Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Face-Off: Marc Emery and Gerry Nicholls debate what the best way to get liberty is | Main | More on health and safety »

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Indoctrinate U

Feminist equity activist Donna Greschner, who once served as chief commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, has (as of July 1) become Dean of Law at the University of Victoria.

Greschner is an NDP supporter, an advocate of same-sex marriage (and here too), and believes the Charter can and should be used to advance affirmative-action programs for women.

All in all, a perfect selection for the job of ensuring that our young lawyers of tomorrow receive the correct sort of education in their impressionable years.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 22, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553b10fc28833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Indoctrinate U:

Comments

See, this is a good post. The reluctance of the libertarians here to take on the feminist lobby and the radical gay lobby is glaringly obvious. Johnston's dicking around with $25 million dollar grants - while Canada's high tech sector and $1.5 trillion economy in general is failing due to Employment Equity.

Know why the gun registry - basically a database application - cost $2 billion? Because it was run by a woman with zero technical expertise who got bamboozled by the suppliers. Politically incorrect to say, I know, but it's true.

70% of graduating lawyers are female in some parts of this country. And yet the data shows that they tend to leave the profession, that they can't cut it in the private sector, and often take non-lawyer jobs.

Can't call yourself a libertarian if you give a wink and a nod to the Donna Greschners of the world who use the state's coercive powers to ruin Canada.

Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-22 12:04:27 PM


"Greschner is an NDP supporter, an advocate of same-sex marriage (and here too), and believes the Charter can and should be used to advance affirmative-action programs for women."

Which means she believes in discrimination. The math is simple, and proves this.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 12:14:31 PM


She will be just what the NDP is looking for to run in the next provincial election.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-22 12:24:11 PM


Mocker wrote: "70% of graduating lawyers are female in some parts of this country. And yet the data shows that they tend to leave the profession, that they can't cut it in the private sector, and often take non-lawyer jobs."

Mocker, I suspect motherhood is a factor in some women leaving the profession, whatever the actual numbers are. In which case they are leaving the profession by their own choice.

Since it will likely always be that more women than men will leave the workforce to be stay-at-home parents, affirmative action is even more obsurd.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 1:05:59 PM


"I suspect motherhood is a factor in some women leaving the profession"

Really? Women have children? Wow, what a fountain of wisdom you are. *GROAN* What a weak retort.

It's becoming very tempting to open my own blog and maybe find some publishers because it's pretty clear I am *by far* the best writer and best analyst in this country.

The gap between me and the mortals is getting to be a little too obvious to ignore. I'm serious: you people are awful at...well, everything. Reasoning, knowledge, argumentation, everything.

Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-22 1:29:42 PM


I agree it's a good post, Mocker.

But do you have something other than, "this is the axe I want to grind, therefore everyone must want to grind this same axe" for an argument?

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 1:29:58 PM


Your last comment is pretty amusing, Mocker. Especially considering that you a) try to debate libertarians without knowing what a libertarian is, b) are incapable of grasping the relationship between premises and conclusions, c) offer no arguments and, d) think that an appeal to your personal fancies counts as an argument.

But please, start a blog. Provide your insightful commentary. We'll let the market decide.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 1:33:06 PM


Mocker, I suspect your manners are better in person.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 2:08:39 PM


Let's just say others benefit from the state's monopoly on violence a hell of a lot more than I do.

Manners, eh? Do you think one adult informing another adult that babies come from women is an example of good manners?

I don't. I think it's a deliberate attempt by a Gamma to try to talk down to one of his betters, an act of hostility. Same thing Jaws is doing; I was studying political science when he was dropping deuces in his huggies, and yet he feels the need to tell me what's what.

Peter: you've been blogging for three years now and you are still a nobody. No one has ever said "hey, didja see Jaws' latest post? It's killer." You're mediocre, and a bit of a joke, at least among us adults whose school days are far behind us.

Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-22 2:36:56 PM


Mocked says, "See, this is a good post. The reluctance of the libertarians here to take on the feminist lobby... is glaringly obvious."

Uummm, excuse me?

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-22 2:40:54 PM


When I was an undergrad, gym class used to be the university department everyone made fun of. During my doctoral years, english departments were vilified for their lack of rigor and for sticking their noses into everyone else's business. When I lectured at the University of Lethbridge, the education departments had become known as the weak sisters. Philosophy departments were always largely flakey, but even they sunk to new depths in the 1990s. Now the law faculties have become bottom feeders, too. I despair.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-22 2:49:08 PM


"Peter: you've been blogging for three years now and you are still a nobody. No one has ever said "hey, didja see Jaws' latest post? It's killer." You're mediocre, and a bit of a joke, at least among us adults whose school days are far behind us."

Ouch.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 3:05:31 PM


Mocker said: "Know why the gun registry - basically a database application - cost $2 billion?"

Well... part of the reason is those 500 or so false applications I sent in under the names of dead guys and pets. .... just kidding. :-)

Posted by: Tom | 2008-07-22 3:06:13 PM


Separately: Could you point me to your body of work, Mocker? I want to see what I should be aspiring to.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-22 3:08:25 PM


Education Departments of Universities are havens for Socialism. In a word, Cesspools. We should all despair.
It didn't happen overnight, it was a gradual erosion. Anyone want to bet some of the tenured Professors are not even friends of Canada?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-07-22 3:11:10 PM


LizJ, I agree with you on that.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 3:28:27 PM


"Could you point me to your body of work, Mocker?"

