2017/03/27: Dr. Oren Amitay and the Ontario Psychological Association

Okay, so I'm speaking with Doran Amate, and you may remember that Dr. Amate had invited me a while back to speak at Ryerson University on a Saturday, and that's been a rather popular YouTube video. Um, he's been defending me and making comments about free speech on the Ontario Psychological Association listserv, if that's correct, if I got the details right.

Yes, well, maybe you could tell everybody what's been happening.

Okay, sure. So, uh, back in November, um, one of our members—I won't put out her name—but she wrote a piece where she basically, I'll just say what I wrote. Um, she basically said that you shouldn't have a forum for discussing what you were supposed to discuss, and that was the talk that you were going to have at the University of Toronto—the debate.

Right, the debate—exactly. So she wrote a piece and put it online, and she posted it to the listserv. I essentially wrote in my email to the listserv, I've written a number of comments about this, and mostly I've been saying every time one of your stories comes up or another similar story comes up, I'm posting it there saying, "Look, this is what's going on. This is not some mad ramblings; this is a legitimate concern about ideology run amok." And either I get met by silence, or I get people asking me why I'm so angry, or why I'm taking it so personally, or I get people emailing me backchannel—most of the older psychologists—who say, "We support you completely, but we're afraid to say anything because of the consequences."

And what do you think they're afraid of?

That, I don't know. I mean, some of them work with these colleagues. Others may be trying to get professorships; they're trying to get tenure, and they're afraid that these people who do hold, you know, positions in academia could hold them down. I think that's the biggest concern. It's a perverse effect of the tenure system because it tends to silence people before they have tenure. And so then, of course, they practice being silent, and by the time they do have tenure—if you've practiced being silent for eight or ten years, or six years for that matter—then it's going to be pretty hard to break that habit.

So what are they objecting to in regards to your postings?

So whenever I post something, it starts off pretty neutrally. I've written a long message to the Ontario Psychological Association; I sent it to the president. I asked them to read it to them. They are convening—or they had convened—a meeting to deal with this issue, and it was very, very long. I said I have not actually done anything wrong. I post links to stories, such as yours—like the last Friday one at McMaster. Then it goes one of two ways: either somebody will impute my character or my motives. Recently, somebody had implied that your message is full of hate; they actually used that word—someone who has hate in his heart. You know, so—and by extension, myself or they will ask a question, and I will address it. But for the most part, they're mischaracterizing what I'm stating. And so I'll simply say, "Look, I did not say that; show me where I said that." And more often than not, they're not picking on any specific issue; it's just the theme. Because on the OPA, apparently, if you're on one side of an issue, it's okay, but if you occupy a different position, they won't accept it.

And what do you think is going to happen? And what have people—like you said, they've convened a so-called emergency meeting about this issue. Do you have any idea why it's an emergency and what they're planning to do?

Well, I think they consider it an emergency because one of the board members—she's the one who wrote that piece saying that you shouldn't have this debate. She took umbrage at a post that I wrote where, you know, she’s from OISE. And, you know, I don't say this like I'm not being faux; she is from OISE, and another—the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education—for those of you who don't know, and it's regarded as ideologically possessed, if you were feeling charitable. Right? So, um, she’s from OISE, and she's the one who wrote the piece. Then somebody else from OISE wrote what would any reasonable person would say was a fair comment, which she was basically trying to say, "Look, can we all just be a bit more polite in our tone, more respectful?" And she listed five points that we should all aspire to, which I don't disagree with. But the problem is she's also from OISE, and there's a subtext to the message, which is basically this message is directed at me.

So what I did was I wrote—and by the way, she posted this after the president had already shut down the discussion. As soon as he shuts it down, I retract; I'm not going to say anything. But the two other people put postings on, and they, you know, directly—basically, like I said, they mischaracterized me and tried to make me look bad. And so I spoke out. In one of my pieces, I said to her, "If you really believe in what you're saying, I said, please make sure you apply this to the people who are on the other side—the ones who want to shut down this discussion." I said, "And when you say that the president of the OPA shut down the discussion, what exactly does that mean? How does he do that, and why did he do it?"

