Academic Shackles. LION LUC LELIEVRE shares his struggle with academic intolerance.

This is a post from another substack.

Heresy

Interview with Luc Lelievre

“With thanks to Luc Lelievre for sharing his story with us.

Luc, can you please tell us a bit about your background and what led you to pursue a doctoral program at Laval University?

"A diverse and challenging life experience has shaped my path towards a doctoral program at Laval University. Beginning my career in radio hosting and journalism provided a solid foundation in communication and sparked my interest in societal issues and the power of information.

Throughout my life, I've been a passionate autodidact, immersing myself in various subjects, from psychology and cybernetics to classic science fiction and philosophy. This self-directed learning, including extensive reading from collections like Marabout Université and completing 42 Coursera certificates, has been a constant thread in my intellectual development and demonstrates my commitment to continuous learning.

My academic journey hasn't been linear. I faced significant challenges in my youth, including mental health issues and socioeconomic difficulties. Despite not completing secondary education traditionally, I persevered in pursuing knowledge. These experiences have given me a unique perspective on social inequalities and structural violence - themes that now inform my academic interests.

I have since built a solid academic background, including a master's degree in sociology from Laval University and training in urban geography. My experiences with socioeconomic challenges and marginalization have significantly influenced my academic interests, fueling my passion for studying social inequalities, inspired by theorists like Zygmunt Bauman and John Rawls.

My interest in a doctoral program at Laval University stems from a desire to apply my life experiences and acquired knowledge in a rigorous academic setting. I'm particularly drawn to examining societal issues, such as managing fundamental rights and freedoms, through an academic lens. This program represents an opportunity to contribute to scholarly discourse on topics I've long been passionate about, combining my practical experience in media, extensive self-study, and insights into social challenges.

Despite numerous obstacles, including health issues and financial difficulties, I've remained determined to succeed in academia. My unique journey has prepared me to analyze societal problems critically, and this combination of personal experiences and self-directed studies has led me to pursue doctoral studies, hoping to contribute to academic discourse, particularly in political sociology."

2. You mentioned being 70 years old with some physical challenges. How has your life experience shaped your academic interests and pursuits?

"At 70 years old, with physical challenges, my life experiences have profoundly shaped my academic interests. Growing up in poverty and facing significant mental health challenges from a young age, including major depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, I developed a unique perspective on social inequality and structural violence.

These early struggles significantly impacted my education and development. Despite not completing secondary education traditionally due to bullying and other obstacles, I committed to lifelong self-directed learning. I extensively read works from collections like Marabout Université, Humanities and Social Sciences by Prentice Hall, and Que sais-je? by PUF, covering subjects from psychology and cybernetics to classic science fiction and philosophy.

My experiences led me to focus on how societal structures and economic conditions affect mental health, personal development, and individual lives. I'm particularly interested in Paul Farmer's concept of 'structural violence' and its impact on vulnerable populations.

I've developed vital research and writing skills through autodidacticism throughout my life. This journey has been central to my academic pursuits and has equipped me to contribute meaningfully to scholarly discourse.

My age, physical challenges, and life experiences have been catalysts rather than barriers to my academic interests. They've provided me with a lived understanding of the social issues I now seek to study and address through my work, particularly in political sociology. In my doctoral research, I aim to use this unique perspective to contribute to academic discourse and explore how societal structures impact vulnerable populations."

3. What initially drew you to study the government's management of fundamental rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic?

"My interest in studying the government's management of fundamental rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic was rooted in my longstanding concern with social inequality and structural violence. The pandemic presented a unique moment where these issues were brought into sharp focus.

My background in journalism and my extensive self-directed study in social sciences had primed me to be critical of government actions and their impacts on vulnerable populations. When the pandemic hit, and governments began implementing unprecedented measures, I saw an opportunity to apply critical analysis to these actions.

Specifically, I was drawn to examine how the lockdown measures in Quebec aligned with or diverged from democratic principles and individual freedoms. I was particularly interested in applying Hannah Arendt's theories to this context, as her work on totalitarianism and the human condition seemed especially relevant to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic.

My experiences with systemic barriers and institutional challenges made me acutely aware of how crises can exacerbate inequalities. I wanted to explore how the pandemic response might reinforce or alter these powers and control structures.

Moreover, as someone who has faced censorship and academic resistance, I was concerned about the potential suppression of critical voices during the pandemic. I saw it as crucial to maintain a space for questioning and analysis, even - or especially - in times of crisis.

The pandemic provided a critical juncture for examining the balance between public health necessities and fundamental rights. I believed that rigorous academic study of this balance was essential for maintaining democratic accountability and protecting the rights of all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable."

