Why Lindsay Shepherd waited to sue Laurier
Graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing my university, Wilfrid Laurier. She’s seeking damages related to prejudicial treatment perpetrated against her by some members of the campus community.
Many Canadians who’ve read the news support her suit. In large part, it’s because seven months ago they heard for themselves that now-famous audio recording. It revealed two Laurier profs and an administrator cruelly bullying Lindsay to the point of tears, insisting she renounce her belief that universities should promote open debate.
Those who have closely followed the interplay between Lindsay and Laurier since the beginning are among her strongest supporters. They don’t question why Lindsay is suing; they wonder “why did she wait so long?”
I can answer that. I’m one of the few professors at Laurier to publicly support Lindsay throughout her ordeal and we’ve talked about this at length.
Simply put: Lindsay loathes the idea of playing the victim. Her upbringing and essential nature brought her to that philosophical position. But her ideas have also been influenced by research like that of sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning.
They show that a cultural shift, guided by new rules of behaviour, has occurred in society, and on university campuses in particular.
Under the old rules, social status was elevated when you endured the travails and offences of life without complaint. You called upon authorities to deal with injustices only when you couldn’t rectify them yourself.
Under the new rules, your status is elevated the extent to which you claim to suffer systemic discrimination due to race, gender and the like. Escalation of conflict situations to higher authorities — such as courts or university equity offices — is often immediate.
A “dignity culture” has been replaced by a “victimhood culture,” and Lindsay doesn’t want to be associated with the latter.
That’s why she refused to sue after she was called to an illegally constituted interrogation, was told students in her tutorial had complained about her, and that by showing a clip from public TV she had committed a crime.
That’s why she refused to sue following an independent investigation that found her three interrogators had misled her about the complaint.
That’s why she refused to sue when certain professors from her program published an open letter saying they supported the two colleagues who had falsely accused her.
She refused when she was ridiculed in class in front of her peers. And she refused when her department chair insulted her in the national media.
In another open letter, scores of Laurier faculty claimed that on account of the Shepherd controversy, the campus had become unsafe and they were experiencing threats to their physical safety. Even when the news media proved these claims were unsubstantiated, she refused to sue.
When administration released a campus-wide announcement saying support would be given to any student or faculty member who had endured mental trauma arising from the Shepherd affair — but offered no such sup- port to Lindsay herself — she refused to sue. The list continues, but you get the gist. Why then did Lindsay finally feel pushed to take legal action? Because the university allowed an internal action to proceed against her. And, upon threat of severe academic penalty, they forbade her to discuss the details publicly.
What can be said is that the action is a harassment complaint filed by a grad student in her program with ties to the faculty who have opposed her.
Lindsay’s lawyer calls the claims in the suit “inherently incoherent” and suggests the university itself is acting in “bad faith,” given that it allowed the complaint to proceed even though coursework in the MA program has ended and Lindsay and the complainant are no longer on campus together.
Through this entire affair, Lindsay has tried to play by the “old” rules of the dignity culture. She bore the insults of others with a thick skin and was willing to fight her own battles. But with this last straw, she’s realized that to survive a contest with the university she must play by its rules, the new rules.
I asked Lindsay what she’s going to do with the money if she wins her case. She said a significant portion will go to defending free expression on university campuses.
In other words, it will go to changing the rules of the game.