Well, he sends out an email and says, "Please, this is getting a bit out of hand; will you please not talk about this?" That's about the extent of it. And reasonable people will, you know, refrain. I shouldn't even say reasonable; let's say people who are trying not to cause conflict will stop posting, which I've done. Their concern is, I think, that the tone gets out of hand. Again, I don't think there's any tone. The worst you can say about my tone is that it's blunt. There's no name-calling; it's literally every single time I say, "Show me where I said this," you know, or if you're mischaracterizing that, or I say your argument is irrational, sorry, it's irrelevant basically. You know, don't appeal to emotion; we’re dealing with facts here. Let's deal with them.

Do you have any examples of the sort of things that you've posted that you could read or share with us?

Certainly! So in one of the postings—so this woman who, again, posted something that seemed reasonable—I basically said to her, "Some members might find my direct, rational, logical, and fact-based messages—not only with respect to the issues themselves but also with respect to claims made by those who disagree with me—offensive or inappropriate." Which to me is a gross misuse of such terms. However, some of those same people have directly stated or implied that I am a misogynist, a transphobe, a bigot, hateful, reprehensible, unreasonable, and unwilling or unable to engage in respectful discourse. The next step is where things got heated. I said, "Moreover," and I mentioned the colleague I alluded to a few minutes ago. Um, she explicitly stated on this listserv in November that she did not believe that Jordan Peterson should have been given a forum to discuss what any reasonable person would agree is far from an unequivocal issue. She posted a link to an online article she co-wrote, and this is critical—that stated her reasons for what most objective people should find a concerning call for censorship of not only non-hateful ideas but also scientific investigation and discussion, as well as civil debate about poorly conceptualized and worded legislation that could potentially cause unforeseen harm. I wrote that, and her response was—she actually posted her response. Um, and I hadn't heard from her for quite some time, and let me just read it: she posted, "Or an Amate, I have just as much right to express my opinion as anyone else. I already put you on notice once, but I will say it again: please leave me alone." That's what I think led to the emergency meeting. And, you know, look at the context: I have every right; I have just as much right to express my opinion as anyone else. I agree with that, but why would she be calling for other people not to have that same right? The hypocrisy is astounding.

So what do you think is going to happen?

I really don't know. They may ask me to, you know, leave the OPA; they may ask me to leave the listserv. I'm one of the OPA's strongest advocates. I just, you know, every time I'm in the media, I will mention the work that they do. They do a lot of excellent work, including the president, Sil Van Roy. Uh, he's done excellent work for homelessness and for promoting psychology. So the worst they can do is try to kick me out. I know that this member in question was trying to, you know, enact something against me—some censure, like more formal censure. It never happened aside from a public rebuke.

On what grounds, precisely? I mean, you've read some of the things that you've written. I mean, why is it that you're being targeted?

Well, first, for an emergency meeting, which seems a bit like overkill, but perhaps it isn't. But what is it that they have on you, so to speak, that would result in a censure of that sort?

They literally have nothing because I've not called anybody names. Um, you know, even when I called a member immature, I didn't name them at all. So the worst they can say is the tone might become a bit hostile, but this is what worries me. I again, I might be forceful; I might be blunt. I might be repetitive and verbose, but I stick to the facts. And right, the problem is those facts are on the wrong side of their ideology, and that's what's propelling them and compelling them. The other thing is that—I mentioned that he receives, quote-unquote, "dozens of complaints from members" who—this is what's incredible—who are basically saying that they do not want—they can't tolerate the distress that comes along with knowing that I'm writing emails to the listserv and that they might, you know, give up their membership. This is the kind of issue that's going on. Um, and again, if you look at my post, and I've written to the OPA, and every time someone criticizes me, I specifically write, "Show me one thing that I've written that's inappropriate or offensive," and no one's ever called. They can't.