4. Could you elaborate on the aspects of pandemic management you were interested in critically examining?

"In examining the pandemic management critically, I was particularly interested in several specific aspects:

The application of Hannah Arendt's theories to Quebec's lockdown measures. I wanted to analyze how her concepts of totalitarianism and the human condition could provide insights into the government's actions during the crisis.

The balance between public health necessities and fundamental rights and freedoms. I wanted to explore how the government's decisions impacted individual liberties and whether the public health emergency justified these impacts.

The decision-making process behind the lockdown measures. I wanted to critically examine the transparency and accountability of the government's actions, particularly considering the rapid and far-reaching nature of the policies implemented.

The socioeconomic impacts of the lockdown measures, especially on vulnerable populations. Given my background and interest in social inequality and structural violence, I was mainly concerned with how the pandemic response might exacerbate societal disparities.

The role of media and public discourse in shaping the narrative around the pandemic response. Drawing on my experience in journalism, I was interested in critically analyzing how information was disseminated and how public opinion was formed during this crisis.

The long-term implications of the pandemic management on democratic processes and institutions. I wanted to explore whether the extraordinary measures taken during the pandemic might have lasting effects on the balance of power between the government and citizens.

I aimed to provide a rigorous, academic analysis of these aspects grounded in sociological theory and empirical evidence. However, as I've mentioned, my attempts to pursue this line of inquiry were met with significant resistance and ultimately led to my unjust dismissal from the program."

5. How did your thesis supervisor initially react when you proposed your topic on pandemic management?

"When I proposed my topic on pandemic management, my thesis supervisor reacted negatively. Initially, I intended to critically examine the government's management of fundamental rights and freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, applying Hannah Arendt's theories to Quebec's lockdown measures. This approach aimed to explore the balance between public health necessities and individual liberties and to scrutinize the transparency and accountability of the government's actions.

However, my supervisor's response was not supportive. He suggested that I abandon my Ph.D. pursuits altogether, which violated his ethical responsibilities as a supervisor. This reaction indicated a significant lack of academic freedom and support for critical inquiry within the institution.

Moreover, my supervisor censored my work, preventing me from fully exploring and presenting my research. He also failed to provide clear criteria for grading my essays and other academic work, which is highly unethical and undermines the principles of intellectual honesty and rigorous inquiry.

My supervisor's lack of support and transparency was part of a broader pattern of obstacles and unfair treatment I encountered at Laval University. The institution's pervasive influence of 'woke' and DEI ideologies further exacerbated these challenges, creating an environment where critical examination of specific topics was discouraged or outright censored.

Ultimately, my supervisor's initial reaction to my proposed pandemic management topic was censorship and discouragement rather than the academic engagement and support one would expect in a doctoral program. This experience highlights the systemic issues within the institution that hinder academic freedom and critical inquiry."

6. You mentioned Hannah Arendt as an alternative focus suggested by your supervisor. What aspects of her work were you expected to analyze?

"My supervisor suggested focusing on Hannah Arendt's work, but he didn't propose this alternative. Instead, I originally intended to apply Arendt's powerful and insightful theories to Quebec's lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach was part of my broader aim to critically examine the government's fundamental rights and freedoms management during this crisis.

While the specific aspects of Arendt's work I planned to analyze weren't explicitly outlined in our discussions, several of her key concepts were particularly relevant to my research:

Totalitarianism: Arendt's analysis of totalitarian systems could provide insights into how emergency powers during the pandemic might lead to excessive government control.

The Human Condition: Her exploration of the vita activa (active life) and its components - labor, work, and action - could be applied to understand how lockdown measures affected different aspects of human activity and social interaction.

The Banality of Evil: This concept could be used to examine how ordinary bureaucrats and citizens might participate in or comply with potentially harmful policies without critically questioning them.

The Nature of Power in Political Systems: Arendt's views on power and authority could help analyze the shifting dynamics between the government and citizens during the crisis.

The Public and Private Spheres: Her distinction between these realms could be applied to understand how pandemic measures blurred the lines between public health concerns and private life.”

I intended to use these aspects of Arendt's work as a theoretical framework to critically examine the government's pandemic response, mainly focusing on how it impacted fundamental rights and freedoms.

However, it's crucial to note that my supervisor's reaction to this proposal was unsupportive. Instead of engaging with these ideas, he attempted to censor my work and suggested I abandon my Ph.D. pursuits. This response indicates that applying Arendt's theories to the contemporary situation was considered too controversial or challenging to the status quo.

While Arendt's work was central to my proposed research, the supervisor's adverse reaction prevented a genuine academic exploration of her ideas about the pandemic response. This experience highlights the challenges when applying critical theory to contemporary political issues in educational settings."

7. You referenced John Leake's "Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle." How do you see these beliefs influencing academic discourse?

