Last month, unspeakable evil visited Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  A gunman stole seventeen souls from their loved ones, cruelly, needlessly, malevolently.  Hearts were broken as Americans witnessed this horrific drama play itself out in the news media.  And then, as these things go, tragedy was made hell as brother turned on brother in a heated gun control debate.

I inwardly cringed as I watched a select few survivors of the Parkland shooting become the darlings of the mainstream media.  I won’t give these kids a free pass, mind you—their participation appears to be entirely voluntary, and they are old enough to make their own choices—but I wonder if some of them might come to regret that their face will forever live on the glossy cover of TIME magazine as a symbol of a “movement” that seems to be so ill-informed and devoid of definition.  I recently stumbled upon an essay I wrote in high school about socialized healthcare, and even in the privacy of my own mind I was so embarrassed I could barely get through it.  I don’t know how I could have lived it down if it had been printed in TIME!  Becoming more conservative as you mature is not unheard of.  Supposedly, Churchill once said, “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart.  If you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.”  Middle age might prove difficult for some of these young spokespeople.

Regardless, town halls were held.  Interviews were given.  Cover photos were taken.  Marches were planned.  The left-leaning mainstream media outlets have held these children up to us as shining beacons of hope, catalysts for change.  Granted, their experiences must have been harrowing, and they truly have my deepest sympathies, but the mere fact of being touched by trauma does not imbue you with moral authority or legislative expertise.  And yet, one can hardly scroll through the home page of CNN or BuzzFeed or without seeing photos of their faces or reading quotes pulled from one interview or another.  They all say the same things.  “We demand change!”  “We must take action!”  The mission statement on the webpage for the March For Our Lives protest event (that took place last weekend) states the following: “Not one more.  We cannot allow one more child to be shot at school.  … Our schools are unsafe.  Our children and teachers are dying.  We must make it our top priority to save these lives.”  And later: “The mission and focus of March For Our Lives is to demand that a comprehensive and effective bill be immediately brought before Congress to address these gun issues.  No special interest group, no political agenda is more critical than timely passage of legislation to effectively address the gun violence issues that are rampant in our country.”

That all sounds revolutionary, but it’s also extraordinarily vague.  The online petition gives us some indication of what the activist’s “comprehensive and effective” bill might look like, but the suggested policies lack sophistication and appear to be ignorant of the facts surrounding gun violence.  The first demand is the banning of “assault weapons” (a phrase which has no technical definition in the classification of guns) and high capacity magazines, as well as cracking down on the so-called “gun show loophole”.  Banning the private sale of firearms would be difficult, if not impossible to enforce.  The reality is that there isn’t some easy solution that is being quashed by greedy NRA lobbyists or corrupt politicians.

It seems to me that if legislators could draft a bill that would “comprehensively and effectively” eradicate school shootings, they would happily do so.  The Second Amendment has already been bounded in a variety of ways: restrictions on fully-automatic weapons, comprehensive background checks, safety requirements for handling and storing firearms.  In fact, if the laws that are already in place had been correctly implemented, the Parkland shooting might never have occurred.  Does anybody really think that any politician, Republican or Democrat, simply doesn’t care about dead kids?  Implementing gun-free zones likely doesn’t work, there are convincing reports that banning firearms does not reduce violent crime, and disarming law-abiding Americans (particularly women) may actually make them less safe.  It’s not that anyone doesn’t care – it’s that there is no simple solution to the ever-present problem that is human malevolence.

“Not one more.”  How can anyone propose to achieve such a lofty goal?  How can any legislative body be expected to ensure that not one more child dies at the hands of an evil person committing an evil act?  The purification of souls is God-work, not fit for mere man.  None of this is to say that improvements can’t be made, and any and all legislation that keeps kids safer and does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens should be thoughtfully crafted and swiftly implemented.  But it is prudent to recognize that there is no “comprehensive and effective” legislation that can cure the human heart of corruption.  So, last Saturday, I did not petition legislators.  I did not march.  Instead I petitioned the only One whom I believe can end needless suffering and despair.

