Expression, Identity, and the Corruption of the Academy

The Mark Steyn Show
March 14, 2018

https://www.steynonline.com/8522/expression-identity-and-the-corruption-of

We're proud to present a brand new edition of The Mark Steyn Show. These programs, along with SteynPosts, Tales for Our Time, On the Town and much else at SteynOnline, are made possible through the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club from every corner of the earth, for which we are extremely grateful.

In this episode, Steyn talks to Lindsay Shepherd, a young Teaching Assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada who became a cause célèbre across the Internet at the end of 2017, when three members of the faculty attempted to destroy her life for having the temerity to show a short Jordan Peterson public television clip to her students. Miss Shepherd pushed back, with great success, and has since become a popular speaker across North America on issues of freedom of expression.

Here Mark and Lindsay talk about the conflicts between free speech and identity politics, with some unexpected diversions along the way. This topic is always relevant, especially given the disgraceful behavior of the UK immigration authorities in recent days in banning speakers after questioning them on whether or not they were "Christian". So we think you'll find this show worth your time. Click below to watch:

If you're interested in the details of Lindsay's inquisition by those disgraceful Ontario professors, you can see Mark's SteynPost on the subject here: "Problematic Positionality." And Mark will be back on camera for his regular Thursday date on "Tucker Carlson Tonight".

Among the benefits of Mark Steyn Club membership is that you can enjoy The Mark Steyn Show in any medium you desire: video, audio or text. So, if you prefer the show in non-visual form, please log-in to our Audio & Transcripts department. To listen to the above show, simply click here.

As we said above, The Mark Steyn Show is made possible through the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club. We appreciate that membership is not for everyone, but it does help assure that shows like this remain out there for everyone, winging their way around the world and perhaps changing a few minds. And we're proud to say that, thanks to the Steyn Club, this website now provides more free content than at any time in our fifteen-year history.

What is The Mark Steyn Club? Well, it's a discussion group of lively people on the great questions of our time. It's also an audio Book of the Month Club, and a video poetry circle, and a live music club. We don't (yet) have a clubhouse, but we do have other benefits. And, if you've got some kith or kin who might like the sound of all that and more, we do have a special limited-time Steyn Club Gift Membership. More details here.

Another advantage of membership is access to our comments section. So, if you take issue with anything Lindsay or Mark said on the show, then feel free to comment away below. (Any control-freak thought-police cult-Marx profs among the membership are welcome to weigh in, too.)

© 2020 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of Mark Steyn Enterprises.

If you're a member of The Mark Steyn Club and you take issue with this article, then have at it in our comments section.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to steynonline's free weekly mailing list

Comment on this item

Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:

Member Login

130 Reader Comments

Debra Milligan • Mar 19, 2018 at 00:03

I have to comment here because this girl reminds me so much of my own daughter, who is a teacher, and has not yet experienced this kind of cruelty. Perhaps she has not because I have schooled her in the wretched hypocrisy of the Academics-in-Charge. My daughter is older than Miss Shepherd, but she possesses still the same tone of sincere desire to not be misunderstood. It's almost heart-breaking to see and hear a young woman so pure in emotion and yet that purity of emotion is used against her.

One part of me wishes that Lindsay would toughen up and realize the reality of what she is up against. Another part of me wishes she would remain vulnerable and not let the savage callousness of these men strip her of the innocence that these God-awful Academics probably never had and thus loathe in the person of this girl who simply wants to teach.

And still another part of me wishes that she would leave the job, find a place where her thoughts can be validated with truth -- because that is what is in peril here --- truth. The entire stinking mess that she is surrounded by is not, in my very experienced opinion, worth her fighting to salvage.

Let the rot continue to rot until it is such a cesspool that these high-falutin' Academicians choke on their brine of bigotry. Is that not where the Left is today?

But I am a fighter, and a rugged individualist, and if I had been in that room, those men would have been the ones to cry. I've always said I will never hit anyone smaller than myself, men included. Those men would not be included.

Her life will never be the same in a way that she'd not planned -- here is her learning moment for a lifetime. I hope that she has the grace and dignity to make use of these cruel lessons for good -- such a fate is not planned for her by these Thought Nazis. God knows otherwise.

Tom Korte • Mar 18, 2018 at 11:51

Mr. Steyn, I've a question.
You probably talked with Miss Shepherd before and after the interview for a bit. The Left is renowned for having next to nothing for a sense of humor and what they do have is rigidly politically correct. Did this seem to be the case with Miss Shepherd, or did you have little chance to find out? You, Mr. Farage, President Trump, and Conservatives in general are much more easygoing and humorous generally speaking.

I'm just curious if she's enjoying herself in this way more now that she's not part of the SJW crowd anymore. I think it's a side of things that isn't often commented upon.

Tom Korte

Tom Korte • Mar 18, 2018 at 22:05

Cancel my question.
After thinking about it for a bit it would be bad form for you to discuss something like that. Basically, gossiping about your guests after the fact.
Not the first time my analytical nature put me on the wrong side of social mores.
My apologies to both you and the lady.

Sol Cranfill • Mar 18, 2018 at 11:20

I am now imagining Mark's next female guest sitting opposite him in a full burqa.

Kate Smyth

Sol Cranfill • Mar 18, 2018 at 15:07

I think you're right, Sol. Apparently that's the only way men could be objective about what she's saying. Although "nobody cares what she thinks", so no point in her speaking either. And that's not to deny the point of make-up etc (Jordan Peterson even talks about it in the context of the new puritan workplace codes); Lindsay's look was certainly a dramatic departure from the photos etc last year, and might have benefitted from toning down, but "nothing to say" and "nobody cares"?!! Looks like free speech isn't the hill to die on, to paraphrase Mark.

Sol Cranfill

Kate Smyth • Mar 18, 2018 at 16:30

I first encountered this while reading similarly dismissive comments from guys who were singling out the attractive Fox News reporter Tomi Lahren for criticism, in a way that did not ring true. I didn't buy it. I think it has to do more with the critics mad at themselves for being attracted to her - or something; I don't know.

I watched a video Friday of Faith Goldy from Canada being jeered out of a campus building, after a two-hour lecture by a white racist professor (Capello) instructing white Canadians how, and why, to hate themselves. She may have attracted my attention by her looks but, when I review in my mind my listening to her message, I can't see much effect, other than to make it easier to sympathize with her mistreatment. The same day, I listened to audio of a woman in England despairing about her country being wrecked by Islam, with gross abuse going unchecked and the police persecuting citizens who try to stop it. The vague mental picture I involuntarily formed of her would have been less attractive than Faith, but I'd say I listened to both equally closely. This really doesn't seem to be a factor; not to me, aside from the way anyone presents herself becomes part of the delivery of the message. People remember Churchill's "Never Surrender" speech as a rousing performance, but it was the words more than the delivery. I don't intend any offense by saying this, but, to me, some of the comments about Shepherd seem shallow, classless, and irrelevant.

50 years too old • Mar 18, 2018 at 09:57

Another comment re: looks. An old wheeze goes something like 'if you're not a Liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you're not a Conservative at age 40 you have no brains'. In any case, Miss Shepherd seems to have both, and hopefully will mature into a formidable proponent of free western civilization. In the meantime, she is all girl, as evidenced by her coy, feminine facial expressions (viva la difference!), and I envy her latest boy-friend.

Marc Swerdloff • Mar 17, 2018 at 21:38

I stuck with the interview though she wasn't Nigel Farage entertaining. She is poised, bright and guarded in what she says. The transcript likely reads well. The left has made the standard cliche of "you can't judge a book by its cover" a transgression. It's all cover now.
The fascist left must be stopped. I think Lindsay has the fortitude to do it.
Thank you Mark for your brilliance! Or if you prefer, stunning good looks.

Will W • Mar 17, 2018 at 19:37

Her "fat and ugly" comment was easily the most insightful moment in the entire interview from either party. Beauty overwhelms the dynamics of social intercourse, and my chief interest in watching this interview was to see how Mark would handle it in Shepherd's case.

Beautiful people coast; the temptation to avoid cutting corners is irresistible and Shepherd is no exception. We give pretty young women wide latitude for error and incompetence and sloppy thinking because we want to be associated with the absolute, inarguable quality of pulchritude (cf. Aquinas) — which, ultimately, is more valuable on a pound-per-pound basis than competence and right thinking due to its scarcity.

The right needs more poised and attractive icons like Shepherd not for their halting contributions to theory but for their winsomeness (and great posture). Mark's whole interview should have been explicit about this unspoken subtext, and they tantalizingly touched on the topic during the "right wingers are hot" diversion, a diversion that should have been the thesis. I don't mean cute saleswomen, I mean incorporating the ineffable importance of beauty into our persuasion strategy.

