Why Was DCP "Disinvited" from an Australian University?

[Guest]

Friends and colleagues:

I don't know if you caught it, but a very strange blog entry appeared on "Sic et Non" over the weekend, and it featured the title, "From a ridiculous and arrogant lunatic." In the body of the post, Dr. Peterson describes an encounter with one of his many online foes:

In response to something that I posted about a year and a half ago regarding Joseph Smith, a belligerent new individual appeared on my blog quite irrelevantly denouncing the use of religion “to demean, degrade, dismiss, demonize and dehumanize our fellow human beings.”

When I suggested that there was nobody on my blog — certainly including myself — who favors demeaning, degrading, dismissing, demonizing, and dehumanizing other human beings, he assured me that religious people do precisely that in the name of “godliness” or “righteousness” and suggested that I would reveal myself to be just such a person if I were to share my views on immigrants and Muslims.

I thought that was pretty funny. I told him that he shouldn’t assume that I’m an anti-Muslim bigot, that I write about Islam pretty much every day on my blog, and that, within sixty seconds or less of browsing through it, he would have a very good idea of my position on the subject.

He refused, and he became increasingly nasty. Having demanded to know my “views” regarding Muslims, he angrily told me that he wasn’t really interested in my opinions. He couldn’t be bothered to look at the blog on which he was, at that very moment, commenting. Then he again demanded to know my views on the subject, attempting to charm me into further discussion by calling me a “ridiculous lunatic,” “a ridiculous obnoxious arrogant lunatic,” and an “obnoxious arrogant cult worshipper.”

Quite provocative, no? And this person--whom DCP doesn't identify--*does* seem overly aggressive, no? Whatever the case may be, Dr. Peterson indicates that this doesn't faze him in the slightest:

I get a huge kick out of people like this. I wonder what they’re like in everyday life.

Sure, Prof. P. Sure. But what comes next is quite remarkable:

I also get an odd kick out of occasional suggestions that I’m an anti-Islamic bigot. I was, in fact, actually once disinvited from speaking at an Australian university on the grounds that my remarks would be divisive, hostile to Islam, and bigoted. That was a genuinely weird experience. I guess that my creation of the Islamic Translation Series, my book titled Abraham Divided, and my biography Muhammad: Prophet of God weren’t enough to overcome the completely nonexistent evidence that I’m a zealous anti-Muslim polemicist.

Whoa! Hold on a second here! Dr. Peterson was disinvited from an Australian university??? And notice how he puts it here: he says, quite specifically, that he was disinvited because his "remarks would be divisive, hostile to Islam, and bigoted." That's quite specific, isn't it? Except that it doesn't appear to be precisely true.

Indeed, down in the comments, Dr. Shades poses a question to him:

This befuddles me to no end, since all the available evidence is against such a conclusion. Did they at least give you some sort of justification for why they chose to believe what they did?

And he replies:

No. When I wrote to them, asking about their decision, they declined to elaborate. I suppose that, once I had been identified as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Muslim propagandist, I was beneath their notice.

So, wait a second.... I thought he said that he was dismissed because his "remarks would be divisive, hostile to Islam, and bigoted." Was that not the case? (And notice that he doesn't put those reasons in quotation marks: he's not quoting verbatim from an email.) And he says in his reply to Shades that "they declined to elaborate" on the reason. So, is he just speculating, then?

I mean, it's not hard to imagine reasons why the university wouldn't want him there. In any given week, you can find dozens of tidbits from him that are problematic. He's quite correct to characterize himself as a "zealous...polemicist." I mean, just look at the comments he directs at Gemli. So, you have to wonder: What exactly was going on at that time? Was this around the time that he posted the lynching photo? Or something else? I just have a very difficult time accepting his explanation. It just doesn't seem plausible. If you've got someone who is an expert on Islam from an American university in your neck of the woods, why would you tell him to stay away? And what, among DCP's public commentary on Islam, could be used as evidence--evidence that would be accepted by folks at this (oddly unidentified) Australian university--to get him disinvited? And how did this go down? Was it somebody *within* the university who found allegedly "anti-Muslim" stuff online, or was it some anonymous yahoo who dropped them a tip?

Or, instead (as seems far, far more plausible to me), did they simply google him and find his typical stuff as "SeN," or perhaps some of his FARMS articles, or--God forbid--the crap on SHIELDS?

I think that all we may be able to say concerning this tidbit is that Dr. Peterson did *some*thing that resulted in him getting booted from an Aussie university.

That in and of itself is worthy of consideration, vis-a-vis the study of Mopologetics, but if you can believe it, this story gets even crazier. For one thing, did you realize that the recent (published June 27 of this year) post is actually a nearly verbatim reprint of a blog entry that was posted in October of 2018? Here, you get a better clue about what he's talking about: "In response to something that I posted a day or two ago regarding Joseph Smith, a belligerent new individual appeared on my blog quite irrelevantly denouncing the use of religion “to demean, degrade, dismiss, demonize and dehumanize our fellow human beings.”"

Which, of course, points us to this post, in which Dr. Peterson tussles with a commentator called "Krimson King." You can read the comments and see for yourself whether Prof. P. is accurately representing their exchange.

Still, though, you have to wonder at the reason why he was disinvited from the Australian university. Was it really over this absurd notion that he's "anti-Islam"? Frankly, I doubt it. Why do you need that as a reason when it's so easy to choose from a plentitude of others?

