The Lindsay Shepherd Affair: Update

many of you will no doubt remember Lindsey Shepard she was the teaching assistant in the Department of Communications at Wilfrid Laurier University who was subjected to a three-member panel of inquiry after she showed a video taken from Canadian Public Television of me debating the compelled speech legislation introduced in federal bills c16 she showed my discussion with nicolas mat who held the opposite position here is part of the discussion in question why don't we do this let's take a moment we're gonna explain a few basic things here the issue of so-called non-traditional pronouns goes together with non-traditional gender identities New York City for example recognizes 31 such gender expressions in other words besides man and woman there are 29 other gender expressions for example Pan gender queer gender gender fluid crossdresser by gendered gender blender and the list goes on and Nicholas this is where I want to bring you into the discussion because you teach this you teach trans studies so if you would give us a brief primer on so many gender identities that in your view require non traditional pronouns basically it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex and I'm a historian of medicine I can unpack that for you at great length if you want but in the interest of time I won't the three-member panel included professors Nathan rambu Kenna her supervisor Herbert Pimlott in charge of the master's program and Adria Joel manager of gendered violence and sexual assault prevention shepard taped the meeting and released it publicly producing what I think was the biggest scandal that ever enveloped a Canadian University and certainly the only one in living memory that became news internationally the thing is can you shield people from those ideas am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this like is that what the point of this is because to me that is so against what a university is about so against it I was not taking sides I was presenting both arguments so the thing is about this is if you're presenting something like this it you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you're creating and this is actually these arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code ever since I know that you talked about c16 ever since this past it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity or gender expression so bringing something like that up and class not critically and I understand that you're trying to like it was critical why I introduced it critically how so like I said like I said I it was in the spirit of debate okay in the spirit of the debate is slightly different than being like okay this is this is like a problematic idea that we won make me wanna unpack but that's taking sides it's like it's taking sides for me to be like oh look at this guy like everything that comes out his mouth is BS but we're gonna watch anyway okay so I understand the position they are coming from and your positionality but the reality is that it has created a toxic climate or some of the students hey you know how many it's great oh how many okay one yeah it might be I know I have no concept of of like how many people complain like what their complaint was you haven't showed me the complaint yes I understand that this is upsetting but there's also confidential at comfy and confidentiality matters the number of people special yes although the university apologized publicly for its treatment of Shepard as did rambu Khanna it is not clear at all that the powers that be so to speak learned their lesson and the mistreatment of Shepard not only continued but arguably intensified so she decided to press her case legally and presented a statement of claim against the three and wilfred laurier early in the second week of June it lists in painful detail the many ways that this situation was mishandled during and after the initial Inquisition I also discussed the situation with Howard Levitt Sheppard's lawyer I decided that wilfred laurier had learned very little from its public embarrassment and that Sheppard's claims were valid justifiable and necessary including her statement that her future lack of employability in academia was improbable to say the least I've been on hiring committees and I can tell you that even than the slightest whiff of scandal is enough to disqualify a candidate in consequence not only did I decide to read and post the entirety of Shepards claims which I will do in a few minutes I also decided to launch a claim of my own against the same defendants I thought that two lawsuits might make the point better than one I'll read some of my claim to after Sheppard's and you can all make up your own minds about the suitability of this course of action Ontario Superior Court of Justice between Lindsay Sheppard plaintiff and Nathan rambu canna Adria Jewell Herbert Pimlott and Wilfred Laurier University defendants statement of claim to the defendant a legal proceeding has been commenced against you by the plaintiff the claim made against you is set out in the following pages if you fail to defend this proceeding judgment may be given against you in your absence and without further notice to you to Nathan rambu Kenna and to Adria jewel and a Herbert Pimlott and to Wilfrid Laurier University claim the plaintiff claims the following against the defendants individually and cumulatively the following 500,000 for the tort of harassment 500,000 for the tort of intentional infliction of nervous shock 500,000 for the tort of negligence a hundred thousand for constructive dismissal aggravated damages in the amount of 500,000 in the amount of 500 thousand of damages in the amount of $1,000,000 the plaintiff resides in the town of Waterloo in the province of Ontario the defendants Herbert Pimlott and Nathan rambu canna are professors at the defendant Wilfrid Laurier University