Dr. Peterson is on record that he does not wish others having “custody of his tongue”.
He doesn’t wish to speak what he believes isn’t true
What other solutions in this case are viable?
“Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”
Well, Dr. Peterson could educate himself on the scientific consensus of the professional organizations regarding the harm done to LGBTQ+ youth by denying the reality of their identified gender:
Or, you know, he could keep on keeping on with the telling people that their feelings and beliefs don’t matter to him because he has a superior moral code and intellect. That is pretty much in contradiction to everything taught about effective therapeutic practice, but then, so is essentially everything Peterson says and does, so at least he’s consistent on that point.
Stranger
He can say whatever he likes. He cannot do so while being licensed by the CPA. Why is any other solution needed? Do you think members of professional organizations should be able to say any old thing they like, even if it violates the professional standards?
I think revoking his license is a fantastic solution.
You don’t get to be in a position to help people if your practices do objective harm to your clients.
This reminds me of when Psychology Today (which is a horrible untrustworthy source for evidence-based interventions) was being taken to task for featuring psychotherapists who practiced gay conversion therapy on their website. I wrote them an angry letter, and the President wrote back with some nonsense about how they don’t fall in with any particular philosophy or ideology in terms of who they host.
It’s not about ideology or philosophy. It’s like if they hosted a therapist who cut off his patient’s hands and then claimed that cutting off a patient’s hand is somehow an ideological position. We’re talking about well-evidenced demonstrable moderate to serious harm. This is not theoretical.
I suspect what he’s being asked to do is rather dramatically different from how he’s representing it.
His CLAIM is he’s being made to take social media training for saying the wrong things.
I suspect what’s actually happening is that social media training is just a standard thing psychologists are being asked to do to maintain their license. They have always had to do some periodic training to remain a member in good standing.
…I’m not even sure why a thread about The Ontario College of Psychologists and a dispute with one of their members has anything to do with politics and elections. Especially when we only have the word (of an unreliable narrator) and nothing from the College at all.
Yeah, those two things. He could choose to freely continue to advocate what he advocates and tell the College of Psychologists to take their license and shove it if they don’t like it. But as mentioned he’d rather wallow in victimhood.
Hmm… good point there, I had not noticed. But I believe that some find that anything even peripherally related to gender issues is Politics per se.
A number of justifications for the College’s (alleged) action have been proposed in this thread. Would you care to respond to any of them?
Revoking a licence is a last resort, for the worst offenders. If the College tried to revoke his licence on this issue, he would challenge it in court.
As an American from New Jersey (originally from Philadelphia) I cannot speak on fire-able offences in Ontario, Canada…however…I figure, his employment with his university and his membership in the Canadian Medical Association may have moral turpitude clauses in the contract…which he signed…and thus are bound to uphold/obey/etc.
If he violates those clauses, he knows he may face consequences.
He, however, may still have avenues to challenge the particulars of Moral Turpitude.
Is it hate to disagree with somebody else?
I don’t think his employment with the University of Toronto is currently in jeopardy. If so, then that’s the first I’ve heard of it. And he isn’t an employee of the Ontario College of Psychologists (OCP), but rather licensed through them.
Is it a matter of a simple disagreement or is that Peterson is a transphobe, and says transphobic things, which is against the professional standards of his organization? I might understand why transphobes like Peterson might want to present it that way, but that doesn’t make it true. Just like his supporters are characterizing this as “re-education” (like the YouTube videos in the closed thread) knowing full well what connotation is associated with that. It simply isn’t true.
It is classic right-wing victimhood. “We’re the victims because we’re not allowed to be vile and vicious to people we don’t like without consequences.”
“Moral Turpitude” has specific meanings depending on the law you are under. My WAG is that Peterson’s conduct may not rise to that in his jurisdiction.
As Northern Piper mentions, as well, you do not go straight into revoking a license on the spot just because someone says the diversity policy is bollocks and he’ll have none of it. That sort of action takes a whole chain of steps and write-ups and due processes. Peterson seems to be willing to go through it to reinforce his victim narrative,though.
(As I understand it, he’s a Professor Emeritus i.e. retired, collecting his retirement pay if any and retaining privileges of faculty but not on a “job” at the university.)
Can you state what your opinions are on the questions you’re asking?
The primary and crucial characteristic of a clinical psychologist and therapist is empathy, i.e. a willingness to accommodate and appreciate the beliefs and views of others even if you personally don’t hold or agree with them. Peterson shows little empathy for anyone who doesn’t accord to his rigidly stated views in public forums, and that alone should bring into question his suitability as a licensed clinician.
As for his employment, he retired from the University of Toronto in 2021 and it seems doubtful that he has much time for regular counseling of patients between interviews on such luminous venues as the Joe Rogen Experience and generating ‘content’ for The Daily Wire on a wide variety of topics from climate change (he denies it), gender-affirming studies (which he characterizes as “Nazi medical experiment-level wrong”, diet (he and his wife have promoted a ‘Lion Diet’ consisting of only red meat, salt, and water to ‘cure’ depression, anxiety, and all manner of physical ailments), and of course, how liberals are taking over universities with “Cultural Marxism”. He’s essentially the cranky uncle at family gatherings capable of generating a spontaneous contrarian rant about any issue that comes up in discussion, and he gets paid handsomely for it because that is what entertains the popular zeitgeist, I guess.
Nobody is taking food out of Dr. Peterson’s mouth and I guarantee that he’s loving every minute of this recreational and largely imagined outrage over how badly he is being treated for speaking his mind (or what passes for it, anyway). I’m sure he and the new owner of Twitter can have a good time passing back and forth complaints about repression and everything they are doing to support ‘free speech’ by enabling far-right trolls to be jerkish on the internet.
Stranger
I mean, come on, of course it sometimes is hate–or at least symptomatic of hate. Sometimes it isn’t. This is a ridiculous question, and I suspect that if you’d spent a moment thinking about it, you’d know the answer without having to ask.
Could be. Depends on the content of the disagreement. What do you think?
It’s hate if the thing you disagree with is a marginalized group’s right to exist.
He sounds pretty extreme to me.
Well said.
I don’t think he ever said somebody else didn’t have the right to exist.
This is the question. If all you (@EnolaStraight) are doing is just asking questions of everyone else, there’s hardly a debate to be had.