I fucking hate wading into these discussions but here I go...
I don't love or hate Jordan Peterson. He's a smart guy and his passionate defense of reason, freedom of speech and liberal and Enlightenment values are central to liberal democracy and anyone living in Canada should respect these values. If you don't, I believe you would do well to speak to a person who has lived in an authoritarian state or one of the former Soviet republics. His take on Communism and authoritarian psychology and his anti-authoritarianism is clear and well-reasoned. He's well read and well spoken, he's well educated and trained in his field, a graduate of Harvard and a professor at Harvard and U of T.
He didn't begin as a celebrity and attention hound but he has become one. I believe that he accidentally stumbled into his celebrity status mostly on the failed attempts of various social justice types going to social media and attempting to discredit him. Unfortunately for them, mostly because they are young adults who are driven by their doctrinaire ideas and lack experience and knowledge of life and the world, their views were easily discredited and he rose to prominence because he is articulate and knowledgeable. He rode them to celebrity...
I think he has become a celebrity and like many celebrities they sometimes speak out of turn... He's not an expert on climate change or nutrition and yet he trumpets his ideas loudly, this is most unfortunate and it detracts from his authority in the subjects that he does know.
As far as being a member of a professional college goes... Yes, he agreed to a code of conduct that was formulated by the members of that College and he explicitly agreed to those standards when he became a member of that college. There are a number of problems with professional practice standards and I won't go into depth into this now. How they are defined is based on a democratic process that includes members of the profession, lawyers, government officials and members of the public. These are meant to protect the public and prevent the profession from coming into disrepute. They are often vague statements that can be interpreted in many ways and applied in many more ways. One of the problems is that there is a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the people applying the standards and the standards are not clear and open to interpretation. They are also open to being abused... These organizations do not act in the manner of legal courts in where evidence has to be presented and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, they act more like tribunals and there is a strong possibility that the decisions are based not on the facts but more so on the mandate of protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the profession. So you can see the conundrum here, the individual rights of the practitioner are not central to this process, the group rights are and group rights are very abstract and open to the bias of the committee's interpretations. The standards are very sensitive to what can be perceived as "offensive behaviours" and the mandate of these college's is to minimize offense... When someone like Peterson comes around and argues that the truth is more important than you being offended... well, we are going to have a problem.
The CPO has the discretion to end an investigation if they find that the complaint is without merit or vexatious, they have to investigate every complaint but they can bring an end to it if they see that it doesn't have "legs". In this case they have decided to pursue these complaints and have rendered their decision to have Peterson do a remedial course in social media. He has the right to decline and they have the power to sanction him for his refusal.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Peterson disagreeing with the findings and demands of the CPO. He is a citizen and he has the right to question and refuse this ruling by this professional body. They may sanction him further or rescind his license, he may fight it or submit or resign.
I respect and appreciate that Peterson is willing to take on the CPO and press for a review of their powers and processes. These organizations are very susceptible to fads of thinking and personal bias. Community standards are very fluid and there will always be disagreement in these soft fields as to what is sanctioned and what is unsanctioned and for this reason this type of authority needs to be measured. I wish that these organizations had a more collaborative approach rather than a punitive approach but that is another topic. My hope is that he brings attention to these problems and that the government of Ontario review the College's power on these matters.
I hope that this is useful for the readers of this thread to understand this process.
Now, I'd rather go look at some reviews!!
I don't love or hate Jordan Peterson. He's a smart guy and his passionate defense of reason, freedom of speech and liberal and Enlightenment values are central to liberal democracy and anyone living in Canada should respect these values. If you don't, I believe you would do well to speak to a person who has lived in an authoritarian state or one of the former Soviet republics. His take on Communism and authoritarian psychology and his anti-authoritarianism is clear and well-reasoned. He's well read and well spoken, he's well educated and trained in his field, a graduate of Harvard and a professor at Harvard and U of T.
He didn't begin as a celebrity and attention hound but he has become one. I believe that he accidentally stumbled into his celebrity status mostly on the failed attempts of various social justice types going to social media and attempting to discredit him. Unfortunately for them, mostly because they are young adults who are driven by their doctrinaire ideas and lack experience and knowledge of life and the world, their views were easily discredited and he rose to prominence because he is articulate and knowledgeable. He rode them to celebrity...
I think he has become a celebrity and like many celebrities they sometimes speak out of turn... He's not an expert on climate change or nutrition and yet he trumpets his ideas loudly, this is most unfortunate and it detracts from his authority in the subjects that he does know.
As far as being a member of a professional college goes... Yes, he agreed to a code of conduct that was formulated by the members of that College and he explicitly agreed to those standards when he became a member of that college. There are a number of problems with professional practice standards and I won't go into depth into this now. How they are defined is based on a democratic process that includes members of the profession, lawyers, government officials and members of the public. These are meant to protect the public and prevent the profession from coming into disrepute. They are often vague statements that can be interpreted in many ways and applied in many more ways. One of the problems is that there is a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the people applying the standards and the standards are not clear and open to interpretation. They are also open to being abused... These organizations do not act in the manner of legal courts in where evidence has to be presented and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, they act more like tribunals and there is a strong possibility that the decisions are based not on the facts but more so on the mandate of protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the profession. So you can see the conundrum here, the individual rights of the practitioner are not central to this process, the group rights are and group rights are very abstract and open to the bias of the committee's interpretations. The standards are very sensitive to what can be perceived as "offensive behaviours" and the mandate of these college's is to minimize offense... When someone like Peterson comes around and argues that the truth is more important than you being offended... well, we are going to have a problem.
The CPO has the discretion to end an investigation if they find that the complaint is without merit or vexatious, they have to investigate every complaint but they can bring an end to it if they see that it doesn't have "legs". In this case they have decided to pursue these complaints and have rendered their decision to have Peterson do a remedial course in social media. He has the right to decline and they have the power to sanction him for his refusal.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with Peterson disagreeing with the findings and demands of the CPO. He is a citizen and he has the right to question and refuse this ruling by this professional body. They may sanction him further or rescind his license, he may fight it or submit or resign.
I respect and appreciate that Peterson is willing to take on the CPO and press for a review of their powers and processes. These organizations are very susceptible to fads of thinking and personal bias. Community standards are very fluid and there will always be disagreement in these soft fields as to what is sanctioned and what is unsanctioned and for this reason this type of authority needs to be measured. I wish that these organizations had a more collaborative approach rather than a punitive approach but that is another topic. My hope is that he brings attention to these problems and that the government of Ontario review the College's power on these matters.
I hope that this is useful for the readers of this thread to understand this process.
Now, I'd rather go look at some reviews!!
