Okay so I’m done this midterm. Grab your popcorn y’all. So for context for those who don’t know, a law professor at @OttawaU used the n-word in class, then tried to justify it, and her colleagues of written a letter essentially saying she shouldn’t be punished https://twitter.com/Josh_Lamers/status/1318227231269920771

Here’s some more information https://twitter.com/blacklikewho/status/1317866314829123585?s=21

Here’s the disaster response by @OttawaU https://twitter.com/savasavasava/status/1318193827308515330

I've actually been spending the weekend processing this all, namely because the level of antiBlack, antiBlack homophobic, and antiBlack sanist violence I experienced in the Faculty of Law ant University of Windsor all began with one (constant unfolding) event: the n-word

A white woman student said the n-word during our orientation, and when it reached my ears I addressed this directly with her. She tried to justify her use because: she's from Scarborough. I told her it's disgusting and the institution could come down on her should she do it again

What unfolded from me addressing her was very similar to what we're witnessing at the Faculty of Law over at #ottawau Where other students in varying ways attempted to lessen the seriousness of her conduct while monstrousizing, vilifying, and condemning me.

While I've been processing over the past weekend, what struck me is the similarity in the responses between these law educators, and law students. Firstly, the very clear belief that it is "unfair" to directly name and address this antiBlack conduct.

These law professors clearly believe that reprimand for the dignity of Black lives is too much. The reality is: so too do law students. The field of law touts "civility" in attempts to dictate how we can speak about and back at these antiBlack moments, often to justify vilifying

They also use and refashion language of "safety" to say that we must engage in these discussions not with emotion, upset, or anger, but with "reason". Or else WE are making the law classroom and faculty unsafe. Not the antiBlackness that precipitates the response.

And what are we dangerous to (in their eyes): civility; academic freedom; and freedom of expression. For Black people who name and challenge these conditions, white supremacist antiBlack constructions of these terms are carceral. We are meant to accept antiBlackness as pedagogy

This is where "learning moment" "learning journey" "patience" and "compassionate call in" are rhetorical devices to signify that we as Black people are meant to just accept that these moments of antiBlackness MUST be learning moments for the trespasser.

If we refuse this dynamic, and imagine otherwise by centering Black dignity then WE are the trespasser. We trespass on "academic freedom" and "freedom of expression" and "civil" conduct (as prescribed by the legal profession).

Now mind you: the parameters of academic freedom are set by the University. See this panel with @blacklikewho https://www.tvo.org/video/freedom-of-expression-on-campus

AS WELL, shame on this disaster law professors harping on freedom of expression. The Charter does not apply to the university, didn't ya'll teach us that repeatedly in our classes? Therefore, the university has the capacity to set the parameters of what we consider acceptable...

speech on campuses. NOW, let's be clear: the freedom of expression espouses by these legal educating disasters is not meant to keep US safe. In fact, much of the Black radical decolonial expressions made by myself and others to address antiBlackness is often condemned.

Let's not forget JP publicly vilified a Black Muslim woman student for her organizing OUTSIDE of campus. Let's not forget bullshit MacKinnion vilified myself and other Black students for organizing against the anti-Blackness at @RyeSocialWork in his "book".

Let's not forget the fact that I almost didn't get into Ryerson's Social Work Masters because these people hated me for my what? Organizing (expression). These individuals hate the possibility, or rare reality, that institutions (under enough pressure) may acquiesce in some way

Notice I say some, because it doesn't necessary mean it's substantive. These individuals, including the law professors signing onto that letter; INCLUDING the law students who would gladly sign that letter, are upset over CRUMBS in comparison to the demands we make

So now I bring us back to the cite of the student. Since, these institutions do not take taking up anti-Blackness seriously, and since they use these various forms of subversion, the law students practice these dynamics among ourself.

