Beyond the Palewall (7)

["Beyond the Palewall" is the title of this series because "Beyond the Paywall' is taken. Information for which you are not willing to pay, along with information you may not wish to know, is presented in abbreviated form without charge. What has caught my eye may sometimes feel like a poke in yours and, in that sense, be beyond the pale. Items will appear weekly, or perhaps monthly, or maybe semi-annually, if I can get started and the weather is bleak.]

   Another dreary day as we begin the new year and I have been reading rather than writing. This means I will be copying again rather than creating, but the result for you is higher quality content. The first of the two items relates to the "culture wars", so you may wish to skip to the second which is about Northern Ontario. A slight warning, however, there are also skirmishes up there. 

1. Day of Epiphany
   A note appeared at the top of my screen informing me that today is such a day and when I read two stories about the same subject, I thought that some might be having one, an epiphany, that is. The articles are about the situation at Harvard and the departure of the president, Claudine Gay. The one in the Globe & Mail by Adrian Morrow offers a basic overview and this quotation which suggests the squabble is about larger issues:

“This really isn’t about plagiarism and antisemitism – although those issues are real and they are serious – what’s really going on is a conversation about race and diversity and anger on the right wing against the direction that elite universities have taken,” said Derek Penslar, a history professor and director of Harvard’s Center for Jewish Studies.

Later, one of the consequences of the dispute is noted:

"Billionaire donors held back their contributions. Chief among them was Bill Ackman, who alleged Dr. Gay got her job because of her race. Mr. Ackman and other opponents of DEI said Dr. Gay’s publication record of 11 articles in two decades was too thin for the job she held."

   The article in the National Post, is much longer (two full pages) and it is authored by the Mr. Ackman quoted right above. The large issue to him is DEI and one might conclude from it that perhaps we are witnessing a "Christine Gay Moment", somewhat like the "George Floyd" one. Here is a small portion of what he wrote:

"I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.

Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that diversity, equity and inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.

I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing and more.

What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology."

He is a Harvard guy, by the way, and here is his answer to the question he raised, "What should happen?" His answer, in addition to Gay, all members of the Harvard board should also resign.

"The ODEIB should be shut down, and the staff should be terminated. The ODEIB has already taken down much of the ideology and strategies that were on its website when I and others raised concerns about how the office operates and who it does and does not represent. Taking down portions of the website does not address the fundamentally flawed and racist ideology of this office, and calls into further question the ODEIB’s legitimacy. [Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging.]

   Some Canadian readers may be experiencing an "Epiphany Moment" after reading that. Although "DEI" is still being nurtured here and HR departments expanded, the enthusiasm south of here has been replaced by outrage and DEI departments are being dismantled. The Chronicle of Higher Education even created a tool to keep a record of state legislative efforts to restrict or shut down DEI programs and there are many of them. Last month, a legislative proposal was introduced in the House "that would strip colleges of federal funding if they require employees, students or applicants to write diversity, equity and inclusion statements." (At some universities, faculty members and job candidates are required to write diversity statements as part of the promotion or hiring process.)

  Perhaps the most important part of that article is the link to another Ivy League university, the University of Pennsylvania, whose president also was forced to resign. The link is to, "A Vision For a New Future of the University of Pennsylvania", which is a proposed new constitution for that university and it is supported by over 1,700 university faculty. If you go through the list, you will see some names from Canadian universities.

   If one assumes that the fervour in favour of DEI initiatives at Canadian universities subsides and student protests continue, those on the northern campuses might benefit from having a look at Penn's "A Vision For a New Future...". As well, a document written almost 60 years ago at the University of Chicago, "The Kalven Report", is useful. In both, to put it simply, it is suggested that the universities remain neutral and speech free. If you borrow from them, do so carefully. 

2. Ring of Fire
  I will now have to keep this short. If the phrase above rings a bell, it probably was in relationship to a Johnny Cash song, not the area well north of Thunder Bay. That Ring encircles a lot of minerals, the extraction of which is, or may, be problematic. Perhaps not for the Ontario government which "has thrown its weight behind the Ring of Fire, and has committed to paying roughly half of the at least $2-billion that is needed to fund the roads. Premier Doug Ford has even said that he’s willing to “jump on a bulldozer,” if that’s what it will take to get construction underway." There are other Nations up that way, however, and "One big concern raised by environmentalists about development in the Ring of Fire is that pollution may destroy fish habitats in the rivers around Marten Falls, and disturb carbon-storing peat that is ubiquitous in this part of northern Ontario." An added complication: although it was remembered this time to consult with the Nations up there, they disagree about whether the resources should be developed or the Ring of Fire extinguished. All of this information should be read as it originally appears in:
"In Remote Ontario, Marten Falls First Nation Hopes to Move Past More Than 100 Years of Subjugation, As It Opens the Doorr to Critical Minerals Development and an All-Season Road That Will Change Their LIves," Niall McGee, G&M, Dec. 31, 2023. [Some of those among the Neskantaga Nation, don't agree.]