I live in a country - Canada - where a man recently spent 9 months in jail because he criticized multiculturalism on the internet.

I am a critic of multiculturalism, among other sacred cows. Do you think it would be clever of me to create a body of work under these circumstances? Of course not. I've read my Sun Tzu; formlessness is better. You, as a politically correct individual, don't have these concerns, as you choose "safe" topics to broach.

I do have to say that the tide appears to be turning in favour of free speech, to the point where I am considering publishing, and under my own name. An additional factor is that the quality of political writing in Canada is so bad that as a matter of intellectual arbitrage I'm damned near compelled to jump in. If that happens, I'll let you know.

Posted by: Mocker | 2008-07-22 3:53:11 PM


Mocker

"I do have to say that the tide appears to be turning in favour of free speech, to the point where I am considering publishing, and under my own name. "

I was considering reading your writings until I realized from the above comment that you had no real idea of the extent of the real threat.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-22 4:23:57 PM


Has anyone thought that some of these professors, regardless of their personal politics, just might be competent professionals? One of my profs had diametrically opposed views to mine, yet he taught me extremely well. I credit much of my current success to his instruction - which he modestly denies. Think about it.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-22 4:36:55 PM


ZP, I would agree with you. However, I also firmly believe that some are active, politically, on campus. And they sure seems to be drifting more and more to the left.

Posted by: TM | 2008-07-22 5:01:05 PM


Women are perfectly capable of doing well in the professions. Examples abound. And that's a good thing as long as being born male doesn't become the new original sin.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-07-22 10:56:20 PM


Mocker....This should be a forum for debate, not insults. We all understand that intellectually you are just under god and moving up fast but your intolerance of other opinions does not enlighten anyone.Costs nothing to be nice.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-23 12:44:19 AM


"Has anyone thought that some of these professors, regardless of their personal politics, just might be competent professionals? One of my profs had diametrically opposed views to mine, yet he taught me extremely well. I credit much of my current success to his instruction - which he modestly denies. Think about it."

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 22-Jul-08 4:36:55 PM


Piker: Yes, it has occurred to me. My DPhil thesis supervisor at Oxford was Jerry Cohen, a famously brilliant Marxist. I deliberately seek out intelligent people of opposite persuasion to provide feedback on my work, because that is where the truest test is likely to come from. However, there are very few Jerry Cohen-s in the academic world these days, and the proportion seems to be falling every decade. The problem is that so many departments now have political and biological litmus tests when hiring: it doesn't matter how dense you are, as long as your political views and genetics are the right kind. At this point, we have run up against Gresham's Law -- the bad currency has driven out the good.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-23 1:42:58 AM


Feminists went extinct twenty-five years ago, the last ones were eaten by socialists.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-07-23 9:54:58 AM


No shock here! It seems that every time I read about Canada , I hear about another social leftist triumph. Either a leftist judge has been appointed, a leftist has put in charge of an education institution, the courts have handed down a left-leaning decision, or the left has won another parlimentary debate(gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, gun registry). Do social conservatives ever win up there? It seems that conservative triumphs have been limited to the economic arena. Are there no influential conservative talk radio hosts(I don't feel roy greene counts as a true conservative with anti-death penalty and pro-gay rights positions)? Are most so-called centre-right politicians simply of the red tory mode(Mulroney, Clark, Diefenbaker, Davis, Stansfield,Stelmach, etc). You know fiscal moderates and social liberals. Are there no influential conservative newspapers or cable channels?

Posted by: James McKinley | 2008-07-23 8:11:26 PM


James........sadly, none.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-23 11:01:40 PM


As if we needed any more confirmation that Canada's legal profession is populated by morally and ethically post-modern relativist bottom-feeders.

Posted by: Blunt But true | 2008-07-24 5:13:34 AM


The situation in Canada is virtually hopeless. Since 1935, the center right parties have only twice(1958 and 1984) won over 50% of the vote. It appears that there are virtually no hardcore conservative papers or television programming.The only canadian conservative talk show host I ever heard of was some guy called Sterling Fox who used to work out of some Vancouver station(CKMW I think). The leftist bias even extends to many of their television shows. I get the following Canadian shows on cable(Corner Gas, Degrassi High, DaVinci's Inquest, Life with Derek(Disney Channel)and Cold Squad. Corner Gas is the only one that doesn't seem to have a leftist bias. Is Brett Butt a conservative? I watched the original Degrassi High(on PBS) when I was a kid in New Jersey. This new version is far more graphic with its constant depictions of gay relationships and cracks made at Christians and abstitence. My kids will not be watching any more of that show. The main character in Davinci's Inquest is a supporter of drug and prostitution legalization. Any characters with opposing viewpoints are made to look like idiots. The main character seems to adopt the NDP position for virtually every other political issue. Cold Squad is a wonderfully put together show that also can't stifle the leftist bias. In the episodes that I recently watched, I was told that gun rights advocates are gun nuts. Also, I was told that it was incorrect to call your wife or girlfriend babe. Finally, I was told the death penalty was wrong. Last, I watched two episodes of this show Life with Derek with my kids. In the show, the oldest kid is obnoxious and the parents seem unable to lay down punishments. Furthermore, the mother's decision to quit work and stay home was mocked as a throwback to the dinosaur era of the 1950's. Gee, I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving women choices(whether to work in or out of the home). So, there is obvious bias in some Canadian television and over time I bet it probably has a corrupting influence on the Canadian public.

Posted by: jerry | 2008-07-24 9:32:37 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.