WRDSB Doubles Down
The Director's November 13th statement revealed contempt both for parents and liberal democracy. Restoring the Board's credibility must begin with his resignation.
I reached out to Trustees Estoesta and Woodcock for comment regarding: (i) their statements linking, without evidence, the September 20th protests to an alleged hate crime, and (ii) carelessly dropping ‘alleged’ from their descriptions of matters before the courts. They have not responded.
At the Committee of the Whole of Nov 13th, 2023, WRDSB Director of Education Jeewan Chanicka spoke to our open letter addressing the September 19th WRDSB statement, which ascribed hateful motivations to September 20th protestors. The WRDSB also received a version of our open letter from a Kitchener Muslim association. Trustees Watson and Ramsay advocated on our behalf and implored the WRDSB to retract these statements and issue an apology.1
Director Chanicka, with the support of all but three Trustees, categorically rejected this request and stood by his characterization of parents as hateful.
Let’s walk through his statement and try to understand his reasoning.
CHANICKA REAFFIRMS ACCUSATION THAT PROTESTERS ARE HATEFUL
He begins by reading the infamous passage from the September 19th statement:
Unfortunately, underlying some of the motivations behind these demonstrations are hate and inaccuracies about what is happening in schools,
The Director does not take the opportunity here to explain this statement or his intention. For example, he could have emphasized that most parents aren’t hateful, and then backed this up with concrete evidence of the alleged hate he is describing.
But no logical explanation is provided, and he continues quoting:
we denounce all forms of hate, including anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate, anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism, and Islamophobia.
Instead of denouncing all forms of hate and stopping there, he goes on to undermine his own statement by highlighting special concern for 2SLGBTQIA+, Black, Indigenous, and Muslim identities. Recent hate NOT mentioned includes:
(i) parents called hateful for voicing concerns about policies and procedures regarding gender ideology (the vast majority of the public),
(ii) rising anti-Semitism, as pointed out later in the meeting by Trustee Ramsay.
…AND THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE WRDSB, SO DON’T LOOK AT ME!
The Director then moves on to the topic of accountability for WRDSB communications as raised in these sentences of our open letter addressed to him: “We note that the [September 19th] statement was unsigned, which is unfortunately emblematic of a WRDSB leadership culture lacking integrity and persistently dodging accountability. However, because ultimate accountability for such statements rests with the director we are addressing our concerns to you.” Chanicka responds as follows:
With such a large organization the senior team plays a key role in helping us understand the perspectives of those who work to support students throughout our school board. It is consistent practice of many large organizations, including the Ministry of Education, that we do not sign communications from any one individual as it represents the interests of, and is a statement on behalf of, the organization and those we serve.
Doubtless large organizations do issue unsigned statements, and that others do it certainly provides some justification. However, I would make two points here that are distinguishing features of this particular case. First, this was not some mundane policy statement or notice about weather-related school closures. This was a defamatory denunciation of parents that was both hurtful and inflammatory. It is irresponsible, not to mention nearly impossible, to ascribe motivations to strangers in the absence of any evidence of attempted dialogue. Second – and this is deeply concerning – the WRDSB is an extremely well-resourced government bureaucracy that for decades has been generally held in high regard by the public. Statements defaming parents can have serious consequences socially, professionally, financially, and even legally. In addition, such statements are actually bad for the WRDSB because they stifle critical public input.
If the leadership team crafts a statement collaboratively then they should all sign it. There are few acts more cowardly than government officials denouncing citizens from behind a shield of anonymity. Leaders take responsibility. Leaders operate from a set of principles in which they have confidence. And if they are wrong, they admit it and change their minds.
Or, if their principles are no longer compatible with the wider organization, they resign.
Those who would use the WRDSB name to anonymously attack the very citizens who entrust the Board to educate their children are a menace to liberal democracy and should resign. Basic decency should motivate public officials to communicate with care, take ownership, and subject themselves to accountability.
…AND WE’VE DONE IT BEFORE SO IT’S OKAY!