Since I started taking courses at Athabasca University, I find myself at the public library a lot.  Studying at home with my two young sons has proven to be less than productive, as frequent interruptions to dole out fruit snacks or change diapers do tend to split one’s focus.  And so, when I have a deadline approaching, I leave the boys at home with their father and escape to a quiet study room where I can read about history and politics without being asked to read I Wish That I Had Duck Feet (by Dr.  Seuss) instead.  Not that I have anything against Duck Feet;  it’s an amusing little tale that illustrates the value of your individuality, but the gags do fall a little flat for me after reading it for the eight hundredth time.  Although apparently not for my eldest, who still requests it every night without fail.

I digress.

On one such night last September, after putting in a few hours of study, I was on my way out of the building when I noticed a poster on a nearby bulletin board advertising an event titled “Women in Politics”.  As a woman in the study of politics, I was intrigued.  The guest speakers, naturally both women, had been prominent Canadian parliamentarians and the subject closely related to the essay I was currently writing (about whether mandatory gender quotas for elected legislatures were desirable).  I saw the analysis of the role of women in politics as a scientific endeavor.  I had unanswered questions that I was exploring in my research.  Were there good reasons why women were underrepresented in Parliament?  Is it necessarily beneficial for society that women be proportionally represented?  Why are women less likely to run for public office?  Is the inequity the result of sexism and discrimination, or is there something else going on?  Eager to hear the speakers’ perspectives, I signed up to hear the speeches and participate in a networking event with approximately sixty other attendees.

A part of me is embarrassed to admit that I didn’t anticipate how many feminist ideologues I was about to encounter.  Really, I should have known better.  It seems inevitable that any time we attempt to analyze why inequalities between men and women exist, there will be a contingent of ideologically-possessed, shrieking harpies who claim victimhood status and demand capitulation to ineffective and unjust policies designed to “remedy” decades of systemic discrimination.  Equally possessed are those men who readily accept this narrative and go through life with their faces downcast, apologizing for being born with that dreadful Y chromosome, as if maleness is itself a sin.  Far be it from them to acknowledge that men and women are biologically and psychologically different in fundamental ways.  Such a statement is seen by them as heresy, and those who promulgate it must be cast out (I’m looking at you, Google, RE: James Damore’s memo).

Alas, feminists were a-plenty.  At one point during the networking event, I was amongst a group of attendees that were talking to my city’s lone female councilor.  The councilor was laughing about the passivity of her male colleagues, whom she claimed simply allowed her to propose and pass “feminist” legislation at will and without contest.  She seemed to be blissfully unaware that her colleagues’ indifference could communicate either that the men simply couldn’t find it in themselves to care about the issues that disproportionally affect women, or that they were self-censoring and they didn’t feel comfortable debating her proposals for some reason.   Instead of asking the councilor about these worrying potentialities, another attendee, a young, dark-haired woman in a green dress, cheeks flushed with righteous vindication, opened her mouth and crafted the question: “What do you think is the most feminist policy you could propose that the boys would let you get away with?”  I didn’t interject; the question was posed to the councilor, after all, but if I had had the opportunity to speak, I would have asked her what she believes constitutes “feminist policy”.  This was a realization I had stumbled upon during my research for my essay:  when people talk about policy that is “good for women”, they are generally talking about left-leaning feminist demands (publicly-funded abortion on demand, insurance coverage for contraception, stronger welfare policies surrounding childcare or maternity leave, and policies designed to mandate equal pay for men and women, amongst others).  I challenge you to find a conservative woman who is in favour of these kinds of policies. Does that mean conservative women are anti-women, or it is possible that women, as a group, are not so homogenous that the feminist cabal can accurately claim to speak for the rest of us?

