In the discussion, I elaborated on why NDAs are worse than commonly assumed, but I did not explain the same for Mandatory Arbitration: The theory behind MA is that, in a business setting, an arbitration firm has an incentive to be impartial and fair because its business depends on its reputation for just settlements. If a labor union and business, say, want to save legal costs by settling a dispute using arbitration, they must both agree on the firm, and they will not choose a firm that is biased against unions or businesses.
But with a university or media outlet a completely different dynamic operates. The institution’s main interest is not a fair judgement but protecting its reputation for respecting academic or journalistic freedom and freedom of speech and expression; otherwise, no one will go there or respect its scholarship. So the only effective recourse and leverage for the dismissed employee is not to seek damages but the threat to go public and ruin the institution’s reputation. Like NDAs, MA prevents and punishes that.
The arbitration firm is not selling an equitable judgement. It is selling a secret process. It is saying to the institution, if you write our firm’s name into the employment contracts (thus depriving the employee of any voice in choosing the firm), we will guarantee a secret proceeding that will conceal your firm’s wrongdoing. You win the important battle just by using the process itself, regardless of any judgement. If an employee breaches the secrecy by going public and tries to ruin your reputation, we have weapons to punish him severely, regardless of the merits of his case.
This is how a legal innovation, that may be legitimate as originally conceived, carries unintended consequences that can be manipulated ane perverted and distorted by unscrupulous institutions and a generally corrupt justice system, to deprive people of justice, their livelihoods, and even their constitutional rights.
Having said all that, MA is itself controversial, even in other contexts. It has largely replaced court litigation for most ordinary people, such as employees and consumers. Your inbox is probably full of notices from a variety of companies informing you that they have changed their “terms of service” by adding a clause preventing you from taking them to court and instead mandating arbitration – as if you can sign away the most basic right of a citizen: your right to public justice.
This is a very important article. I was cancelled in this same way by professional societies for daring to stand up for the right of due process in a peer reviewed conference presentation in a session on ETHICS! As Baskerville has said, none of the so called academic freedom organizations or public interest law firms would take on the issue out of fear. Unfortunately, without an effective means to fight back, the bullies involved (in my case Femi Nazis defending the right of false accusers to avoid being challenged) continue to bully you by clandestine attempts to deny opportunity and keep you silent because they know you have information that would harm the "cause". It is very clear that there is coordination across entire industries to create this system of censorship and bullying as insidious as any communist insurgency. All this said...I never signed an NDA if you want to have a discussion on how this works...
I attended the 2018 American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington DC. On the evening of the first night (Monday) they held a Townhall in which they introduced the 7 young women that were going to be used to take down prominent male scientific leaders in their subfields of geoscience. I had presented the ethics session poster earlier that day which looked at the unethical conduct of multiple people in handling a similar case in the geosciences that had been swirling in the news for over a year and was the topic of formal presentations and justification for unconstitutional codes of conduct being developed in various professional societies. Instead of heeding the warning of the poster in how to handle disputes between scientists in an ethical and legal fashion, I was immediately hit with cancellation and years of cancel culture from the members of Team FemiNazi. The women behind the Salem Witch Trials are no doubt smiling in Hell to see their legacy living on...and bringing many more women into their final judgement! Given the eagerness with which the women of science have embraced this conduct, it would be fully appropriate to not only repeal Title IX but to strip women....and women only....of the right to access the courts to make accusations or to receive due process in court proceedings.
100% correct. You are so spot on. The cruel reality is that w0e-MEN have less agency than MEN and even less of a conscious. It has to do with w0e-MEN'S smaller brain size, and NO one can tell me brain size between the genders is irrelevant. Is muscle size between the genders irrelevant? Also, for those of faith, biblically w0e-MEN are more swayed by Satan than MEN are. Every day I'm seeing girls & w0e-MEN making specious and demonstrably FALSE rape claims with ZERO merit, a recent case involving a (14-year-old boy) who was sentenced to (40 years in prison) on a mere accusation of rape that was later recanted, from an accuser who DID NOT even live in the same state as the boy! He was released after 4 years only because she admitted she lied. Adding to the complexity of the matter is most males are hopelessly cucked and have adopted w0e-MEN'S narratives. I DON'T even believe Epstein's accusers either! In fact, Virginia Guiffre has outed herself as a serial LIAR on multiple occasions and IMOP prototypical of a FALSE accuser. And that is hit the wall or menopausal w0e-MEN who retro interprets their past life as one of abuse as ploy to continue monetizing sexuality. Guiffre has literally LIED about being raped by Alan Dershowitz, LIED about being raped by TWO separate boyfriends, lied about being raped by her father, LIED about being abused by her husband even though HE got a restraining order against HER and HE WON custody of the kids! I have long held that w0e-MEN should have never been given the vote or be allowed to sit on juries. The only reservation I would have is for the 2% of fe-MALE outliers who are reasonable.
