Some simple Q & As to clear up the present hysteria in Canadian Higher Education follow the sundry events at Wilfrid Laurier.
Do Teaching Assistants have Academic Freedom? No. Academic Freedom is a protection of faculty rights based (at least in theory) on disciplinary competence. TAs have rights of free speech of course, but those don’t protect your job if you annoy your employer. In this sense, Lindsay Shepherd probably had fewer rights as a TA than she would have as a student.
So was Wilfrid Laurier University right to discipline Shepherd? Ok, everyone take a deep breath and repeat after me. “Wilfrid Laurier” didn’t do anything to Lindsay Shepherd. One professor and one administrator at Wilfrid Laurier chose to make a big deal out of something his TA did. “The University” per se, knew nothing about action until it hit the newspapers.
Alright, fine, was the *professor* right to discipline Shepherd? Let’s make a distinction here. The prof had the right to tell his TA how to teach a course. That is in fact his job. What seems to have happened in this instance is that Shepherd was given latitude to develop her own course material. If the prof didn’t like what Shepherd did, it’s at least partially his fault for not having set guidelines and approve lessons in the first place.
But given that, what are the ins and outs of this case? As I understand the facts of the case, Shepherd played a clip from an October 2016 episode of the TVO program The Agenda, in which the University of Toronto professor and noted gaping orifice Jordan Peterson made the case for why he opposed the use a number of different possible pronouns to refer to transgendered people.
“Gaping orifice”? Yes. Cuddling up to neo-nazis qualifies one as a gaping orifice. Even if one has tenure.
OK, continue. If so inclined, you can see the full TVO episode here – my impression (haven’t been able to confirm) is that what Sheppard played was the first 5 or so minute exchange between the host Steve Paikin and Peterson. Peterson is doing his usual irritating mixture of belligerent arrogance and victimhood, but if the purpose of the exercise was to examine the question “how does language evolve”/ “how do politics affect the evolution of language” it’s not a terrible clip to play. It’s not “hate”, as some people would have it
That said, Shepherd can’t be all that bright if she genuinely thought that playing this clip wouldn’t trigger a reaction. Peterson has become a hero for people who want to victimize the transgendered (among others). So even if the ideas Peterson is defending in the clip are not hate, a lot of people are going to find it difficult to separate the presentation of these ideas from the rest of the Peterson image – quite a bit of which is tinged with hate – and take offense. It should not have taken much imagination on Shepherd’s part to find a different clip to make the same point and generate the same discussion without waving a red flag at students.
(The issue here, by the way, is not one of “coddling” “sheltered” students. The students most likely to take offense are ones who have most likely dealt with a fair bit of abuse in their time – they are not in any sense “sheltered”. They do not need to be “exposed” to these views – this seems to be a common justification for Shepherd’s actions – for the simple fact that they deal with it all the time. They would just prefer not to, and it’s hard to blame them.)
All of that said, Shepherd’s supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, acted ridiculously after the fact. Hauling a student (which is what Shepherd is, as well as an employee) into your office to (falsely) accuse them of breaking the law on hate crimes, with two other institutional officials present, without advising her in advance that she could and probably should have representation at that meeting was bad judgement of the highest order. He deserves most of the opprobrium he has received if not for the “stifling academic freedom/free speech” reasons that most seem to want to pin on him, then certainly for being a terrible manager. Literally, he could not have handled it worse if he’d wanted to hand a propaganda victory to Peterson and his ilk. Shepherd has a right to feel hard-done by.
What would have been the right way to handle the affair? Two options. One would have been to try to defuse things quietly. Have a one-on-one meeting to find out what happened, explain that a complaint has been made, maybe give her some advice about selection of course materials but to accept blame himself for not providing more guidance on this in advance. And then take up dealing with the complaint and complainant himself, since he was ultimately responsible for the class, not her. Or, If the complaint couldn’t be headed off that way, then tell her in advance what the meeting was about and make absolutely sure she had representation with her.
Anyone else deserve opprobrium? Yeah, three. First, those people who stood up for “free speech” for Lindsay Shepherd but didn’t for Masuma Khan at Dalhousie. Hypocrites. Probably racist, dog-whistling hypocrites. Second, every media outlet that chose to generalize from n=1 about the state of Canadian higher education, especially the freakin’ Globe and Mail, which really should know better. Rambukkana’s actions aren’t even generalizable to Wilfrid Laurier, let alone any other institution. Do better, all of you.