The Director also referenced “our response to serious allegations made by a delegate some time before in a board meeting.” I believe he is referring to a previous anonymous letter in response to a delegation delivered by David Todor, another parent of Waterloo Region. Todor raised the ire of the Board by publicly challenging sexually explicit books and the Board surveying students about their sexuality. This not-so-subtle denunciation of any parent who dares question child sexualization as a hateful bigot included statements like, “Many of these arguments are veiled attempts to target 2SLGBTQIA+ children and families,” and “Hate, racism and xenophobia are not ‘opinions.’”2 This case was especially egregious because, not only did the Director dodge accountability for this vile letter by saying the “issue was referred to staff”, but he then asked staff who wrote the letter to identify themselves by standing. This abuse of power is well worth watching to understand the bullying tactics of Director Chanicka.
As you can see, the staff themselves seem unprepared for this coercive display as some of them clearly stand only in response to cues from colleagues. The Director says that he himself had no hand in the open letter, but all thirteen of these staff did. Apart from the leadership disaster of throwing a large team of senior managers under the bus, enlisting at least thirteen highly paid bureaucrats to craft a short letter is hardly a model of efficiency.
NEW ALLEGATIONS: THESE BIGOTS ARE TARGETING ME!
The Director then shifts from “this is just what everybody has always done” to making yet another unfounded accusation. He makes a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to tarnish us as bigots:
This has always been the practice of this organization and personally I have to wonder why after many years of this being the practice that it is being raised while I’m the director.
This is the ultimate cry-bully move. Director Chanicka uses the bully pulpit of an organization with a budget approaching $1 billion to call citizens hateful, and when they object he plays victim. [Note: In 2022 the Director drew a salary of $235,199.88]
POLICY DISAGREEMENT CITED AS EVIDENCE OF “HATE”
Then he addresses one of the concerns outlined in our letter from EMPOWR: the WRDSB calling us hateful without evidence. The director seems to think that the following sentences on the 1MillionMarch4Children.com website constitutes evidence of hate (Note that the website is not from Kitchener organizers. Note also that to date we have no evidence of Director Chanicka reaching out to any parents who participated in the protests. In fact, he has failed to return communication requests from parents who have reached out to him.):
“Uniting diverse backgrounds and faiths, we share a resolute purpose advocating for the elimination of the sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum, pronouns, gender ideology, and mixed bathrooms in schools. As a symbol of our commitment students are encouraged to participate in a nationwide school walkout on that day. Our mission: we are brothers and sisters in humanity standing up to free our children from the bondage of indoctrination, breaking the system designed to sexualize our children.”
In fact, Trustee Watson challenged Director Chanicka on exactly this point, as shown in the following exchange:
Trustee Watson: … these people do not believe that they’re hating anyone. They’re bringing forward their legitimate concerns about the safety of students. So I know I can’t judge them because I don’t know them, and they’re bringing forward their concerns. I don’t understand why we use the word “hate”.
Director Chanicka: Two things I’m going right back to the statement again, it says “unfortunately underlying some of the motivations behind these demonstrations are hate and inaccuracies about what is happening in schools”, then I went on to quote exactly what the organization said, “we share a resolute purpose advocating for the elimination of sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum, pronouns, gender ideology, and mixed bathrooms in schools” [emphasis added]. I feel that that answers the question.
Watson: So I, you know, just from this statement, so, because they said that on their website, you’re assuming that it’s hate motivated.
Chanicka: I feel like I’ve answered the question.
This exchange reveals that Director Chanicka – as is so often the case with those indoctrinated in Critical Social Justice and postmodernism – is assigning definitions to words that are not shared by the broader public. Here he reframes disagreement as “hate”. He seems to think that anyone who doesn’t believe in teaching gender ideology to children is hateful. He also extends hate to include concerns about mixed bathrooms, which seems like a very reasonable thing for a parent to worry about.
The Director then inexplicably uses this supposed evidence of hate to further justify why nobody would sign the letter (if any readers follow this logic please help us out!):
For these reasons it would have been inappropriate to sign the letter from any single individual or a limited group of individuals, as this letter spoke to the stands of the WRDSB, where our focus has always been on supporting the achievement and well-being of all students that we serve as they achieve their full potential in our schools and classrooms. As an organization we are bound to uphold the law, the Education Act, and the Ontario Human Rights Code, and ensure that students are all reflected, represented, upheld, and able to thrive. No child can thrive in an environment where they do not feel seen, understood, or represented.