And you have a record of all these postings, I presume?

I have them all, yeah.

Yes, and is there anything in them that you would be— I mean, that you've written that you would be unwilling to make public, assuming that you could get rid of names and so on that might identify people? Is there anything that would make you uncomfortable about revealing publicly?

The only thing I'd be concerned about is making sure that we're not violating some ethical code, um, you know, which I guess would be portraying the psychology or psychologist in a negative light. Um, I don't know if this qualifies as that. I think this is having an honest discussion about—

You presume that you would only be, I would suspect, responsible for portraying psychology in a negative light if your portrayal was unfounded from a factual perspective, I would presume. I mean, some reasonable leeway in a policy of that sort, although the problem is those things are subject to interpretation, right? And that's my concern—is that interpretation. I will seek legal counsel. I don't know if our coverage, you know, applies to such a situation—but I will ask the lawyers. That we have, you know, insurance for, and see if this would count as that.

I really don't know what’s happened. What’s happened to you, if anything, as a consequence for hosting me at Ryerson? I mean, that video has got a lot of attention.

The only consequence is that people have been thanking me for being someone who's, you know, standing out and saying—or standing up and saying, "We need to have this discussion."

So far, oh, that's good! That's good too.

Now the thing is, my next contract is coming due at Ryerson. I'm a sessional lecturer. I've been teaching there for 15 years. I always get the positions I apply for because I've taught so often—I've taught over 160 courses at P universities, excellent reviews. Um, if I find this term, that's the first time ever that I don't get the positions I apply for; that's the consequence.

We will find out. I don't think that they would do that. I think we have a pretty strong union, but I don't have tenure. As we were talking about, I don't have a secure position. And, you know, I've got a very busy clinical practice. But to stop teaching, to not be able to communicate with students who want to learn—who want to, you know, learn about critical thinking and being motivated to challenge ideas—that would be, you know, a horrible consequence.

Yeah, well, there's always YouTube, you know. I mean, not making light of what's facing you, but you know, it is certainly possible if you've got something to say that people need to hear and that actually constitutes reasonable quality education, that in a pinch, it certainly is an alternative, and you have full control over that.

Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens with your contract renewal. We can certainly have another talk at that time, whether it goes badly or whether it goes well—either way.

So what do you think is going to happen to you overall as a consequence of this? What are you afraid of, if anything?

Um, I mean, the worst that could happen is if somehow the college decides that this warrants some kind of heavy sanction. That would be, you know, if somehow I lost my registration over this.

Right, right. So if the College of Psychologists got involved in Ontario, rather than just the Ontario Psychological Association—because the college, for everyone who's listening, the college is the body that regulates clinical psychologists' law in Ontario. To have them make any action against one of their licensed psychologists in Ontario, that can be a very serious thing.

That was definitely something that worried me. Well, it still worries me to some degree, but certainly worried me a lot back in October and November when there were more negative—when the university was responding negatively, for example, to what I was doing and sending me those warning letters. I mean, so far, nothing has come of that, but, um, yeah. I mean, and that's the only real consequence.

Yes, it is, and you know, practically speaking, let's say the Ontario Psychological Association listserv—the OPA listserv— um, a lot of people send out referrals. So if I'm qualified to deal with one of the cases that they send it out to, you can be guaranteed that certain people will not pass that referral my way. My practice is busy enough as it is, but you know, that would be a potential consequence. This is why other people might not want to speak out.

You know, and again, if I'm applying—

Well, it is this sort of thing that is why people don’t want to speak out, and it also, I mean, I get letters—hordes of letters, dozens of letters from people who say exactly that—that they're afraid to speak their mind—students and people from all other walks of life who are afraid to speak their mind because they're targeted by people who have censorship on their mind and malice in their hearts, I would say, and who are willing to use whatever means necessary to intimidate people whose opinions they don't agree with.

