DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is never what it seems it should be. Dr. Jordan Peterson, Canadian professor at the University of Toronto and practicing clinical psychologist has become the poster child for daring to challenge DEI nonsense. He has been punished for the good deeds of defending truth and freedom of speech. He is cogent and easy to understand, but elicits responses which further highlight the failure of DEI.
The Debate in 2017
Dr. Peterson first embroiled himself in public debate following a 2017 Canadian law which attempts to regulate speech. Specifically, the Canadian law includes “gender identity” as a protected group and then attempts to limit speech deemed offensive to this protected group. Objecting to “gender identity” was deemed problematic. The use of “preferred pronouns” is now written into Canadian law.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained
It [gender identity] was added to a section of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Dr. Peterson stated numerous objections:
“I am opposed to legislation which determines what words myself and others are required to utter . . . because I do not believe that other people have the right to determine what language I use, especially when it is back by punitive legislation . . . when the words being used are artificial constructions of people I regard as radical ideologues whose viewpoint I do not share . . . it is a very dangerous precedent . . . to demand that people use certain words when formulating their own ideas . . . the law is bad from an ethical perspective . . . and the solution it proposes is practically untenable”
Canadian legal experts at the time admitted the law might indeed be used to criminalize a failure to speak preferred pronouns.
“Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.” “
The possibility of such criminalization itself seems surreal. Dr. Peterson’s concern is certainly grounded:
If there’s evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, it can be taken into account by the courts during sentencing.
If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?
It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says.
If the person refused to comply with the tribunal’s order, this would result in a contempt proceeding being sent to the Divisional or Federal Court, Brown says. The court could then potentially send a person to jail “until they purge the contempt,” he says.
In the last few years, Dr. Peterson has also become a best-selling author and media figure in conservative circles. He has raised Americans awareness of Canada’s insanity, and we should not doubt this type of law is coming to us soon. Many in US media and politics seek to change the culture by force of law (they cannot change it any other way).
The following is a very informative debate from 2017 between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Pewt, a transgender colleague professor at Toronto University. The discussion further justifies Dr. Peterson’s concerns.
For my analysis, I draw also from a 2019 interview of Dr. Peterson.
The two professors in the first video differ on the most important principle in this debate. Dr. Peterson favors “truth” while his counterpart, Dr. Pewt, emphasizes “kindness”.
Is it kind to entertain another’s notion of truth, one that might not comport with reality? I hope I would do no such thing for my friends. Dr. Peterson challenges Dr. Pewt’s notion that kindness is the ultimate goal of this law, in any case. As we have seen with DEI, the real goal, the unstated goal, is political power. It is reasonable to object to legislation which seeks to force an individual to accept the position of his political opponent. Accept your opponent’s view on preferred pronouns or suffer legal consequences for challenging it?
Dr. Pewt says the following: “when things get political, I like to ask: who benefits and who gets to decide the rules of the game?” Dr. Pewt implies Dr. Peterson is changing the rules agreed upon by the legislature, but the question ought to be asked of the original legislation. Who benefits? The legislation specifically gives transgenders protection they did not have before. Who decides the rules of the game? The legislation itself changes the rules of civil debate and even of ordinary, every day speech in a way that reminds us of dire predictions from Orwell. In 1984, all the unneeded words are expunged and a new language created because there are just too many words which lead too many unnecessary thoughts. At the novel’s end Winston Smith was forced to admit two plus two does not equal four. Ultimately, two plus two equals whatever Big Brother says it equals. Truth is re-defined to mean what one particular side, the side with the most power, believes it should be.
Dr. Peterson is right to emphasize objective truth as the dominant principle (although many today accept the 1984 notion of relative truth, truth which changes depending upon one’s perspective or who is in power). Discovering the truth should be a goal in any civilized discussion. The truth, once uncovered, can enlighten us and alter our points of view. Furthermore, kindness, as Dr. Peterson contends is subjective, not objective, and kindness is often not as effective as delivering the truth. Dr. Peterson notes a harsh wake-up call is often the best approach when disciplining children (this can be extended to adults: those being sentenced for crimes, those not performing well in their jobs, etc.).
Dr. Pewt spoke of “real harm” done to transgenders. He claims Dr. Peterson’s objections themselves have caused harm, a claim based on his own damaged feelings and the feelings of those “within the community”. Dr. Pewt also used an example of being misidentified by his own bank along with the attenuated risk of suicide for transgenders.
Dr. Peterson rightly responded that his failure to use someone’s preferred pronouns has no connection to the societal problems encountered by transgenders: “The idea that referring to someone by the preferred pronoun of choice is going to radically improve their status in society or mental health is a completely unproven assumption.” Certainly, it is a bridge too far to claim Dr. Peterson’s defense of free speech and his objection to being compelled to use certain words leads to an increased suicide risk among transgenders. It is far more accurate to say these problems stem from the fact transgenders are rightly confused by their own lifestyle choices.
Dr. Peterson emphasizes legislation should not compel us to use terms we do not freely choose to speak ourselves. Punishment is for failing to say something, not for actually saying something objectionable. Such linguistic and cultural changes have taken place over the years, but never have they been mandated by law.
Dr. Peterson says he feels uneasy using the terms “ze” or “zim” because he does not know why he is being asked to use them. Is it to respect another’s feelings or is it to compel us to play a silly game and demonstrate power over us? I find this whole requirement ludicrous, in any case. Were there vast societal acceptance of this new convention, I might have no choice but to accept this, but vast numbers of my fellow citizens do not accept it either. It is a powerful few attempting to impose their political agenda on the rest of us. No.
So, how do you address transgender people? Dr Peterson is asked. He says, if you appear to be male, use the term “he” (or “she” as appropriate). It is a simple rule. Personally, I use the gender you were born into–if I am aware of it. I don’t accept the silly notion you are “assigned” a gender at birth. Therefore, I use “he” to refer to Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas. I refuse to play this game at all. I will not subject myself to your power play, if that is what it is. I still have the freedom to label all this as silly and express my own thoughts and ideas.
At the end of the discussion, there is a disagreement over one important fact. Dr. Pewt claims there is no real legislation of pronoun usage, but Dr. Peterson counters that his university is indeed complying with the law by directing professors to use alternate pronouns (the interviewer supports Dr. Peterson’s claim). Dr. Pewt uses legal sophistry to claim Dr. Peterson is imagining things, but he is not. Here is a snippet of the guidance provided:
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns
The guidance clearly states: “‘misgendering’ is a form of discrimination.” There is an example of a tribunal ruling against a policeman who did not use the correct pronouns; it is not even clear if this act was deliberate (although the legislation is a problem, nonetheless). There is far more from the Ontario Human Rights Commission which is equally troublesome.
What is Our Will?
It ought to be fine to offer opinions of contemporary issues, especially one as new and controversial as transgenderism, but Dr. Peterson received too much attention for the comfort of the DEI crowd who believe it is acceptable to punish those with opinions different than their own. The question we ought to ask ourselves is: what is our will? The DEI crowd does whatever it takes to win, even if that means following an immoral path (they have re-defined morality, in any case). Currently, the US First Amendment protects us from such speech laws (Canada does not have this protection), but the DEI power seekers follow any path open to enforce their will. They can be deterred, but only if others are willing to make a fight. Dr. Peterson is standing his ground and taking on the fight for us. Good for him.
Still, there are costs for engaging. In 2022, Peterson was suspended from Twitter, this time for “misgendering”.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/30/jordan-peterson-suspended-twitter-misgendering-trans-actor/
Twitter suspended well-known clinical psychologist and author Jordan Peterson for “misgendering” actor Elliot Page on Wednesday.
The tweet that got Peterson suspended read “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”
There is no justification for removal. The first two contentions are entirely true: pride is indeed sinful, one of the seven deadly sins (the deadliest) in fact, and secondly Ellen Page did indeed have her breasts removed.
The third contention, that a physician willing to do this act for money should be considered criminal, is perfectly legitimate for public discussion; there are many on both sides of the argument. Why not allow this discussion on today’s biggest free speech platform and let the public decide who is right or wrong? Instead, the DEI power seekers would rather win by shutting down debate.
Twitter informed Peterson that his comments violated their rule against hateful conduct, which bars users from “promoting violence” against other people for, among other things, “gender identity.”
There has always been hateful conduct and all manner of craziness tolerated on Twitter throughout its short history. Why single out this particular claim by Dr. Peterson?
Donald Trump has been labeled a Nazi by more than I dare count. None of his accusers were removed from Twitter despite that a vast many of us disagree with this contention. I am glad to engage in the discussion of whether or not Trump is a Nazi because I know many others believe it. However, let them also engage in a discussion of whether or not surgeons enriching themselves via gender surgery are criminals. Such discussions are how problems are solved, agreements are reached, bad ideas discredited, etc.. Simply stating your opponent is wrong and ending the debate prematurely never changes minds. Telling your child to shut up and do what you want because you said so probably didn’t work for you either. If the DEI argument were better, they wouldn’t shut down the public debate. They end debate because it is not a debate after all; it is only about increasing political power.
It is alarming ordinary citizens are punished for not speaking a pronoun in everyday speech. Why has such basic behavior now considered problematic?
Dr. Peterson was also attacked for speaking the truth about another, not-so-discriminated against group: swimsuit models.
https://news.yahoo.com/jordan-peterson-quits-twitter-calling-231218547.html
Jordan Peterson sparked outrage on Monday after tweeting, “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”
Twitter users were divided, with several of his own fans condemning Peterson for publicly insulting a woman’s looks. Others shot back that Nu was overweight and unhealthy.
Twitter users are outraged for saying this overweight woman is not beautiful? Really? It is yet another perversion of the term DEI, this time the perversion of the term “inclusivity”. We are told we are not inclusive because we say all of us do not possess physical beauty. How silly. As Dr. Peterson says, they “demand our tolerance”; they want us to accept their version of reality which fits with their DEI political agenda.
Here is the reality. Men “read” the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue primarily because they want a cheap thrill. We would rather not spend our money and time looking at overweight models or 78-year old Martha Stewart. Sorry, but some women are excluded from the beautiful category. Christianity has a different notion of beauty which is more inclusive and attainable by all, but that is a totally different concept than physical (worldly) beauty. Perhaps it is an unpleasant truth, but we should not be punished for true statements.
Dr. Peterson simply stated what most men believe. Some men may find her beautiful, but most don’t, and we should be allowed to express our own opinions, especially when they are genuine. Truth again is a higher principle than inclusivity.
I would treat this woman well if encountering her in person. If I were a friend, I would tell her she could be a better model and be considered beautiful if she lost a few pounds. She still has her youth after all. Probably, those around her tell something different. She may have a brilliant intellect, be an accomplished musician, or have another amazing talent. That is wonderful if true, but she is rather ordinary when it comes to the characteristics Sports Illustrated highlights.
I should note I wouldn’t comment on this woman’s appearance were she not featured in this manner. I simply object to the attempt to re-define beauty for the rest of us. Furthermore, we have to wonder: why is the truth so dangerous to the DEI crowd?
Still, truth has a way of asserting itself after all. Sports Illustrated believed they could impose their perverted notion of truth by portraying not-so-beautiful models as beautiful. Trying to re-educate their paying customers and changing their once successful operating model to accommodate perverse contemporary notions of DEI have negatively impacted their bottom line. This is why we sometimes provide the harsh truth to our kids.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/media/sports-illustrated-layoffs/index.html
The future of Sports Illustrated was uncertain Friday after the publisher of the iconic magazine and website laid off most or “probably all” of its guild-represented staff, its union said.
Justice prevails? Will they actually learn this lesson or will they continue to label the rest of as non-inclusive bigots and say their own failure is our fault? Probably the latter:
“An unstable global order characterized by polarizing narratives and insecurity, the worsening impacts of extreme weather and economic uncertainty are causing accelerating risks – including misinformation and disinformation – to propagate,” said Saadia Zahidi, Managing Director, World Economic Forum, January 2024
Misinformation and disinformation was the theme at the World Economic Forum this year; it means opinions these folks do not agree with, like those expressed by Dr. Peterson (and concurred with by millions more of us). DEI power seekers certainly have not stopped attacks on Dr. Peterson. A year ago, his own professional association tried to force him to attend social media training (i.e. re-education and indoctrination) or risk losing his medical license to practice.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695
Ontario-court-rules-against-Peterson
Since at least 2018, the governing body of Ontario’s psychologists — of which Peterson has been a registered member since 1999 despite having stopped seeing patients in 2017 — has received complaints regarding Peterson’s online commentary on a range of issues, from gender transition to climate change.
Peterson appealed and lost:
An Ontario court has ruled against controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson, upholding a regulatory body’s order that he undergo social media training or potentially lose his license to practice.
In a decision released Wednesday, three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously sided with the College of Psychologists of Ontario in a case stemming from some of Peterson’s contentious language and online statements.
In January 2024, a second appeal was denied.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-challenge-rejection-1.7086681
Ontario’s highest court has rejected an attempt by controversial psychologist Jordan Peterson to challenge a regulatory body’s order that he undergo social media training or potentially lose his license to practice.
Peterson provided the following response after this latest decision:
“I want the entire current crop of minions at the College of Psychologists to publicly apologize and then resign — en masse,” he said on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
“They want me to undergo re-education, which they know will take up my time and fail in any case, so they can undermine my reputation and take my license away anyway.”
Dr. Peterson is a well educated, articulate individual who raises sound objections to questionable practices, yet since 2017 he has been hounded (and unjustly punished) for his beliefs. This is the legacy of DEI.
The DEI political agenda is not committed to promoting the best, seeking the truth, or helping those they purport to help. DEI promotes its own ideas and elevates those who agree with the politics of DEI–and nothing else. There are no additional side benefits. We must recognize DEI for what it is and fight against it.
We need more to join the fight alongside Dr. Peterson. He has suffered for the cause of Truth and freedom, but has indicated he is still all in. The fight will eventually come to all of us. Will we have the means, the ability, and most importantly the will to resist?
Below is Dr. Peterson’s latest podcast in which he, along with his daughter, explains the years-long drama with the psychology board and the injustice he believes he has suffered. ”I don’t see the crime,” he says. He also explains why he not only did no wrong, but was obligated to speak up as he did. Those in his profession, he says, need the ability to speak up both politically and professionally, but that freedom has been essentially ended by this action.
Update 2/11/24
Matt Walsh obtained more information that ought to again show that DEI is a farce. He was given quite revealing materials from current FAA employees.
One video from an FAA meeting showed executives stating their goal is to reduce the white male footprint in the organization. There are just too damn many white males. Are they reducing safety or causing other problems? They don’t say. DEI’s purported goal is to help less advantaged groups to be better represented. Somehow that has been turned into: “get rid of white males so spots can be filled only by others”. Change the words in this phrase from “white” to “black” or “male” to “female” and our one-channel would have a fit. We should want the best people in the airline industry, no matter their race or gender, but apparently the FAA puts DEI ahead of safety.
Another revelation provided Walsh shows the agency is promoting a “ramp to cockpit” program. Walsh asks: what skills developed as a baggage handler qualifies one to be a pilot? What is the sense of this other than some back door method for diversifying the ranks of pilots? The FAA appears to be endangering public safety to fulfill their DEI goals. As I noted previously: To force every institution to meet the average will lead to more mismatches. In fact, quality is diminished when forcing “equitable” racial proportion across the board.
DEI is a disaster. It must go.
Seek the Truth 
One thought on “DEI: Censorship and Indoctrination”