And third: university complaint policies. Another way to have de-escalated this problem before it got started would have been for the person who received the complaint (in this case presumably the university’s Sexual Violence Response Co-ordinator) to not have accepted the complaint in the first place. Surely to God it is possible to give a TA feedback (“the use of this material is offensive and here’s why”) without going straight into legalistic administrative tribunal mode. It’s possible Shepherd would have taken honest criticism to heart. Instead, she’s been delivered into martyrdom (a status which, judging by her twitter account, she is adjusting to with alacrity and, I would say, no little enjoyment).
Bottom Line? Tempest in a tea-pot. But everyone seems to be looking for a fight these days. It’s a depressing time.
Tweet this post
Alex – thanks for attempting to inject some sense into this debate – lots of great ideas here.
Unfortunately, given that Shepherd was accused of gender/sexual violence, your suggestion of “not accepting the complaint” doesn’t seem to be possible. Here is the relevant passage from WLU’s Gendered and Sexual Violence policy: https://www.wlu.ca/about/governance/assets/resources/12.4-gendered-and-sexual-violence-policy-and-procedures.html
5.10 Allegations of Gendered or Sexual Violence are very serious and must be handled accordingly. Once an Official Complaint has been filed, the University has an obligation to respond expeditiously.
The equity officer could have said, “no, this was not gendered violence” as you suggest. But from the equity officer’s perspective, doing nothing in this situation would be extremely risky – what if Shepherd continued in a similar vein for the rest of the term and students continued to complain? Sitting down and having a chat with the TA would have seemed like a good idea at the time.
This is what the WLU policy has to say about secretly taping the proceedings:
5.11 The integrity and efficacy of the Official Complaint process requires that all individuals involved in the process consider their actions and obligations under University policies and procedures, including privacy and confidentiality. The University will not accept retaliation or threat of retaliation through any means including through social media by or against any individuals involved in an Official Complaint. Retaliation or threat of retaliation may result in further disciplinary action under this or other University policies
“Allegations of Gendered or Sexual Violence are very serious and must be handled accordingly.” Was there an allegation of violence?
Wendy, if you listen to the tape, you’ll hear Shepherd’s actions being interpreted as a form of violence.
I’ll stick with the Globe and Mail on this one, which has at least not stooped to engaging in ad hominem attacks and vituperations.
Thank you. I was taking this article seriously until the silliness intruded with “noted gaping orifice”.
That pretty much covers it, though I have three comments that might add to what you’ve said. First, yes, absolutely it’s appropriate for Rambukkana to intervene and tell Shepherd that there were other ways to make that point — either by using a different clip or by being more explicit about the point she was trying to make in using that particular clip (which could have been something like, “Here’s why pronouns–and language generally–matter. People’s lives can be affected”). Indeed, when I was a graduate student, that was part of the point: a certain amount of mentoring comes with the role of TA. Second, though, Rambukkana himself was not well-served by the university. So I think that it’s not for him to apologize publicly to Shepherd. I think the university needs to apologize to both of them: Shepherd was not well served by Rambukkana’s attempt at mentoring, because the advice that Rambukkana got from the other two people in the meeting literally could not have been worse (starting from, as you say, the idea that a good way to proceed would be to get her in a room with three people attacking her and no union representation).
Finally: what tends to get lost in these discussions about academic freedom is that they are *contractual* matters. So TAs may or may not have academic freedom protection under the collective agreements at Laurier — I haven’t looked at those collective agreements so I don’t know — but at OCAD University, where I teach, they absolutely do. (Though how far this right extends is hard to say since, as far as I know, it’s never been tested.)
– Charles Reeve
TAs are not unionized at Laurier, which one part of the discussion that is missing from this post. It’s not clear who would “represent” Sheperd at this meeting in a non-unionized environment.
That said, this is the best article I have seen written on this case and it would be great to see some type of corrective like this in the mainstream media.
100% agreed.
I’m astounded that so many people, on the basis of incomplete information about the class in question, are so quick to judge Ms. Shepherd’s ability as an instructor. No university instructor would welcome the conjecture surrounding their teaching practices based on their choice of materials.
You might think Ms. Shepherd’s not too bright, but how bright are you for assuming what actually occurred in the class on the basis of one clip that was shown? We know nothing about the rest of that period – how Ms. Shepherd handled questions, what the students said about the video, etc. What we do know is that a student in the class complained, that Ms. Shepherd was subjected to a process by two profs and one administrator that was unprofessional at best, that Ms. Shepherd taped that conversation without their knowledge, that the university has apologized to Ms. Shepherd for how the matter was handled, as has one of the three people who met with her in the first place (though the other two have not). Talk about that process and those facts all you want.