Nobody really cares what Lindsay thinks. Let's start at that truth.

Kate Smyth

Will W • Mar 18, 2018 at 09:25

Well, trans activism is part of the left's persuasion strategy, and they've had plenty of success in spite of the obvious contradiction to your thesis. Like others here, I do "care" what Lindsay thinks— and what she's done— in so far as she's an exemplar of Generation SJW who, however naive and misguided, has challenged the prevailing authoritarian-left order.

Impressionable youth have always been vulnerable to inculcation in fashionable modes of thinking (as Lindsay was/is); it's not that far-left ideas are dangerous per se (although they are intrinsically pernicious), but that indoctrination is now backed-up by ruthless enforcement in ensuring these topics are un-discussable, particularly in the campus environment. As Lindsay explained, the left now asserts that debate itself unfairly disadvantages marginalised groups.

If Lindsay could help to instill the "contrarian spirit of youth" in even a few hundred students— assuming they "cared" for what she had to say— then that would be worthwhile in establishing some momentum favouring free speech in universities. And obviously the issue of funding must be addressed.

That Mark managed to tease out her often flawed and simplistic views without diminishing her (seemingly effortlessly) is a testament to his expertise as an interviewer. It's a revealing glimpse of the future, notwithstanding the fact that most students think the same way as the interrogators and informants in Lindsay's case; that's the real concern.

I hope Mark interviews others of this generation so we can better understand what we're up against, and how to push back. (Perhaps audio interviews with the winsomely types, in view of the issue you raise.)

Holly Birtwistle

Kate Smyth • Mar 22, 2018 at 17:31

Well-said Kate. Lindsay is young, and Mark made allowances for that, and having a daughter of his own probably made him more accommodating as well; but he is never un-gentlemanly even with unpleasant interviewees, to his credit.

Richard Henry • Mar 17, 2018 at 12:27

Gad! I'm reading the comments after I posted mine and boy, what a hard crowd! Some might say "mean-spirited" but we Steyners are made of tougher stuff. Get a grip, folks. This IS the future: maybe not as articulate as you wish but fresh and open to new ideas. That was the entire point of the program and the reason for her crucification in the first place. Some commentators wish she would have spouted the same Rigid Right talking points. We don't need any more strident speakers: we need persuaders. She may be able to do this with her laid-back attitude; Andrew Breitbart did it with his pointed humor, and Mark Steyn does it with his own inimical blend of both. Lighten up and embrace the different paths to the same goal: freedom of speech and thought.

Richard Henry • Mar 17, 2018 at 12:16

What an awesome interview. Great insight into thoughts of the recent uni grads. There may be hope for the future.

Doug Lauder • Mar 16, 2018 at 16:42

I watched somebody else's daughter early in her talking head career get a fatherly interview with Mark.
She's clearly Canadian nice . I would advise her to keep watching tape , and tape of Foxettes, her game too formative for prime time.

Ray Winchester • Mar 16, 2018 at 16:32

When I listened to the audio when they verbally raped her, I wanted to reach in and strangle the worms.
She taped it and maybe not as ALT-R as some. But showed us actually how bad it gets in Uni.
Think people on the right are more intelligent.
You do get intelligent people on the left (liberal). They are just getting drowned out by snowflakes.

Roy A Crocker • Mar 16, 2018 at 16:23

Very mixed feeling on Lindsay - it's certainly a faint ray of hope in the cesspool that is the 'academy' now in the west but any small victory such as this contrasts with the overwhelming suppression of free speech in academia throughout Europe, the UK and increasingly in America. It's like dumping a single pail of water from the sinking titanic and saying "we're turning this around now". Look at what our teacher's unions and their fellow travelers in our school boards accomplished this week. They have brazenly turned our own children into far left marching brigades to propagandize their agenda and on school time no less. Where the hell is the national outrage!!?? Where are these kids parents?? There is barely a whimper of pushback from the center-right. This is a terribly frightening watershed moment for America and no one outside the radical left seems to even notice or very much care either. The hard left has almost total control of your children's education from grade school to post graduate studies. Is anyone paying attention - does anyone even care/?

KC • Mar 16, 2018 at 15:46

I know she is young and obviously someone still adjusting to her sudden notoriety, so I wasn't expecting Thomas Sowell as interviewed by William F. Buckley, but my goodness, for a teaching assistant with a degree in communications billed as "a popular speaker across North America on issues of freedom of expression" she was both surprisingly ill-prepared and inarticulate. Whatever it is they teach over in the communications department at Wilfred Laurier it is obviously not how to communicate. Moreover, the panting adulation she has received since her ordeal has been nothing short of nausea-inducing.

Look, I don't want to sound mean. She seems like a nice, relatively thoughtful young lady, and I think the strength she displayed in the face of her inquisition is commendable, particularly for someone so young, as is her degree of self-awareness which permits her to understand the reasons behind her newfound popularity. I wish her the very best, I really do, but I have to be honest. Watching this interview was tortuous, and poor Mark must be sore all over from having to carry the conversation along for close to an hour.

Sol Cranfill

KC • Mar 16, 2018 at 21:36

She's a regular person. She's 22. She didn't ask for a George Orwell "1984" style ambush. Let's not pick her apart and heap derision and scorn on her. I thought her interview was outstanding. Your critique sounds like a play-by-play of a newborn giraffe, deducting points for being wobbly on the feet. How about, let's get in the game and help her, before the faculty of K-20 destroys Canada?

Sol Cranfill • Mar 17, 2018 at 13:25

Hi Sol, thank you for your comment. I do support her, 100%, but I think in order for her to successfully transition from merely innocent victim to impactful public speaker and free speech advocate she needs to have something of greater value to say and an improved ability to say it.

My sense is that she approached this interview thinking that Mark would simply ask her reiterate, once again, the sickening details of her ordeal, commiserate, offer her some useful advice, and leave it at that. Instead, he attempted to move beyond all that, and things fell flat. Regardless, I hope she takes what little criticism she receives (lost as it is in a sea of congratulatory adulation), learns from it, and with a little more preparation and practice combined with her obvious charms, succeeds in becoming an unstoppable force for reform that our education system in Canada so desperately needs.

Sol Cranfill

KC • Mar 17, 2018 at 15:02

They didn't fall flat, to me, as the show went on. He drew out of her, authenticity. The style points combine with youth to produce answers like the one from the South Carolina Miss Teen USA contestant on the education system in America. Lindsay Shepherd gave thoughtful ones. I guess it's just perspective. I'm viewing her as a real person, not as a judge at a televised event. But if I were a judge, I wouldn't apply standards from a professional sport to an amateur. Anyway, I recognize that you mean well and support her. In the end, we're all on the same team.

Tom Korte

KC • Mar 18, 2018 at 11:44

You should perhaps check out some of the talks that she's done since the incident as they will probably give you a more complete picture of her speaking ability as opposed to her interviewee qualifications. I'm not saying that she's Winston Churchill, but her speaking background, limited as it is at her stage in life but greater than mine, is actually addressing a room full of people as a Teaching Assistant. I'm only aware of this and one other hour long interviews that she has given and the format is completely different from a two minute spot on a television program so it would take a while to excel at it.

On the other hand, I believe your remark about her being a Communications student hits on something that Mr. Steyn pointed out in his original column on this matter. The two Communications professors could hardly string together coherent sentences and used made-up words (positionality); and these are the people that are teaching. So I'd have to say that Miss Shepherd is very articulate and poised given the environment that she's come through. Credit for that probably goes to her family.

PK33

KC • Mar 18, 2018 at 13:31

I was disappointed with some of her one-word answers to Mark's leading questions, but Mark skillfully prodded further with nary a gap. I can't say I would do any better than Lindsay. Just an observation, not a condemnation.

Sol Cranfill • Mar 19, 2018 at 10:55

Sol, you make a very good point regarding her authenticity. She clearly isn't pretending to be someone she's not, and that does count for a lot: authenticity seems particularly important to the very people she is trying to reach and those most likely to be otherwise antipathetic towards free expression, namely her contemporaries. I think a lot of young people might well view her ideas with greater suspicion were she to comes across as another Ben Shapiro or someone like that (not that Ben is inauthentic, far from it, only that he is considerably more polished and articulate). So she may, in fact, end up having a much greater impact than I at first estimated because, after all, it is the opinions and evolution of people her age that will ultimately determine the fate of free speech, not those of middle aged people like me.

