great if all universities adopted the U of Chicago policies. Hopefully, WLU wakes up - "gets woke" LOL - and has some serious internal debate on this stuff. I'm not sure the government can make them do it, legally speaking.

Let me throw something at you. A student comes to Biology 202 at U of T and says "I'm from Alabama and I attended first year Mobile Bible University. It's properly accredited under AL state law. I was taught by Professor I-Love-Jesus and he believes in the Word that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. My prof is properly accredited under AL state law and got a PH D from Baton Rouge Jesus College. You have to teach Creationism as well as evolution." Prof says fuck off. Student says he is not presenting all accredited viewpoints in his field.

What does the government do?

One of the interesting - and scary - things in the Oren Amitay video is that he says most psychiatrists oppose Peterson and are giving Amitay a hard time for supporting P. That suggests a degree of consensus among academics that Peterson's free speech approach is now a minority position in his own discipline.
 
S

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
oagre said:
I think we agree that free speech needs to be protected. It would be great if all universities adopted the U of Chicago policies. Hopefully, WLU wakes up - "gets woke" LOL - and has some serious internal debate on this stuff. I'm not sure the government can make them do it, legally speaking.

Let me throw something at you. A student comes to Biology 202 at U of T and says "I'm from Alabama and I attended first year Mobile Bible University. It's properly accredited under AL state law. I was taught by Professor I-Love-Jesus and he believes in the Word that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th. My prof is properly accredited under AL state law and got a PH D from Baton Rouge Jesus College. You have to teach Creationism as well as evolution." Prof says fuck off. Student says he is not presenting all accredited viewpoints in his field.

What does the government do?

One of the interesting - and scary - things in the Oren Amitay video is that he says most psychiatrists oppose Peterson and are giving Amitay a hard time for supporting P. That suggests a degree of consensus among academics that Peterson's free speech approach is now a minority position in his own discipline.
Click to expand...
LOL
I appreciate your attempt at the hypothetical but it is a little imprecise or far to general to consider. There is no 2nd year Biology class. By second year they tend to diversify into various sub categories with in the discipline. But certainly Bio100 might address what constitutes Life and its creation. Or maybe an upper class on Evolution theory specifically in any of the sciences. Give it its due.
The gov't should maintain the Charter, that is what is obligated to do. The University should uphold its principles re the Chicago policies. The individual departments in their meetings on what is appropriate to the level of the course and the basic needs of the curriculum to prepare for the next level will need to discuss its relevancy. If the student is unhappy or needs PTSD counselling because it is not covered adequately they are then free to hire a lawyer and file suit.

Peterson is a Psychologist. It is important make the distinction as Psychiatrists are MDs first with a specialty in disorders of the brain/mind which they frame within that Medical Model. And within Psychology there are of course numerous sub disciplines, and within those, various theories regarding issues particular to each. So I wouldn't say that there is a consensus among academics. There may be some consensus among a sub set of colleagues within the Gender/Identity areas which are by no means necessarily objective experts in the area and are more concerned with an overarching agenda.
 
S

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
Smallcock said:
PC culture is fraying all over the place now. If it can be toppled in academia (where it ALL stems from), it will come down everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it is not being toppled in academia. I work in a university and I was amazed at the number of emails on the internal listserv defending the attacks on Lindsay Shepherd (while at the same time, claiming they were not against free speech). University administrators are sensitive to bad press. Unfortunately, sensitivity to bad press does not mean any attitudes will change. Unfortunately, I don't think this will weaken PC culture in universities.
 
canada-man

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,959
2,891
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
We're socially engineering generations of mentally neutered, entitled, self-centered adult children who can only get angry at inconsequential bullshit instead of critically thinking about what's really wrong with the world happening all around them. Part of this includes the PC destruction of language for not being "inclusive" enough, turning otherwise harmless words into weapons of mass distraction. The entire reason for Orwell's destruction of language was to literally narrow the person's ability to think certain thoughts. It's beyond thought crime, and it's happening right here, right now. Doesn't matter what year your calendar says, it's 1984.


 
P

peepingtom

Member
Jul 20, 2012
941
2
16
Those WLU officials in that meeting love to hear themselves talking. It was annoying to listen to them. Good on the teaching assistant for standing her ground. She looks cute too
 
canada-man

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,959
2,891
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,204
7,839
113
Room 112
Nobody should be surprised that our universities are acting this way, it's been going on for quite a while. It started with the indoctrination in our public grade schools and has continued on in our universities. Remember who's been in power and controlling education in Ontario since 2003. This is just a byproduct of that. The government bureaucracy has placed such an emphasis on social sciences and the humanities over the past 20-30 years while at the same time relatively ignoring the sciences and technology. Enrollment in the science and mathematics disciplines has not kept up with the pace of economic demand.
 
C

Celticman

Into Ties and Tail
Aug 13, 2009
8,916
87
48
Durham & Toronto
S

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
Celticman said:
Very cogent points from Mr. Levitt. I actually think that Lindsay has a slam dunk Human Rights complaint to make. She was harassed and had to endure a poisonous work environment.
Click to expand...
Ya pretty much a slam dunk especially considering that President Debbie has more or less admitted as much.
Grapevine is suggesting that the 3rd party secret investigation was demonstrating some issues regarding irregularities surrounding impartiality and legality. Which probably prompted her to secure counsel. AFAIK that was not her intention before Thursday or Friday.
 
S

Smooth60

Member
Jan 9, 2017
299
2
18
Have learned that the 3rd party investigator hired by the University to conduct the secret investigation is Rob Centa.
Apparently, ol' Rob is on record for supporting 'compelled speech' to further diversity.

Levitt vs Centa, any bets on this heavyweight bout?
 
S

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,697
21
38
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom