Profs tell BC student discussing abortion in class is “hateful” and “unsafe”

University of the Fraser Valley teaching graduate Valerie Flokstra (Supplied)

Discussing abortion is “hateful” and threatens classroom “safety,” according to comments contained in leaked audio of a meeting between a former University of the Fraser Valley graduate student and two of her professors.

Valerie Flokstra, a recent graduate of UFV’s teacher education program, was summoned into a meeting with a professor and her department’s head in December after citing a medical statistic related to abortion during a classroom discussion.

Students were told premature births were contributing to increased autism diagnoses. Flokstra questioned whether high abortion rates in Canada could be playing a role, citing studies showing a link between abortion and later premature births.

Asking that made the classroom an unsafe space, the 22-year old was told.

Flokstra covertly recorded the hour-long meeting with Prof. Nancy Norman, in whose class the incident took place, and Prof. Vandy Britton, the head of the teacher education department. Fearing academic reprisal, she waited until after graduation to share the audio. She now works as a teacher at a British Columbia private school.

Though Flokstra is pro-life, she said her question stemmed from a place of academic inquiry, rather than promotion of an agenda, acknowledging she learns through questioning and challenging her own assumptions and those of others.

The professors never disputed the facts Flokstra cited, instead taking issue with how they are uncomfortable or triggering for students to hear.

When Flokstra said in the recording she was embracing “critical thinking,” Britton said that’s not a priority for the program, which, according to its website “focuses on social justice and inclusion.”

“It’s not critical thinking. It’s critical mindedness, which is different,” she said. “Okay, so, critical mindedness is about being open to other people’s ideas too, and hearing what they say and not always filtering it through your lens.”

Flokstra told me she has never raised abortion in the class before; her professors gave no indication in the recording that this incident was part of a pattern.

Even so, the professors first accused her of “derailing” the classroom discussion, before shifting their objection to the impact her observation may have had on students’ “feelings.”

Flokstra questioned whether the classroom is about “feeling safe at all times, or if it’s about learning.”

“I’m just going to speak hypothetically,” Britton responded. “If I’d had an abortion for whatever reason, and then someone said to me, ‘You’re going to give birth to a kid with autism because of that,’ how would that make me feel, and how would that possibly help me with my learning?”

Flokstra said it’s only through free speech and open inquiry that students are able to learn.

“It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and sharing ideas,” Britton said. “It’s skill level. That you create an environment in a classroom, where— no matter what age of people that considers the needs of people. If I came in and didn’t let you say what you believe, I’m shutting you down.”

However, moments earlier Britton said instead of participating in class discussions, Flokstra should just write down her thoughts for herself.

“Because that’s a great way for you to learn,” Britton told her.

The conversation got emotional when Flokstra brought up an incident she had two months earlier with another professor, Awneet Sivia, of which Britton was aware.

In October, 2017, Flokstra was called into a meeting with Sivia after expressing discomfort with an in-class role-playing assignment that featured a scenario with a same-sex couple.

Flokstra cried as she recounted being told by Sivia to “put my Christian identity aside and put my teacher identity on top of that.”

Though this specific allegation cannot be independently verified, Flokstra did provide an email exchange with Sivia referencing the incident. In the emails, Flokstra says she will participate in all scenarios moving forward, understanding their value to her learning, even when she’s uncomfortable.

She also asked Sivia to put her concerns in writing to better help her understand the professor’s expectations.

Sivia refused, saying no written notes were necessary because she was, at that point, satisfied that Flokstra is working “towards being a socially just, inclusive teacher and modeling the (social justice) program value.”

Britton said she would take issue with abortion being raised from either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective, but at one point initiates a debate about abortion with Flokstra, before catching herself and getting back on topic.

At a particularly tense moment in the meeting, Britton likens discussing abortion to allowing a hate group on campus.

“It’s not freedom of speech per se,” she said. “We still consider people’s feelings and we don’t just say whatever. Otherwise— That’s why we don’t have the KKK having a club on campus. That’s not freedom of speech. That’s hate, right? So we don’t put forward ideas that are intentionally or not, that are hateful. And I think sometimes abortion is one of those contentious issues that can make someone feel that they feel threatened on both sides.”

Sivia and Britton did not directly respond to my inquiries, but University of the Fraser Valley communications director Dave Pinton provided a statement.

“The UFV Teacher Education Department, the Teacher Education Program, and UFV are deeply committed to respecting freedom of religion, the right to free speech, and to upholding an overall policy of inclusion,” he said in an email. “It would be a breach of confidentiality to comment on any situation involving a particular student. To comment on specifics would constitute a breach of privacy under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

The UFV teacher education website promises to equip each graduate “to become an agent in the changing landscape of 21st century education,” in particular citing “core courses in social justice, special education, Indigenous education, second language instruction, and reflective practice.”

Flokstra’s ordeal has numerous similarities to what former Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd experienced last year. In fact, Flokstra credits Shepherd’s ordeal with motivating her to record the meeting in the first place.

Much like with Shepherd, Flokstra’s professors attempt to couch offensive recommendations with an “I’m on your side” attitude, using social justice as a trump card over academic inquiry. Just as Shepherd’s professors compared Jordan Peterson to Adolf Hitler, Flokstra was told discussing abortion is like a UFV KKK club.

It’s this attitude, particularly in the teacher education program, that Flokstra said she wanted to challenge by releasing the audio.

When freedom of speech is hindered, so too is learning.

Andrew Lawton is a fellow at the True North Initiative.

Why aren’t liberals fighting against the war on pro-life women?

Because they’re too busy waging it.

The National Campus Life Network last week released a video featuring a monologue by Maggie McAuley, a pro-life activist at the University of Windsor.

In the video, McAuley alleges she was “spat upon” by a professor during one of her pro-life demonstrations on campus. When she complained to police, they threatened to arrest her for her lawful demonstration.

She says one man put a photo of an aborted fetus in her mailbox with the caption, “Your baby after I rape you.”

After being assaulted, threatened with rape, and subjected to much verbal abuse, McAuley went to her school’s women’s centre. Despite being a young woman victimized by men’s violence, there was no support available to her from the supposedly feminist agency on campus.

“Instead of helping me, my women’s centre denied me,” she said. “They told me they wouldn’t help me because it was a pro-choice space. Professors, campus police, the women’s centre, and my student union perpetuated a dehumanizing environment to such a degree that someone felt justified in assaulting me.”

I should probably clarify that the University of Windsor Students’ Alliance doesn’t actually have a “women’s centre.” No, the mandate of helping women on campus falls on the “Womxn’s Centre,” defined on its website as “an actively pro-choice, feminist space.”

Womxn is not the latest anti-biotic to hit the market, but rather a feminist spelling intended to stress that women—erm, womxn—don’t need “men” to exist.

The only way this agency would care about a rape threat against a pro-life woman is if the assailant was dressed as the letter ‘E’.

The center ignored two requests for comment I sent regarding McAuley’s allegations. Unsurprising, because there’s no answer that doesn’t expose the hypocrisy inherent in how many feminists view pro-life women. To blame is intersectionality—the idea that all forms of purported oppression have to be dealt with in tandem.

A woman facing threats and violence from men used to wield a social justice trump card. Now, victimhood is not determined by what happens to a woman, but by what she believes. At the University of Windsor, being pro-life is the new “she was asking for it.” McAuley learned this the hard way by not espousing the ‘correct’ identity politics.

This was apparent on a national scale when the federal Liberal caucus waged procedural war on Lethbridge, Alberta member of parliament Rachael Harder, the Conservatives’ shadow minister for status of women.

Harder is a millennial female in political leadership. That used to be the type of person lionized by the Left, but any celebration is eclipsed by the fact that she thinks abortion is wrong. She isn’t alone, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

A 2016 Ipsos poll found little distinction between men and women in likelihood to be pro-choice or pro-life. Of men, 57 per cent said a woman should be able to choose when and if she has an abortion, while 58 per cent of women took the same stance.

In disagreeing with that, Harder is on-side with more than four in 10 Canadian woman, yet to the Liberals, that disqualifies her from chairing the committee tasked with championing women’s issues in government.

It’s true that female public figures face different kinds of criticism than their male counterparts do. That problem is even more amplified for pro-life women, who are subjected to untold numbers of sexual comments and detailed critiques of their appearance from internet troglodytes. But there’s an added dimension of scorn from the liberals and feminists who present themselves as bastions of enlightenment and social justice.

These voices accuse pro-life women of being traitors to their sex and attack them for not hewing to intersectional feminist theory. They’re too daft to see how hypocritical it is to tell a woman what she’s supposed to think. Is that not the paternalism against which feminists are supposed to be fighting?

This attitude is not exclusive to pro-life women, of course. It’s the same phenomenon that’s led to the denigration of “white feminists”—women accused of having too much privilege to speak to social issues. It’s also at the epicenter of the feud between intersectional feminists and TERFs (or trans-exclusionary radical feminists) on the issue of transgender identity.

Identity politics is so engrained in liberalism that the Left does not accept or even understand the idea of a member of one of its preferred groups going rogue, ideologically.

It reminds of a quip by transgender trailblazer Caitlyn Jenner at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

“It was easy to come out as trans,” Jenner said. “It was harder to come out as a Republican.”

It’s easier for the Left to get the idea of a woman having a penis than it is to understand a woman with a penis liking gun rights and lower taxes.

If support for a group is contingent on ideological beliefs, that support is a sham. If those on the Left want any credibility in speaking up about the war on women, they’d do well to address their part in it.