This paragraph is confusing but seems to suggest that his hands are legislatively tied to ensure that students are “reflected”, “represented”, “upheld”, “seen”, “understood” and “able to thrive.” I don’t know how calling parents hateful is a requirement of the law, but I am neither a lawyer nor legislator. Perhaps anyone questioning the wisdom of letting a male student access the ladies’ room will prevent that student from being ‘seen’ or ‘understood’. That may or may not be the case, but I can hardly see how it could be considered ‘hateful’ to raise concerns. As another side note, many of the terms thrown around are highly subjective and strange (‘seen’, ‘reflected’, ‘upheld’, ‘represented’) and it would be worthwhile for the WRDSB to clearly define what is meant by all of them. However, I know full well this will not happen. The imprecision of nice-sounding activist language numbs the public into sleepily accepting unpopular policies.
I’M NOT DIVISIVE, YOU ARE!
Our letter suggested that by demonizing a group of parents the Director was being divisive, to which he responds:
As for the statement causing divisions in the community, it is actually the mischaracterization of our statement, the misinformation and fear-mongering by some people that are causing divisions in our community.
He doesn’t explain how we mischaracterized his statement, nor how we are misinformed or fear-mongering. Instead, he verbally disgorges from a well-worn script:
The hallmark of a democratic public education system should be that we serve all students well, especially those who are most marginalized. All students and families deserve to be supported, feel safe, included, and respected in their learning environment,
And if anyone raises concerns, no matter how valid and reasonable, they will be called hateful! This is neither inclusive nor supportive.
If such imprecise and banal sophistry from the braintrust at 51 Ardfelt Ave is any measure of educational competence, our children’s chances of learning to write with clarity and force at WRDSB schools is vanishingly small.
We should also note that the repeated deferrals to provincial authorities is concerning. That the MOE and OHRC are being used as excuses to defame parents is a red flag. Is the WRDSB so afraid of an activist-led OHRC investigation that they will throw families and parents under the bus and potentially destroy innocent lives to stave them off? Or are WRDSB themselves the activists using ‘just following orders’ as an excuse to justify their defamatory statements?
CHANICKA’S EVIDENCE OF MISINFORMATION
The Director then quoted one of the speakers at the September 20th rally as an example of misinformation:
I quote one of the keynote speakers who clearly stated, “this ideology leads minors to transition through medicalization, sterilization, and mutilation. Sexualization through the material presentation and conversations that happen at school, and the secrecy that drives a wedge between parents and their kids.” This is patently untrue and factually incorrect.
By categorically refuting this statement the Director is stating on the record that: (i) gender ideology definitely does not lead minors to medical transition, and (ii) there is neither sexual material nor secrecy at school.
Surely it’s possible that confusing children about gender identity leads to medicalization. Similarly, the evidence for sexual content being available in schools is overwhelming. And most brazen is his denial of the existence of the WRDSB’s own AP1235 which clearly states that secrets should be kept from parents. What Director Chanicka is doing here is called gaslighting.
The Director seems to stop at “This is patently untrue and factually incorrect” without explaining why. He then inexplicably launches into a disquisition on queerness and gender theory. I’m not sure if this is supposed to support his refutation that children have access to sexual materials at school, but the logic escapes me. Perhaps introducing the Director of Education to the concept of the topic sentence might clarify matters. But we are left to decipher what he’s said, so let’s dive in. He starts off:
Since the advent of public education children have been going to school and hearing stories about princes and princesses living happily ever after from as early as kindergarten. That has never caused queer children to become straight.
I don’t recall that fairy tales were a major component of my own public education, but I would concede that many stories – from nursery rhymes to timeless classics like The Odyssey – are incidentally moored in the reality of biological sex and the predominance of heterosexual relationships. I don’t think many people have a problem with adding in a few stories about homosexual couples.
The second sentence, “That has never caused queer children to become straight” is very odd on many levels. First, why are we talking on these terms, ascribing sexual orientation to children? And how is it relevant to public education? Second, the opposite of straight (heterosexual) is gay/lesbian (homosexual), not “queer”. The latter is either a slur (which I most certainly hope the Director would not use) or refers to Queer Theory, a strain of academic thought positing that “normativity” is oppressive.3 In any case, radical political ideologies should not be presented in public education, or at least not presented unchallenged. And third, if classic/normative stories don’t affect sexuality, what’s the problem exactly?
Let’s proceed.
Since the advent of public education, children have learned about two genders. That has never converted gender diverse children to grow into one of those two genders only.
