It is self evident that the process of education, the academic pursuit, is a proxy for the pursuit of truth and development. The improvement and development of an individual directly causes the well being of the community to go up as well. That community now has something more than it did previously. And when the community's status has gone up, so does that of all the individuals that make it up since the community they participate in at that point is better than it was previously. It is our human duty to constantly cultivate ourselves, the individual. That may just be one of our most important duties to our fellow man. The niche of academia in our society and ecosystem is a noble one.
There are several contemporary movements that seek to subvert academia, they are: victimhood culture, censorship/suppression of free speech, diversity initiatives, and identity grifting. Identity grifting is a term coined by Lindsay Shepherd defined as the superficial leveraging of identity politics for profit. The videos below are courtesy of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, a professor whom I've been following prior to his sudden entanglement into the whirlwind of identity politics who surfaced to the political limelight for a different reason than what I followed his content for. This happened around this time in 2016, or at least that is when I became aware of it. The videos I want to bring to your attention responds to some key incidents that best resonate with the movements I listed prior. Part of the reason for my making of this post is his suggestion in the video The Disability Bureaucracy Wants Your Soul to "air these matters out in public." I believe that is excellent advice in combating corporate autocrats and bureaucrats in general because it, in part, undermines their complete control of the narrative; they can longer conspire amongst themselves on how to best toy with the lives of others when in the eye of the public. I am also making this post both as a stand in solidarity and as a pledge to myself. These people took a stand against some of the most despicable tyranny at the potential cost of their own livelihoods. To stand up to the bastardizing of education and the indoctrination of our youth we have to mean our actions and commit to them in spite of the potential consequences.
Dr. Jordan B Peterson begins the video with several forwards to include the tale of Harrison Bergeron and the idea of concept creep. In the video, he speaks to Dr. Carmen Branje, a professor who has been reprimanded for not giving a student eight hours for an exam that the other students were allotted two hours. Briefly, his reason for doing so was that it fundamentally changes the assignment. Academic credentialing does not just verify a students ability to analyze or understand course material. Its purpose is to ascertain that a student is able to understand, conceptualize, analyze and perform within the domain under a variety of constraints. This is to, in part, sample and simulate what will happen to them in the workforce and in their lives. What good is knowledge without the ability to perform and apply it in a variety of situations? Is fragility really a better model for long term success than resilience? Deflating the value of degrees will exponentially inflate the cost of nonnegotiable standards in certain services and professions such as medical or legal. To appeal to the alt-left's causes, the implication for the legal field is especially grim: if the price for the highest standard of legal practice is outside the means of the lower classes than this would further cement the power of the most wealthy individuals with dubious intentions since they can afford it no matter what the cost.
I don't think it is disagreeable to say it does not serve the interests of the individual to create a world where they identify with their disabilities or conditions because they have to constantly be accommodated for. If educational institutions are to create the lens with which a student views the world, then the next generation of workers, thinkers, and members of society will believe they are oppressed and disabled whilst always fighting an invisible oppressor and villain. What kind of relationships will those people build and what does that mean for the direction we are going?
For purposes of clarity, I'd like to stress that in none of these examples is the removal of a barrier for entry being contested. The problem lies in the over pathologizing of what could be considered normal behaviors, emotions, and responses; accommodating students to ensure they receive the same grades despite being able to otherwise participate in the class by ignoring the nuances of life where sometimes you have to perform in a suboptimal setting or in spite of your own difficulties is what is being contested. I would like to share an experience of mine from my early education to further illustrate this.
There was a point in time when I was in special needs education. There was also a time when I was in honors classes. To this day I have no confirmation on what warranted placing me into a special needs class. From an early age I had very strong reading comprehension and speaking abilities, at least in so far as determined by the schools I attended. The same schools noted that I had a paradoxically low writing ability. I suspect that was the reason why I was moved to a special needs class. I digress. I was moved to special needs after attending an honors class for the year prior and the beginning part of the year I was transferred. Immediately I noticed I did not fit into the special needs class. To begin with, I had no barrier for participation. Some of those students were blind or deaf, they needed an accommodation to participate which is not the same as needing accommodation to succeed or do well. Whether or not they did well was still based on their own dedication. Some of the students were mentally handicapped. Severely. I also felt I did not fit into that category. The main difference I observed between the honors class and the special needs class was not in the materials being studied or taught, it was a change in the parameters of what constituted proper capability in engaging with, understanding, and thinking about the course materials. For example, both classes had the same arithmetic textbook however our homework consisted of fewer questions requiring the same level of ability and our exams were allotted more time. Our deadlines were also much longer for the same writing assignments. Essentially the standards for what constituted a passing grade was lowered across the board and nonparticipation had little impact on our grades. In this class we had student aids who were assigned a handful of students. I asked the one assigned to me why I was not being taught the techniques or methods needed to participate at the standard of the regular classes if not my previous honors class or why I was not practicing the skills if it was a matter of speed. I was twelve years old at the time and I can't recall my exact words, there is a good chance it was not articulated that well however this exchange somehow ended up with me speaking to the teacher who taught the honors class I was transferred from. I brought up these matters to her and while she agreed with me, she explained the decision was not made by her. The administration did not share with her why I was transferred out. I suppose it didn't sit right with her either because she ended up contacting my parents and eventually, after a lot of belligerence, the administration explained that I was not performing well in the honors class and they felt it was their duty to place me in a class where I could do better. This was perhaps the first time I was truly morally appalled by the adults around me; this was a complete injustice to those students rightfully categorized as special needs, it was injustice against the school's credibility to place me someplace where I could do well just to embellish their statistics, and it was an injustice against me for robbing me of a proper education. It just so happened that I was one of several students in this situation and parents, the PTA, and the teachers of the classes whom they were removed from all became involved. This was allegedly a "pilot program" and was terminated after two months after which I returned to my original class. My shortcomings were properly addressed by my teacher and I graduated a straight A student despite my poor first quarter performance and being set back by being transferred. I was far too young to fathom the broader implications of what happened.