Tom Korte • Mar 19, 2018 at 11:45

Hi Tom, I'll do that, thanks. As for the "communications" professors she faced: those buffoons serve only to confirm my resolve to steer my children, forcefully if necessary, away from the humanities and social sciences altogether and towards business, STEM, or at least some sort of useful trade. What on earth has become of the "liberal arts"? And yes, full credit to her family for insisting she record the interview and for raising a young lady able to weather and transcend the breathtaking incompetence on display at her university.

PK33 • Mar 19, 2018 at 12:02

Thanks, PK33. In retrospect, my initial critique of Ms. Shepherd was penned after I had spent several minutes scrolling through the comments appended to this video, here but also on YouTube, and I was put off by what seemed like nothing more than an endless stream of breathless marriage proposals.

I take the issue of free expression very seriously, and I was worried that when she came to face an interviewer that wasn't as interested in guiding her along, or worse, was openly hostile to her views, that she would simply wither and fold. My critique was a call for her to up her game, nothing more. But as I said to Sol above, perhaps I underestimated her appeal, and in particular her appeal to the people who really matter, the ones who will grow up and one day supplant the idiots she was hauled before. If so, she offers some real hope.

Sol Cranfill

KC • Mar 19, 2018 at 16:48

One of the many wonderful things about SteynOnline is people's willingness to genuinely consider disagreeing points. Thank you.

Carl Branstetter • Mar 16, 2018 at 09:59

Fun interview, I haven't listened to a very young person in a long time. Too bad she didn't find any common ground with the alt-right. With the exception of that little neo-Nazi niche ... and I'm not sure if they're even serious or just pulling the chain ... they have some interesting takes on things. Worth keeping up on, and consonant with many of my own views here and there.

PK33 • Mar 16, 2018 at 09:42

Regarding the "guilt" mentioned by Lindsay Shepherd, sure there may be some valid guilt over past wrongs, however there is a lot to be proud of with regards to colonialism. Seriously. The rule of British Law is one thing that helped more primitive societies advance, along with the proliferation of the English language. Agriculture and resource development for export - international trade routes and protocols established is another. There are more.

In Canada specifically, Indigenous people complain about Residential Schools and the abuse experienced there, and rightly so, it should not be ignored. Although, it is made to seem that every attendee was abused and that was not the case, and missing from the narrative is that students abused other students. Abuse was not invented by the Residential School staff, it has been and still is present in every society around the world.

An Indigenous woman I know, who grew up on a reserve and attended a Residential School said that if there had been no education provided, it would have been a serious crime to leave Indigenous people ignorant of English or French, geography, math, etc. But if anyone dares mention the good that came out of it all, they are shut down by the Left immediately. White people can ONLY be seen as bad, nothing else will do. It's blatant racism, and as I've said elsewhere in the comments, civilization has been here before, a few times. We know where it leads.

Rush Fay • Mar 16, 2018 at 08:46

Thank you for your truly fascinating interview with Lindsay Shepherd. She is a very thoughtful young lady. I have a degree in Central and Eastern European Studies from the University of Colorado, Boulder. The head of the program Dr. Edward Rozek was a Polish emigre who fought both the Russians and Germans in World War II. He was decidedly anti-communist in his views and, as such, prior to my matriculation in 1989 the university had done everything in its power to destroy him. As a consequence, during lecture, he would frequently exhort us as conservatives to "shake the hand" of any TRUE liberal that you meet. While you may not agree with everything they say, they are self-evidently decent and respectful people and they need to be recognized and applauded for their decency and respect. Miss Shepherd is quite clearly the sort of true liberal Dr. Rozek had in mind.

Delibero • Mar 16, 2018 at 03:59

Thanks Mark for presenting a "brand new" Mark Steyn Show. It's much appreciated. Your interview with Lindsay was well done.

She is a smart young woman who wisely taped the inquisition and out smarted her over confident, authoritarian censor profs. Unlike the Laurier inquisition your interview was a cordial but serious exploration of her youthful political views and free opinions. What a contrast.

Cottesloe dreaming • Mar 16, 2018 at 03:57

What a bizarre , strange and sinister world modern academia is. Its obverse , from the comments below , isn't much better.
Good luck to this lass and to you .

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 00:23

Pretty girl.

Yeah, I'm not so happy with her, or this interview. She was run through the gauntlet, but still doesn't get it. And I'm an atheist that is fine with abortion (to a point).

Perhaps in order to see the light she needs something really visceral, such as the her adult son being shipped off to the Gulag. She seems to not understand the principle of the thing, and where that might lead.

Sol Cranfill

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 00:41

Say what? She's in her early twenties. You can't have an adult son when you're in your early twenties. This may have been on a TV show, but this is real life. She was brought up in the crazy, leftist world of education, from which she's breaking free. What on earth is there to disparage?

Neal

Sol Cranfill • Mar 16, 2018 at 00:59

Oh, then it's OK she isn't understanding principles, mostly because she is pretty.

I swear, male IQ drops about 30 points around pretty, vulnerable women. She had nothing to say.

Sol Cranfill

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 01:29

You're right about that. My IQ dropped at least 30 points. But what I'm saying is that, I'm happy to have her on the right side of things. I'm not expecting her to be Mark Steyn or Bill Buckley. But I'm extremely grateful that she has broken free from the imprisonment of the party line, and is taking the risk to go in a different direction. Much more to go for her from here.

Kate Smyth

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 10:00

Utter, utter garbage, Neal, both in terms of what you attribute to Sol (which seems like the projection of your own version of identity politics), and your suggestion that Lindsay "doesn't get it": She definitely "gets" free speech, for which she is to be congratulated, in addition to endeavouring to rescue herself from the fetid, leftist quagmire that she's been bogged down in (along with her contemporaries) for her entire schooling.

She is 20-something, and being interviewed by Mark Steyn, so give her a break— and some encouragement!

Neal

Kate Smyth • Mar 16, 2018 at 17:01

Kate, first thing I did when I saw this article (before I listened) was to go to the youtube recording Lindsey took. I listened to about 25 or 30 minutes of it, and was irate. I then became more informed about what the Ontario human rights commission compelled speech/restricted speech rules meant, listening to several discussions about it.

In the Lindsey Shephard tribunal, a young woman was abused by a group, for sharing 5 minutes of a publicly broadcast show that included ideas from Jordan Peterson (a person whose ideas must not be shared, apparently). It was heart wrenching to listen to Lindsey try to defend herself, and to understand who was upset and why he/she/zhe/they were upset. In tears she asked who it was, how many there were, and what was it she had said to cause the inquisition. You don't get to know that, was the response. Only, you do know what you did was bad and wrong, don't you? She said she didn't intend to offend anyone (that doesn't matter: you did offend someone, but we aren't going to tell you what you did wrong, just that you did wrong, though I think the point was no Jordan Peterson views allowed in class). I wonder if she was thinking she would lose her job, be branded for life as a bad person, etc.

Yet, she wants to have an open mind, presumably to the rationale that led to that tribunal. Open to the reasoning that led to that tyrannical behavior? That somehow under any circumstances it could be OK?

Hence, I ask "What does it take." I don't care if she is young or not. You don't need to be wise to know that kind of abuse is wrong, wrong on principle, and to completely reject the thinking, and to want to stop it from spreading (which, in fact, Lindsey has done since the recording was published).

I simply don't see how anyone who rejects authoritarian tyranny could see it any other way. The principle seems so clear to me, and where it leads seems so clear. Controlling someone's speech is very much like controlling someone's thoughts, and there are so many views to force through compelled speech and "hate speech" laws.

But hey, you don't have to worry about offending me by saying what I wrote is utter garbage. But, you better be careful who you say those words to. I wonder, if you were a Canadian professor and said in class the compelled speech rules were utter garbage, if you would be hauled in front of a tribunal.

Meanwhile, she seems like a very nice person. And, I wasn't attacking Sol (nor in fact imputing motives to him). That was meant to be a joke, but apparently it fell flat. The joke was "The only reason you could possibly think this way is because," since in my view it's so clear no one should be open to that kind of abusive government power.

But, maybe I'm wrong. I'm certainly willing to listen to counter arguments to that position.

Kate Smyth

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 22:04

"You don't need to be wise to know that kind of abuse is wrong."

Completely agree. Where on earth did you get the idea that she thinks such tyrannical behaviour might be ok?
Or do you mean that another person's political philosophy must align 100% with yours in order for that person to be an informed advocate for free speech? "She had nothing to say".... really??

