It is a peculiar thing — though not, I confess, surprising — to be lectured about privacy by an institution that spent two years turning my life into a public bonfire.
The lawyers for the University of Guelph have once again emerged from their burrow with yet another attack of aspirational censorship, clutching pearls about “confidentiality” with the same trembling delicacy as someone who finds a hair in their soup, oblivious to the rat drowning in the bowl.
Let us recall the record — their record, not mine:
This is the same university whose staff and faculty, with full managerial consent, participated in a coordinated campaign that reached no fewer than 50,000 people on social media — more realistically 100,000 to 300,000 — urging them to contact Guelph-Humber and demand my termination. These posts, initiated by a friendly faculty member and amplified by activist groups he personally courted, included Twitter handles and official university email addresses, helpfully provided so strangers could write in and denounce me.
The institution watched this unfold with the ethical posture of a fainting goat.
This is the same university that permitted, ignored, and in practice endorsed a vicious, predetermined defamation campaign against me — one that ignited within hours of my suspension. That campaign bore the unmistakable linguistic fingerprints of the Vice-Provost’s own baseless allegations. Either this was a coincidence of biblical magnitude or the product of something more deliberate, and we both know which explanation belongs in the realm of adult reasoning.
And now — now, after tolerating a sewer of public lies that destroyed my reputation, jeopardised my livelihood, and endangered my safety, these same institutional arsonists climb onto their moral high stool to warn me about “privacy” and “confidentiality.”
It’s like Jack the Ripper filing a complaint with the city about declining standards in women’s safety.
The audacity would almost be admirable if it weren’t such a cheap imitation of authority.
I’ve said nothing improper. I’ve broken no rule. I’ve published facts. And facts are stubbornly immune to gag orders, especially when the people issuing them are the very authors of the scandal.
Since it appears we will be rehearsing this theatre of the absurd again, I’ve prepared a ready-made set of replies for the next censorship request that drops into my inbox like an unwanted flyer:
Top 12 Responses to the University’s Next Censorship Demand
“If the truth troubles the institution, the cure is honesty, not censorship.”
“My writing stays. If the university wants fewer scandals, it should create fewer scandals.”
“I’ll consider your request the moment you produce a legal argument stronger than wishful thinking.”
“If the facts are uncomfortable, the remedy is reform — not a muzzle.”
“You’re welcome to challenge my words. You’re not entitled to delete them.”
“Reality doesn’t bend to administrative sensitivities.”
“Take them down? Try refuting them instead.”
“I don’t silence myself to spare others the embarrassment of their conduct.”
“If they wanted less to read, they should have done less to write about.”
“With respect, I publish arguments. You’re welcome to publish counterarguments.”
“I decline. My integrity is not on the bargaining table.”
“Censorship requests from institutions that orchestrated a mass defamation campaign are declined automatically due to lack of moral credibility.”
Bonus. I’ll take down my essay on cats if you sign up for my legal writing course, which costs $2.1 million, and its first lesson teaches you to stop using passive voice. Lawyers are really annoying with passive voice; it isn’t intelligent, it’s just poor writing. That lesson was free. You’re welcome.
What a heroic man:
“My writing stays. If the university wants fewer scandals, it should create fewer scandals.”
Bravo, Prof. Finlayson!
You're amazing Paul. It's shocking how out of line the university is requesting this. In fact its disgusting.