09 Mar Dalhousie’s Kabuki theatre of contrition.

The Court of Star Chamber sat in the Palace of Westminster until 1641. Sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, right of appeal, juries, or witnesses. The Court could impose punishment for actions it deemed morally reprehensible, but not contrary to the letter of the law. It could punish offenders for any action it thought should be illegal, even if it was not.

Lots of reader reaction and Facebook comments to my criticism of Dalhousie University’s treatment of whistleblower Ryan Millet. In that Saturday post, I wrote:

This calls to mind the ancient ducking* stool, a judicial instrument that tested the guilt of accused witches by plunging them underwater for prolonged periods. Survival was proof of witchcraft, and led to further punishment. Drowning proved innocence–and cold comfort of the accused.

A reader who agrees with me chose a different metaphor:

Now it’s been flushed into the open thanks to Ryan Millet’s perhaps well intentioned but unfortunate judgment, the Dal disciplinary process feels like a mandated Kabuki Theatre of Contrition. Everyone has to wear the requisite mask and speak the expected lines on cue.

We have seen the public letter from the other 12 that resembles nothing so much as a forced letter of confession in a Soviet show trial.

Now Millet get his turn to confess to crimes he (and his lawyer) claim he did not commit. Dal is not obliged to provide due process to their students in a disciplinary hearing. Their campus is the absolute fiefdom of their Senate, and they can suspend or terminate the academic careers of students they find culpable as they see fit. They are not hindered by notions of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ or even ‘the balance of probabilities’ like a real court. Millet has had the effrontery to not join the Restorative Justice process and beyond that to retain a lawyer to defend him against Dal. His counsel has said mean things about the way the university has managed this matter, and has threatened to take them to the Supreme Court of NS, none of which is likely to endear Millet to the Dal administration.

Having opened Pandora’s box, Millet might yet be saved by its shrill court of public opinion who would find undue punishment for a well intentioned whistle-blower unfair. That and his lawyer who has clearly promised to make the life of the Dal senate hell unless they allow Millet to graduate.

Remember the Halifax police could not find any crime. No woman was ever at risk or being cyber-bullied. Labeling them ‘victims’ is rhetorical IMHO. None of this circus was actually necessary, and the sooner it ends and everyone gets back to their normal lives the better.

I’m with this writer up to the last paragraph. Some of the comments on the DDS13 Facebook group were so vile as to disqualify their authors from ever practicing medicine. Under pressure from the mob, Dal responded badly—but measured action was absolutely required.

In a March 5 speech at the University of Windsor, Dalhousie Bioethics Professor Francoise Baylis, one of the four Dalhousie faculty members whose disciplinary complaint against the members of the notorious DDS13 Facebook group was dismissed by Dal, pointed out some of the shortcomings in the male students’ statement.

For my part, I found the Moonie-like language of the statements creepy and off-putting. I continue to be troubled by the lack of distinction, so far, among those whose membership in the group was passive or even innocent, those who blew whistles, and those whose behaviour warrants barring them from the profession.

Not everyone agrees. On Facebook, a Mount Saint Vincent professor accused me of being played by Millet’s lawyers:

[T]he only person who has described Ryan Millet’s participation in the Facebook group publicly is Ryan Millet or his lawyer. You’re presuming he’s told the whole story and accurately as if he was under oath when talking to the news media….

I’m merely pointing out that Dalhousie administration might know something about his involvement that you don’t. I’d actually bet money on it….

You’re also assuming that Dal can tell you what evidence they’ve collected and that them not telling you about it is evidence that they are hiding something. The simple truth is that legally an adjudication process within a university cannot tell you what they found without being sued. In this case by Millet. So the university is in the position that Millet and his lawyer can make any claims they want and the university cannot legally defend itself against any of his claims. Brilliant tactical move on his lawyer’s part, but not at all evidence of wrongdoing by the university….

[I]t was Millet that went to the press, as far as I can tell his exposure lies on he [sic] and his lawyers shoulders. The press interest in his exoneration or lack thereof therefore derives primarily from his actions. As it sits the investigation concluded that he had engaged in professional misconduct, and that is a wide brush neither you nor I know the specifics of. The difference is that you assume you do, and that the label is unfair. I, on the other hand, don’t make those assumptions.

I have elided my interjections from what was an extended exchange with this MSVU prof, because his comments illustrate the extent to which authoritarianism, and indifference to due process, have crept into much politically correct discourse on campus and elsewhere. Consider the sequence of events leading up to the professor’s position, and the logic underlying it.

(1) A faculty comes under a firestorm of credible criticism for contributing to rape culture—an uproar threatens their careers and professional reputations.

(2) Members of that faculty are tasked with adjudicating the behaviour of the student who exposed the mess, despite (or perhaps because of) the obvious pressure on them to be seen as tough on misogyny.

(3) The tribunal acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury.

(4) The “inquiry” and subsequent trial take place in secret (so we must accept on faith that they actually did conduct a good-faith inquiry).

(5) The investigation/prosecution/adjudication operates under the rubric of “academic standards,” rather than “discipline,” so fundamental rules of evidence, due process, fairness, need not apply—or apply in watered down form.

(6) We cannot know the factual findings, if any, of the inquiry, assuming it took place, because, “Dal would get sued if they tell us.”

(7) If a student is found guilty, we must assume that the result is founded on provable facts and reasonable judgments, fairly applied—even if the outcome flies in the face of known facts. We must assume there to be other facts, completely unknown to the public, or to reporters who have focused on this case for months, that support the apparently illogical outcome.We must trust Dal Dental Faculty and Administration made the right decision. In fact, we can bet money on it.

(8) On the basis of his conviction in these circumstances, the accused student must, as a condition of graduating, admit his guilt in a series of “written essays and public lectures,” an unusual punishment reminiscent of the “criticize, self-criticize” sessions that characterized the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

(9) The student’s only avenue of independent appeal is to the courts, a route that will delay the his graduation, the start of his professional life, and his ability to begin paying back massive student loans by at least one year and possibly many years. Only a tiny fraction of Dal students have the financial resources to undertake such an appeal.

(10) If the impugned student or his lawyer complains about the process to the media, he has only himself to blame for not quietly accepting Dal’s judgment.

I wish I were surprised that a tenured university professor could have such a frail grasp of fundamental democratic principles, but lately, I have seen too many profs genuflecting to the mob. If the faculties of US universities had shown this level of deference to authority in the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy might have had a shot at the presidency.

Equally disturbing is the silence of Halifax’s robust feminist community at the treatment according the person who exposed the existence of the DDS13 group and its abuses. Of course, Millet is not a woman. He was merely sticking up for a woman.

– –

* Ducking (or even cucking), but not “dunking,” as I incorrectly wrote in the original post. Thanks to WCR for setting me straight.