[_Philo Sofee]

Ha! Interesting find.....

[_moksha]

Wasn't the invite from an LDS friend working at the law school of that the university, who extended the invitation to correspond with Dr. Peterson's speaking tour of LDS Firesides throughout Australia?

[_Gadianton]

That's interesting Moksha, that rings a bell. At least there was a story like that with the law school person.

I tend not to believe the story.

Concerning the "belligerent new individual" of whom DCP says, "I thought that was pretty funny. I told him that he shouldn’t assume that I’m an anti-Muslim bigot".

The belligerent individual had said, however:

"I DIDN'T SAY HE WAS ANTI-ISLAM...... I was just asking about his beliefs and he obnoxiously arrogantly dismissed me with 'look at my blog' blah blah blah...... look, I really don't care..... if he doesn't want to actually have a conversation, if you don't want to actually have a conversation, that's fine...... but, don't act like you were trying...... because you were absolutely not."

Granted, this individual is amped up a bit, but does his story really sound that different from a great many others who find themselves interacting with the blog proprietor?

And this is an amped-up anonymous dude on the Internet who the proprietor apparently misrepresented, unless he can provide the exact quotes to prove his case. Which we know will never happen. Is it really believable that a university Admin relayed a message that he is an anti-Muslim bigot? Given what Moksha offered, it is far more likely that the admin discovered the connection to the Mormon church and his tour in capacity of an apologist, and that put a question on neutrality, and they just didn't want to deal with it.

But there's a problem with painting ones self as the martyr in these cases, and with so much drama. What the proprietor is saying when he says, "Oh, so you're calling me an anti-x bigot, are you?" is that the person claimed to be making the charge is the actual bigot. He's saying that the university who cancelled him are the real bigots here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wasn't the invite from an LDS friend working at the law school of that the university, who extended the invitation to correspond with Dr. Peterson's speaking tour of LDS Firesides throughout Australia?

If that's true, then....Wow. What you're saying is that a law professor (or law school staff person, I guess?) had set up this talk--normally something that's handled on a "local" level--e.g., like if, at Cassius, someone in the Literature Department invited somebody--such as Joanna Brooks, to come give a talk, they would be entitled to do that. There would be no interference from Dean Robbers, or anyone else in the upper administration. What you are implying, though, Moksha, is that something happened at the "local level," but that it was enough of a red flag for others at the university that they decided to put the kibosh on DCP. That suggests that Peterson is such a stinking oaf that they don't want him anywhere near their campus. Sometimes student groups will coalesce to oppose controversial speakers--e.g., what happened at Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos, or at Middlebury over Charles Murray. It says something else entirely if you are anathema to administrators. Maybe that is something to be proud of?

I guess the most accurate observation one can make is that it's all political in the end.

[_moksha]

What you are implying, though, Moksha, is that something happened at the "local level," but that it was enough of a red flag for others at the university that they decided to put the kibosh on DCP.

I am only running off of an ever dimming memory. Wouldn't this be in your files?

I think it would have been a cultural novelty to have an LDS professor from America talk to an Australian law school audience about Islamic stuff. Maybe not your typical law school lecture series, but they could still serve tea and crumpets afterward. It seems foolishly presumptuous to think Dr. Peterson would say anything anti-Islamic to that audience. You would think those law school professors would toss that notion out due to lack of precedent.

However, Mormons had been in the news at that time due to Mitt Romney coming close to being elected the American President, as well as the active war the LDS Church was waging against the rights of the LGBTQ community throughout the world.

[_moksha]

There is a new blog article about this disinviting incident at SeN.

[Guest]

I read the blog post and wonder why Dr. Peterson can't seem to remember the dates when he was there. It seems contrived for some reason. Perhaps he wants to create some reaction here, some controversy for victimhood purposes? He remembers 2012 and the ouster, minute by minute, yet doesn't remember the supposed Austrailian slight?

Anyway, if he was slighted, it probably wasn't for a rational reason and perhaps for a racist or for an actual bigoted reason? Inquiring minds want to know. More details will help. I'd like to join him to fight the bigots as he fights the antis. Help me help you Dr. P!!!

So, when and where would be helpful.

[_Gadianton]

I would put money down that at the very least, this part is contrived, "my association with Dr. Pipes — such as it was! — was enough to convince some quick-thinking administrator or other at that Australian school that I was likely to be a fire-breathing, offensive, and divisive anti-Muslim bigot."

That is the knee-jerk reaction of hurt feelings. A way to turn the tables and call them "bigots" for calling him a bigot. The textual mirror (with an appropriate magnification factor) is tool #1 of the Mopologist toolbox.

The vagueness is possibly in place for the same reason of the vagueness when referencing other perceived enemies. Direct quotes and proper citation will demonstrate his gross exaggerations of what actually happened.

If the story is essentially correct, then almost certainly, the administrator was avoiding a "red flag" and had not determined that the proposed speaker was a divisive anti-Muslim bigot.

[_Kishkumen]

This is the kind of situation that really calls into question the wisdom of having an electronic free-for-all of human communication. Anyone can show up and say anything--and voila, they do--and then everyone else chimes in with whatever take they had, fact-based or not. I see a lot more pointless miscommunication than communication in these comments sections. I was listening to a Jungian enthusiast talk about her refusal to respond to people on social media. I think she had the right idea. Surely I have better uses of my time than worrying about what Dr. Midgley said on Sic et Non, and that list of better things to do would include reading the blog entries above those comments.