Never in my years of education have I learned, or in my life observed, that there are more than two sexes. Children who love wildlife and nature know this perfectly well. I know that ‘gender’ is used to somehow denote personality, but it’s not really clear to me what it means (I always thought it was a polite synonym for ‘sex’, but I probably need to ‘educate myself’). The senior educrats of the WRDSB are the ones who are confused. What are “gender diverse children”? There’s no correct way to be a boy or girl, and most parents would agree that some boys have feminine interests and vice versa. We figured that out long ago, so how about we move on to prepare our children for challenges like sending rockets to Mars? Or really anything remotely more productive and intellectually stimulating than pretending we don’t know what boys and girls are?
People may disagree with my belief in two sexes, and that is okay. But rejection of the sex binary is a political or religious belief divorced from science.4 I agree that we should teach children to be tolerant and accepting of different creeds, but children should not be shamed for defending, or coerced into rejecting, traditional scientific viewpoints.
Children can learn that diversity exists and that the world they’re going into is filled with people who understand and live in the world according to truths that are different than their own.
This is an amazing admission. Director Chanicka is rejecting the idea of universal truth. The postmodern turn in Education Schools is showing through here. If this is the philosophy of the Director of Education we are in trouble. How long before bridges start collapsing because we’ve embraced some ‘oppressed’ group’s anti-science ‘way of knowing’?
He next says:
Families have every right and should teach children what they believe. They also need to teach them, as we do, that other people may live in the world differently and they are deserving of respect and to have their dignity
Either parents have the right to teach children their own values or they don’t. Where do you think the Director stands on this matter?
It is not dignity to say that we don’t have anything against 2SLGBTQIA+ people and then demand their erasure as the very statement on the website and the premise for the marches stated
This is a straw man argument. How rich to be accusing parents of misinformation. Nobody said anything about demanding the erasure of anyone (note also, vide infra, Trustee Radlein’s use of the word elimination). This linguistic sleight of hand – equating protecting children from sexualization with genocide – is irresponsible, unacceptable, and potentially dangerous. If you think I am exaggerating, watch for yourself the WRDSB delegation of April 2023 where a local activist – over whom Trustees fawned – equates questioning gender ideology with genocide:
This irresponsible rhetoric is dangerous because it gives far-left Antifa activists the kind of justification they need for violence.
To teach children that diversity exists and understand that all people should be treated with respect are hallmarks of democracy
Sexually explicit material in schools is not a hallmark of democracy. Teaching that “diversity exists” is banal.
To demand that children should not learn about diversity and other lived experience, that is actually called indoctrination
Nobody is saying children should not learn about diversity. Is Chanicka calling pornography ‘diversity’? And no, that is not the definition of indoctrination. By the way, what is the difference between ‘lived experience’ and ‘experience’?
To connect sexual orientation and gender identity to sexualization of young children is false, dangerous, and this language needs to be rejected as it is misleading and inaccurate and causes harm to children, families, and staff in our system and in the wider region.
Another straw man. Nobody is connecting sexual orientation to sexualization of children. Sexually explicit content is connected to sexualization of children. The Director has been told this repeatedly but continues to feign ignorance.
CHANICKA ENDS THE STATEMENT WITH MORE ALLEGATIONS
We have a duty in the way conversations are framed to ensure that we are not promoting ideologies that lead to hate and harms. We have lived this through many times in history. It first starts with one community then spreads rapidly. This is exactly how “never again” repeats itself.
Precisely what conversations, and how are they being framed to promote what ideologies? And what evidence of hate and harms does the Director have? And to allude to the Holocaust (“never again”) is especially egregious – how dare it be suggested that politely and peacefully raising concerns about pornography and lack of transparency is equivalent to genocide?
There are some that are trying to use the board as a space to advance their own political views and beliefs about who should or should not be included.
On the above point we agree.
They start sentences with “I have nothing against 2SLGBT+ people” and then go on to advance arguments that render the same students, staff and families invisible in the curriculum.
Surely this is deeply insulting to gays and lesbians, who actually have no need to see pornography to feel included. The Director may be surprised to learn that homosexuals are just as capable of learning math, contemplating Shakespeare, and appreciating music as their heterosexual counterparts.
