Statements I was required to swallow without question —

From the Chair:

My program has a methodology none of us can explain how it works.

We have the absolute right to tell you what can or cannot be commented freely on in class.

If students like being told that their work is brilliant and that gives us excellent student evaluations, we’re not going to change a thing even if we’re not trying to teach them anything that might help their future career goals.

Because you questioned my instructors, I can ignore every duty of my office and scholarly integrity to make you pay for it and my entire institution will back me up.

From the Dean:

Not having a working pedagogy that harms the student body and having a valid pedagogy that doesn’t harm the student body are both valid pedagogical opinions (and we’re going with the one that doesn’t have one and harms.)

No, I don’t have to explain how not having a valid pedagogy that harms students is a valid pedagogy to have.

From the Provost:

“Gentle” is too a pedagogy. No, I’m not going to explain how.

We use all the standard industry tools in our program. No, I’m not going to explain how telling students they don’t need structural edits is a standard tool in your industry.

If you don’t like the program, you don’t get to criticize it.

Academic Freedom? Never heard of her.

But if we take *away* your academic freedom, you can’t complain about not having it!

I am not just going to ignore my massive conflict of interest, I’m going to make the implication that I *might* have had one disappear “on paper”.

(narrator: and by “on paper” the provost meant “with a paper trail as long as his conflict of interest was large.”)

From the President:

The provost “handles” complaints like this. I’m going to ignore it as I ignore all things. Even though I haven’t met you, I’m assuming this plan will work.

From the Equity and Inclusion:

All the UBC has to give a student is what is promised to them as Canadian residents. We may promise you the right to “Academic freedom” but there’s no law that says we have to follow our own policies, so we’re not.

The Chair’s actions are personal harassment and retaliation for you asking questions. If she sexually harassed you, we’d definitely pretend we have to do so something about it, but she since didn’t discriminate against you for a protected characteristic, shut up.

We can totally remove the protected protection against the word “protected” in our own controlled documents. If we don’t want to protect the protected acts we promised we will protect, the law says we don’t have to!

If the person you’re complaining about has only broken multiple policies but not the law itself, you don’t get to appeal our decision to dismiss your complaint unheard. (x2 different complaint chains on two different individuals, both having broken multiple policies)

From the lawyer:

If we take *away* your academic freedom, you can’t complain about not having it!

It’s literally my job to protect the institution of the UBC from the officers of the UBC trying to destroy its reputation, but I’m going to do what I can to support the officers destroying the reputation of my institution.

From the pedagogist:

A peer review in which only the properly authorized, glowing opinions of the work are only allowed to be discussed is totally a pedagogy that can help learners accomplish their goals for the piece.

No, I won’t tell you what my working definition of ‘pedagogy’ is. You should just assume mine is better than yours. I mean, yours assumes a pedagogy should work for the average learner!

From the Director of Investigations:

Look, I want to help you, but my hands are tied. If the institution had wanted personal and academic harassment to be reported, they wouldn’t have put my department down as the designated recipient for those types of complaints. The only way I can take your complaint is if I’m trained to do so and I haven’t. My lack of training means we only care about sexual harassment, (unless we don’t.)

From the Minister:

From her secretary:

I can lie to your face, be rude, and hold onto vital information for almost a calendar month if my boss thinks you’re wrong about something.

From the government:

Why do you expect an apology from us, just because you were lied to, gaslit, and delayed by one of our ministers’ offices? The Honourable Minister has the nicest office and a BC standard-issue get-out-of-professional-behaviour-expectations-free card.

From the BC Law Society:

Look, we don’t care how blatantly Mark Crosbie, Esq violated his professional code of conduct in writing. Pay for one of us to tell us to open an inquiry on another one of us. We just don’t want to listen to members of the public.

One comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s