Back to 2016

Alright, back to the year when I opened my big mouth in class. It was 2016, and SOGI (sexual orientation gender identity) became a part — a huge part — of the BC educational policy. Since 2011, I’d watched it sneak into discussions in classes i taught in the teacher education program at UBC. One or two students would bring clippings from news papers reporting little boys who were ‘identifying’ as girls in their families and school classrooms. Maybe we’d spend a half an hour of one three-hour class talking about it.

Then in the spring of 2016, the federal government added “gender identity and expression” to the list of protected categories in the human rights code (along with sex, race, religion, etc). So that’s one among many categories against which we are not allowed to discriminate. According to section 41 of the Canadian human rights code.

However, when it comes to the categories of “sex” and “gender identity or expression”, there are immediate contradictions. Teachers were confused. The number of teacher education students who wanted to talk about SOGI, and to figure out how to deal with the new (not mandatory/but mandatory) policy, could not.

“In four years of my undergraduate degree (in sociology) our professors only said, ‘transwomen are women’.” one of my female students told me, ‘I really appreciate you letting us talk about this’.

I thought, okay! here we go…! Feeling both dread and excitement for the opportunity—Please go to the post called Academentia from November 13, 2024

The class continued with the difficult conversation. In the other classes we also had versions of this discussion. It was clear to me that almost everyone wanted to talk about it, and they had little opportunity in other classes to do so.

“This issue has come up really suddenly, it feels like to me” said one of my students—”i think it warrants more discussion before it becomes policy”

“Seems like a trend, which will fade as quickly as it is now gaining force” another said, (I’m paraphrasing).

“But we have to listen to the wisdom of children” said another student. I asked if they were learning about stages of children’s development in their Psych classes, and how old we are when our decision-making and judgements—executive functioning are more or less fixed. “well, 25” she replied. I would have talked more about children’s curiosity at that moment, which is an aspect of wisdom. That might have been a more fruitful avenue of exploration…

Some students thanked me after. Others, (including the two who missed the class because of their discomfort), went to the Education office to complain. If you read the post from November last year, you can get more context.

Here is the letter I wrote to the associate dean and the department head after the first meeting with them.

Meeting August 9 2017 between Erin Graham, Ali Abdi and Wendy Carr

Re: Concerns expressed by two students about Dr. Graham’s 404 class.

I regret that I did not record this meeting, or bring someone with me as support and another pair of eyes and ears. I did, however, make some notes after the meeting. Please review and let me know if this is similar to your recollection of the content of the meeting.

1. Wendy said two students[1] had come to the TEO with concerns about my perspective about transgendered people. “You don’t believe trans people exist, and you don’t believe they have rights”, she said to me. This is a gross mischaracterization of my position about transgender ideology, and I explained to Wendy that while I understand that people who identify as ‘trans’ exist, and deserve the same human rights as anyone else, I have a critique of trans ideology, and I think teacher candidates at UBC do not encounter a feminist, gender-critical analysis (or any critique of transgender ideology, for that matter).

1b. Wendy further asserted that I (Erin) am “on record as saying that you will not use people’s preferred pronouns”. I didn’t ask to which record she was referring, which I should have, but did respond by saying that I will use people’s names when I address them in class. She accused me of breaking the law (Bill C-16). I don’t believe I am breaking that law[2] by addressing people by their names, or by referring to people by pronouns indicating their sex. But I do know that I (and other academics, policy analysts, feminists, teachers and others) have concerns about the bill that bear investigation and discussion. Not the least of which are the troubling contradictions inherent in the bill between “sex-based protections” and “gender-identity-based protections”.

2. The students, according to Wendy, believe that “trans people will not feel safe in Erin’s classroom”. I responded that ‘safe’ is not a feeling, it is a judgment. In my classroom, I invite learners to ‘stay in the discomfort’ when they are feeling confused, anxious, angry or otherwise uncomfortable. We often discuss issues that stir up emotions, and we need to have room to feel and express those emotions. At no time is anyone in my class in any danger. I am also careful to let students know that they are not required to agree with me in order to pass. I explained this to Wendy and to Ali.

3. Ali said that students in the Teacher Education Program are in a formative stage of their development, and their learning can be impaired if they do not “feel” safe.

In the main, teacher candidates are well past their formative years by the time they enter the program. The average age is 27, and many teacher candidates are well into their 30s or 40s by the time they come to this program. It’s insulting to them to imply they are incapable of engaging with unfamiliar ideas or critical thought when they have an emotional response to them or to their instructor.