Kate Smyth

Neal • Mar 16, 2018 at 22:30

PS. "But, you better be careful who you say those words to. I wonder, if you were a Canadian professor and said in class the compelled speech rules were utter garbage, if you would be hauled in front of a tribunal."
Both Peterson and Steyn have said the "rules" ARE utter garbage, including when each addressed the Canadian Senate. And Shepherd is contributing in her way too; it's no small thing to gain international attention by making tyrannical bullies disappear on "safety leave". They're all on the same team, in that respect.

P. Gao

Neal • Mar 17, 2018 at 01:33

re: Neal : Well, the females around here made similar observations as you did - they fully appreciated the unfairness of the ordeal Mlle. Lindsey went through, and have a few egrecious stories from their own experience with the 'progressive liberal gulag' of education. They know it's damagingly misogynist, greedy and cowardly. They would have been more 'salty' as the popular lingo goes than she was in the same situation. We'll see how it develops. Her mother had the savvy to tell her to record, something - a dynamic -
that is actually highly important in all this but ignored. The education gulag HATES responsible parents. They mess up the careful construct.
And for culture of independent women - it isn't from Uni, but outside. There are a lot of ranch women around who in the same situation would have 'lit the room up' as they say and tossed the tables and chairs before storming out. Same age, but whee-ooo don't tell them what they can or can't do. Awesome. Put the young ladies into ranch work for that very reason.

Neal

Kate Smyth • Mar 19, 2018 at 00:17

Kate,

I listened again, and think I copied a couple of comments down well enough for a quotation, but reader beware:

Steyn asks how do (they?) justify all this business:

from the past, and people really want to change things so it is well meaninged in that way

Well meaninged? I don't see how you can make that argument. But, to your point, OK, perhaps she is young.
The obvious example, is it's selecting specific classes of people for special treatment. My life hasn't been all roses and cherries (often the pits). For 3 or 4 years I, a tiny person, was bused from a family of two UCB graduates, one with a pHD, into inner city black schools. I was one of 4 white guys, and was hated. Every day was a day of fear. All of my friends moved out of the city, except for two who went to private school. What about that? Also, I live in Silicon Valley, and am a conservative. I have to watch my mouth all the time, for instance.

But, I can forgive that, I suppose, though I would certainly correct it. This I have a much harder time with:

"I sometimes think it is a safer route to have a setting of social justice. Sometimes I convince myself of that argument, that maybe it's OK."

Maybe it's OK? After you just saw the direct result of that setting? You are willing to have that setting though it will lead to the kinds of things that happened to you?

That I cannot forgive. That's kumbaya wishful thinking. That's passing the buck. That legitimizes the evil.

Hope that clears up my thinking for you. Cheers.

Kate Smyth

Neal • Mar 20, 2018 at 22:09

Thanks for the reply, Neal. What is relevant to both these (very misguided) comments is the fact that Lindsay prefaced them respectively with "I'm trying to figure that out for myself", and "I sometimes have an internal debate about this". The point is, not only has she actually shown some initiative in questioning the SJW default that she's been marinating in, but the interview is very revelatory in highlighting the perspective of the college-indoctrinated generation more broadly. Many of us, I suspect, have matured in our thinking and opinions with age, though the starting point of the current college cohort is almost universally extreme-left, and goes largely unchallenged.

Lindsay would not have released the recording had she considered the behaviour of her inquisitors to be reasonable. She clearly understands that she is entitled to hold and express contrary opinions.

The bigger issue is that younger women in the humanities and related disciplines now make up a sizeable left-wing anti-free speech demographic, and we should do whatever we can to encourage the disruption of that from within. (A good article by Bettina Arndt, relevant to North America/ Australia, is "Women take sharp turn to the left in expressing political convictions".)

Neal

Kate Smyth • Mar 22, 2018 at 22:06

"She clearly understands that she is entitled to hold and express contrary opinions."

What does this mean to you?

"I sometimes think it is a safer route to have a setting of social justice. Sometimes I convince myself of that argument, that maybe it's OK."

It means that sometimes she thinks she should NOT express her position. And that others should NOT express their position. To make a setting of social justice requires others to NOT express their position.

So, sometimes she is OK with it.

Hence why I asked "What does it take." That I wasn't impressed with her, or the interview. I would have preferred for Mark to drill down on those comments.

Peter Jones • Mar 15, 2018 at 23:05

Fabulous 'edition'! What a bright, intelligent and observant voice for free speech. Yes, she's young, lots to learn (one should never stop, yes?) and 'what ever' about the former (Iranian) boyfriend. I hope she does get to speak lots with both sides!

Thank you Mr. Steyn!

Catherine Mossholder • Mar 15, 2018 at 21:44

I am reticent to even engage in this discussion. This woman had an Iranian boyfriend, now she doesn't and now she has a "far right" boyfriend. What does that even mean?
She claims to deny these labels but then uses them.
I don't care what your politics are, free speech is universal.
Young men dressed in black with their face covered will not change my mind.

Holly Birtwistle

Catherine Mossholder • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:33

She is YOUNG and new to the issue of the threat to free speech. She admits she has been indoctrinated in leftist beliefs and had been a SJW. She is open-minded and listening to voices of reason. She has gone from idealistic SJW with an Iranian boyfriend to make up for her white guilt and 'prove' she isn't a racist, to listening to other voices and a "far-right" boyfriend. She now debates on panels against censorship of free speech. I would say that is movement in a positive, open-minded direction.
Give her a chance.

P. Gao

Catherine Mossholder • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:42

Um, she's dating a less far right guy than she was before?
;)
(These are supposed to be institutions of 'higher learning' yet they preach 'judge a book by its cover.' And under NO circumstances read it, just LOOK at it.)

Neal Castagnoli

P. Gao • Mar 16, 2018 at 01:10

> yet they preach 'judge a book by its cover'

I really don't understand it. Maybe it's "Fun."

Excellent way of describing identity politics.

P. Gao

Neal Castagnoli • Mar 17, 2018 at 01:09

More...! :)
The core of the scam is that the books are FICTION.

Michael Dionne • Mar 15, 2018 at 21:36

Hey Mark,

Great show!! Lindsay was terrific! You,...well, not bad either.

First, about Lindsay (about you later);

My God, how great thou art !!! ...... to create such a beautiful girl (woman?) who's so smart !!! - I think she even might even had Mark googleing after the show a few of the expressions she used - I know I'm going to after I finish this.

And honest !!! - How often do you get smart and honest together? And pretty too!! The grand trifecta!!!

Congratulations, Mark. You scored (or wished you could similarly have so many years ago, as to which you alluded) today.

Now, about you: (My criticisms are always at least partly constructive, but usually mostly self serving - as in how can I enjoy my experiences more, e.g, when watching someone interviewing someone.)

I would suggest that the next time your on with Tucker Carlson and you're watching the video later, you study Tucker after he asks you a question and compare that to a video of you after you ask someone a question.

I wonder if there is any difference. I think there is. At least I know I enjoy my experience much more when you're answering a Tucker question than I do when someone is trying their best to complete an answer to a question from you.

Your sometimes friend,

Mikey.

Kate Smyth

Michael Dionne • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:35

"I wonder if there is any difference. I think there is."

Absolutely, there's a massive difference. Except you have it completely back-to-front, and I'm not just saying that as a biased MSC member. At risk of being impolite, certain facial expressions are distracting, ill-timed, and seem somewhat feigned. (And the sign-off comment usually cringey.) In the TV context, the relatively "neutral" alternative (punctuated by genuine neck-bolt pops) is far more appropriate, sincere and professional.

TxRebel66 • Mar 15, 2018 at 19:05

My hazy old cobwebbed brain seems to recall that during the early-to-mid-1950s, virtually ALL of the University-level Research that was funded by the national government was directed toward "STEM" projects (of course, none of them would be designated by that acronym.) This approach was a continuation of the WWII Scientific Research efforts (when Actual Scientific Results MATTERED to the the Continuation of The USA!)

But by the Late '50s-Early'60s, Liberal Arts faculties on virtually every university campus had discerned the The Massive Flow Of "Nationally-funded Research $$$" to their "STEM" colleagues. So What Else: they were eager to "Get Their Share Of The Pie!" Naturally the DemocRAT Congresses in that era were Eager to divert $Zillions to "The social sciences". [HINT: It's because the CommieRats had already discovered that, in politics, "FACTS DON'T MATTER: It's only Fe-e-elings That Matter. And how to better manipulate the electorate than by Carefully Studied Research into the things that drive "fe-e-elings"?

[BTW: Even President Milhous EAGERLY Invented the "EPA" with the Stroke of His Pen - because that enabling legislation would NEVER have Passed in Congress! But Fe-e-elings would make the EPA viable! (And even now, STILL there is no EPA Enabling Legislation, just the Stroke of Milhous' Pen...)

