I described the incident in a previous blog
 |
| Photo by Robin Dawes |
Unfortunately, this is not simply the actions of a single over-zealous director of security. It is Queen's administration and faculty who have poisoned the
academic environment, actively promoted fear of male students, and intimidated students into submission to ideological feminism.
In March, Queen's feminists began a fierce and relentless campaign to intimidate and silence all views not sanctioned by campus feminists, starting with an attempt de-ratify the newly formed Men's Issues Awareness Society (MIAS). The de-ratification was intended to block a lecture by University of Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo, a self-described former radical feminist who has become one of Canada's most well-known critics of feminism.
Queen's feminists were undeterred by their failed de-ratification attempt and the public Facebook event page became the new forum for calls to action against so-called Men's Rights Advocates (MRA). Corinne Michele (aka Coeur Michele), a particularly prolific contributor to the page, claimed to have the support of Kingston MP Ted Hsu, but Hsu's office denied any involvement. Michele, who also claims to have written to principal Daniel Woolf, urged other's to contact her personally about "things we can do ... to disband this all."
D'Entremont initially insinuated on Facebook that the incident was due to her feminist activism. The Queen's Journal immediately reported on the incident, lending credibility to the suggestion that the assault was linked to Men's Rights activism on campus by writing that D'Entremont "has been actively involved in an opposition to tonight’s Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) talk. She claims to have received multiple threatening emails related to her involvement prior to the incident."
No evidence linking the assault to MRAs has surfaced, yet feminist activists at both Queen's and the University of Ottawa presented the allegation as fact and proceeded to ratchet-up anger and opposition to MRA's, and to professor Fiamengo.
Not to be left out, a Queen's professor also immediately used this assault as a mechanism to censor Fiamengo, even suggesting that students would be assaulted by MRA's if they attended the event. The professor urged students not to attend the event in order to "avoid assault" said Queen's Journal in a tweet. The dishonesty and opportunistic dirty tactics would be shameful from anyone, but it is much worse coming from a figure of authority at Queen's who clearly sought to sabotage Fiamengo's lecture and poison the academic environment.
You might think it was just one professor promoting hatred of Dr. Fiamengo and irrational fear of male students. Not so fast. Over 80 faculty members at Queen's University quickly drafted, signed, and published a letter declaring their unqualified support and solidarity with campus feminists against any and all critics of feminist thought, including other Queen's students. These professors, too, made sure to include a vague association between criticism of feminism on campus and the recent assault of D'Entremont ... evidence was not required by any of these professors.
The blog "Gender Focus" published the letter and also made sure to emphasize that the letter was "released after the attack on student Danielle D’Entremont, a feminist activist who had been involved in protesting men’s rights activism on campus."
As if the intellectual dishonesty isn't bad enough, can you imagine the threat that this represents to any Queen's student who dared question feminist orthodoxy in the past, or who might have questions now? This letter comes from the very professors who hold the keys to those student's future, and I have met several students who are afraid to speak openly for fear of reprisal from feminists. The message is crystal clear: if you want to have an enjoyable university experience, graduate, or hope to get a recommendation, you better learn to recite your feminist catechism.
Queen's University has embraced feminist theory not only as it's preferred interpretation of culture, but as a sacred world view that cannot be criticized. With this letter, which includes unqualified support for feminist activism, these professors have endorsed the violent and totalitarian behavior that was used by feminist activists during their attempts to silence the voices of Dr. Warren Farrell, Dr. Paul Nathanson, Dr. Katherine Young, and Dr. Janice Fiamengo.
Queen's has created an environment that is toxic to intellectual inquiry and hazardous to both male and female independent thinkers, as well as quiet observers. I stood quietly at a public event, and security ordered me removed from the building, so it is no longer enough to be silent. To avoid discrimination at Queen's, you must enthusiastically support feminism, like your professors did in their open letter of support to feminists. And make no mistake ... that letter sends such a strong message to any student harboring doubts about feminism that it qualifies as a threat to their chances at good grades.
This is feminism. This is oppression. This is Queen's University.
This cannot be tolerated in a free society.
...................................................................................................................
If you are concerned about discrimination at Queen's, you can email the Rector at rector@queensu.ca and the Chancellor at chancellor.dodge@queensu.ca
My unanswered email to the Queen's Rector and Chancellor:
DISCRIMINATION AT QUEEN'S
Please respond to the following incident involving your director of security which occurred at 116 Barrie street, Kingston, on the evening of April 8, 2014. A description of the incident is provided in this link: http://blog.studiobrule.com/2014/04/old-guys-are-not-welcome-at-queens.html
Here are a few of the questions I would like answered:
- Why did Queen's University enforce discrimination against me, a former Queen's student, at the request of one of it's current students?
- Have you targeted any other journalists, students, former students, citizens, or organizations for special restrictions with respect to which public events they are permitted to attend on Queen's University campus?
- Which of your policies was used to discriminate against me?
- Why am I, a former Queen's student, no longer welcome on Queen's Campus?
- Have you targeted any other journalists, students, citizens, or organizations for special restrictions with respect to what, when, or where they are permitted to film or photograph on Queen's University campus?
- Do you endorse discrimination against older students?
- Which activist groups are permitted on your campus?
- Which activist groups are prohibited from your campus?
- Which journalists and news organization are permitted on your campus?
- Which journalists and news organizations are prohibited from your campus?
- Has security been instructed by the security director or any other Queen's University representative to limit my ability to film or photograph on Queen's campus?
- Has security been instructed by the security director or any other Queen's University representative to require me to carry my press pass if I attempt film or photograph on Queen's campus?
- Has Queen's University placed any of these restrictions or demands upon any other individual or news organization?
- Why did the security director single me out for this special treatment?
- Has security singled out any other student, former student, activist, or group for special discriminatory treatment?
- Which students or student groups at Queen's have the authority to direct security to take discriminatory action without evidence against other students, former students, or citizens on Queen's campus?
Please do not ignore my concerns,
Sincerely,
Steve Brule, former Queen's student, identified to Queen's security as "whatshisface old guy" and subjected to the enforced order to "get his ass out of there."Readers: Do you think these are reasonable questions given the nature of the incident? Do you think the university should respond to this?
No comments:
Post a Comment