So it's really not good. And the thing is, though, this is what's worrying me is that the OPA, from what I can tell, you know, the comments that people don't see what you're saying—I mean, I think they think you're being hyperbolic, reactionary. Um, you know, they say, "Show me one case." And now the thing is they always apply it to the transgender issue, and I say, "Please try to see it at a different level; it's not just about transgenders. That's just, you know, that was the context under which it happened. The actual issue—look, if this was about preferred pronouns, it would have died out in about a week, and it hasn't died out at all, quite the contrary. And everyone with any sense knows perfectly well that this is about far more than preferred pronouns. That just happened to be the issue de rigueur, so to speak."

Yes, but, but I have to say, though, that the most recent—when I posted the talks that you had on Friday, uh, at McMaster University, where they, you know, shamefully shut you down—you weren't able to speak. When I posted that, you know, somebody wrote to me, and again, they wrote to me privately and then publicly on the listserv, asking me about why won't he just say "they"?

Like, they are focusing on that!

Yeah, even though we can clearly see it's a deeper issue. This is the rigidity with which they're seeing. It's pretty—a reaction, the reaction to "why won't he just say 'they'"—to viewing what happened at McMaster University is a little bit on the peculiar side, I might say. So, you know, it's—it's, what do they say—"swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat?" I think that's how that saying goes.

So, um, all right, well, so is there anything else that you wanted to talk about tonight, or does that basically cover your concerns and describe what's been happening to you reasonably well?

I think it does. I mean, and I'll look into it and see, you know, what I'm able to maybe post publicly so that people can see what kind of discussions are being had. You know, I won't put any names, it'll just simply be, you know, this is the manner in which we're communicating. And the advantage to that would be that people can judge for themselves, right? Whatever, you know, because at the moment it's sort of he said, she said, which is not a great way. I mean, it's not like—I mean, certainly I'm listening to what you say and believe that you're portraying it accurately, but it's much better for people to be able to make that judgment themselves. So that would be a useful thing to do, assuming that you can do it without compromising yourself or anyone else in any unreasonable manner. But I also don't think it's unreasonable to make things like this public because, well, if you can't make something public, you really have to wonder what's going on, you know. If so, if there's a restriction against sharing what's been happening on what's more or less a public—the listserv—it's more or less a public forum. I know that it's part of the Ontario Psychological Association, but it's not exactly private communication. And if you're going to get—in trouble for what you're posting, and it's unreasonable, it would be useful for people to be able to see that, but you can decide that.

So, right, well, um, well, I do want—if I’m—sorry, Jordan, if I can say one more thing, just because I do want to be fair to Sil Van Roy. I mean, as I alluded to earlier, his concern is that it might be violating, you know, some OPA—OPA is hosted by the APA, the American Psychological Association—listserv for whatever reason. And he's concerned that, you know, that it might be violating that. So for him, shutting things down, I have no problem with that if he's worried about that reason. It's the, it's the, um, I guess the message coming from the other members, which is essentially they're saying shut it down because we don't want to hear it, and they think I'm being just too, again, too arrogant or forceful. But again, that's not the real reason; the real reason is that they don't like what I have to say. But, but again, I understand the, uh, you know, the ostensible reason for which, uh, you know, they're shutting down the discussion. I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. I'm not—I'm not trying to misrepresent that.

That's what they're saying.

Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, it's hard to know what to say about that. I mean, I appreciate appreciating what you're saying about it. I mean, it still seems to me that the whole point of a listserv is so that people can communicate their ideas, and I do believe that we're entering an age where forceful discussion is going to be regarded as somehow oppressive and violent. And the problem is, it's very difficult to discuss anything of importance without a certain amount of forcefulness, which, you know, is also directness and bluntness and speech that's to the point. And we certainly don't want to interfere with that. And otherwise, well, for obvious reasons—for obvious reasons.

All right, well, thanks very much for talking about this. And I guess I'll know—we'll know very soon exactly how this went, and maybe I can talk to you again when we find out.

Yeah, let to give you an update—find out what they decide.