In this video James Damore discusses a memo he has written and the consequences of attempting to better understand the practices in use at Google and questioning their effectiveness and ethics. His memo can be found on the internet but may get taken down in any given place for censorship reasons and political motives. At the time writing the following is a working link: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf. The memo collects his thoughts on the current research of personality and trait distributions that can be observed between men and women. It presents plausible, nonbiased reasons for why the gender pay gap may not be a completely accurate model to represent the observations that it is composed of. His reason for making the memo was not to take a stance on any one side of the issue but to fully and properly express what he understood and extrapolated from the bulletproof and current research on personality. The validity of the research is further reinforced by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson who goes as far as to provide a sample of relevant research and literature as references in the video description.
Due to the actions taken against him, James Damore was made into a whistleblower. He reports on Google's potentially illegal practices that give unfair and invalid advantages to applicants who satisfy diversity initiatives. Personally, I do not believe in white privilege. If I did, I do not think I would support the solution to engage in discriminating practices counter to the discrimination I perceived. Two wrongs do not make a right. Google instead chose to fire him, an action the CEO said he does not regret, and proceeded to initiate a smear campaign on the engineer going as far as to call his document an "Anti Diversity Memo" or "The Google Manifesto" so as to lump him in with the likes of bigots and school shooters (more on this in the closing notes). To say he does not regret the firing of an employee that has no questionable behavioral or personality indicators in his past, is not politically motivated, and has an outstanding performance record makes it seem that Google wished to silence him so that no part of the significant internal support he received would speak out. An observation articulated in the video stood out to me in particular. It seems radical feminists are pointing out an under representation of women exclusively in high paying jobs. This builds a stronger case, if only anecdotally at the moment, that at least some of them may be engaged in identity grifting.
The relevant research on personality is also discussed in a very elegant and simple way and I highly recommend listening to the whole conversation if you want a clear example of how to apply thinking about these topics in a valid context. The events surrounding this memo is a very clear example of how certain powers seem to be suppressing free speech to the detriment of society; if we do not properly understand the research then we won't be able to properly address the issues that surround them nor come up with valid solutions. Despite being grounded in peer reviewed, well established research which has been well documented by qualified individuals even bringing up these questions will get you immediately labeled a bigot by means of stereotyping and shaming. Thinly veiled re-education camps conducted in an echo chamber serves no one; punitive action taken to silence opposition is not the same thing as discourse for the intention to dispel misinformation. I do not think Google had any such intention to begin with given that no attempt to challenge the credibility or validity of the research was made.
Lindsay Shepherd was a teaching assistant who was reprimanded for playing a clip that originated from Canadian public broadcasting of Jordan B. Peterson in a debate about language use and linguistic legislation. Her professor, faculty and administration, and the university where she studied and taught lambasted her very publicly and hostilely for allegedly contributing to an atmosphere of violence on the school campus and over causing harm to students. Both of these allegations made against her were entirely made up, no record of a formal complaint or informal concerns surfaced upon investigation. Furthermore, statements were made by the accusing parties later admitting to falsely accusing her. The transcript of the exchange that took place between her and the accusing parties are found here: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video. The part that most alarmed me was when she was explicitly told that it was her neutrality that was problematic. This to me is a formal and explicit acknowledgement that the alt-left does not want to educate students but indoctrinate them, they wish to remove the agency of individuals. They have no interest in academic or due process. They are hungry for power, money, and status. They wish to silence the opposition instead of presenting their own opposing viewpoint validly; currently they do this by hijacking and invoking the voice of transpeople despite not being representative of them or involved with them other than the occasional name drop for virtue signaling purposes.