Pimlott was the coordinator for the master's program of the University and rambu khanna at the relevant time was the professor for the course which shepard was a teaching assistant for both had considerable influence over the plaintiffs employment as a teaching assistant and status as a master student the defendant Adria Joel was at all relevant times acting manager of the university's diversity and equity office in charge of gender violence prevention the defendant University is a creature of statute created pursuant to the provisions of the wilfred laurier act the university is vicariously liable for all of the conduct of the individual defendants referred to here in and at all relevant times created an environment supporting and facilitating acquiescing to and implicitly and sometimes explicitly endorsing that conduct the constituent statute of the university the wilfred laurier Act 1973 as amended 2001 and 2016 in providing the fundamental jurisdiction and authority for the university to operate States as its object in Section 4 that the objects of the university are for the pursuit of learning through scholarship teaching and research within a spirit of free and query and expression the university has no other object and no jurisdiction and no jurisdiction to operate otherwise the university has no other object and no jurisdiction to operate otherwise pursuant to section 5 powers of the University the Act further states that the university has all powers necessary and incidental to the satisfaction and furtherance of its objects as a university the Constituent statute creating and empowering the University provides it with no other power or authority Sheppard was at all relevant times a student in the university master's program pursuing her master's degree and employed as a teaching assistant for a course under picanha and following that under professor judith nicholson as a teaching assistant shepard supported a class taught by professor rambo kana she was generally responsible for teaching two groups of approximately 25 students was assigned topics and was entitled pursuant to the policies of the University and of rampoo kana to devise her own curriculum rambu kana was an indifferent mentor who had only met with Shepherd twice about his course and only then briefly ironically given his complaint against her as delineated below he provided her with very limited direction as to the content to provide to her students in his classes the topic for one of her communication classes held on November 1st 2017 was grammar she taught three classes that day Shepherd introduced the topic of the grammatical correctness of gender-neutral language in the evolution of various languages and to facilitate discussion on the subject showed a few minute extract from a TV Ontario program moderated by Stephen bacon consisting of a debate between professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto psychology department and Nicholas Matt from the University of Toronto's sexual diversity Studies Program Peterson and Nicholas Matt were debating compelled gender pronouns Peterson argued against being required to use these new words which he argued had not developed organically matt took an opposing position shortly following that class Rambow khanna ordered her to attend a meeting the very next day with himself Pimlott the program coordinator for the entire master's program and Adria Joel acting director of the diversity and equity office both Rambo cannon and Pimlott had considerable authority over Shepards fate at the University apparently so did Joel Shepherd had never been called into such a meeting indeed Rambow khanna to that point had barely acknowledged her existence at this session all three lamb basted Shepherd viciously attacking her personally falsely alleging that there had been a complaint or complaints about her tutorial and insisting that in playing the TV Ontario clip been threatening to her students rambu Kanna claimed that are showing this TV Ontario clip breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal bill C 16 which is not even governed provincially regulated universities created an unsafe learning environment and was illegal Shepard was accused of targeting trans folks even though Shepard had chosen no side had up till that point disagreed with what she understood to be Peterson's perspective and presented the arguments and the debate neutrally Ramba Khanna attacked and slandered Peterson claiming that he was part of the alt-right and they're playing a clip of Peterson without first providing any previous context to the students was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler Shepard argued that doing as he asked would be taking sides and that was not her role she was then further rebuked for taking that position at various points during that almost hour-long vicious and abusive attack Shepard was reduced to tears ironically rather than being a present-day personification of Adolf Hitler as Rambo Khanna implied Jordan Peterson has spent decades educating his students about the evils of the Holocaust and specifically as part of his psychological teachings has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take place to the point where they take part in atrocities as part of his psychological teachings he has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take part in atrocities during the meeting Shepard was effectively attacked as a protege and supporter of Peterson Pimlott continued to libel Peterson explaining that people like him live in a fantasy world of false conspiracy and accusing Shepard of being an agent of those ideas because she had neutrally shown this video with its opposing viewpoints rambu kanna falsely but imaginatively claimed that Shepard herself was targeting people based on their gender identity or gender expression and in doing so had violated the federal Human Rights