I am not sure about the brain size or Satan aspects of this post...but the lack of conscience and rampant false accusations sadly reflect my own observations. I too question the Epstein accusers. Were they ACTUALLY victims...or willing co-conspirators in what was essentially a prostitution scheme? This is why I think releasing the Epstein files should remain EVERYTHING! No redaction of witnesses or victims names and roles.
Perhaps the lesson here is never sign a non-disparagement agreement and thereby exercise your right to speak out. The problem is, as pointed out in the interview, that the person they're trying to silence needs the money. Unless you're independently wealthy, they have you over a barrel. You feel discouraged and sign away your rights rather than suffer more abuse. The person signing also knows that if he or she does disparage the university, it will look bad for them in terms of future employment elsewhere. And there is also an implicit (or explicit?) threat of defamation litigation. So they sign to make it all go away. And you can't blame them. But it is discouraging.
Re: the point about Christian higher education becoming leftist and secular. It's also really disheartening for the students who are serious about faith. I speak from experience. I was in seminary and left after two years because of what I saw: the school had abandoned traditional Christian teachings. It's still painful to talk about. The easier thing to do is to try to forget about it. But I should also try to express why it was wrong. 'Woke Christianity' in general is heretical, yet it is the primary type of Christianity being taught in these mainstream denomination seminaries.
Prof. Baskerville keeps mentioning the First Amendment -- which, of course, in Canada doesn't exist -- but what it refers to is the principle of free speech, which institutions of higher education should be upholding, not violating. I recall being inspired by an expression for this principle:
"The existence of an institution where unorthodox ideas, alternative modes of thinking and living, and radical prescriptions for social ills can be debated contributes immensely to social and political change and the advancement of human rights both inside and outside the University. Often this debate may generate controversy and disputes among members of the University and of the wider community. In such cases, the University's primary obligation is to protect the free speech of all involved. The University must allow the fullest range of debate. It should not limit that debate by preordaining conclusions, or punishing or inhibiting the reasonable exercise of free speech." https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/secretariat/policies/freedom-speech-statement-may-28-1992
I still find that inspiring, even though this university has undoubtedly silenced dissenting voices and is guilty of the very problem being discussed here. The person who wrote it for them would probably agree with me.
Leftist ideologues took over higher education long ago and ruined it. I earned a doctorate, but I would caution young men today to go into trades rather than academia, which is a dead end. If you're interested in learning, become an autodidact or study at one of the emerging conservative schools like Peterson Academy or UATX. I have come to the conclusion that the big universities that have betrayed their principles should lose public funding -- at least until they can clean up their act, which includes getting rid of all "gender studies" departments and excising Leftist ideology from the courses.
I appreciate what the three people in this interview are doing. All brilliant thinkers and speakers. I am reading Who Lost America? by Stephen Baskerville, which is very good. Janice Fiamengo is the thinker whose videos helped guide me out of the moral confusion of the Leftist worldview a few years ago.
Janice Fiamengo's experience with the tribunal is telling. These "human rights tribunals" are like Soviet troikas, designed to push the dominant orthodoxy. Even if charges are dismissed, the accused must suffer the punishment of being on trial, having to hire a lawyer, and being silenced; as with a SLAPP suit, "the plaintiff's goal is not to win the lawsuit, but to use the legal process and the threat of crippling legal costs to overwhelm and silence their opponents."
The problem with refusing to sign an NDA is that some employment contracts also contain clauses rerquiring mandatory arbitration, so they can still gag you.