Quite frankly, what I don’t understand is, if we know that this representation supports the well-being of one of our most marginalized communities in our board, a community with higher rates of depression and suicide, why would we fight against it. And when we say all students, does it then include 2SLGBTQIA+ students, or might some hold beliefs that some lives are less valuable or less worthy. I would like to think that one of the most significant things we can do here is to do our best to not, and to ensure that we save lives and to help students thrive.
Porn is not representation, and it does not support student well-being. And to suggest that we think some lives are less worthy is further evidence that the Director is unfit for the job. Whereas an apology perhaps was appropriate until this point, it is now untenable for him to remain in his post.
Human rights can and should never be negotiable. As such I don’t see a need to retract our statement.
I challenge anyone to read our letter and conclude that we are trying to negotiate human rights. Have we suggested that anyone be stripped of rights due to their sexuality? Or advocated that different rules should be applied to different students or resources allocated based on ethnicity? Have we suggested sectarian approaches to employment, or that people be prevented from speaking freely, granted due process, treated equally under the law, or in any way deprived of the rights granted to any Canadian citizen? We most certainly have not. That the Director would suggest so is another egregious slander and is further grounds for resignation.
QUESTION PERIOD
The question period is fascinating and even more revealing. Trustee Ramsay moved that the Director issue a straightforward apology, which was followed by several Trustees speaking against this motion. Trustee Radlein was the first to speak against an apology.
Trustee Radlein: I would like to speak against that motion. I think the Director mentioned that the website of the people who organized this spoke to the elimination of a group that is part of the school community – students, parents, staff. Also, it needs to be pointed out that intent can vary but what constitutes harm is how it’s received. And the community, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community received harm. It is not intent, it is outcome.
The organizers of the march spoke to the “elimination of a group”!? Except no one said any such thing. And Trustee Radlein must know this full well. The chutzpah! Another baseless accusation that needs to be retracted and deserves an apology.
The next point Radlein makes is that we shouldn’t consider intent; it’s the outcome that matters. As for outcome, nobody has articulated any harms beyond policy disagreement, as far as I can tell. But the larger point is concerning and is evidence that Trustee Radlein has, unfortunately, probably received illiberal social justice training.
As pointed out by Haidt and Lukianoff in their influential 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind, the conceptual framework of ‘the microaggression’ is clearly informing Trustee Radlein’s thinking here. From Haidt and Lukianoff:
More generally, the microaggression concept reveals a crucial moral change on campus: the shift from intent to impact. In moral judgment as it has long been studied by psychologists, intent is essential for assessing guilt. We generally hold people morally responsible for acts that they intended to commit. If Bob tries to poison Maria and he fails, he has committed a very serious crime (attempted murder), even though he has made no impact on Maria. Conversely, if Maria accidentally kills Bob by (consensually) kissing him after eating a peanut butter sandwich, she has committed no offense if she had no idea he was deathly allergic to peanuts.
I reproduce this here to emphasize the shift away from liberal values of open discourse and towards government regulation of speech. It seems most people are either unaware of this development, or think it sounds nice for the government to step in and protect people from hearing things they find offensive. Well, true enough I suppose; perhaps fewer people (other than the silenced) will be offended if nobody is saying what they really think. But we know this leads to authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. Radlein lays her illiberal authoritarian cards on the table here.
Trustee Watson spoke next to support the motion and urge the WRDSB to – rather than callously label parents hateful – engage in dialogue to understand parental concerns.
Trustee Watson: …there was no follow up with any of these groups, or particular parents, there were no conversations with them, there was no – to the best of my knowledge – getting everyone together to talk about “hey what are your concerns”, these are concerns are across Canada. And I think it’s important that when we have a demonstration like that, there is a take away, we have to stop being defensive, and when I read this, in my own personal opinion, this is, it’s defensive, and so when parents have continually brought up identity politics in the classroom, ideologies being taught that don’t align with their personal beliefs, I think it’s time to start listening, and to work with parents instead of making comments about “unfortunately underlying some of the motivations behind these demonstrations are hate and inaccuracies”. I think if we’re really trying to build unity and build understanding, we have to do better, we have to start using language that will help build and heal instead of separating and dividing. So I’ll be supporting this motion.
Contrast this careful attempt at balance and fairness with Trustee Woodcock:
Trustee Woodcock: I’ll be voting against the motion. As far as I can see, Trustee Watson asked for follow up and an explanation from the Director regarding the statement. That explanation has been given and I’ll be voting against the motion. We’re done.