Code of Bill c16 although Shepards conduct was in no way violative of that or any law Shepard asked the individual defend whether her job as a teaching assistant was to shield her students from debate and ideas rambu Khanna asserted that it was and then accused her of targeting students due to their gender expression and identity when Shepard pointed out that she had not taken sides in this debate the three rebuked her for creating a toxic climate the three refused to advise Shepard what the complaint was or who complained claiming that even the number of complaints was confidential as was subsequently ascertained there had been no complaint at all Shepard protested that she did not understand how her teaching methods constituted any disservice to the university since the ideas in the video were already part of social currency Joel responded without any foundation accusing her of spreading transphobia rambu khanna added to jules attack by essentially comparing her actions to white supremacy contrary to the allegations of the defendants at this meeting Shepard conducted herself at this seminar precisely as her role required and singularly represented the principles of the Wilfred Laurier University Act for this she was viciously attacked by Rambo Khanna Pimlott and jewel they continued to abuse her even after she began sobbing accusing Shepard of causing harm to unnamed students Shepard apologized for crying during the meeting pleading I am stressed out because to me this is wrong so wrong noting that the very spirit of the university is to challenge ideas that you already have and reminding them that she had not taken any side or position the meeting concluded was Shepard being advised even after she promised to show no further videos of Peterson or anything of the like that she now had to run all of her seminar notes past rambu khanna to obtain specific approval for any future clips of anyone that she attended to show and that Rambo Khanna might have to sit in on her future classes she was prohibited from showing any further videos finally they suggested to her that her job might be in jeopardy the conduct of the defendants was objectively outrageous and flagrant they had reckless disregard for the fact that the foreseeable cons quences of their conduct would cause Shepard to suffer emotional stress which it did there are various policies of the University which constitute a contract between the University and its members including Shepard article 1.0 one of the procedures relating to the Prevention of harassment and discrimination policy 6.1 of the university notes that informal resolution possibilities as well as emotional academic and departmental supports will be explored none of this occurred it also noted in article 1.0 two of the procedures relating to the Prevention of harassment discrimination policy 6.1 that if the concern falls outside of this policies jurisdiction or could be more appropriately dealt with elsewhere the individual will be referred to the appropriate office that also did not occur under article 3.0 two of policy 6.1 the office of dispute resolution and support will determine whether a complaint may go forward article 3.0 four states that the office is available to provide guidance on the preparation of a complaint or a response to a complaint that guidance was not provided to Shepard article 5.0 one of policy six point one states that an investigation may be required when other efforts to resolve the complaint have not been successful or not appropriate in the complaint by Jackson referred to below no other efforts to resolve the complaint were considered before proceeding to the formal investigation of Shepard article 8.03 of policy six point one states that wilfred laurier universities prevention of discrimination and harassment policy is not intended to inhibit academic freedom it was used by rambu khanna Joel and Pimlott for precisely that purpose article 8.05 notes that the university may take disciplinary action against those who make allegations of harassment or discrimination which are reckless malicious or not in good faith although Pimlott rambu Canon and Joel had acted recklessly maliciously and in bad faith and it was ultimately determined by the university that this meeting never should have occurred no action has been taken by the University against them and Shepard was provided no protection from their predations the prevention of harassment discrimination policy provides an article 1.02 that each member of the campus community is responsible for helping to create an environment that promotes mutual respect and understanding for the dignity and rights of others this policy was violated by rambo khanna Pimlott and joule the prevention of harassment discrimination policy defines workplace harassment in article 2.0 for as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in the workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome or workplace harassment this provision too was violated by Rambo Khanna Pym law and jool article 2.07 defines a poisoned environment as where harassing or discriminatory behaviors are severe and or pervasive and cause unreasonable interference with a person's study or work environment a poisoned environment may be created a poisoned work or learning environment is one that is intimidating hostile and/or offensive a poisoned environment can rise even from a single incident it may be created by the comments or actions of any person regardless of his or her status Rambo Khanna Pimlott and Joel created a poisoned work environment for Shepard and thereby breached the university's contractual obligations to Shepard article 4.04 states that the university will take appropriate steps to fairly investigate respond to allegations of discrimination and/or harassment in accordance with the procedures relating to this policy no such steps were taken instead Shepard was