A portion of boreal forest in northern Quebec

   Here is another piece which should be read with the one above. While one often sees articles against old-growth logging out west, those about tree removal north of us are rarer. Now a study from down-under has raised some issues. This article is based on that study:

   "Canada’s Logging Industry Devours Forests Crucial to Fighting Climate Change: A study finds that logging has inflicted severe damage to the vast boreal forests in Ontario and Quebec, two of the country’s main commercial logging regions," Ian Austen and Vjosa Isai, New York Times, Jan. 4, 2024.

"Canada has long promoted itself globally as a model for protecting one of the country’s most vital natural resources: the world’s largest swath of boreal forest, which is crucial to fighting climate change.

But a new study using nearly half a century of data from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec — two of the country’s main commercial logging regions — reveals that harvesting trees has inflicted severe damage on the boreal forest that will be difficult to reverse.

Researchers led by a group from Griffith University in Australia found that since 1976 logging in the two provinces has caused the removal of 35.4 million acres of boreal forest, an area roughly the size of New York State.

While nearly 56 million acres of well-established trees at least a century old remain in the region, logging has shattered this forest, leaving behind a patchwork of isolated stands of trees that has created a landscape less able to support wildlife, according to the study. And it has made the land more susceptible to wildfire, scientists say."

The Study:

   "Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Forest Management on Forest Age Structure Development and Woodland Caribou Habitat in Boreal Landscapes: A Case Study from Two Canadian Provinces," Brendan Mackey et al.

Land 2024, 13(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010006.

The Bonus:

For information about Canada's "Maple League Universities."

For a Canadian example of perhaps over zealous DEI training.

Simple Solutions

   I have been busy for a bit and the weather is nice, but it is time to post something. I will again rely on the creativity of others, which you readers will find reassuring since I, myself, so far have demonstrated little of it. Here I will present two solutions to the problem that arises, when people who are more sensitive than I, come across something horrible or frightening when they are reading or watching in the privacy of their home or out walking in the public square. 

Caveat Lector

    I will keep this simple because it is and because I have touched upon it before in, for example, the appropriately titled, "WARNING."  This simple headline summarizes it all: "Only Trigger Warning Needed: Caveat Lector," and it is at the top of an an article in the National Post (June 29, 2023.) The solution occurred to the author, William Watson, who thought of it after watching Casablanca. In it Ilsa refers to the black piano player as the "boy." Since Ilsa (or Ingrid) were likely not racists and since the film otherwise embraces and exhibits values the sensitive will appreciate (anti-fascism, for example), does the movie really need to be banned or severely edited? Mr. Watson, thinks not, and notes that "the harm done by giving offence to some readers or viewers is outweighed by the benefit from the work itself."

  I agree and implied as much when I discussed in "WARNING"  the new propriety pronouncements being produced on Turner Classic Movies.  Mr. Watson suggests that Caveat Lector is better than "Contains Explicit Language" because generally we like language to be clear. I argued that "Viewer Discretion Advised" be placed before all films since now something in them will be offensive to someone. To be safe and to ensure the sensitive are not harmed perhaps all films and books be labeled with all of the warnings: Caveat Emptor, Caveat Lector, Caveat Auditor, Contains Explicit Language and Viewer (Reader) Discretion Advised. And, rather then ban or bowdlerize all older books and films or have librarians affix the above labels, a general public pronouncement, like the one found on beaches, should be widely promulgated indicating that all books or films produced before 2000 are to be approached cautiously: Danger: No Censors On Duty.

                                                     "Retain and Explain"

BEFORE

AFTER

   

   The solution to the problem of what to do with statues in squares or names on buildings which are problematic for those more sensitive than I, is encapsulated in the phrase, "Retain and Explain", which does have a nice ring to it. Rather than eliminate or subtract items and names from the landscape, we should add to them other objects or explanations which provide the historic context, as well as the present one which calls for the change. I will explain that the photos above portray the current view of many who believe that one should "Abolish and Remove." That is the statue of Edward Colston being dumped in the river in Bristol.

