As part of a series of video presentations dealing with academic freedom and freedom of speech we present Dr. Mark Mercer, President of The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.
Dr. Mercer introduces SAFS, its mission, beliefs, and goals, and follows with “Honest rudeness or insincere civility.”
He is the first of four presenters at the Annual General Meeting of SAFS which took place at the University of Western Ontario on May 5, 2018.
Once again Just Right was privileged to be able to record the presentations at the Annual General Meeting of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS).
Gad Saad, Professor of Marketing and Conordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioural Science and Darwinian Consumption and host of The Saad Truth on Youtube was the keynote speaker at this year’s AGM.
His presentation introduces a number of novel concepts adding to our understanding of the threats posed to academic freedom and freedom of speech. These concepts include: idea pathogens, collective Munchausen by proxy, and nomological networks of cumulative experience.
“Idea pathogens are pathogens of the human mind, pathogens of the human spirit that regrettably could potentially be as dangerous as biological pathogens.
“Radical feminism, post-modernism, social constructivism, cultural and moral relativism, political correctness, echo chambers void of intellectual diversity, the culture of perpetual offensive victimhood, identity politics coupled with progressive self flagellation. Each of these are really really dangerous idea pathogens.”
Dr. Saad’s presentation was followed by a lively discussion and question period with the members of SAFS.
What do ‘affirmative consent,’ ‘indigenous knowledge,’ and the trial of Bill Cosby have in common? In addition to being our discussion topics of the day, each controversy revolves around an epistemological war of words.
It’s a battle of definitions, as efforts to change or affect the social and political environment stretch beyond the political sphere. From the world of TV fantasy, monsters, and superheroes, to the real world that sometimes seems more unreal than the fantasies, the promotion of anti-concepts like ‘affirmative consent’ has already produced a host of real world injustices, not the least of which have been those directed at Bill Cosby.
Just as ‘social justice’ is not justice, so too, ‘affirmative consent’ is not consent.
And so too ‘indigenous knowledge’ is not ‘knowledge,’ particularly in the context of being used as an argument that ‘scientific knowledge is offensive.’ Nor are ‘indigenous’ rights true rights accorded to the individual. Yet these are the very things being asserted by Quebec’s indigenous leaders, at least two Quebec cabinet ministers, and several university law professors. Continue reading »
Even though there was never any cited complaint or concern expressed, the Toronto District School Board last October declared the word ‘chief’ as being an offensive term directed against aboriginal peoples.
“The word ‘chief’ is the world’s worst slur ever,” sarcastically jokes Danielle in this conversation with Robert Vaughan. After all, “the word means ‘leader’ – someone of honor – like the Commander in Chief of the United States!”
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised that at a time when Donald Trump is Commander in Chief of the US military, that the term ‘chief’ should come under attack. It is precisely because it is meant as a term of honor and recognition, that the word is being expunged from the Toronto District School Board’s lexicon of acceptable terms.
One word at a time, the social engineers of the Left are destroying the essential principles of epistemology and the objective meaning of words and concepts.
“It’s a slow process calculated to erode our ability to think,” warns Danielle.
It so doing, the steady drip of irrationality becomes the means of wearing down our ability to resist all of the chiefs at the Toronto District School Board and in government.
There can no longer be any doubt that “the chief concern” of those manipulating language through prohibition is to prevent objective and rational thought. After all, only in this way is it possible to prevent the possibility of thinking – or acting – in a way that is Just Right.
At what point does it become necessary to actually “know” things about certain issues or topics? When is it ok just to leave the details to the “experts“? It’s a practical question that is fundamentally based on individual responsibility.
It is also a question that has bedeviled Professor Christopher Essex, theoretical physicist and mathematician with the Department of Applied Mathematics at Western University. As one of the pioneers of climate change computer modeling, his skepticism about the political climate that has arisen around this field of study has fallen mostly on deaf ears.
Understandably, when it comes to the details of science and technology, most people will defer to the experts. But there comes a point when leaving it to the experts may in fact be quite detrimental to those affected.
Having reached the point at which the responsibility to know falls squarely on those who need to know, a decision must be made. Shall we continue to rely on opinions and “expertise” that does not seem to be consistent or realistic, or shall we finally take the leap from the ledge of ignorance and embrace the technicalities of knowledge? Continue reading »