wrongly attacked by the members of the administration until public and alumni outcry forced the university to retreat from its position following this meeting being publicized McClatchy president of the university was interviewed on the agenda by Steve Paikin the same show from which the clip of the debate between dr. Peterson and Matt was taken she was repeatedly asked by Paikin whether Shepard had done anything wrong by showing this clip from his earlier show McClatchy effectively defended the conduct of Rambo can jool and Pimlott she refused to acknowledge that Shepard had not acted improperly despite Bacon's continuing to press her on this Shepard had the foresight to taper Inquisition when it began and after outrage from the public and alumni erupted the president of the University Deborah McClatchy and rambu Khanna issued apologies in RAM Buchanan's forced apology he continued to lie still insisting that there had been a complaint and that he had been doing his duty by addressing it it was only when public and alumni outrage grew that McClatchy was ultimately forced to admit that what happened to miss Shepherd in the meeting was shameful and that the material she showed was entirely appropriate that was a quote this was only after an investigator found that there never had been any complaint formal or informal and that Rambo conop in Lodz and Joel's statements to the contrary were false and deceitful the university admitted in this statement from its president that this meeting never should have happened at all no formal complaint nor even an informal concern relative to university policy had been registered as to the screening of the video the president only when besieged acknowledged that these errors in judgment were compounded by the misapplication of the university's policies and procedures the basic guidelines and best practices on how to appropriately execute the roles and responsibilities of staff and faculty were ignored or not understood the procedures on how to apply University policies and under what circumstances were not followed and that the institutional failure allowed this to happen the president noted that as there was institutional failure the responsibility ultimately started and ended with her she further acknowledged that miss Shepard was targeted with vitriol by members of the university McClatchy admitted that Shepard was involved in absolutely no wrongdoing and publicly stated that the university was taking action to ensure that this did not occur again a claim that was and remains entirely false Shepard has never received redress of any kind nor has she been consulted about the input that this treatment has had on her and her career prospects instead she was subjected to continuing abuse and a toxic climate from the University and its representatives as described below in McLeod she's apology on November 21st 2017 she states that quote supports were in place to support student involvement in a situation who are targeted with extreme vitriol through the situation end quote yet she and the University offered Shepard no such support in McClatchy claiming to be troubled by the way quote everyone end quote involved in the situation was targeted with extreme vitriol she showed the same an equal concern for shepherds predators as for Shepard herself the president also acknowledged that the rationale for invoking the gender and sexual violence policy did not exist that it was misapplied and that this was a significant overreach Shepard relies on McClatchy admissions here in McLeod she claimed that quote Laurier is committed to the abiding principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression end quote her conduct throughout entirely betrayed that goal in RAM Buchanan's disingenuous apology to Shepard on November 21st 2017 he stated open quote while I still cannot discuss the student concerns raised about the tutorial end quote but no student concern had even been raised about the tutorial prior to his and his co-defendants bullying of Shepard he acknowledged that his meeting with a panel of three people would be an intimidating situation for Shepard and would not have invited a productive discussion Ram Buchanan's apology claimed that he quote did not do enough to try to support her Shepard end quote when he did absolutely nothing at all but instead attacked her following the public outcry the next time Shepard met with her students the chair of the department of communications Peter Erica Hart attended that tutorial and offered Shepards students but not Shepard emotional support suggesting that they would be welcome to go to the campus Wellness Center he sat at the back of the room for the entire tutorial effectively shutting down any discussion on the issue and undermining Shepards role in her classroom Bertha Hart proceeded on half of the university to publicly insults Shepard when asked by email by Maclean's magazine why he appeared in her class on that day he responded quote I assume she recorded it why not ask her for the recording end quote he then sent McClain's a second email open quote sorry you're a pro I should have assumed that you've already heard that particular recording end quote using his position of power and authority over Shepard to intimidate and embarrass her publicly professor Alicia's Lewinsky who's Shepard was taking a master's course from asked in front of the class for Shepard to put away her laptop and then said in front of other masters students that she gave this instruction because she did not want to be recorded even when Shepard assured her that she was not recording the class further alienating and creating a toxic environment for Shepard following these events Ram Buchanan's course ended and Shepard was assigned to be the teaching assistant to professor Judith Nicholson a professor of communication who had publicly taken a negative position against Shepard