I thought long and hard about showing this. Here's excerpts from a report in response to a student complaining against me for publicly naming these dynamics of harm occurring. I counter complained and many "interesting" things played out in the institutional report:

Here are excerpts of students calling me “playing the card” “bitch” “unsettling” “relentless” and “crucifying”. And guess what this started over: me addressing someone saying the n-word

Here I’m called an “emotional terrorist” where the students cites Psychology Today () as authority. That I “love” antiBlack conflict; where students lessen the impact of the use of n-word because it’s a joke; that I “verbally harassed” “targeted” and am “abusive”

That I’m “belligerent” “highly offensive” and “loud” and have definite anger issues. I’m a “known instigator” “vigilante of social justice” . That i take “grudges seriously”. That I engage in “antagonistic micro aggressions” (the irony, I fucking know).

That I’m detrimental to the law school, and many are “in fear of being victimized”. That I engage in intimidation and harassment. That I’m the “most unpleasant person”. That I’m professionally a threat, and that everyone at the Faculty of Law is a victim.

Here you see them invoke the very thing I’m taking about: professional standards. And since I go against them I’m “deranged”. I’m an “extremist” and “radical”. They attempt to chalk up my intellectual and radical labour as a “trauma response”. That people “live in fear”

Before I show the institutional responses I want to point out that this language is really at the heart of what the law professors at @uOttawa believe. It's at the heart of many believe and say under the guise of "freedom of expression" and "academic freedom".

This long ledger of antiBlack, antiBlack homophobic, and antiBlack sanist descriptors is common place. The field of law is no exception, and with my experience in so called "social justice"/"access to justice" this language is possible and accepted.

This is DESPITE the clear contradictions in what these law students are saying. That my words cause fear, as if though the words and situations don't cause ACTUAL harm, despair, lack, and sometimes death. These responses narrow the boundaries of addressing and organizing

This is where tone policing is an important term. It's meant to enforce what I said earlier: their belief that pedagogy MUST include and make space for antiBlackness (intentional or not; example: use of n-word). If we refuse, take note: we are all of the above.

This brings us to the institutional responses: that refusing tone policing is failing to be “coached” by our peers; that these words and actions “might” be antiBlackness BUT in fact (in the eyes of these two non-Black people) are not.

This is the institutional set up against Black responses to unliveable conditions. Notice that essentially all of this behaviour and all of these words were justified because why? They believe me to be "mentally ill" and "deranged".

The mere belief by these law students, in the eyes of these adjudicators is benign rather than politically charged and with social consequences. Them acting on these beliefs is not only benign, but justified because I refused. I will point out that the last screen shot...

Is the supposed "freedom of expression" academic in the UWindsor Faculty of law. This was his assessment (and I find interesting based on other happenings in his close proximity...but I digress). You see law school chalks these violent moments and ongoings as "academic debate"

We are to be chained to all "academic endeavours" and "learning moments". We cannot refuse, and we cannot institutionally complain when we refuse the indignitites we experience. Those law professors represent many of my colleagues. Law students are practicing these logics...

as we speak. Their professors are finding ways to justify these logics, and are allowing folks like myself to be violated. That letter is representative of the current state of affairs: no more or less.

@WindsorLaw to @UTLaw to @uOttawa Law are sites of white supremacist practicum. Those signatories are demanding that we keep it so. I'm not saying the legal profession needs to be saved (quite the opposite). But I am saying much happens here. (END SCENE)

I’ve been asked to clarify: these are the words coming from white, Black, and racialized students.

I like to give the community current “texts” of these dynamics. Here’s me being called a “bully” today by a Windsor law student. Once again, being told how all I do is scare people. That the n-word sayer apolgoized (Must not have Cc’d me); that the main student is an ally.

See: law students would really love to sign on to that letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not currently crafting one as we speak.

Okay everyone, the saga continues. It is so dangerous to be a Black person, particularly student, and academia and expose the truth. The university will do everything it can, and flail to have the truth hidden.

The university wants to had the ledger of AntiBlack, antiBlack homophobic, and antiBlack sanist vocabulary that these students, and the investigator, and that Faculty of Law adjudicator used. And this man at @UWindsor is the person who deals with student complaints.

This is how he talks to Black students, “well I figured as a law student..” such condescension from the same man who is causing crisis after crisis in his position.