So Here We Are!

David Watson • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:28

In the US, universities get a lot of government support. If we want to change things, we need to grab theitr wallets to get their attention. I'd like to see conditions applied for federal research grants, and Pell grants, to only apply to studies for which there is a valid need and reasonable progress. The decay of the education system is directly related to the increase of subsidies for useless cesspools like "ethnic studies." We need STEM, health care, probably even lawyers, not community organizers. Why do we subsidize useless curricula that only support the socialist cadre? I'm guessing this is on Betsy's radar, but probably waiting until after November.

P. Gao

David Watson • Mar 15, 2018 at 17:20

That's exactly the problem. The funding that enables of all this. Nothing will stop until it's hard-pruned back to academics and training that measurably improve a person's employability and career.

P. Gao • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:31

Some more thoughts to run with all those raised in the comments. M. Mark made a hilarious aside joke about not finding a real man in Canada since about 1974 or so. She stared off in space for a long moment, perplexed it seemed, as our little group watching this laughed out loud. So, for M. Mark, it was a good line. But it in a jovial way it reminded us that it takes years of life experience to gain insight and references that illuminate discussions. Youth is idealistic and requires life experience. Throughout she only caught a part of what Mark alluded to. We do expect she'll grow, the experience was an unpleasant eye-opener for her, but she's still in the environment. Get out and get a wide variety of experiences.

Our observation is that schooling in the old days used to be more part-time and shorter - skills-oriented for high-quality work and professions and young people were working. This produced adaptable people who gained skills to improve their adeptness at all sorts of task and problem-solving. Today, the generation has spent most of its waking hours in classrooms from pre-K to Bachelors, and a lot of that time in front of computers.

Universities extract young people from the communities and sequester them in enclaves that have little or nothing to do with the neighborhoods around them. It's a terribly limiting environment for the physical body, for the brain and for the intellect and knowledge. It is terrible also that communities are missing their young people - where's the normal mix of life ages in a community? When a state university has 40,000 enrolled students, then it's sucked the life out of communities and isolated it in an artificial world of twenty-years olds. A few years of that and they don't know how to relate to anyone younger or older. Don't have any practice at it!

P. Gao

P. Gao • Mar 15, 2018 at 17:42

General thoughts re questioning assumptions.
If one thinks about it, a family has a small carbon footprint as compared to a single or couple. Everyone is still driving a car. The family has five or six people in the one vehicle while the other car has one. It's only marginal increases in food and medical. A house requires the same heating and cooling regardless of one or seven in it. A pair of wealthy people rattles around inside 5,000 sq ft residences loaded with energy-guzzling tech and climate control while a family of six is typically installed in no more than a 3,000 sq ft abode and diligently turns off lights when leaving a room. But who gets the criticism? The marginal increase would be in more water usage out of one home, again marginal increases.
The nuclear family is an outlier. The traditional family is multi-generational efficiencies.
Back to the problem of university intellectuals with no direct experience with 'families' anywhere. Students get rolled out of a pampered environment where meals were supplied them army-style (decorated better, but still a cafeteria line) and can't even boil an egg properly because someone else did all that for them for four years, five years. They don't know how to plan meals, shop and prepare them. Not that they can afford an egg with the university debt bill that is attached to them as they are rolled out of the College Club Med. It's all wildly removed from real living, so why is the argument always done through the university-intellectuals' point of view? They don't know what they're talking about.

Holly Birtwistle

P. Gao • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:58

I cringed at her far-left/environmental/anti-human comment that "consumerism" is bad - using up resources - good gosh- is that environmentalist propaganda still circulating? Geesh. There is nothing wrong with consuming or using energy, unless the energy gets expensive; something the neo-marxist/environmentalists today are hell-bent on achieving all over the world if they can. I don't agree with you that students today don't know how to plan meals or cook them. I have two university educated sons. One hates cooking and won't (like his Dad) the other loves cooking and does (like me). He lived entirely off-campus, with room-mates for the first few years, and they all survived. Nobody helped them. They coped fine. One son, (the one who hates cooking) amassed paid for his 4 year degree without any debt (we do not believe in paying for our children's education, although we paid their tuition for one year). He lived at home and went to a local university, saved his wages, and paid his way. Our younger son, chose to attend a university in another city, saved none of his wages, didn't work all summer, and took out student loans every year, and needless to say amassed a large debt that will take him many years to pay off. Don't blame "the system" so fast.

P. Gao

Holly Birtwistle • Mar 17, 2018 at 02:04

Ah, what's to disagree? What your two sons did is exactly what we highly recommend to everyone to avoid the mental and physical stunting of university envrionments - live off campus like real people. From what you described, they have learned life skills that cannot be learned in a dorm and dependent on cafeterias. The comment was regarding the reality of students who stay on campus for 4-5 years. Expect that the statistics will show more women choose that campus life option than men, which among other things, gives universities more opportunities to influence them. Notice that universities get more revenue from dorms and food service contracts than from tuition, so they are always highly encouraging students to stay on campus.
Sounds like you gave sensible advice.
Just an aside, because of working parents, we used to have to cook meals daily for the family before leaving for university and after four years, came back for a short stay before onward, and burned everything. Away from the stove, one loses the 'timing' sense.

Holly Birtwistle

P. Gao • Mar 18, 2018 at 00:39

I've known a lot of university students P., and none of them stayed more than ONE year on campus, at least in dorms. It was just too annoying, noisy and distracting being around the immature first year students; not to mention their studies needed priority. I've never heard of anyone staying 4-5 years on campus. As well, as you mention, on campus living expenses are much higher than off campus. And yes, one needs to keep up ones cooking skills, or they become very rusty:))

P. Gao

Holly Birtwistle • Mar 21, 2018 at 00:53

Many Unis in the US have been routinely counselling 5 years to complete a Bachelors degree. This has been accepted quite uncritically by a growing number of students. With many Unis expanding their dorm room inventories, they've made some investments in making this happen. It's not everyone, but enough to make money for the Unis. One of the grubby features of modern US education that hasn't been questioned the way it needs to be by students, parents, lawmakers.
On the bright side, for the Anglophones, all the Commonwealth universities require three years for a Bachelors and accept US students and are CHEAPER even with including the extra plane fare.

Holly Birtwistle

P. Gao • Mar 22, 2018 at 17:49

Agreed P. Here in Canada though it takes 4 years full-time for a Bachelor degree; many do it in 5, to keep their marks higher, or because they are working part-time; and a larger percentage of students go to university than previous generations, not all of them are strong academically. It would be nice to see Bachelors' degrees reduced to 3 years, then one or two more for specialiation; or even a specialization in 4 years like my nephew did in Physiotherapy in New Zealand. In Canada it would have been 4 years bachelor, then two more for the physiotherapy training. He is back in Canada working as a physiotherapist, after jumping through several money-gouging hoops, to the tune of thousands of dollars to write "exams" and pay for other government money-grabbing schemes. Maddening.

David Elstrom • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:25

One surprising answer was the discussion about changing the nuclear family to reduce its carbon footprint. Set aside the many shortcomings of global warming theory. I'm not certain conversation will be productive with some zealot so consumed with hubris that he thinks the nuclear family can be changed (by government masterminds flogging everyone into submission, no doubt). Even if one concedes, for argument, that the nuclear family might be a "social construct," it is one so ancient and ingrained as to be part of human nature. The man who thinks this can be tampered with is a dangerous tyrant and a potential blood spiller.

Robert Stewart

David Elstrom • Mar 15, 2018 at 17:18

One of the benefits of this interview is it gives us a chance to see how the "other side" is thinking. Shepherd seemed quite comfortable with the notion that dissolving the nuclear family would reduce the human race's "carbon footprint". It is alarming that anyone could mouth these words after receiving a college education. Where is the skepticism? What is a "carbon footprint"? If it's CO2, then every spring our fruits and vegetables reward us with healthy foods that were created out of CO2, H2O and sunlight. Why do we worry about that? It is because Michael Mann has proven that there was no MWP, nor a Little Ice Age? If so, what about the Viking settlements on portions of Greenland that are only now being exposed as the ice recedes? These are important issues, and it's incredible that they have been assumed away by the doctrine of social construction. The Social Justice types may be able to twist the minds of our children, but they will be utterly useless in the real world. My congratulations to Ms Shepherd for having the courage to stand up to the bullying of the commissars in her university, but she still has a number of issues to confront before freeing herself from the intellectual slavery of the modern academy and the stifling embrace of the welfare state.