prior to Shepard being assigned to her before that semester even started Nicholson had signed an open letter supporting Pimlott and rambu Khanna this made the university assigning Shepard to her tutelage entirely inappropriate created a poisoned environment for Shepard and made it impossible for her to succeed Shepards apprehensions about Nicholson's lack of objectivity toward her were quickly borne out on three occasions during their relatively brief dealings Nicholson without provocation harassed and abused Shepard and deliberately created difficulty for her from the outset of their meeting Nicholson told Shepard that it was her quote academic freedom end quote and that no one is permitted to make the university look bad implying that Shepard had improperly done so on the second occasion she sent out a course syllabus with a territorial acknowledgement ie a reference to the Aboriginal tribe which had once been on the land which wilfred laurier was on Shepard considering this irrelevant to the syllabus and a ludicrous act of political correctness and virtue signaling cut out that part of the note and tweeted it noting that such acknowledgments were now even on the syllabus of university courses Nicholson demanded in front of the other teaching assistants that she delete her tweet when Shepard protested that all she was tweeting was the University logo with the course name and territorial acknowledgement Nicholson threatened to take her to the Dean if she did not remove it Nicholson also absurdly claimed that this territorial acknowledgment was her intellectual property she proceeded to complain to the Dean about Shepards tweet in an attempt to further endanger Shepards position in the university the Dean informed Nicholson that the acknowledgement was not her intellectual property and called an urgent meeting with the two departments which Shepard was associated with the Communication Studies and the cultural analysis and social theory departments at least in part to discuss these issues it was clear that if Shepard had tweeted positively about the land acknowledgment she would not have been in difficulty with Nicholson the third occasion was in March 2018 when Shepard needed to reschedule her last class of the year and utilize polling software with a link to available alternate days for her class to fill out their available alternate dates when Shepard found times that all of her students were available to meet she emailed Nicholson to seek her approval for the new dates Nicholson reprimanded her copying two Dean's claiming falsely that Shepard had moved these classes without Nicholson's consent in advance even though the letter was just such a request and the request on its face was premise on Nicholson's consent when Shepard advised Nicholson that she never had any intention of changing the date without Nicholson's approval which was why her letter explicitly requested that approval Nicholson counseled Shepards tutorial entirely this was despite the fact that alternate dates were available for Shepard and her students to attend Nicholson instructed Shepards students to attend sessions of the other teaching assistants on dates which were largely coincident with dates which Shepard and her students had arranged since this was to have been Shepards last class she never saw her students again Ethan Jackson a transgender activist who has attacked Shepard throughout the events here in launched a formal patently frivolous harassment complaint against her to which even after Ms Shepard had completed her coursework at the University so she would not see Jackson again the university responded by proceeding with a formal investigation despite its inherently vexatious bad faith and frivolous allegations which pursuant to the applicable policies the university should not have proceeded with Jackson had an online crowdfunding page seeking a sex change operation which was initially denied because of his mental health issues additionally Jackson was banned from the University of Waterloo campus in 2013 for protesting and deep platforming a member of parliament who was to give a speech on abortion by dressing up as a giant vulva and yelling Jackson was invariably hostile to Shepherd Jackson's allegations against Shepherd were that a she was on her telephone during one class and purportedly disengaged from participation in that class be miss Shepherd had made four tweets with screenshots from Jackson's controversial social media account sea shepherd responded to Jackson walking into the printing room and angrily ordering her to leave the room and cease using the communications department printer which she required for her communications coursework by referring to him as Petty and pathetic D when Shepherd and two others were putting up posters for a Laurier Society for open inquiry meeting he claimed that they had followed him and his calling as they were walking around the halls and that Shepherds posters had signage which he found offensive posters which he acknowledges removing from the walls without authorization the complaint of Jackson was made maliciously after classes were over for the year at a time when he and Shepard would not ever be interacting again since Shepard is not enrolled in Laurier courses for the following session despite Jackson's complaint being inherently self contradictory and ludicrous the university not only proceeded to summon Shepherd for an investigation but threatened her with repercussions if she disclosed jock complained to anyone the attacks on Shepard have rendered her unemployable in academia resulting in her abandoning her previous ambitions of obtaining her PhD or even teaching at a university as a masters graduate Shepard has suffered nervous shock as a result of the conduct of the defendants which was the foreseeable and intended result in the alternative it was the reasonably foreseeable outcome of their