"John Leake's 'Holy Quadripartitus of Piffle' represents a critique of what he perceives as unquestionable dogmas in current academic and public discourse. In my experience at Laval University, I observed how these beliefs, or similar ones, can significantly influence academic discourse, often to the detriment of open inquiry and critical thinking.

Regarding COVID-19 vaccines, I found that questioning their efficacy or safety was often met with immediate dismissal or censure, much like Leake describes treating such questions as 'heresy.' This atmosphere stifled genuine scientific debate and critical analysis of public health policies.

While my research didn't directly involve the Ukraine conflict, I observed a similar reluctance in academia to entertain diverse perspectives on geopolitical issues. This mirrors Leake's point about the difficulty in questioning certain foreign policy narratives.

The climate change debate, as Leake mentions, has become another area where skepticism or alternative viewpoints are often treated as heretical in academic circles. This can lead to a narrowing research focus and potential blind spots in our understanding.

The gender identity discussion, as highlighted by Leake, has become particularly contentious in academia. I found that questioning certain aspects of gender theory could lead to accusations of bigotry, effectively shutting down nuanced discussions.

In my experience, these beliefs have created an academic environment where specific topics become off-limits for critical examination. This limits the scope of research and creates an atmosphere of self-censorship among students and faculty.

The influence of these beliefs on academic discourse manifests in several ways:

Narrowing of research focus: Funding and support often favor research that aligns with these prevailing beliefs.

Self-censorship: Scholars may avoid pursuing specific research questions for fear of professional repercussions.

Echo chambers: Academic discussions can become echo chambers where alternative viewpoints are not seriously considered.

Ideological conformity: There's pressure to conform to specific ideological positions, which can compromise academic integrity.

My experience at Laval University, where my work on applying Hannah Arendt's theories to Quebec's lockdown measures was censored, is a prime example of how these beliefs can restrict academic freedom and inquiry. We must recognize these influences and work towards fostering an educational environment that embraces diverse perspectives and critical thinking."

8. Can you describe how Laval University excluded you from the doctoral program?

"The process by which Laval University excluded me from the doctoral program was marked by a series of unfair and unethical actions that amounted to academic sabotage. Here's an overview of the process:

Initial Censorship: My thesis supervisor reacted negatively when I proposed my research topic on applying Hannah Arendt's theories to Quebec's lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of engaging with my ideas, he attempted to censor my work.

Discouragement: My supervisor suggested I abandon my Ph.D. pursuits altogether, which violated his ethical responsibilities as a supervisor and breached academic freedom.

Unfair Evaluation: The actions of my supervisor and some colleagues unfairly graded my performance in all four seminars despite AI tools consistently rating my written work as B+ or A quality. This deliberate hindrance severely undermined my academic progress.

Lack of Transparency: My supervisor failed to provide clear criteria for grading my essays and other academic work, which is highly unethical and undermines the principles of intellectual honesty and rigorous inquiry.

Bullying and Intimidation: Throughout this process, I was subjected to bullying and intimidation tactics, although the university never acknowledged this mistreatment.

False Accusations: The university used its power against me by labeling me as an incompetent Ph.D. student despite evidence to the contrary.

Unjust Dismissal: On June 8th, 2023, Laval University unjustly canceled my academic standing based on these false premises.

Lack of Due Process: Following my unfair dismissal, I faced numerous dishonest internal procedures at Laval University, encountering no honest bureaucrats willing to address the issues fairly.

Institutional Failure: This systemic failure to address these issues fairly highlights broader problems within the institution, exacerbated by the pervasive influence of "woke" ESG and DEI ideologies.

Throughout this process, the university consistently failed to acknowledge the bullying and censorship I experienced from my thesis supervisor. Instead, they used their institutional power to discredit and justify my exclusion from the program. This experience demonstrates a severe breach of academic integrity and the university's failure to uphold its students' responsibilities."

9. In your experience, how has the pandemic affected the landscape of academic freedom in Canadian universities?

"In my experience, the pandemic has significantly affected the landscape of academic freedom in Canadian universities, mirroring the observations made by Sheldon Munroe. COVID-19 has exacerbated tensions and created new challenges for open discourse and critical inquiry.

Specifically:

Suppression of dissenting views: Some professors have made a noticeable effort to single out and criticize students who question or have opposing opinions about COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. This has created an atmosphere where students are hesitant to voice their thoughts or ask questions.

The politicization of health measures: COVID-19 and related mandates have become highly politicized within university settings. This has led to the labeling of those who question these measures as "right-wing extremists" or "conspiracy theorists," stifling genuine academic debate.

Inconsistency in academic freedom principles: Many professors claim to support diverse viewpoints but then penalize students who express opinions that diverge from the prevailing narrative, particularly regarding pandemic policies.