Kate Smyth

Robert Stewart • Mar 15, 2018 at 20:40

".... she still has a number of issues to confront before freeing herself from the intellectual slavery of the modern academy and the stifling embrace of the welfare state." Well said. Lindsay's support for "dismantling the nuclear family" (a notion which she initially appeared to deride), was the glaring SJW moment in the interview; using her (flawed) logic, one could only conclude that the individual is the most toxic threat to the environment, as P Gao pointed out. Her naivety here was very revealing in terms of the success of the indoctrination project.

Being catapulted from obscurity to an interview with Mark Steyn in just 6 months-- as a 20-something-- must be somewhat overwhelming, and Mark's brilliance as an interviewer and conversationalist came to the fore. (He has a polite and tactful way of saying "...right, right..", which seems to be code for just the opposite, in response to nonsense.) Lindsay certainly appears to have the fortitude and maturity to take on board the objective, constructive criticism here in the comments.

As you suggest, everyone with a platform— from Steyn to Shepherd— who can further weaken the chink in the Ctrl-Left armour is to be applauded and supported!

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:40

My main takeaway from this is that right wing men are hot(ter).

Sam Williamson

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:57

Please no. The only way I can see Mark as hot is if he were sunburned.

Sam Williamson

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 15, 2018 at 17:45

That was a most fascinating interview. My overall impression was one of great sadness for young people in Canada. To list all my concerns would surely get me kicked out of the Mark Steyn Club, at a time when I'm hoping to renew at the platinum level.

Lindsay Shepherd seems an intelligent young person who has navigated the left-wing student world on her own terms. Bravo. Well done.

I found the discussion on debate interesting. When I went to school, debate meant inviting some Marxist on campus to debate the evils or wonders of capitalism. The whole process went on, the students listened, a winner may have been declared, and then we went off to discuss the points made and possibly yell at each other about who was right. Now it appears that debate has a whole new meaning, and you can't invite a Jordan Peterson type lest he cause some nefarious violence. That is profoundly sad turn of events for a free society.

I was also saddened when Lindsay said she would avoid employment in politically correct workplaces because she doesn't like that environment. That rules out about 95 percent of all jobs in Canada: public service, education in public schools, main stream journalist, most large corporations, most small corporations. etc. Today's state enforcers are everywhere just waiting to shut you up or ruin you. Mark mentioned Trudeau may bring back the commissars for human rights. There is no safe space, anymore, unless you are one of the Marxist who happens to run up against Lindsay Shepherd (clever enough to make a tape recording), in which case they take paid "safety leave" and run for the hills for fear that someone might do to them what they actually do to others.

And in the continuing quest for premium membership, nice jacket, shirt and tie. King Edward stamps in the background is a lovely historical touch.

Andrew A

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 15, 2018 at 18:33

"right wing men are hot[er]"

That sums up the interview for me too.

Kate Smyth

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 15, 2018 at 20:44

And that you, and I (and others of the distaff persuasion in the MSC) are merely subordinate enablers of the patriarchy!

(And note that reply from Sam-- cis hetero male?-- to be completely discounted here.)

Andrew Jones

Sam Williamson • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:33

Then his head would fall off because his neck-bolts would shear from the heat stress.

Carl Branstetter

Sam Williamson • Mar 16, 2018 at 10:02

He's a fine looking chap by my measure, and my wife thinks he's a real hotty.

Laura Rosen Cohen

Kate Smyth • Mar 16, 2018 at 10:54

Yeah, I think I should have put a tag on that. Right men are hotter was obviously (to me) my nod to the host. And hey, an anagram of host is hots IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW!

Anyway, I actually think that Lindsay has a lot to say, and makes some very interesting points. She is very young and showed extraordinary bravery and fortitude when she recorded and then released her Thought Police interrogation.

So in a way, this cause chose her, and she did not look away. She ran into the intellectual fire so to speak, and is not running away from it. She is running this cause (government/academic/anti-free speech jobs be dammed as she says) and she has certainly paid some kind of price in addition to any gains. It is quite an astonishing thing to turn from confessed Social Justice Warrior to libertarian/conservative/free speech advocate in such a short time.

I quite admire her guts.

That she is beautiful and slim and not afraid to say the obvious about herself is also to her credit. Why shouldn't she be lovely to look at and engaging to listen to? Beauty should be celebrated, especially when combined with intellectual courage.

Modernity has bailed on many classic definitions of beauty and the post-modernist left tries to make us celebrate and endorse things that are obviously ugly. Well, nuts to that and good on Lindsay.

Sam Williamson

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 16, 2018 at 12:31

Sorry Laura, that second comment was meant for the general audience. That post another comment link outsmarted me.

Kate Smyth

Laura Rosen Cohen • Mar 16, 2018 at 21:46

No tag required, Laura. Your anagram sums it up perfectly.

Nicola Timmerman • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:32

Forgot to say. Beware the Ides of March!

Nicola Timmerman • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:20

This should be on the previous thread but just to let you know that after all Trudeau has gone to Florida for a little family time (that famous work/life balance that we paid for on his family working holiday in India) after his tiring tour of steel and aluminum factories in Quebec. Entitled to his entitlements. New import duties on Canadian newsprint should have sent him to Ontario or B.C. but what the heck.
Speaking of hotness I miss men having handkerchiefs. Useful for male judges on American idol when contestants cry but even Ryan Seacrest never had one. The new judges are really over the top and Katy Perry besides her stupid political views kissed a very young male contestant the other day. Can kissing a female contestant and liking it be far behind? Did I mention her wardrobe malfunction? Desperate for ratings...

William Stroock • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:02

Looks and brains. Mark I'm in love (with Ms. Sheppard).

Sol Cranfill • Mar 15, 2018 at 12:10

This was wonderful, Mark, thank you.

When Shepherd was asked, "What is driving the preference for identity politics - for transgender rights, or gay rights, or whatever, over free speech rights?" she said she'd been trying to figure that out, but said guilt from the past is one legitimate argument.

As a way of dealing with that guilt, I think a form of the ancient practice of scapegoating is being reintroduced. The idea is to transfer your sins to someone else: sacrifice your compadres by letting them be subjugated by stronger, hungrier; less decadent; more worthy; mythically pure primitives, who can start the clock over at achieving human perfection.

Psychiatrist Neel Burton in England describes it this way:

"The ego defence of displacement plays a role in scapegoating, in which uncomfortable feelings such as anger, frustration, envy, and guilt are displaced and projected onto another, often more vulnerable, person or group. The scapegoated target is then persecuted, providing the person doing the scapegoating not only with a conduit for his uncomfortable feelings, but also with pleasurable feelings of piety and self-righteous indignation. The creation of a villain necessarily implies that of a hero, even if both are purely fictional."

Sound familiar?

Holly Birtwistle

Sol Cranfill • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:37

I think that nails it on the head to a large extent Sol. The Western World needs to start tabulating and espounding on all its successes, as well as all the ammendments to it's mistakes, in order to alleviate and counter-act the constant river of guilt poured on them. Western Civilization has many more successes than failures to it's credit; as well as being willing to admit mistakes and change for the better. What other contemporary civilization does that? None that I know of.

David Watson

Sol Cranfill • Mar 15, 2018 at 20:02

Shrinks often have a hard time getting to their point. Dr Burton could have simplified it to "Tantrums are weakness." Never mistake outrage for strength. Their outbursts are only because they know they can't get their way outside their little communes.

Sol Cranfill

David Watson • Mar 15, 2018 at 21:10

You're right; this shows them to be weak: taking "safety leave", etc. They were able to move in in the first place after they correctly perceived the West to be distracted, decadent and weak. Instead of frolicking in the decadence, taking pot shots at petty shortcomings on our side, we need to reassert power and take back our seized institutions.

BallBounces in Phoenix • Mar 15, 2018 at 11:33

I suspect that modern speech suppression has its origins in America during the civil rights era. In the name of social peace, it became verboten to express any thoughts on potential racial inferiority or superiority. Discussion was simply off the table. America became the Fawlty Towers episode of The Germans -- "don't mention the war". This social censorship carried over into the gay rights movement. Initially, people on the right assumed that the issue could be discussed rationally. They were wrong. If you articulated a "wrong" view you were hit with the "shut up" of being hateful and a bigot. Once progressives realized the power of the "shut up", there's been no looking back.

PK33

BallBounces in Phoenix • Mar 15, 2018 at 13:05

I've seen you "bounce" in Toronto so may already know that a Conservative Party of Canada member of Parliament, indeed a candidate for the CPC leadership that garnered the most votes on the first ballot (and should have won IMO but was beat out by everybody's second choice), was recently told by a Liberal Party politician, a member of Parliament and a woman of color, that he should be quiet because of his white privilege. He told her in no uncertain terms that he would not be quiet and that EVERYONE should be treated equally, including having the right to speak about race. This was all on Twitter, but it became a national news story and there were a couple of opinion columns about it. The female MP sort of walked it back after being lambasted on Twitter.