4. Wendy and Ali asserted that I, as an instructor, have a great deal of power over the students, and whether they pass or fail a course. I responded (again) that I do not require students in my classes to agree with me, but to engage critically with the course materials and ideas. I also pointed out that they (Wendy and Ali) have a great deal of power over me, as they could fire me. To which Ali responded, “Not really”. He went on to say there are “procedures to follow”.

5. I attempted to explain a bit about my stance about trans ideology, and sketch a feminist critique of this, and to describe my misgivings about the apparent promotion of transgendering children that seems to prevail in the teacher education program. Wendy said that she was starting to understand what I meant. I should have asked her to elaborate a bit about that, but I didn’t.

6. Near the end of our meeting, I asked “What do you want me to do?” Ali answered that he would like me to consider changing my perspective. I said that I would not. The people who come to the teacher education program do not hear or read any critique, especially any feminist critique of transgenderism, or the problematic aspects of Vancouver School Board’s “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identities” policy. I believe it is important to provide students with alternative ways to look at this (and many other) issues.

7. There are no assigned readings in the Master syllabi for EDST 401, 403 or 404 that deal with sexism, male violence against women, sexist stereotyping – very little material that addresses racism, structural reproduction of racist stereotyping in schools, the Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreements, (for example), and, similarly, very little that deals with socio-economic class. I mentioned this to Ali and to Wendy and they said they are not familiar with the curriculum.

8. At the end of the meeting, I said that I believe they have the best interests of the students at heart, and we share a commitment to offering the best educational experience we can in order they may develop into excellent teachers. We have a shared commitment to the well-being of the teacher candidates at UBC. Both Wendy and Ali agreed about that and thanked me for attending the meeting.

This is true to the best of my recollection. I will be pleased if, Ali and Wendy, you will both review this document and let me know if this tallies with your memories of the meeting. Whether or not you reply to me, I will approach the Faculty Association before the beginning of the fall semester to inquire which steps I should take in order to protect my future teaching opportunities in the program. I was not reassured at the meeting by either of you that you appreciated my contribution to the teacher education program, or that I would be offered sessional work in the future. Your silence in this regard was particularly resounding considering that I was nominated for a Killiam prize this year, and both of you (I assume) read recommendation letters from colleagues, mentors and previous students as well as course evaluations.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

_______________________________

Dr. Erin Graham

Signed August 15, 2017

---

[1] Both Wendy and Ali had documents before them, including a letter from one student and copies of my personal blog. They did not offer to let me read them, nor did I ask, which I now regret.

[2] I have read the amendments to the Human Rights Act which were made because of the bill: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent and I do not believe that I am breaking the law in any way. Indeed, there are many problematic aspects of this (and many other) laws that must be analyzed and discussed in classrooms, cafés and courtrooms throughout the country. I replied to Wendy that the Indian Act is still law, even though it is deeply discriminatory and fundamentally racist. She agreed that it is because of criticism and pressure from citizens (most which was the activism of Indigenous women and other feminists) that there have been some changes, and we must continue to criticize the Indian Act, and other laws and policies.

The Assistant Dean and the Department Head replied to me. They said that my account of the meeting was accurate, except the part about Ali asking me to change my perspective. He claimed he had not made that suggestion. Memory is a tricky thing.

That was it for my teaching career, anyway. without telling me they launched an investigation, enlisting another instructor to gather evidence against me. This same guy was a main architect of TEFA, which became SOGI.

There was an investigation, I was interviewed by a lawyer, I signed an agreement that i wouldn’t talk about it. Including the part about them gathering evidence and not telling me about the investigation. So I didn’t. I think now I should have — but I was afraid. In the end, I was deemed harmful, and had to sign a kind of non-disclosure thing in order to get money the university owed me for lying about investigating me and their dodgy practices thereof. As Ali said in that 2017 meeting, “There are procedures to follow” — and they didn’t.

So I didn’t talk to the reporters who asked me for interviews. Funny, hey? Both the reporters worked for “right wing” news outlets. I didn’t get any requests for interviews from the left. Or any support from feminist organizations or individuals. The only feminist who offered support was the lawyer friend who advised me. She gave me great comfort, but i could not outright hire her, and the university has deep pockets.

It’s all for the best, anyway. I don’t really belong in big institutions. No matter what you might think. If you don’t mind, though, as we carry on with this substack adventure, I will add some stories about teaching, and university life. Turns out, for someone distrustful of the institution of higher education, I spent more of my working life (being a student, and a teacher and a research assistant and and … ) than any other place. I am glad to be out of it, but i miss it, too.