In the discussion, I elaborated on why NDAs are worse than commonly assumed, but I did not explain the same for Mandatory Arbitration: The theory behind MA is that, in a business setting, an arbitration firm has an incentive to be impartial and fair because its business depends on its reputation for just settlements. If a labor union and business, say, want to save legal costs by settling a dispute using arbitration, they must both agree on the firm, and they will not choose a firm that is biased against unions or businesses.
But with a university or media outlet a completely different dynamic operates. The institution’s main interest is not a fair judgement but protecting its reputation for respecting academic or journalistic freedom and freedom of speech and expression; otherwise, no one will go there or respect its scholarship. So the only effective recourse and leverage for the dismissed employee is not to seek damages but the threat to go public and ruin the institution’s reputation. Like NDAs, MA prevents and punishes that.
The arbitration firm is not selling an equitable judgement. It is selling a secret process. It is saying to the institution, if you write our firm’s name into the employment contracts (thus depriving the employee of any voice in choosing the firm), we will guarantee a secret proceeding that will conceal your firm’s wrongdoing. You win the important battle just by using the process itself, regardless of any judgement. If an employee breaches the secrecy by going public and tries to ruin your reputation, we have weapons to punish him severely, regardless of the merits of his case.
This is how a legal innovation, that may be legitimate as originally conceived, carries unintended consequences that can be manipulated ane perverted and distorted by unscrupulous institutions and a generally corrupt justice system, to deprive people of justice, their livelihoods, and even their constitutional rights.
Having said all that, MA is itself controversial, even in other contexts. It has largely replaced court litigation for most ordinary people, such as employees and consumers. Your inbox is probably full of notices from a variety of companies informing you that they have changed their “terms of service” by adding a clause preventing you from taking them to court and instead mandating arbitration – as if you can sign away the most basic right of a citizen: your right to public justice.
Sadly most laws and legislation are open to abuse. There always loop holes in everything that these people use .
This is a very important article. I was cancelled in this same way by professional societies for daring to stand up for the right of due process in a peer reviewed conference presentation in a session on ETHICS! As Baskerville has said, none of the so called academic freedom organizations or public interest law firms would take on the issue out of fear. Unfortunately, without an effective means to fight back, the bullies involved (in my case Femi Nazis defending the right of false accusers to avoid being challenged) continue to bully you by clandestine attempts to deny opportunity and keep you silent because they know you have information that would harm the "cause". It is very clear that there is coordination across entire industries to create this system of censorship and bullying as insidious as any communist insurgency. All this said...I never signed an NDA if you want to have a discussion on how this works...
Yes, ultimately, it seems that the feminists are behind this, driving the fear, more than any other interest.
I attended the 2018 American Geophysical Union meeting in Washington DC. On the evening of the first night (Monday) they held a Townhall in which they introduced the 7 young women that were going to be used to take down prominent male scientific leaders in their subfields of geoscience. I had presented the ethics session poster earlier that day which looked at the unethical conduct of multiple people in handling a similar case in the geosciences that had been swirling in the news for over a year and was the topic of formal presentations and justification for unconstitutional codes of conduct being developed in various professional societies. Instead of heeding the warning of the poster in how to handle disputes between scientists in an ethical and legal fashion, I was immediately hit with cancellation and years of cancel culture from the members of Team FemiNazi. The women behind the Salem Witch Trials are no doubt smiling in Hell to see their legacy living on...and bringing many more women into their final judgement! Given the eagerness with which the women of science have embraced this conduct, it would be fully appropriate to not only repeal Title IX but to strip women....and women only....of the right to access the courts to make accusations or to receive due process in court proceedings.
100% correct. You are so spot on. The cruel reality is that w0e-MEN have less agency than MEN and even less of a conscious. It has to do with w0e-MEN'S smaller brain size, and NO one can tell me brain size between the genders is irrelevant. Is muscle size between the genders irrelevant? Also, for those of faith, biblically w0e-MEN are more swayed by Satan than MEN are. Every day I'm seeing girls & w0e-MEN making specious and demonstrably FALSE rape claims with ZERO merit, a recent case involving a (14-year-old boy) who was sentenced to (40 years in prison) on a mere accusation of rape that was later recanted, from an accuser who DID NOT even live in the same state as the boy! He was released after 4 years only because she admitted she lied. Adding to the complexity of the matter is most males are hopelessly cucked and have adopted w0e-MEN'S narratives. I DON'T even believe Epstein's accusers either! In fact, Virginia Guiffre has outed herself as a serial LIAR on multiple occasions and IMOP prototypical of a FALSE accuser. And that is hit the wall or menopausal w0e-MEN who retro interprets their past life as one of abuse as ploy to continue monetizing sexuality. Guiffre has literally LIED about being raped by Alan Dershowitz, LIED about being raped by TWO separate boyfriends, lied about being raped by her father, LIED about being abused by her husband even though HE got a restraining order against HER and HE WON custody of the kids! I have long held that w0e-MEN should have never been given the vote or be allowed to sit on juries. The only reservation I would have is for the 2% of fe-MALE outliers who are reasonable.