I don't know that the power of "shut up" is absolute, at least not any longer. As Tom Korte mentions below, the facade is starting to crack. Hopefully it will be like a dam and soon burst, flooding the SJW and floating them to some metaphorically distant shore.

BallBounces in Phoenix • Mar 15, 2018 at 11:19

SCA (Shallow Commentary Alert): Lindsay Shepherd looked a bit small and uncomfortable in the wing back chair -- the chair itself being a gendered micro-aggression -- but the elder Steyn wore the chair like an elbow-patched blazer, totally relaxed and in his element as he gallantly waxed eloquent with the young lady. To complete the visual, all he needed was a snifter of brandy in one hand and a cigar in the other.

PK33 • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:30

A few thoughts on the interview.

Shepherd mentioned that free speech is supported predominantly by males. Look at history. Men almost always do the heavy lifting and have been villainized for it. Not that women don't do some heavy lifting as well, and also provide crucial support for the men doing it, but it is still mostly men on the front lines, literally and metaphorically.

Feminist women are trying to push OTHER women into STEM. When it comes up, ask the women proposing such, are they in STEM? Who are the women that should be sacrificed by being forced into STEM when they would really rather do something else? Another totalitarian view that the state knows what is best for you, never mind what you want. The push is also refusing presumably capable and interested men so that women can be 50% in STEM. It's an inclusion rider and a disaster on its face.

The SJW left is making it up as they go along. They have no education on actual history. If they did they would realize that their warrior-ing will not end well. Humanity has been here before, more than just once.

Holly Birtwistle

PK33 • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:42

Well-said PK33.

siberianmo • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:29

Mark,

It is programming like this that keeps me coming back.

Well done and kudos to both!

Tom in Missouri
(former "hottie" of the male gender)

Mick Wenlock

siberianmo • Mar 15, 2018 at 21:35

Yes, moi aussi. I love to see interviews where real time is devoted to discussion, giving the interviewee time to answer fully and to articulate meaningful thoughts. What a complete change from the usual media "mcBiscuit" 30 second sound bite.

siberianmo

Mick Wenlock • Mar 16, 2018 at 09:38

Mick,

Thanx for the comment . . .

Seems finding a breath of fresh air (media-wise) is limited, as you say, to the sound bite . . . We "clubbers" are indeed fortunate to have found a respite from that sort of thing.

Tom in Missouri

Jeremy Frankel • Mar 15, 2018 at 09:54

Really missed the show and enjoying watching very much right now. Please keep them coming!

Kate Smyth • Mar 15, 2018 at 09:13

Wow! Accused of "gendered violence", and her interrogators— who were aiming to destroy her— take indefinite "safety leave". A very illuminating discussion, due in large part to the skill of the interviewer... thanks, Mark! It was fascinating to hear Lindsay's perspective in such detail. The fact that both debate and the marketplace of ideas represent threatening "white conceptions of rationality" was an eye-opener. Hopefully other intelligent and articulate young contrarians join forces with Lindsay to put an end to the college identity-politics farce, before the madness goes fully mainstream.

Holly Birtwistle

Kate Smyth • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:43

One can only hope Kate!

Holly Birtwistle

Kate Smyth • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:46

It made me cringe to hear her still advocating far-left SJW ideology like consumerism is bad - because we are using up resources - such a tired old Marxist/Leftist/ Humanity Hating position.

Kate Smyth

Holly Birtwistle • Mar 15, 2018 at 20:46

Exactly right, as they say, Holly!

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 08:34

Steyn notes that younger people are less inclined to be supportive (even in the breach) of free speech as a value in and of itself, whereas he "thought young people were supposed to be idealistic..."

But these young people ARE "idealistic" -- about "social justice" and censorship.

What worries me more is their aversion to non-conformity.

We also expect young people to be non-conformist. Yet as I've observed before, today's youth seem averse to, for example, the lure of sub-culture.

Perhaps I'm out of touch, but we no longer see them sorting themselves into Mods or Punks or Skins in the numbers that once made such sub-cultures seem ubiquitous, and an expected teen "phase."

Now, we can laugh at the idea that someone becomes a Mod because, as Quadrophenia's Jimmy says, he wants to be "different than everybody else." But paradoxically, these sub-cultures were a relatively safe way (barring the occasional Brighton Beach riot) of easing into a new, adult Self.

There was just enough risk (of being beaten up or at the very least shunned) for wearing the wrong colour boot laces, to create the Physics 101 "friction" necessary for "movement," that it: personal development.

I guess these days, the Mods' parents would drive them to Brighton in the SUV — not quite the same thing, no?

Tom Korte

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:35

As the saying goes, hope springs eternal. Maybe that's because the next generation tends towards counter-culture regardless of the what the current culture is. It's reported that those just entering post secondary education are less likely to buy into the SJW mantra, and that Conservative values are the new counter-culture. Last summer I saw a young lad, about 14 years old I would guess, wearing a MAGA t-shirt here in Canada. Of course I congratulated him on his good taste in fashion and he just grinned.

I'm hoping that any emerging Conservative counter-culture movement will be helped along by public discussion and debates, such as those done by Mr. Steyn (I'd put a link in here but I think it's verboten :D ). Anyway, the Munk debates, Tucker Carlson, the popularity of books like America Alone, the huge number of views of the Channel 4 Peterson interview, the world wide interest in Lindsay Shepherd's incident; these are signs that the social justice facade is starting to crack. It's still firmly in place but with continued pressure it will eventually fail.

Of course here in Canada we've no such rosy future on the radar. A complete fool for a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Opposition that appears to be campaigning to become the Finance Minister for the current Leader and has the gravitas and charisma of a furniture salesman. But I digress; which is also verboten... as it should be.

PK33

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:55

Millenials have been indoctrinated instead of educated. Hopefully more will be "red-pilled" through IRL experience, like Shepherd.

Drew

PK33 • Mar 15, 2018 at 11:53

Sadly those few who wake up on their own from the leftist coma they're put in from kindergarten on will never be hired in academia that has become "finishing school" for leftism. How many students taking higher learning at its false word that it encourages debate have been brought to heel in secret meetings they DIDN'T record, surrounded by a baying pack of "diversity" officers whose job it is to stamp out diversity of thought? Ms. Shepherd is made of sterner stuff but how many of us would survive that type of grilling?

Any conservative wishing to broaden academia's offerings to students with his/her presence would have to keep political beliefs in the closet, even pretend to be a SJW until after getting tenure, then "come out". And that kind of subterfuge is not the conservative way.

Keith Owen

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 12:31

Agreed. I was a heavy metal teen and it gave me a non-conformist place to belong while I figured life out.

Sol Cranfill

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 12:43

They're not doing what you're expecting them to do, so they're not conforming. :)

Kathy Shaidle

Keith Owen • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:01

Keith, sending you "devil's horns" across the pixels :-) You and I would have been mortal enemies as teens, but in adulthood I've met many "headbangers" who say the genre had a similar impact on them.

David Elstrom

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 15:17

If it's 'idealistic' for misnamed SJWs to support group-think with totalitarian (dare I say fascistic) methods, then we need fewer such idealists.

Holly Birtwistle

Tom Korte • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:06

I think that we are seeing the beginning of the end of Post-Modernism and Neo-Marxism and their anti-Western policies in North America, as well as Europe. Thanks to many brave warriors speaking sense and reality to the insanity of the EU and Globalists. The branches and para-military wings of these ideologies are all inter-connected: Globalism, Climate Change, the EU, the UN, American Democrats, Universities,Identity Politics, censor-ship of Free Speech etc. The central promotors like Soros, Merkel, Obama, Trudeau, Butts, the EU Commissioner, Tech giants like Google, Twitter, Microsoft, You Tube etc are all being exposed
gradually throught the alternative media, and Conservative folks everywhere. Hopefully there will be more Brexits in Europe soon, to weaken the EU before it does more harm through desperate efforts to continue it's agenda. They need a United States of Europe, or the weakened EU will only re-group like Marxism always does.

Ray Winchester

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:13

They are on World of Warcraft now (10 years anyway). I bought my son in law a WOW t-shirt. He said how did you know I was in that sect (or gang, can't remember). I lied and of course I knew.
Mark, you asked Lindsay what it would be like when she is middle aged?
What do you think it will be like?
Are the cracks showing?
After reading some of your 20 year old articles you haven't been wrong.