Punitive measures: Some universities have taken extreme steps, such as banning students from campus or denying access to education altogether, for those who sought to exercise their freedom of speech or bodily autonomy regarding COVID-19 measures.

Self-censorship: The fear of repercussions has led many students to self-censor, avoiding commenting on or questioning popular misconceptions about the pandemic response.

Narrowing of acceptable discourse: The range of acceptable topics for discussion and research has narrowed, with specific questions about natural immunity, vaccine efficacy, or the scientific basis for university policies being deemed off-limits.

These developments have created an environment where academic freedom is significantly compromised. The pandemic has been used as a justification to suppress dissenting views and limit critical inquiry, fundamentally altering the landscape of open discourse that should be central to university life. This shift not only impacts current academic discussions but also sets a concerning precedent for how universities handle controversial topics in the future."

10. In 1979, you reported on a successful municipal project that was initially criticized but later approved by all. How does this early reporting experience on public initiatives compare to your recent critical examination of government policies during your doctoral studies at Laval University?

"My experience reporting on the successful municipal water treatment plant project in Lavaltrie in 1979 was quite different from my recent critical examination of government policies during my doctoral studies at Laval University.

In 1979, I reported on a concrete, local infrastructure project that had tangible benefits for the community. The water treatment plant, initially criticized, eventually gained widespread approval due to its effectiveness in addressing water pollution issues. This early reporting experience focused on presenting factual information about the project's costs, capacity, and benefits to the local population.

In contrast, my recent work at Laval University involved a more complex theoretical analysis of government policies, particularly those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research was more abstract and controversial, applying Hannah Arendt's theories to examine the balance between public health measures and individual freedoms.

The key differences include:

Scope: The 1979 report was local and specific, while my doctoral research was broader and more theoretical.

Complexity: The water treatment plant story was relatively straightforward, while my pandemic policy analysis involved intricate philosophical and sociological concepts.

Reception: The municipal project eventually gained widespread approval, whereas my doctoral research faced significant resistance and censorship.

Personal involvement: In 1979 I was an observer reporting on external events. In my doctoral studies, I was deeply personally involved, facing institutional challenges and censorship.

Implications: The water treatment plant report has local consequences, while my pandemic policy analysis aimed to contribute to broader academic and societal discussions.

Despite these differences, both experiences reflect my longstanding interest in public policy and its impacts on communities. However, the challenges I faced in my doctoral studies highlight the increased complexity and potential controversy in critically examining contemporary government policies in an academic setting."

11. It seems many in academia disagree with DEI but are afraid to speak out. As a former doctoral student at Laval, did you observe or experience this fear of repercussions when discussing DEI-related topics?

"As a former doctoral student at Laval University, I did indeed observe and experience a climate of fear surrounding discussions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) topics. My experience reflects a broader issue in academia where many disagree with certain aspects of DEI policies but are afraid to speak out due to potential repercussions.

In my case, this fear of repercussions was theoretical and became a lived reality. When I attempted to critically examine government policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, applying Hannah Arendt's theories to analyze the balance between public health measures and individual freedoms, I faced significant resistance and censorship from my thesis supervisor and the institution.

The pervasive influence of what I perceive as 'woke' and DEI ideologies at the institution created an environment where specific topics or perspectives were effectively off-limits for critical examination. This aligns with what some call 'career-killing' or 'off-limits research' in academia - topics deemed too controversial or potentially damaging for mainstream academics to pursue without jeopardizing their careers.

My experience of being unfairly graded, facing censorship, and ultimately being dismissed from the program exemplifies the real risks of challenging prevailing narratives or institutional ideologies. This creates a chilling effect on academic discourse, where scholars may self-censor or avoid certain research areas out of fear for their educational careers.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency in evaluation criteria and the apparent disregard for academic freedom principles, in my case, suggests that the fear of repercussions is well-founded. The systemic failure to address these issues fairly, as I experienced through numerous dishonest internal procedures, highlights how deeply entrenched these problems are within the institution.

My experience at Laval University demonstrates that the fear of repercussions for discussing or critiquing DEI-related topics is not unfounded. It reflects a broader challenge in academia where pursuing certain lines of inquiry or expressing dissenting views can lead to significant professional consequences, thereby stifling open and honest academic discourse."“

Heresy

Our freedom to discuss and dissect topics is only free so long as we shy from attacking the key requirements or pillars of the globalist agenda.

Each pillar must come down. Difficult speech continues to be the manner in which we will accomplish this.

OUR EFFORTS ARE CUMMULATIVE.

WHEN WE MAKE our efforts TRANSFORMATIVE WE WILL change the tide.

TAKE DOWN THE BEAST