The speaking engagement (which took place after the networking event) began with the organizers of the event recognizing that we were meeting on Native American land.  I’m not sure how this relates to the role of women in politics, but apparently it was of vital importance as they mentioned it no less than three times.  The speakers were then asked, again and again, and in a variety of different ways, just how they managed to defeat the patriarchy.  How did they overcome the institutional sexism that stood in the way of their becoming prominent lawmakers?  None of my burning questions were asked, or answered.  It seemed to be a foregone conclusion that the disparity between men and women in public office was the result of systemic sexism and male dominance.  To their credit, the speakers were more reasonable than the administrators.  Although both women recognized individual instances of sexism from former superiors or colleagues, they both asserted that they did not feel that their sex presented a significant obstacle in the advancement of their careers, which one might argue is evidenced by the fact that one of them, the Rt.  Honourable Kim Campbell, once held the highest political office in the country.

I lament that, so often, the complex truth is sacrificed for trite oversimplifications.  Even a cursory glance at the literature surrounding the inherent differences between men and women should dispel the notion that we can reduce this problem to one, low-resolution solution in sexism.  Complex questions demand sophisticated and nuanced answers.  It’s easier to regurgitate platitudes, to be sure, but it also contributes to lazy, uninformed groupthink and tribalism.  Going to my library’s “Women in Politics” event reaffirmed my belief that my value lay in my qualities as an individual, not in my collective identity as a woman.  I went home that night and as I was putting my son to bed, it occurred to me:  some of the people I met that night could afford to read I Wish That I Had Duck Feet a few more times.

One such university, it appears, is Ontario’s own Wilfred Laurier University.  The administration of Wilfred Laurier has come under fire from free-speech advocates (read: a group of people that should include all people but unfortunately does not) for reprimanding 22-year-old teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd.  Lindsay’s crime?  Exposing her first-year Communications Studies students to an excerpt from a video debate between University of Toronto psychology professor Dr.  Jordan Peterson and another lecturer.  The debate was centered on the then-proposed Bill C-16 and the use of non-binary gender pronouns in general (the use of pronouns like “they” or “ze” to refer to a single, non-traditional trans person).  Professor Peterson has gained nationwide infamy in the past year for posting several controversial YouTube videos expressing his concerns about the far-reaching implications of what he considers the criminalization of pronoun misuse.  The bill was passed last June and is now law.

Shepherd secretly recorded her meeting with her supervising professor, which the National Post reported, culminated in several censorious measures, including requiring her to hand in her lesson plans to her superior for review and the potential for in-class supervision.  The recording is telling.  In it, Shepherd is told that she was “promoting violence against trans persons” and “creating an unsafe learning environment” by simply showing her students the video without first prefacing Dr. Peterson’s perspectives as “problematic”.   It appears to be entirely uncontested that she showed the clip for the purposes of promoting a healthy discussion and to fairly present both sides of a controversial issue, but this was of no consequence to her accusers.  At one point, her supervisor even states that Shepherd’s efforts to stay politically neutral were “kind of the problem” and compares doing so with presenting the views of Adolf Hitler in a neutral fashion.  As if that’s not the most wildly hysterical and intellectually lazy comparison of all time.

Without some clarification, I expect I’d be inundated with diatribes about the importance of being sensitive to the unique plight of trans folks.  Before that happens, consider this:  any position on gender expression and the use of non-traditional pronouns is irrelevant to the more central debate around campus censorship and indoctrination.  There is no reason why the protection of free speech should be a partisan issue. 

Your time in university should be rife with debate, exposure to new ideas and opportunities to develop critical thinking skills.  This woman made no effort to defend Dr. Peterson, and she said multiple times in her interview that she disagrees with his perspective—she merely wanted to present both sides of a contentious social issue without bias and allow her students to analyze each argument on its merits.  Well-intentioned or otherwise, her supervising professor effectively punished Shepherd for refusing to treat students like infants who must be spoon-fed the “right ideas” because they don’t yet have the intellectual “toolkit” to reason their way through a sophisticated argument.  Shepherd is right when she says that shielding students from certain perspectives to protect their fragile sensibilities is antithetical to the purpose of higher learning; you should leave university with the skills to orient yourself in a world full of people that won’t always agree with you.