Lindsay has since moved on to make her own YouTube channel and founded the website: https://www.identitygrifting.ca/p/about.html. She offers possible insight onto the motivation of a subset of the alt-left using the term she coined, identity grifter, which I briefly defined above but a more proper definition can be found at the link to the about page of her website. The website itself is an excellent resource as a database. What happened to her is another example of empty diversity initiatives, especially when legislatively backed or government enforced and required, rob students of a proper education.
Some ending notes:
Making free speech a partisan issue is in absolutely no one's best interest. I'd like to draw an allegory to the 2016 US presidential election with the following question: did Donald Trump win or did Hillary Clinton lose? There were former democrats and their representatives who do not align with the US Republican Party whatsoever yet still chose to vote "not Hillary" for lack of a better phrase. Free speech is much more divisive than any of the policies that election was over; what kind of leaders are people willing to stomach if it means keeping free speech? I would argue they would stomach any leader because free speech is paramount to any means of removing them from power. The election that loses free speech will be the last valid election, possibly the last election, carried out unless drastic measures are taken by its participants afterwards.
I'd like to draw attention to the language choice and tactics used by the alt-left. Earlier I noted the labeling of James Damore's document as a manifesto. While it is a loose connection, it is not obvious to me that he made that distinction. I think we should all keep an eye out for similar events and see if that is in fact what is happening. I don't think it is completely out of the realm of possibility. At the moment the alt-left has co-opted the voice of transpeople. I don't think it is in the interest of any transperson to be associated with people whose goal is to butcher language as it makes their problems much harder to articulate and therefore navigate. Similar social phenomena have been observed in the past. HAES (Healthy at every size) movements have hijacked who the movement was originally for; the movement originated as a means for people to feel empowerment and love for themselves so as to motivate them to improve their health and well being. It is now being used as a celebration of obesity to the point where the former is a minority voice within the movement if not considered separate at this point.
This is not the first time something like was done by the alt-left. Around 2013 to 2014, anti-conservative sentiment was at a peak. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Alex Jones became the faces of extreme conservative views in the United States. It was at this time the extreme left wing, the precursor to the alt-left, began to associate themselves with environmentalism, pro-LGBT+ movements, and the proper representation of minorities even though there were many more central politicians on both sides of the political spectrum who had those views as well. As far as I can tell, this is when the polarization of partisan participation became relevant to the current generation of young adults. It was at this time when the loud voices of the extremes on either side began to associate themselves or define the side of the political spectrum they originated from. The alt-left co-opted the voice of liberal politics around this time.
They say diversity but their ideology is uniform. They created a face for the enemy, the so called white patriarchy. But would it not be just as pro-diversity to campaign for white males to seek jobs in other parts of the world outside of the western hemisphere such as Africa or China? If they are fighting for the inclusion of women then why are they not enforcing quotas and bureaucratic positions in low status jobs even outside of the labour domain? More so, simply claiming membership into a group does not make an individual its representative, this implies that the entire group is homogeneous. What is more bigoted than to assume every member of an ethnicity or sexual orientation are "all the same" so much so that any member of the group is a valid representative of it? The individual is a better representation of identity than group membership. The group can be infinitely more and more specific. But it can also be made infinitely more broad. Consider the growing list of letters being added to the LGBT acronym. If the group you are a member becomes more and more specific what are the upper and lower limits of this? The upper limit eventually approaches a group so specific that membership becomes exclusive to one individual. That individual is entitled to representation just like a member of any other group. As the group we are a part of becomes less specific, the resolution to which the individual and their experiences can be examined diminishes removing the nuances of life. How can we address conflict without being able to articulate it? Our problems are not all the same and we are all entitled to resolving them justly and within reason. Of course we share more in common than what distinguishes us, but resolving those differences is not the same as erasing those differences. That would erase our identities.
The butchering of language as a means to subvert and undermine the opposition is a very finely constructed tactic. The alt-left continues to use language to invoke, deceptively, an appearance of academic and moral superiority. The so called Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, with no real analysis or at a superficial glance, sounds like it would be a perfectly fine institution. Except it is rife with the undermining of due process by tilting biases. The cookie cutter words and phrases such as unpack, marginalized, under-represented, disproportionately affected are being used to blindside those of us who are more trusting and compassionate because it hides their lack of academic credibility. The strategy is two-fold. They are also succeeding in turning the language needed by their opposition into dog whistles for bigotry. This idea that if you are a champion of free speech or free inquiry you are doing so because you want to say things that are racist or homophobic is preposterous. It is a bait tactic best surmised by the question they ask, "Why does it matter what kind of language is being enforced if you were not going to say anything negative anyway?"
The final video was made to address the events surrounding Lindsay Shepherd but it does an excellent job of expressing some more closing sentiments outside the scope of this post and regarding how all of these examples come together.