I am not sure about the brain size or Satan aspects of this post...but the lack of conscience and rampant false accusations sadly reflect my own observations. I too question the Epstein accusers. Were they ACTUALLY victims...or willing co-conspirators in what was essentially a prostitution scheme? This is why I think releasing the Epstein files should remain EVERYTHING! No redaction of witnesses or victims names and roles.
Perhaps the lesson here is never sign a non-disparagement agreement and thereby exercise your right to speak out. The problem is, as pointed out in the interview, that the person they're trying to silence needs the money. Unless you're independently wealthy, they have you over a barrel. You feel discouraged and sign away your rights rather than suffer more abuse. The person signing also knows that if he or she does disparage the university, it will look bad for them in terms of future employment elsewhere. And there is also an implicit (or explicit?) threat of defamation litigation. So they sign to make it all go away. And you can't blame them. But it is discouraging.
Re: the point about Christian higher education becoming leftist and secular. It's also really disheartening for the students who are serious about faith. I speak from experience. I was in seminary and left after two years because of what I saw: the school had abandoned traditional Christian teachings. It's still painful to talk about. The easier thing to do is to try to forget about it. But I should also try to express why it was wrong. 'Woke Christianity' in general is heretical, yet it is the primary type of Christianity being taught in these mainstream denomination seminaries.
Prof. Baskerville keeps mentioning the First Amendment -- which, of course, in Canada doesn't exist -- but what it refers to is the principle of free speech, which institutions of higher education should be upholding, not violating. I recall being inspired by an expression for this principle:
"The existence of an institution where unorthodox ideas, alternative modes of thinking and living, and radical prescriptions for social ills can be debated contributes immensely to social and political change and the advancement of human rights both inside and outside the University. Often this debate may generate controversy and disputes among members of the University and of the wider community. In such cases, the University's primary obligation is to protect the free speech of all involved. The University must allow the fullest range of debate. It should not limit that debate by preordaining conclusions, or punishing or inhibiting the reasonable exercise of free speech." https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/secretariat/policies/freedom-speech-statement-may-28-1992
I still find that inspiring, even though this university has undoubtedly silenced dissenting voices and is guilty of the very problem being discussed here. The person who wrote it for them would probably agree with me.
Leftist ideologues took over higher education long ago and ruined it. I earned a doctorate, but I would caution young men today to go into trades rather than academia, which is a dead end. If you're interested in learning, become an autodidact or study at one of the emerging conservative schools like Peterson Academy or UATX. I have come to the conclusion that the big universities that have betrayed their principles should lose public funding -- at least until they can clean up their act, which includes getting rid of all "gender studies" departments and excising Leftist ideology from the courses.
I appreciate what the three people in this interview are doing. All brilliant thinkers and speakers. I am reading Who Lost America? by Stephen Baskerville, which is very good. Janice Fiamengo is the thinker whose videos helped guide me out of the moral confusion of the Leftist worldview a few years ago.
Janice Fiamengo's experience with the tribunal is telling. These "human rights tribunals" are like Soviet troikas, designed to push the dominant orthodoxy. Even if charges are dismissed, the accused must suffer the punishment of being on trial, having to hire a lawyer, and being silenced; as with a SLAPP suit, "the plaintiff's goal is not to win the lawsuit, but to use the legal process and the threat of crippling legal costs to overwhelm and silence their opponents."
The problem with refusing to sign an NDA is that some employment contracts also contain clauses rerquiring mandatory arbitration, so they can still gag you.
They knew the whole thing is scam and worthless! That’s why our children are Marxists!
Academe knows it is worthless and survive through corruption