Another Cultural Marxist Witch hunt Against a Dissident Prof.

Make no mistake: Cultural Marxism, with all its intolerance and witch hunting nastiness has deeply infected many social science departments in universities across Canada. Cowardly administrators too often seem to want to shelter student snowflakes from any ideas that might upset them, Intellectual challenge and debate must give way to dreary indoctrination. The latest victim is Professor Rick Mehta of Acadia University in Nova Scotia. And be very clear: It’s the professor’s views — many expressed on his own time on social media –that has sparked the investigation,

The Canadian Press (February 26, 2018) explains: “Acadia University has launched a formal investigation into complaints against a professor over controversial comments he made on social media and in the classroom. Heather Hemming, vice-president academic at the Wolfville, N.S., school, said in a letter to professor Rick Mehta that the university has received complaints from students, faculty and others with concerns about his views.’These concerns relate to the manner in which you are expressing views that you are alleged to be advancing or supporting and, in some instances, time that you are spending on these issues in the classroom,’ she said in a letter on Feb. 13. ‘The university has a legal responsibility to provide an environment free from discrimination, sexual harassment and personal harassment’” Since when did expression of opinions become ” discrimination, sexual harassment and personal harassment’?

Well, what are those views that have Cultural Marxist snowflakes melting? ” Mehta has been outspoken both on campus and on social media about a range of contentious issues including decolonization, immigration, and gender politics, garnering both supporters and opposition. He has come under fire for saying multiculturalism is a scam, there’s no wage gap between men and women, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has created a victim narrative to prompt ‘endless apologies and compensation.’ Mehta bills himself as a free-speech advocate trying to build bridges across political divides.” In other words, Prof. Mehta holds views that many people would see as just plain common sense.

Already a sneaky bureaucratic form of retribution has been used to punish the freethinking prof. “Meanwhile, Mehta said he is worried the investigation into his commentary may not lead to a fair outcome given the university has already taken steps to reduce his course load. After several years of teaching the large sections of the required introductory psychology courses, he said Acadia has changed his teaching allocation so that he’s teaching smaller courses.”

The controversy has sparked a furious debate.

The Canadian Press (March 4, 2018) explained: “A group of Canadian professors dedicated to the defence of academic freedom have condemned the Acadia probe, while Mehta’s designated department head says some students at the Wolfville school say they have stopped attending his class because of his comments. … Mark Mercer, president of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, said in a letter Friday that Mehta’s views may be unpopular but they do not constitute an attack on anyone.

“Mercer, professor and chair of the philosophy department at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, added in an email that the investigation is a ‘frontal assault on academic freedom’ and warned that investigating a professor for the content of his opinions would cast a chill over campus debates.

Other professors have also spoken out against the investigation, as well as changes to Mehta’s teaching allocation assigning him smaller courses. …

In a Feb. 26 letter, Mehta’s designated department head, Rob Raeside, detailed some of the complaints against him, indicating that the level of anxiety in the class is high and some students have stopped attending.’The students have not expressed in writing the precise details of the racist and transphobic comments, but it is clear from their interactions with me that they are extremely disturbed by your comments, some to the point of not going to class,’ said Raeside, an Earth and environmental science professor. Mehta shared the letter on social media.” So, a few student snowflakes are so inarticulate that they can’t even explain their concerns coherently or specifically!

“When asked whether he made racist or transphobic remarks, Mehta said ‘perception is very subjective.’ ‘I take those issues very seriously, given my own background as first generation Canadian and having grown up with racism, I’m not going to do that in the classroom,’ he said. ..,. Yet Mehta has ignited outrage for saying multiculturalism is a scam and the decolonization movement aims to create a victim narrative, spur endless apologies and bolster compensation to Indigenous Peoples.

On Twitter, he has retweeted a post that said it is ‘statistically impossible for all Native children to have had a negative experience with residential schools.’

Meanwhile, Mehta has also said on Twitter that he stands with Michael Thurlow, leader of the National Socialist Canadian Labour Revival Party. The group posted what were described as racist posters on the University of New Brunswick campus last month.

In an interview and on Twitter, Mehta clarified that while he doesn’t necessarily agree with Thurlow’s point of view, he stands with his right to express his ideas.

“For those of you following my story, let me be clear: I loathe both racism and violence in all its forms. What I DO stand with is the right of ANYONE to free speech, regardless of how reprehensible I may find it,” he tweeted.

‘or those of you following my story, let me be clear: I loathe both racism and violence in all its forms. What I DO stand with is the right of ANYONE to free speech, regardless of how reprehensible I may find it,” he tweeted.

Mehta, whose faculty web page notes that he’s recently become interested in studying the lack of viewpoint diversity within universities, said the reason he strays from the textbook is because he doesn’t want to “present information that I know and believe to be biased.’

“Many professors and students … seek to limit criticism against certain minority groups by conflating hate speech with any speech that offends the sensibilities of those minority groups,” he said in an email. ‘Rather than engage in debate, they are able to simply shut down opponents with a cry of ‘That’s hate speech.” …

Yet Concordia University professor Gad Saad said nothing should be considered off-limits in the pursuit of truth.

“The idea that hurt feelings should in any way constitute a relevant concern is utter nonsense,” Saad, research chair in Evolutionary Behavioural Sciences and Darwinian Consumption, said in an interview from Montreal. “You don’t have the flexibility to insult people when you’re a professor. You should be respectful, you should be polite. But hurt feelings don’t supersede the honest pursuit of truth.”

University of Saskatchewan professor Ken Coates said post-secondary campuses should be places of rigorous debate.’ I hope that any student that goes to any university is made to feel uncomfortable many times. Universities are not places to go to be comfortable,’ said Coates, Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation. ‘They’re places to go to be uncomfortable, to have your views challenged.’”

MARK MERCER2015-01-09

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

3
inShare

One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.

Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.

Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?

I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.

Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.

That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.

The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.

How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?

If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.

Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.

My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.

But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.

For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.

Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: mark.mercer@smu.ca

–

CAFE

Dedicated to Free Speech, Immigration Reform, and Restoring Political Sanity

Tag Archives: Mark Mercer

Another Cultural Marxist Witch hunt Against a Dissident Prof.

Another Cultural Marxist Witch hunt Against a Dissident Prof.

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says