Discrimination shouldn’t be made political—but neither should free speech.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario ordered psychologist and media personality Jordan Peterson to complete a mandatory rehabilitation program over his controversial opinions expressed online or risk losing his licence—a decision the Ontario Superior Court has upheld.
Peterson’s tweets are often referred to as “politically incorrect,” but this label isn’t damning enough. Opinions on policy and the economy are political—Peterson’s ardent dismissal of alternative pronouns is transphobic. Differences in political ideology can’tand shouldn’t be allowed to excuse discrimination.
In response to the College’s action against him, Peterson has argued the opinions he expresses online have nothing to do with his practice. The accuracy of that statement is equally questionable.
Even if Peterson isn’t currently treating patients, his licence to practice psychology allows him to do so. Psychologists are intended to represent safe spaces for their clients, regardless of their identities. A psychologist who emphatically expresses his disapproval of the mere existence of certain groups can’t be said to be upholding that professional ethical code.
Peterson’s profile on X, formerly known as Twitter—where he most frequently expresses his opinions—is under the name “Dr Jordan B Peterson.” Even if only implicitly, Peterson’s title allows him to validate his discriminatory opinions.
Maintaining the professional title as a psychologist could be easily interpreted as institutional validation of his beliefs on the part of the College of Psychologists. Their desire to distance themselves from Peterson’s internet presence is understandable.
Although the institution has the right—and arguably even the obligation—to differentiate its own views from Peterson’s online presence, the question remains whether they have the right to sentence him to mandatory re-education over personal views.
Peterson’s ordered rehabilitation is in response to his conduct online, not from patient complaints.
His right to free speech arguably entitles him to say whatever he likes on social media, so long as he doesn’t act on any of the hate he expresses. If a workplace or regulatory body were to condemn an employee for advocating for rather than desecrating trans rights, mainstream media would likely be far less hesitant to designate it a violation of free speech.
Allowing workplaces to regulate freedom of expression sets a dangerous precedent, particularly when the justice system is invoked to create legal precedent, as was the case in this scenario.
Sentencing Peterson to rehabilitation is more likely to benefit the College’s image than it is to increase his tolerance. It seems unlikely any training will change Peterson’s beliefs, especially given his apparent resistance to it.
Peterson shouldn’t be allowed access to patients when the risk of him discriminating against them (explicitly or otherwise) remains so present, nor should he be able to lean on his certification as a psychologist to validate the harmful rhetoric he spews over the internet.
The College of Psychologists of Ontario is entitled to strip Peterson of his licence but should be mindful of its contribution to potentially harmful legal precedent in doing so.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].