Sunday, March 2, 2014

It's Not Their Fault

Last week I posted a little story about my first encounter with Arlene Skull, the principal of Gordon Bell, whose complaint to the University got me kicked out of my practicum after only six days in the classroom. I didn’t tell you what she said about me; I just told a pretty innocent story which might have made Mrs. Skull come off as a bit humorless. I’m guessing that angle might have rung true with some of her colleagues. But that’s just a wild guess.

A reader posted a comment which got us into the field of psychology. One thing led to another, and I more or less proposed that with respect to my fight with the University, the battle lines have been drawn pretty much according to personality types: the majority, who are going to stand on the side of the system, and the minority who are going to support the rebel. The facts of the case aren’t all that big a factor.

This prompted a fairly detailed response from a poster, who clearly identified with the authoritarian camp. In general, it’s not all that rewarding for me to argue with these people, but this woman said something so priceless that I can’t let it go without comment. You can read her entire comment if you back up one blogpost, but here’s the good part:

“…Whatever your opinion of your actions and your posts may be, the general consensus is that you are wrong. You rejected the hands offered to you, rejected the reality of your own flaws and problems, and set off on a self-righteous quest for what you believe you deserve. On the way, the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality as well, but they don't negate your mistakes and flaws.”

What is most interesting about this little passage is how true to form she runs as an authoritarian. Like all the other haters, this one has no idea why I got kicked out of university, nor does she care. She knows I’m guilty. How does she know? Because “the general consensus is that you are wrong.”  And she is genuinely baffled as to how I can be so blind as to persist in believing that I’m right in the face of the opinion of the majority.

Then she said something about how I "rejected the hand" that was extended to me. She must mean the time I wouldn’t sit down for coffee with the professors, as though this illustrates some flaw in my character. Well, if being a hard-ass is a character flaw, color me guilty. The professors knew exactly where I stood: if they had any complaints about my conduct, this was a serious matter and I wasn't about to discuss it over coffee. I wanted to see it in writing. When I told this to Professor Bell, he backed right down, and said in that case he would just let the matter drop. Of course, he was lying. He didn’t let it drop…he went straight to the Dean. 

But the real kicker is her conclusion: that on the way, “the university was drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”….but that doesn’t matter because those “errors” don’t negate my own “mistakes and flaws”.

She’s not very clear on just what were my “mistakes and flaws” other than not going for coffee with Professor Bell. I didn’t know you could get kicked out of school for that. But she’s pretty quick forgive the University for its…what did she call it….errors of morality?

She has no idea what I supposedly did that was wrong, but if she’s been reading this blog, she must have some idea what “moral errors” the university committed. In case her memory needs refreshing, here is a partial list, compiled from incidents I’ve reported elsewhere on this site:

1. Professor Bush gave me an F on a term paper, which I appealed. The Departmental Committee under Professor Appell ratified the F, saying it was deserved. But they didn’t bother to mention the fact that they never read the term paper! When I got this admission out of them, Professor Moulaison (the head of the Senate Appeals Committee) promptly canceled my appeal in midstream.

2. Professor Cantor asked us to write a confidential essay about our personal belief systems. When I wrote something critical of another prof, she went to the Dean and told him about it.

3. Professor Metz and Professor Bush lied about me of trying to force my way into the Bush residence. As a result, I was charged with forcible entry. At the same time, I sued Bush for defamation. At the civil trial, Metz and Bush swore they never accused me of home invasion. But then at the criminal trial, when confronted with incriminating emails, they had to admit that they did.

4. In spite of their lies, the University is still backing Metz and Bush to the hilt, paying top bucks for Bush’s lawyers. Their latest move is to try and get those incriminating emails from the criminal trial excluded from the civil trial.

5. Professor Cantor sent a letter to the Dean accusing me of insulting a classroom guest, even though she now admits she personally didn’t believe I had done anything wrong. The Registrar used this as a key point to get me kicked out of school. Mrs. Cantor knows what happened to me, but she still hasn't gone back to the Dean or to Lloyd Axworthy to set the record straight.

This is only a partial list of the things I’ll prove against the university once my case goes to trial. I don’t know about you, but by comparison, I think my crime of “not going for coffee with Professor Bell” seems pretty insignificant.

But that’s not how the haters see it: in fact, Miss Authoritarian has a justification for the University’s “moral errors”. Did you notice it? It’s just a little mind-boggling, if you think about it. I’m not making this up…here’s what she actually said: that along the way, they were “drawn to make errors of both judgment and morality”.

Interesting use of what’s called the “passive voice”. They didn’t make errors…they were drawn to make errors. By whom were they drawn? I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that she’s thinking of yours truly. In other words, the University isn’t to blame for all those lies and slanders. It was my fault. They’re just innocent victims of my trickery.

UPDATE: Mr. Authoritarian has come back with a long list of reasons he says justify the University kicking me out of school, mostly based on things I did to defend myself after they already kicked me out. But if you read them over carefully you'll see he hasn't got one single thing I actually did in class while I was a student.


  1. There are two kinds of people on this earth: those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who do not.

    Say, this thing looks like from day 1 you wanted a lawsuit. I wonder if that had anything to do with your non-existent career. Gotta make a buck somehow, even if it appears to be by taking advice from a has-been political failure, I suppose.

  2. Yeah, so I'm the person who wrote the comment this post is about, and first things first: male.

    Keep in mind that some of the following is over 2 years old, and memories don't always clearly track back that far. Impressions hold better than specific facts. Many generalizations by the "haters" are in part because of this, but I hunt down some specific examples now.