conduct and the defendants were negligent in their treatment of her so that's Shepards claim as I said after I reviewed this and talked in detail to Shepards lawyer I concluded that wilfred laurier had not learned what needed to be learned and launched a claim of my own this week it reads in part the plaintiff that's me claims against the defendants Nathan rambu Khanna Herbert Pimlott Adria Jewell and Wilfred Laurier University the following 500,000 for defamation 500,000 for injurious falsehood 500,000 in punitive damages prejudgment and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act costs on a substantial indemnity basis and such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this honorable court may deem just the plaintiffs claim against rambu Khanna hemlock Joel and the University defamatory statements on YouTube on or about November 2nd 2017 Rambow Khanna ordered his then teaching assistant Lindsay Shepard to attend what turned out to be a disciplinary meeting with himself Pimlott and jewel to discuss her having shown an extract from a TV Ontario program to her students the TV Ontario programme moderated by Steve Paikin consisted of a debate between Peterson and Nicolas Matt at the meeting on or about November 2nd 2017 rhombic an app in Lawton Joule each made numerous defamatory statements about Peterson all of which the others endorsed both expressly and implied the meetings content has since been posted online on the video-sharing website YouTube and is available on the Internet where it is open to the public and easily accessible by anyone who wishes to view its content I'm skipping a bit here at the meeting on or about November 2nd 2017 Ramba can app in law and jewel falsely and maliciously made numerous defamatory statements about Peterson including but not limited to the following defamatory statements made by rambu Khanna a Peterson identified student protesters by posting their social media accounts for the purpose of other people bullying and threatening them all online be Peterson is basically debating whether or not a trans student should have rights see Peterson's position would be the equivalent of debating whether or not a student of color should have rights or should be allowed to be married contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms D Peterson has engaged in the targeting of trans students giving out their personal information for the purpose of having them attacked harassed so the death threats will find them this is something that Peterson has done to his own students Peterson has done to other students e playing a speech by Peterson is basically like playing a speech by Hitler F Peterson's opinion is like all right opinion white supremacists opinion anti-trans opinion anti-gay opinion anti-women misogynist opinion G Peterson's view is whether trans people are people or not defamatory statements made by Pimlott Peterson is academically suspect to say the least he does not have the substantial academic evidence to be a credible person B Peterson's positions don't have credible evidence just like charles murray with his race claims of white superiority C Peterson brings hatred and targets groups D Peterson exhibits charlatans ISM e P terse inhabit in terms of research defamatory statements made by Joel a Peterson's position is causing harm to trans students by framing their identity as invalid or their pronouns as invalid contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code B Peterson is spreading transphobia now I'm skipping ahead a bit again the said words in their natural and ordinary meaning and the connotation of the comments obvious to any reader were meant and were understood to mean that Peterson is comparable to Adolf Hitler the great despot in world history deliberately spreads hatred both generally and in particular to students is a member of the alt-right is unfit to be a professor breaches the code of ethics of his profession and university is a white supremacist has and expresses opinions which are uninformed and uneducated his sexist is misogynist is racist is homophobic is transphobic is a deplorable person is incompetent is a reprobate lacks integrity lacks the appropriate ethics to be a psychologist and professor is a bully and abusive towards students wants to deprive minorities of any rights organizes attacks even death threats on students breaches Canadian law dehumanizes certain of his students and lacks credibility and credentials the statements made by Ramba khanna Pimlott and joel infer all of the above including but not limited to the Petersons his unsavory sexist misogynist dangerous racist homophobic transphobic analogous to adolf hitler and incompetent in his profession as an author teacher and professor and were false and specifically designed to impugn his reputation these defamatory statements were malicious and designed specifically to damage his personal and professional character as a professor author lecturer and public intellectual well you get the picture that's the end of that I'm hoping that the combination of the two lawsuits will be enough to convince careless university professors and administrators blinded by their own ideology to be much more circumspect in their actions and their words we'll see how that plays out

Channel: Jordan B Peterson

Views: 2,583,794

Rating: 4.9268551 out of 5

Keywords: Jordan Peterson, Jordan B Peterson, psychology, psychoanalysis, Jung, existentialism, social justice, lindsay shepherd wilfrid laurier, free speech, lindsay shepherd jordan peterson, freedom of speech, left wing, right wing, Lindsay Shepherd, lawsuit, defamation, libel

Id: PkNv4LFpGf4

Length: 37min 28sec (2248 seconds)

Published: Wed Jun 20 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/Jambamatt]

This is a small point, but it is the law we talking about: Isn't the word 'infer' used in the wrong way at this point near the end?