Robert Brandon • Mar 15, 2018 at 07:52

Bravo! A pleasure to watch a reasonable discussion about a significant range of topics between a near geezer and a young whippersnapper with the common experience of having offended the powers to be. I think that Mark senses the sinister and dangerous potential of this enforced group-think on society more than Lindsay, but I am glad she has taken up the fight, and I wish her continued success.

David O'Neil • Mar 15, 2018 at 03:48

Perhaps these questions have been answered elsewhere, but a little more backstory would have been interesting. Was she already on the professors radars? Why did she feel the need to tape the meeting in the first place? It seems likely to me that this had been building up for some time and they finally thought they had the evidence to deliver the coup de grace.

Tom Korte

David O'Neil • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:01

I've followed this issue from the beginning, though that hardly makes me an authority on the matter.
- She wasn't on their radar. In fact, prior to the incident she considered herself fairly left wing and even in SJW territory at times.
- Her mother advised her to record the interview, which she did by having her laptop open during the meeting.
- It hadn't been building up at all, despite the insinuation during her interrogation that she was a Jordan Peterson protege and had covertly entered Laurier. Mr. Steyn alludes to this issue several times during this interview.

Sam Williamson

Tom Korte • Mar 15, 2018 at 18:12

Yes, had it not been for the recording (thank God someone was being smart), the University enforcers would have carried on clubbing dissidents who stray from the party line. Instead they are hiding. Disgraceful way to treat young minds. And you have to pay for that education.

P. Gao

Tom Korte • Mar 15, 2018 at 18:41

Her mother told her to record it?
Family values just struck.
Sooo... the woman older authority in her life empowered her daughter - so shrewdly the gulag court is still in hiding. Note that the artificial-spinsters in Uni call 'Moms' by the sneering epithet, 'breeders.' No wonder these 'educators' tell all the young college kids to never trust anyone over thirty. They tried to bully a young woman into a corner only to back her up against her mother standing right behind her.

Tom Korte • Mar 15, 2018 at 01:37

Interesting. There are some aspects of this that require more thought.
Good interview.

P. Gao • Mar 15, 2018 at 00:50

Very nice! Felt like we 'met' this charming and solid young woman through this interview. Hope she continues to do well and grow in knowledge and experience, hopefully discover life outside the campus gulag.

Stowe-man • Mar 15, 2018 at 00:26

Excellent. Maybe a glimmer of hope for Canada. A pleasure to listen to this, and at least as far as the young woman is concerned, a pleasure to watch as well.

Michael Ainslie • Mar 15, 2018 at 00:03

For we old men, she gives us hope for the future. I hope and pray that she and those like her thrive and survive

Reid Trummel • Mar 14, 2018 at 22:55

I can't finish watching/listening to this. I almost lost the will when your subject "ruminated" on a different outcome if she were fat and ugly, but my eyes crossed when we got to the part about debate being an oppressive structure.

You're a real trooper, Mark.

PK33

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 10:41

The "fat and ugly" part bothered me too. But it isn't necessarily true and may be just how she perceived it. She certainly looked different today than in the videos of her in the slouchy knit hat with no makeup and a "most quizzical expression" a la Tucker Carlson.

If you can, look at the candidates for the Ontario, Canada election coming up in June. It brings to mind the saying that politics is show business for ugly people. At least the population won't be choosing someone based on attractiveness. IMO.

Tom Korte

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 11:59

Although I must admit to initially being taken aback somewhat, I subsequently thought that it was interesting to hear her come out with the fat and ugly comment. That and numerous other things seemed to indicate that she still critically evaluates all of the arguments and doesn't just get on the bandwagon. It can seem a little unsettling if you're used to discussing things primarily among people that agree with you for the most part, but it can be refreshing also.

Robert Stewart

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 13:43

I think you need to understand that she was explaining her experience in terms that had been inculcated throughout her academic career. This is what passes for analysis in today's classrooms. Feminists can explain their lack of broad-based support by pointing to their lack of physical attractiveness, and they might even be encouraged to become even more unattractive since that makes their failure even more understandable and forgivable. This is one of Rush Limbaugh's favorite themes.

I don't think she intended to suggest that her notoriety and success were due to her appearance. Rather, she was pointing out what Social Justice Warriors would think. It is also interesting that she and Mark were having a thoughtful and engaging discussion that is just as interesting if you only listen to the audio. But, and this is related to Jordan Peterson's lobsters and serotonin, she did maintain a very upright posture suggesting she was committed to this battle and knew full well the importance of appearance particularly when confronting troublesome issues.

Kathy Shaidle

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 14:03

She's right about the "fat and ugly" part though. In fact I was impressed that she'd realized that.

Holly Birtwistle

PK33 • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:14

The "fat and ugly" remark made me cringe a bit but I put it down to an attractive YOUNG woman's ego getting the better of her. I don't think it was her attractiveness that got the media's attention, it was the fact she recorded her Gulag interrogators and there was a controversy.

Reid Trummel

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2018 at 16:16

Many thanks to all for the replies.
While admitting that I didn't finish watching it, it seemed clear to me that the interviewee was a lightweight who dwells in the land of academic narcissism. My impression is that Mark really carried the interview and virtually prompted her answers several times.
Her upright posture, careful hairdo/makeup and general demeanor came across - to me anyway - as someone over-prepared for a job interview that wasn't going that well.
I accept that I'm outvoted on this, but frankly I'm used to that.
Thank you all again. I really do appreciate and respect your thoughts and observations.

Sol Cranfill

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 18:43

I highly recommend watching the rest. As Kate Smyth said, you'll be impressed with the skill of the interviewer, and the interviewee's perspectives from the heart of the citadel is instructive. She's bravely, and honestly, cracking the shell of an artificial system of error and lies. Not easy to do, and you have to begin from where you are. It's almost like she's the breakaway hammer-thrower in the famous "1984" Apple Macintosh TV commercial. There's evidence that things are already breaking good, and she's continuing. There aren't enough like her, but because of her, the vital cause for freedom of speech, thought and honest academic inquiry is a bit stronger than it was. As with Trump, is it the little things, or the big things, that matter? The question I ask myself is, What am I doing?

Tom Korte

Sol Cranfill • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:06

Or it's like she's recently been red-pilled.

Neo: Why do my eyes hurt?
Morpheus: You've never used them before.

Sol Cranfill

Tom Korte • Mar 15, 2018 at 22:24

Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Holly Birtwistle

Reid Trummel • Mar 15, 2018 at 23:12

She's transitioning Reid:)) Not from a man to a woman! From an indoctrinated, un-questioning SJW dupe on the far-left, to a maturing, open, thinking young woman with a brain, and a SPINE. She has moved a long way in a short time, less than a year, after being indoctrinated her whole life in school. I think her family - especially her feisty Grandma - has influenced her as well, she just doesn't realize that yet. Do you expect her to be at the level of Mark Steyn - who has decades of experience and knowledge under his belt? Mark was gracious and kind, as he should have been; as are her other "new friends on the Right" she so enjoys talking with now. When she is Mark's age, she will be able to command the respect he has.

Tom Korte

Sol Cranfill • Mar 16, 2018 at 09:30

Clemens, as always, is fabulous! Wit and wisdom colluding to bring down the house. I've a hunch that that combination will be pretty much absent in today's forum comments.

Kate Smyth

Holly Birtwistle • Mar 16, 2018 at 09:48

Excellent comment, Holly. What underpins this entire issue is "our" shared commitment to free speech, in spite of our differences (I have some with you!), vis-a-vis the 80:20 difference to which Mark alluded. Even 50:50 would be great, but Lindsay's inquisitors and their fellow travellers will only settle for "shut up".

The fact that LS is keen to debate the differences and put forward "counterpoints"— a way of thinking that is entirely at odds with modern left orthodoxy— is to be applauded. As you say, Mark was gracious and kind (and encouraging), and will no doubt be a great mentor figure as she matures.

Carl Branstetter

Reid Trummel • Mar 16, 2018 at 10:06

Why would you lose it? She's absolutely right. Good looking people are always ... and have always been for the entire extent of recorded human history ... taken more seriously than the homely.

Holly Birtwistle

Kate Smyth • Mar 17, 2018 at 00:18

+100 Kate.

Tom Korte

PK33 • Mar 18, 2018 at 11:56

Perhaps her change in appearance comes from gaining pride in who she is as an individual as opposed to accepting being told that she's not worthy because she's a member of a specific identity group. The change in perspective probably doesn't happen consciously.

PK33

Tom Korte • Mar 18, 2018 at 13:27

Or perhaps it is due to the talent and skill of the hair and makeup staff employed by the Mark Steyn Show. ;^)