Trustee Woodcock articulates no clear reasons for voting against the motion other than what seems to be blind allegiance to her team.
And then we have Trustee Piatkowski demonstrating a textbook case of appeal to authority as a substitute for critical thinking.
Trustee Piatkowski: Our statement was consistent with those of other school boards in the province, consistent with statements from our local municipalities and other municipalities across the country, consistent with language used by the Prime Minister of Canada. There’s no reason why we should be apologizing for accurately characterizing what was being said by organizers of the march.
Trustee Piatkowski’s one reliable competency appears to be self-immolation, so there is little I could add to accelerate his implosion.
Arguably the most dramatic moment of the evening was provided by Trustee Estoesta (it really is worth watching the video footage here):
Trustee Estoesta: I will also voting against the motion. When we talk about words and impacts, this isn’t a theoretical or an academic exercise. After the march, we had a hate crime at one of our schools – a hate crime. When we normalize hate, it turns into actions. And that is why I’ll be voting against this motion.
I am no fan of Codes of Conduct because – as we have seen in the case of Mike Ramsay – they can be weaponized to punish dissenters and propel self-censorship. However, if ever there were a case for censure it might be here. I advance this argument on two grounds.
First, Trustee Estoesta directly links the march to a hate crime and provides no evidence. For example, I would take this as a personal accusation that my views are responsible for criminal behaviour, which exceeds even Director Chanicka’s standard for slander.
Second, and more serious in my opinion, is the disregard for due process and the presumption of innocence. There was a time not very long ago when public officials judiciously applied the term ‘alleged’ to any incident that remained before the courts. In an environment where public officials are highly motivated to find evidence of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate to justify their draconian policies of compelled speech, there is little credibility left in official statements. For example, after activist pressure, University of Waterloo and Waterloo Regional Police Service officials rushed to label a terrible stabbing incident as ‘hate-motivated’ before it’s motivation had been adjudicated in court. This must certainly compromise the possibility of a fair trial.
The same is now happening to WRDSB students. And that one of the very Trustees tasked with protecting students is so eagerly speeding along the process of visiting injustice on students and their families is particularly unfathomable. This is a clear example of Trustee Estoesta’s commitment to illiberal progressivism, which I immediately recognized when she disclosed that she was a Canadian Certified Inclusion Professional. Thankfully Trustee Ramsay called her out on the seriousness of her allegations.
For good measure, Trustee Woodcock weighs in to say that a WRPS charge of hate crime was enough for her.
Trustee Woodcock: I’d just like to respond to the linkages. Waterloo Region Police have charged the participants in that incident with hate crime, so that’s a link for me. I’d like to call the question.
Woodcock seems to be saying, “Give ‘em a fair trial and lock ‘em up!” Again, I’m no fan of Codes of Conduct, but this blatant contempt for due process by a government official is beyond the pale in a liberal democracy.
If you’ve read this far, congratulations! It is a slog to document and respond to the firehose of misinformation and slander coming from the WRDSB.
But respond we must.
As detailed in the linked video, Director Chanicka initially denied knowledge of our letter, which was sent to him via email copied to his Executive Assistant and all Trustees.
Hate, racism, and xenophobia ARE opinions. They most certainly are NOT factual statements.
Some readers may disagree with me here. They might reasonably view the term “queer” as a synonym for homosexual. But if that’s the case, why not just say “homosexual”? I view this as a version of the motte-and-bailey rhetorical tactic that exploits the multiple possible interpretations of a vague word like “queer”. The easily defensible “motte” position would define queer simply as homosexual. However, the more radical “bailey” definition might include more controversial identities like gender fluid or even pedophilia (rebranded by Queer Theorists as minor-attraction). We should not concede language to progressive activists. Instead we must insist on precise, universally agreed upon definitions and words (like “homosexual”).
Confusingly, serious scientific publications and magazines are actually now publishing pseudoscience. Most famously, the formerly august magazine Scientific American tried (hilariously) to convince us that 18th century men invented women to “reinforce gender and racial divisions”. WRDSB teachers are now using Scientific American (see evidence in below screenshot) to confuse students about the sex binary with a distortion of biology. This is what happens when editorial meetings lack the viewpoint diversity (possibly due to ideological screening practices during hiring) necessary to put the brakes on crazy story ideas.
 | A guest post by
|