WLU's interrogation revealed how university has lost sight of its key purpose

[Livnthedream]

How can humanities departments justify charging students tuition if they are not teaching them to think critically?

One of the research paper topics that students from Communication Studies 101 at Wilfrid Laurier University can choose to write about this semester is communication bubbles. Communication bubbles refer to the phenomenon of people becoming entrapped in ideological echo chambers as a result of only seeking out, or being fed, news that confirms their existing beliefs. This trend has been greatly exacerbated in recent years by social media. As a proponent of viewpoint diversity, I find the idea of communication bubbles fascinating but troubling—I believe a willingness to explore new ideas, entertain a variety of perspectives, and confront information that challenges one’s beliefs are critical values.

I am a teaching assistant for Communication Studies 101. Last month, I showed my students a clip from TVO’s TheAgenda with Steve Paikin, which showed University of Toronto professors Jordan Peterson and Nicholas Matte debating the contentious issue of gender pronouns. I mentioned to my class that watching debates such as the one we were about to view is a great way to break out of communication bubbles and decide for oneself whether an argument is valid or not. I emphasized that watching ideas being debated in action is how a “marketplace of ideas” is formed (a concept that is studied in the very course in which I was censured, ironically enough).

Apparently, one or more students in my tutorial would have preferred to stay in their own bubbles, as they complained about the content of my tutorial to the course professor. I ended up being hauled before a three-person panel that many have described as “Orwellian,” “Maoist,” and “Kafkaesque.” I was told that playing the TVO clip was tantamount to violence, and that I had created a toxic climate and unsafe learning environment. I was also told that I had violated everything from the university’s Gendered Violence and Sexual Assault Policy to the Ontario Human Rights Code to Bill C-16.

I recorded this meeting, released it to the media, and—after the story had gone international—received a pair of lacklustre apologies from both the president of WLU and the course professor. The university has now launched a task force on freedom of expression in addition to a “neutral third party investigation” that will gather facts about the tutorial I taught in early November.

Despite the intellectual beating I got from my superiors, I still believe that debate, discussion, and dialogue are fundamental to the institution of the university.

My undergraduate degree is in Communication and Political Science, so I know first-hand that students of the arts and humanities must constantly defend themselves from criticism that their degrees are worthless and will never get them a job. But I still believe it is incredibly valuable for anyone to study culture, society, history, and language. Learning how to think critically is at the root of these arts programs. Or at least it should be.

WLU’s interrogation of my decision to air two sides of a topical debate was so troubling because it revealed that these educators don’t believe critical thinking matters, or that they fear students exercising critical thought might lead them to politically incorrect conclusions. If that’s the case, how can these departments justify charging students for these degrees?

While many may call to de-fund departments in the arts and humanities, I believe we should instead restore their integrity. The first step in this direction is to remove constraints aimed at making classrooms emotional “safe spaces.” One step would be for the university to institute a free speech policy such as the Statement on Principles of Free Expression adopted by the University of Chicago. The statement affirms the university’s commitment to ensuring that ideas that may be considered unwise or offensive are not suppressed.

I also believe students need to approach university with an openness to being challenged. If a student is not willing to discuss topical issues in an open and respectful way with peers who may have vastly different perspectives, that student should take a year off and only return to university if and when he or she is ready for dialogue and debate.

The reason I chose to pursue a master’s degree in the first place was not to advance my career prospects, but to advance my intellectual horizons. I am not sure I am achieving this goal, as I find myself surrounded by professors and students who are intent on pushing an ideological agenda, censoring certain topics from the classroom, and enforcing echo chambers of homogenous thought. I accept that I am partly to blame for this. I have been complicit in self-censorship these past years, by staying silent for fear of expressing ideas that could make me a pariah among the authoritarian left, who seem to think they have a stronghold on classroom morality.

But now, I have stopped paying any mind to the reactionary labelling and thought-policing from this group, and I feel more free than I have felt in a long time.

[Deleted]

Can you please highlight the tl/dr part about "key purpose" since its completely random and artificial without even seeing it?

[Sovich]

Perhaps I am lucky in that I received an extensive apolitical lean in my Humanities. Critical thinking seemed very core and celebrated in 2014 (when I took the bulk of my Humanity courses). My last 2 semesters things took a different turn as activist groups that wanted to barr out voices started to pop up on campus and throughout the country. Even in my vaguely conservative campsus.

[Theinquisition]

People like you are necessary to shed light on the indoctrination programs within the university system, keep up the good fight.

[Rennadrel]

Can you please highlight the tl/dr part about "key purpose" since its completely random and artificial without even seeing it?

Schools are supposed to teach critical thinking and allow students to form their own opinions. That is not the case at many universities.

[Deleted]

I seem to recall having this up before? Or am I crazy?

[Deleted]

Schools are supposed to teach critical thinking and allow students to form their own opinions. That is not the case at many universities.

rofl. Humboldt as undead will haunt you for being ignorant 100 years later!

[Elba]

Is this the usual conservative panic that universities churn out them Ass Jay Dubyas?

