Catching up with the Lindsay Shepherd (academic freedom) case

     Are you familiar with the Lindsay Shepherd (academic freedom) controversy? It concerns the PC—i.e., intolerant—tendencies of leftism in the Academy. More specifically, at a Canadian University last November, a leftist leaning TA, Lindsay Shepherd, was accused by administrators of all manner of insensitivity, including transphobia, simply because she showed students 5 minutes of a videoed debate over pronoun use, including a scholar who rejects familiar campus ideologies that seek to shut down and exclude the expression of politically incorrect views, etc..
     Let's just say "no" to that sort of thing.*

University Clears TA Who Was Interrogated; Inside Higher Ed
By Scott Jaschik, December 19, 2017

     Wilfrid Laurier University has formally cleared a teaching assistant of doing anything improper in using a debate video in class that set off a major dispute about academic freedom in Canada. The video debate was about the use of nontraditional pronouns by some transgender people. The teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd, didn't endorse a position in the debate, but she was interrogated by superiors who suggested she violated university antibias rules by showing the debate video. When a recording of her grilling became public, many became outraged by what they saw as a violation of Shepherd's academic freedom -- and the university announced an inquiry into what happened.
     On Monday, Deborah MacLatchy, president and vice chancellor of the university, announced the results of that investigation, completely clearing Shepherd and raising questions about the conduct of those who questioned her.
     "There was no wrongdoing on the part of Ms. Shepherd in showing the clip … Showing [the] clip for the purposes of an academic discussion is a reasonable classroom teaching tool," said MacLatchy's summery of the investigation. Further, MacLatchy said, "it has been made clear to those who were involved in the meeting with Ms. Shepherd that their conduct does not meet the high standards I set for staff and faculty."

     Here's a video that might be helpful (though I do find Mr. Rubin annoying):

*Yes, yes, I know—who am I to object to this kind of Leftist bullying given my involvement in the "dump Frogue" movement back in the late 1990s? Well, I do believe I've long been on record as regretting some aspects of that movement. Mr. Frogue's views are as offensive to me today as they were twenty years ago, but I do think we should have allowed his infamous "forum" and then promoted a subsequent forum as a corrective. Natch, those who promoted Mr. Frogue—the faculty union and its leadership, some of whom are still active with that organization—are in no sense vindicated by that change in my view. That our union promoted Neanderthals as trustees simply to secure advantages in contract negotiations remains spectacularly discreditable.
     When the district came after me, owing to my/our criticisms of the union, the board, and some administrators, in Dissent, team SOCCCD chose to appeal to the district's anti-discrimination and anti-violence-in-the-workplace policies. According to the district, by calling Raghu "Mr. Goo," I was alluding to "gooks." By depicting Frogue, in a graphic, as crashing in a Nazi fighter, I was exhibiting my "obsession with weaponry." Etc.
     Yes, I know how it feels to be falsely accused of serious wrongs by one's college. It really sucks. (See Roy Bauer's 1st Amendment Battles)

From today's New York Times: