Laurier’s gendered violence policy must be revised

Dec 3, 2017 by

by Andrew M Robinson, The Star:

As for respecting diversity, under the gendered and sexual violence policy, all views are welcome, so long as they are not all expressed, no matter how reasonably.

The public’s reaction to the treatment of a Wilfrid Laurier University grad student at the hands of two professors and a rep from the university’s Diversity and Equity Office (DEO) has been one of horror and outrage. The resounding opinion was that student, Lindsay Shepherd, was completely in the right when she offered both sides of a debate involving the use of non-gender pronouns.

And while the public has agreed Shepherd was right, she wasn’t. At least not according to a disturbing regulatory policy enforced by my university. In fact, in the meeting where Lindsay was subject to a verbal inquisition, Adria Joel, the DEO rep, cites the policy, known as Laurier’s gendered and sexual violence policy (GSVP) as justification for her claim that Lindsay was guilty of “spreading transphobia.”

Though clearly the hammer used to beat Lindsay into submission, in my university’s official communications with the public on the controversy, mention of the GSVP has been strangely absent.

In her letter of apology to Shepherd, Laurier’s president does not mention this policy. Rather, her apology only concerns the “conversation,” “the way the meeting was conducted,” and some unspecified “processes.” When she could have taken the opportunity to take a strong stand for uncensored free inquiry — what should be the core value of a university — Laurier’s president suggested that she needs a task force to help her understand how Laurier can balance freedom of expression against other values.

While Laurier’s president is avoiding talking about the Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy, I won’t.

The policy has its roots in government legislation. Ontario’s Bill 132, passed in 2016, required universities to have a policy on sexual violence. That law defined “sexual violence” in terms of assault and harassment “targeting a person’s sexuality, gender identity or gender expression.” This is laudable; harassment and assault are wrong (and I condemn in advance anyone who would use this letter as justification for harassing or threatening anyone).

Read here

 

 

 

Related Posts

Tags

Share This