    Second: extended hand: your very first post. "In response to your request, the Faculty of Education deans have decided to meet with you to discuss a number of concerns and/or complaints from faculty members and students regarding your behaviour in your Education classes. " This comes from Christy Campbell on behalf of the Deans. You reject the need for a conversation about your conduct, and refuse. You might not be aware of this, but informal meetings without paperwork are ways to try and settle things peacefully and without red tape, usually as an attempt to maintain status quo (in this case, keeping you in class). If that didn't go the way you wanted, further measures are still available, but it was your FIRST move to try and pick a fight. Hand: extended. Response: Slap it away.

    Then there are the complaints from Gordon Bell that you "have been perceived by [faculty members and students as] disrespectful, dominating class time, confrontational, aggressive, prone to personal attacks on students and on professors, that you reduced one student to tears, that you frequently used class time to express your dissatisfaction with the way the class was being taught." Your attitude and demeanor in the blog suggests to me that you may not even have been aware of it at the time, and that this may have been other people's perception of your daily behavior: very confrontational. I draw particular note to "reduced one student to tears."

    Then there are your papers. I skimmed them, and I got the impression that while they were not bad in their own rights, they deviated from what was asked (there was a fairly lengthy rant in the chem paper on constructivism without actually doing what was asked), including tangents involving criticism of teaching methods where none were asked for or necessary. You opposed those grades, as is your right. On the other hand, you were as rude as it was possible to be without getting into harassment. Stating that you deserve "an end to being given low or failing grades for work which would otherwise have merited A’s according to the normal standards of the Education Faculty" was particularly arrogant.

    Then you were barred from campus, likely in part because of your persistence in these affairs, coupled with the fact that all of the complaints against you cited aggression and confrontational behaviour. Again, it was your right to oppose this, but as usual, you were about as rude about it as it was possible to be while still being technically acceptable. You basically walked all over it (including stonewalling security when all they wanted was an account of events), and were arrested.

    Re-reading the comments from them, one from a different "Anonymous" sums it up nicely. "I come to realize that you honestly do not seem to realize that the way you act as a person and conduct yourself both in and outside the classroom are completely unacceptable. I don't care who you are, I don't care where you're from, you cannot treat people this way. And choosing to do so will only get you crushed and punished. Everything that has happened to you throughout this is completely your own fault, all because of some foolish idea that you are entitled to be this way."

    1. Continued from previous post for reasons of length...

      Then began the long, convoluted process of you claiming that you're not at fault at all, and the more-than-a-little-paranoid perspective that all of this, from start to finish, was a grand conspiracy to kick you and then kick you again while you were down.

      After that is where I think you pick up a few fans, as your understanding of the legal system is greater than average for a person not employed within that sector. You are clearly more adept at legal proceedings that the university, at least before the big-buck lawyers became involved (though by that point, amateurish action already backed them into a bit of a corner). But that doesn't make you morally right, or any less of a pompous ass. Two wrongs don't make a right, and being skilled is not the same thing as being right.

      Then there's the "home invasion. " Even I'll admit that their details are a bit sketchy. I do believe that you were trespassing, and it was highly improper for you to have acted the way YOU claim you did. They over-reacted too, but again, two wrongs...

      On top of that, I can't think of a single post of your where the language and style don't make you out to be a confrontational, arrogant man. I have very little knowledge of you outside of the contents of this blog. I graduated from the University of Winnipeg Faculty of Education, and shared no classes with you. The only outside information I have came from word from a few other students (who shared the perspectives of my fourth paragraph), but by then, I had already formed an impression based on your own writings: intelligent, confrontational, arrogant, sense of entitlement. It's not about supporting the institution, or kicking the little guy. It's about opposing a prick who falsely believes that he's better than the rest of us.

      Like I said, go over your own work with fresh eyes. See what impression you give. See yourself as others see you.

    2. "It's about opposing a prick who falsely believes that he's better than the rest of us."

      Okay, you've combed through my correspondence over the last two years and concluded that I was "about as rude about it as it was possible to be while still being technically acceptable". So do you think it's "technically acceptable" for you to call me a prick?

    3. For any kind of official and legal correspondence, no. For an informal discourse on your personality issues and why you rub a lot of people the wrong way, yes.

    4. And you people wonder why I think I'm better than you.

    5. Wow!!! What an amazingly arrogant, dangerous and patently false assertion, Mr. Green.

      You, with your cultural background, must well know that it was that dogmatic belief in superiority over others - exactly what you reveal above - that led a group of murderous bastards to systematically send people they viewed as Untermenschen - Jews, Gypsies, criminals, the infirm, and anyone not meeting their arrogant and unwaveringly righteous criteria - to be poisoned and then burned in ovens.

      Perhaps your racism or religionism you reveal now, or your religiously brain-damaged false sense of superiority, or if we are lucky, on a good day, it might be Uniform Fetishism that drives you late at night to dress up in jackboots and swatikas - I don't know, but your statement of superiority certainly shows you well on the way to justifying all sorts of obscene behaviour, an attitude which in many centuries and in many cultures and with many people has led to totalitarian oppression and mass-murder.

      Your attitude is disgusting and, Mr. Green, you reveal yourself to be a very sick person.

  3. Anonymous 3/5 9:18 pm, you're such a drama queen !! Your ability to reason in a calm manner is without doubt ... and self-evidently - inferior.

    1. You are trying to tell me that Martys response didn't bother you in the slightest, Anonymous 9:50? How arrogant can one guy be. I used to feel bad for him, not any more. His true colours are shining through. He feels superior. It showed in class, and he just confirmed it here. Thanks Marty.

  4. Remove the blog and show do some mature judgment for once Marty! You have been outed. This dialogue is not adding to your case. Why are you persisting?