  "Retain and Explain" is an English suggestion, but I learned about it in an American article. I will provide the citation here since it helps explain things and because one reader told me they never look at the sources I usually dutifully apply at the bottom: "A Philosopher and a Slaver, But No Longer a Name on a Library: No One Disputes That George Berkeley Was Among Ireland's Greatest Thinkers, But He Was An Unapologetic Slaver. Now Trinity College Dublin Is Taking His Names Off One Of Its Buildings," Ed O'Loughlin, New York Times, May 8, 2023. Although his name is being removed from the library, "students will still encounter Berkeley in the form of a 19th century stained-glass window commemorating his life in the college chapel. The school decided to keep the window in place, but add information about the controversy -- adopting a so-called retain and explain approach." 

   "Retain and Explain" does sound nice, but it is not so simple. An explanatory plaque adjacent to a very large colonizer on a huge horse, would probably not be sufficient and the arguments over the statues would be endless. as would the debates about who should do the arguing. There would be other things to consider, but this day is a nice one and I will leave you to do the considering and will supply the sources to assist, although I know no one will read them. Do have a look at The Bonus, however, since it lists naming problems on the horizon. 

Sources: 

  This quotation -- "We believe that the right approach to statues, however contentious, is to retain and explain their presence" -- is found here: "Listing Controversy II: Staues, Contested Heritage And the Policy of "Retain and Explain", in Law & Place.

"Monumental Error: The Plan to 'Retain and Explain' Statues," Alexander Pelling-Bruce, The Spectator, April 10, 2021.

"The Times View on the Fate of Controversial Statues: Retain and Explain," The Times, Jan. 18, 2021.

"Retain and Explain is a Woke Trap To Rewrite History," Zareer Masani, The Sunday Telegraph, June 20, 2021. Here is his conclusion: 

"What such examples show is the near-impossibility of explaining in short captions what are often complex and contested reputations. Public spaces belong to the public, the vast majority of whom have little appetite for seeing monuments defaced by sanctimonious disclaimers. While most of us would back the policy to retain, must we really suffer it being accompanied by simplistic health warnings similar to those on cigarette packs? By all means let's also explain, but ensure those who do the explaining have the necessary expertise."

The Bonus:

   In the American article that started all of this it is noted that Berkeley came to America and that the University of California, Berkeley is named for him, but that the University is not changing the name. Yet.

  I have produced several posts about names, naming and statues and you likely will have read none of them and I won't bother pointing them out. A related one that you surely did not read was my year-end rant a few years ago. In it, you will note my prescience, in that I predicted that the names of some universities will be problematic for the sensitive ones (remember Ryerson?) Here is that small portion from a post that was too long:

The larger issue relates to the complete university not just the structures on the campus. What if the name applied to the entire university is tainted? I feel that it is my duty to alert you to some possible problems. In short, you would short the following colleges and universities if they were stocks or securities. The alphabetical list by institution includes the name of the person along with the alleged ‘crime’. 

Alcorn State (James L. He was a Confederate. Alcorn is largely black!)

Austin Peay  (Austin Peay. Like Jefferson, fathered a black child.)

Clemson ( Thomas Green. Married Calhoun’s daughter - see Yale above.)

Drake (Francis Marion. Killed a few Pawnees.)

Duke ( James Buchanan. Tobacco.)

Furman (Richard. The slave thing.)

George Mason (George Mason. The slave thing. See my related post - ASSOL)

Hofstra (William S. Lumber business - open to the charge of despoliation.)

Lamar ( Mirabeau Buonaparte. Slave trader AND Cherokee/Comanche killer.)

Marshall (John. His papers are online at the UVA. Find the problem yourself.)

Rice (William Marsh. Guy was a capitalist and died a rather messy death.)

Stanford (Leland Jr. The son of a robber baron.)

Tulane (Paul. Confederate donor.)

Vanderbilt (Cornelius. Rich - “unmannered brute.”)

Yale (Elihu. Corruption charges. Elis may become as rare as Jeffs.)

    Many colleges in the U.S. were founded by religious leaders and those named for such figures may be assumed to be safe from onomastic scrutiny (Wesleyan, for example) or maybe not (Oral Roberts). Otherwise if you are sending your sons or daughters off to college and you want them to have a ‘safe space’ , then perhaps you should consider a plainly-named land-grant university like the University of Iowa where the students are also likely to be less flighty. 

    As far as Canada goes, less work is required if you are trying to choose or avoid a university because of its name. Select one with a geographically-based name like ‘Toronto’, or  ‘Western’ which could exist anywhere and is surely not offensive. You could simply avoid any college that is named for a person unless she is Emily Carr. In the east, for example, I would not choose Dalhousie without thoroughly vetting the Earl. In the far west the choice is easy.  Go to UBC. It is clear that you should avoid Simon Fraser which will likely be attacked in the near future for reasons that are obvious. 

The source for the above, where there is even more, is my cleverly disguised post: "This Is NOT About Mariah Carey."