Lindsay’s story is a success story.  Her courage in defending herself and the purpose of a quality university education is being recognized by respected figures in media and academia nationwide and has resulted in apology letters from both the Laurier President and her supervising professor, although I think the need for damage control measures after the considerable media blow-back casts reasonable doubt on their sincerity.  It is fortunate that Lindsay had the presence of mind to record the encounter, or her academic credibility might now be questioned.  Be like Lindsay.  Fight the indoctrination and expose it when it rears its ugly head.  Hold your administrators to a high standard and, together, let’s ensure that this “soft bigotry of low expectations” has no place in our post-secondary institutions.

[With recommendations from both students and non, this article from December 1 (issue 2547) this article was an easy include. It touches on many issues central to post-secondary education and points out the clash between the awareness of freedom of speech and debate and maintaining an awareness of oppression and power differentials within both society and university community itself. -Ed.]

One such university, it appears, is Ontario’s own Wilfred Laurier University.  The administration of Wilfred Laurier has come under fire from free-speech advocates (read: a group of people that should include all people but unfortunately does not) for reprimanding 22-year-old teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd.  Lindsay’s crime?  Exposing her first-year Communications Studies students to an excerpt from a video debate between University of Toronto psychology professor Dr.  Jordan Peterson and another lecturer.  The debate was centered on the then-proposed Bill C-16 and the use of non-binary gender pronouns in general (the use of pronouns like “they” or “ze” to refer to a single, non-traditional trans person).  Professor Peterson has gained nationwide infamy in the past year for posting several controversial YouTube videos expressing his concerns about the far-reaching implications of what he considers the criminalization of pronoun misuse.  The bill was passed last June and is now law.

Shepherd secretly recorded her meeting with her supervising professor, which the National Post reported, culminated in several censorious measures, including requiring her to hand in her lesson plans to her superior for review and the potential for in-class supervision.  The recording is telling.  In it, Shepherd is told that she was “promoting violence against trans persons” and “creating an unsafe learning environment” by simply showing her students the video without first prefacing Dr. Peterson’s perspectives as “problematic”.   It appears to be entirely uncontested that she showed the clip for the purposes of promoting a healthy discussion and to fairly present both sides of a controversial issue, but this was of no consequence to her accusers.  At one point, her supervisor even states that Shepherd’s efforts to stay politically neutral were “kind of the problem” and compares doing so with presenting the views of Adolf Hitler in a neutral fashion.  As if that’s not the most wildly hysterical and intellectually lazy comparison of all time.

Without some clarification, I expect I’d be inundated with diatribes about the importance of being sensitive to the unique plight of trans folks.  Before that happens, consider this:  any position on gender expression and the use of non-traditional pronouns is irrelevant to the more central debate around campus censorship and indoctrination.  There is no reason why the protection of free speech should be a partisan issue. 

Your time in university should be rife with debate, exposure to new ideas and opportunities to develop critical thinking skills.  This woman made no effort to defend Dr. Peterson, and she said multiple times in her interview that she disagrees with his perspective—she merely wanted to present both sides of a contentious social issue without bias and allow her students to analyze each argument on its merits.  Well-intentioned or otherwise, her supervising professor effectively punished Shepherd for refusing to treat students like infants who must be spoon-fed the “right ideas” because they don’t yet have the intellectual “toolkit” to reason their way through a sophisticated argument.  Shepherd is right when she says that shielding students from certain perspectives to protect their fragile sensibilities is antithetical to the purpose of higher learning; you should leave university with the skills to orient yourself in a world full of people that won’t always agree with you.

Lindsay’s story is a success story.  Her courage in defending herself and the purpose of a quality university education is being recognized by respected figures in media and academia nationwide and has resulted in apology letters from both the Laurier President and her supervising professor, although I think the need for damage control measures after the considerable media blow-back casts reasonable doubt on their sincerity.  It is fortunate that Lindsay had the presence of mind to record the encounter, or her academic credibility might now be questioned.  Be like Lindsay.  Fight the indoctrination and expose it when it rears its ugly head.  Hold your administrators to a high standard and, together, let’s ensure that this “soft bigotry of low expectations” has no place in our post-secondary institutions.