[arandomuser]

Oh yeah liberals are the one intolerant of other viewpoints, thats why despite mountains of evidence every conservative politician, and forum alt-righter and their fuhrer trump both say climate change is a hoax made by the chinese so that were less competitive, let me guess there totally open to analyzing all of the evidence as compared to democrats who definitely dont- riiiight.


You know what else is funny, i dont see anyone calling netanyahu an SJW when in israel you can face jail time for being associated with nazi groups, how come when it comes to israel its acceptable to punish certain viewpoints for there historical context, but not in america? I think youll find the biggest difference in the characteristics of people who are anti semitic there vs anti semites here. and it explains itself.

[Manabomb]

Maybe the reason they called it “Orwellian,” “Maoist,” and “Kafkaesque" is because it is “Orwellian,” “Maoist,” and “Kafkaesque".

You can't just say "they refuted my argument and therefor they are bad" without first proving that your point was worth sharing after being handed an intellectual defeat by your peers and seniors.

[Krastyn]

Oh yeah liberals are the one intolerant of other viewpoints, thats why despite mountains of evidence every conservative politician, and forum alt-righter and their fuhrer trump both say climate change is a hoax made by the chinese so that were less competitive, let me guess there totally open to analyzing all of the evidence as compared to democrats who definitely dont- riiiight.

If your best defence against being intolerant is saying that those other people over there are intolerant, you need to rethink your argument.

[arandomuser]

If your best defence against being intolerant is saying that those other people over there are intolerant, you need to rethink your argument.

No? The progressives arent the ones claiming to be free speech purist, your side is, its up to you to stick to your values, you say were intolerant of other viewpoints, which is true, because the viewpoints were against are empirically false. However your side demands we treat all "speech" equally, yet you refuse to critically analyze and scientific studies relating to climate change.

[corebit]

No? The progressives arent the ones claiming to be free speech purist, your side is, its up to you to stick to your values, you say were intolerant of other viewpoints, which is true, because the viewpoints were against are empirically false. However your side demands we treat all "speech" equally, yet you refuse to critically analyze and scientific studies relating to climate change.

Wut? Traditional liberalism has always championed free speech and human rights. You are basically confirming this new-age "progressivism" is not really a liberal movement but more an authoritarian one.

[arandomuser]

Wut? Traditional liberalism has always championed free speech and human rights. You are basically confirming this new-age "progressivism" is not really a liberal movement but more an authoritarian one.

Lol, nobody is a true "liberal" The alt right wants to ban radical muslim preachers, thats similar to banning nazis, Nazis have been banned before. Anything that supports government isnt a classical liberal. alot of these thinkers you see on youtube like sargon, rubin arent classical liberals, they are fascist using "free speech" as a guise make their agenda pallatable, They are in favor of so much government intervention, they want government to control your social life they even talk about wanting a culture police to assimilate everyone or forcibly deport people based on their culture and religious beliefs, you keep thinking your these enlightenment era thinkers when in reality you aren't.

[corebit]

Lol, nobody is a true "liberal" The alt right wants to ban radical muslim preachers, thats similar to banning nazis, Nazis have been banned before. Anything that supports government isnt a classical liberal. alot of these thinkers you see on youtube like sargon, rubin arent classical liberals, they are fascist using "free speech" as a guise make their agenda pallatable, They are in favor of so much government intervention, they want government to control your social life they even talk about wanting a culture police to assimilate everyone or forcibly deport people based on their culture and religious beliefs, you keep thinking your these enlightenment era thinkers when in reality you aren't.

There is so much wrong with your post I don't even know where to begin. First off, classical liberals are not against government. Those are called anarchists. Second, I didn't even mention Sargon or Rubin and yet you hurriedly attempt to shove them into your post. Did I say anything about them being enlightenment era thinkers?

The alt-right are authoritarian racist assholes, but it does in no way excuse the so-called "progressives" (not liberals) to behave in a similar manner.

[Krastyn]

No? The progressives arent the ones claiming to be free speech purist, your side is, its up to you to stick to your values, you say were intolerant of other viewpoints, which is true, because the viewpoints were against are empirically false. However your side demands we treat all "speech" equally, yet you refuse to critically analyze and scientific studies relating to climate change.

Whoa whoa whoa right there. My side? You don't even know what side I am on. But I guess assumptions and generalisations is just another tool in your awesome arguments belt.

I'm a believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change. So now you're trying to say I'm against something I believe?

[Livnthedream]

I seem to recall having this up before? Or am I crazy?

I am sure there has been at least something about this situation/person, but I didn't see her oped posted. I could be mistaken, if so, I apologize.

[Deleted]

I am sure there has been at least something about this situation/person, but I didn't see her oped posted. I could be mistaken, if so, I apologize.

Yeah looked into it, we did have a thread on the initial response to the controversy, but not her op-ed, so thanks for posting up to date information on it

[Grimbold21]

How can humanities departments justify charging students tuition if they are not teaching them to think critically?

I was told that playing the TVO clip was tantamount to violence, and that I had created a toxic climate and unsafe learning environment.

This right here is pure gold.

[BuckSparkles]

This right here is pure gold.

Right? Like, a debate of ideas (god forbid different ideas) create an "unsafe learning environment"?

Glad I graduated college before this insanity started to infect campuses.