haves vs. have-nots documentation


More glossary definitions that should have mattered. It’s not that the institution was not aware of the following. It chose not to use any of the tools in its tool box to resolve the issue because it did not believe it had to:

MUTUAL RESPECT must happen in BOTH directions. The Law Society could not handle 1/1600th of the inconvenience of having to deal with an institution that refuses to do their duty and they lost their shit:

No mention of students who do not have any voice other than their own if the institution does not provide them with one:

My program also mentioned “inclusion” in its Mission Statement without stating there was an “unpopular opinion craft might be necessary to the craft of writing” exception:

Are you fucking kidding me:

Several metrics were missed.

This definition includes students in an academic environment:

Knowledge without action is meaningless:

Senior officers may do what they want is an unconscious bias. So is “the respondent is always correct if they answer on letterhead.”

Like in a committee that didn’t include students even check to see if a student’s harassment protections were adequately protected before deleting them through a non-board of governor-approved original document edit?:

The UBC complies with this, as long as everyone understands “institutional members” are the employees and “students” are members of the public who just pay to be there.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s