An immigrant _tenured_ professor in Canada got suspended for saying that Canada is not racist on her blog. Was she being a dick? Does she deserve the “consequences”?
At what point do we stop saying “oh these are isolated incidents and not a trend”?
That being said, I do think that there are circumstances in which being "canceled" might not be warranted. I have not heard of the case you are referencing specifically until just now. I read the article and found the prof on RateMyProfessor and overall they do not seem like a shitty person, however I would still like to read the "confidential" report the school conducted even though that is probably not possible as that might change my opinion. Also I am not Canadian and most of the Canadians I know/have experiences with do not outright strike me as racist. Of course current trends I have seen in both the US and Canada have lead me to rethink that people/areas are not inherently free of racial prejudice and if Canada has a somewhat similar history to the US, there is most certainly a bit of racism.
I digress, I think canceling can be a problem for situations like the one you referenced and I do not want to undersell how shitty it can be for someone who is on the wrong end of it. In some cases in may be warranted if the proper mechanism for fairness or recourse are not working. I guess it just kind of depends.
Supporting the idea that you (individual, organization, country, whatever) are not racist makes it convenient to ignore efforts to combat racism ("why should we combat racism when there isn't any") which should be universally supported.
So yeah she was being a dick. As a representative of Mount Allison, they decided her behaviour was problematic, which they are in the right to do. Just because you're a powerful person with a fancy title doesn't make you immune from consequences of shitty behaviour.
Do you not find it ironic that an immigrant non-white professor is being criticized by mostly white Canadians for her views and different experiences? Actually yeah maybe Canada is racist after all.
I'm guessing you didn't grow up in Canada. There's a whole Wikipedia article on the topic[0], some of which is covered during the common Canadian education. Other examples are commonplace knowledge. In particular, Aboriginal peoples have generally been treated quite poorly throughout Canada's history. This is further evidenced by the recent headlines, if you don't live under a rock.
I do have experiences in other countries to compare with, but I am not interested in comparisons, and I really don't know what that matters. I don't know any of that has to do with my statements.
> Nowhere is perfect, but allow me to say that Canada (and even the US for that matter) are vastly less racist compared to many places.
Sure, Canada (and the USA) might be "less racist" compared to other places but that doesn't really mean anything. I think very highly of Canada compared to my experiences in the rest of the world, and I'd like to add I did not feel this way until after experiencing other parts of the world. The more I experienced elsewhere, the more I appreciate how good Canadians have it.
But that doesn't mean it's a bastion of equality and its people without prejudices. We can always do better.
Let me offer an analogy. You might think that some aspects of the Canadian government are corrupt, while I on the other hand would grant that there might be some issues but would emphatically agree that “Canada is NOT a corrupt country”. Would you still say something like: “Supporting the idea that you (individual, organization, country, whatever) are not corrupt makes it convenient to ignore efforts to combat corruption ("why should we combat corruption when there isn't any") which should be universally supported.”? Would you still agree that it’s right to cancel someone over saying that “Canada is NOT corrupt”?
Because I see very little difference between the two situations.