But resist the urge to provide free teaching advice. Your suggestion is for Ms. Shepherd to find a clip that can present the ideas of Peterson without using Peterson, because some students will have an automatic reaction towards this man whom they dislike so much. I teach courses on Nazi Germany, and I’m glad you haven’t seen some of the clips I’ve played – you might assume I lack enough imagination to find less “triggering” clips and start providing me with suggestions about how to discuss Hitler and his ideas without showing clips of the man or having students read some of his writing. (By the way, regardless of how well I prepare and present those materials, I can’t control the reactions of the students. I can only hope they’ll come to talk to me about it first instead of heading straight for a university administrator.)
You wrote: “Do better, all of you.” That’s the best advice in this post.
You’re right that no university instructor would welcome any encroachment into their classroom. The point, though, which Mr. Usher makes clear, is that Ms. Shepherd is not the instructor for the course. She doesn’t have the same academic freedom because she doesn’t have the requisite academic credential.
Nice, Skid.
If an Official Complaint was filed under the WLU procedure linked above, then said procedure was apparently not followed:
5.07 Response
The Respondent(s) will be provided with a copy of the Official Complaint, information about confidentiality, retaliation, and supports available to them, and will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing to the Official Complaint and to submit relevant information.
We still are missing so many details about this story, making our assessment conjectural. I agree with much of the interpretation and advice in this article, but there remain some lingering concerns. Did Rambukkana have any conversations with Shepherd prior to the meeting? The article assumes that they did not, but we don’t know this for sure, do we? What sort of training/guidance did Shepherd receive (by the university, by her supervisor, before the course began?). Was Shepherd aware that she had the right to seek advice/support from her union when attending this ‘disciplinary’ meeting? These matters should be clarified lest we allow this to continue to be framed as a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. I agree with the comments above that, as an assistant teaching a course, Shepherd’s primary responsibilities are to the delivery of the course content and the furtherance of its pedagogical agenda, under the guidance and direction of the course instructor. A course is not a cocktail party. Every professor has the right, indeed the responsibility, to decide what content is appropriate to include, and to redirect conversations that digress from the course agenda. Every professor also has the responsibility to ensure that students are not targeted, or somehow made to feel belittled, unwelcome. This is not a matter of stifling debate, but about maintaining a civil and respectful learning environment and maintaining the focus on the course agenda. If we don’t defend those principles, then we open ourselves to every imaginable complaint, whereby any topic and point of view can become weaponized: by students, by activists who seem to have a lot of time on their hands for Twitter commentary, or lazy journalists who could not be bothered to investigate stories but just see red as soon as the words “freedom of speech” float onto their computer screens. We need to do better, and that job begins by careful and extended communication between instructors and their TAs.
I believe that WIlfrid Laurier TAs aren’t part of a union, just FYI.
Can’t esit for a Peterson/Usher denate on this. So many new words for me, a 1950’s Oshawa guy.
Two things:
One, my impression is that WL’s own guidelines indicate that the accused should be provided with a copy of the complaint (presumably with the student’s name redacted). In this case, not only was the TA apparently not furnished with the complaint, but the supervising professor vaguely alluded to multiple complaints and then would not specify how many complaints had been filed—much less provide the TA with the complaints themselves. Hence the inquisitorial quality of the meeting, where nearly all the power and all the knowledge was weighted on one side of the table. Whatever Ms. Shepherd did wrong in her classroom, it’s hard not to empathize with anyone put in such a situation. Just as Ms. Shepard should have been cognizant of the power she held in the classroom (thus being careful, as much as possible, not to unnecessarily make students feel singled out or bullied), the supervising professor and administrators should have been more cognizant of the responsibilities that their own power over this student/TA conferred upon them. Not to mention the basic guidelines their own institution had for such a meeting. If the supervising professor really did ignore this basic guideline, I think that some form of censure is probably called for.
Two, I think one of the problems that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed in the post and comments above is the question of what it means for a student or students to say that “violence” had been done to him/her/them. It’s the use of this term/concept, “violence,” that likely invoked the formalized (as opposed to more informal) response. But I don’t think anyone is alleging that physical violence had been done to a student. Nor does anyone seem to be alleging that the TA verbally berated, attacked, or insulted a student or students. At worst the TA created an atmosphere in which a student or students felt belittled, patronized, or, at best, unheard. That’s pretty bad—it’s certainly not something I would aspire to in my own teaching!—but it is, unquestionably, a few steps down from a direct verbal attack, much less some kind of physical harm. But at many institutions of higher education, there has been a rhetorical (and bureaucratic) collapsing of the concept of “violence” so that it includes an untenably wide array of situations. I don’t really think this benefits much of anyone, since the use of that term basically demands a heavy-handed bureaucratic response that in many cases is far from the best way to handle an issue (be it of pedagogy, interpersonal interaction, whatever). I think this collapsing of the concept of violence—the (often performative) inability or unwillingness of some to acknowledge that there are different degrees of harm that demand different responses—is a real concern throughout North American higher-ed institutions. In part because this sort of rhetoric and action could be mobilized in a very, very reactionary way should the tides turn, so to speak. As with certain of the mechanisms that schools have set up to handle complaints of sexual harassment and assault, there’s a real concern about the rights of the accused, as well as a strong sense that the policies put in place are not really about protecting victims but protecting the bureaucracy.
““Gaping orifice”? Yes. Cuddling up to neo-nazis qualifies one as a gaping orifice. Even if one has tenure.”
“OK, continue.”
No, not “ok, continue”. How is taking pictures with people who attend his talks a conscious decision to “cuddle” up to neo-nazis? If Trudeau took a picture with some attendee of some event, that turned out to be a communist, does he now endorse communism? Is he supposed to research every random nobody that brings out a Pepe flag and uses the “ok” hand sign (laughably referred to as “neo-nazi iconography” in the linked tweet)? Or is your point that if a white supremacist would attend his event, his ideas are only valuable to white supremacists? This is not the standard by which I say “OK, continue” to characterizing Dr Peterson as a “gaping orifice”.
“from the rest of the Peterson image – quite a bit of which is tinged with hate – and take offense”
I would be interested in seeing the evidence of this that convinced you to view Dr Peterson this way. If everyone’s “image of Peterson” was based on his hundreds of hours of lectures freely available for anyone to watch on YouTube, rather than the blatant misrepresentations, exaggerations, and “guilt by association” rhetoric recited self-righteously on Twitter, I think you would all be singing a different tune. To call Peterson’s standing as an academic and positions “tinged with hate”, in my opinion, is dishonest or at best negligent.
A TA is criticized for ‘daring’ to play a clip broadcast on public TV to a class full of ADULTS. Unbelievable! Is the faculty too afraid the students will form their own opinion? The horror!
AD Jordan Peterson, it is clear to me you have been to lazy to spend any time researching his videos. Because if you did, you would have found zero reason to resort to name calling. Stop humiliating yourself by putting false accusations out there. Do better!
As an American who actually undetstands free speech, IMNSHO, the only “gaping orifice” here is Alex Usher.
The only thing “wrong” that Miss Shepherd did was enrolling in a Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist Indoctrination Center for the mentally challenged in the first place.
Firstly, if the level of discourse demonstrated by the “Professors” is any example of “excellence in higher education” in Canada, your entire country is well and truly buggered as neither of them seems to possess the critical thinking abilities of a typical 12 year old Alabama farm boy. The logical fallacies and blatant cognitive dissonance they expressed should result in an immediate revocation of their teaching credentials, and a refund from whatever “Institutions of Higher Indoctrination” they received their degrees from.
As to Dr. Peterson’s opinions on the issue of the utility of, or the appropriateness of the mandated use of “gender pronouns”, it is a subject of legitimate discussion and debate for all parties concerned, and only an abject coward who knows full well that his/her entire argument is based on the flimsiest of excuses resorts to ad hominem attacks and character assassination rather than relying on the strength of their argument.
Lastly, any assertion that language…any language…is “violence” is utterly absurd on its face, and serves only to infantilize rather than embolden and strengthen people by teaching them to be able to defend themselves and others.
Very immature writing style, author makes no attempt to hide his personal biases and sprinkle insults and propaganda throughout the article.
“noted gaping orifice Jordan Peterson”
Get the author a blankie and sippy straw.
Let this commentary be an instructive warning to any and all who wish to pass judgement prior to being in possession of the relevant facts. In hindsight, many of Alex’s remarks strike me as embarrassing, never mind the intemperate remarks directed at Jordan Peterson (reminiscent in my mind of the way D Trump has gone after many of his political opponents and critics). If you don’t like what someone says or how they behave, or even the company they appear to keep, enter into a civilized debate and make your point(s) in that forum. The sneering offering displayed above is discreditable. Canadians expect better from our academic community.