Alright - One More Post About Jordan Peterson

Okay - all the wagging mouths are going off about the latest ruling in the ongoing Jordan Peterson court drama.  Over at Runkle of the Bailey on YouTube, Ian Runkle has posted a lengthy discussion of the ruling and his concerns that it represents an overreach on the part of the College of Psychologists of Ontario Psychologists (CPO).

Back here, I spent some quality time examining the statements made by Peterson and how they relate to the CPO professional conduct standards, and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Code of Ethics.  Please read that post first, as I think you will find it enlightening as to how CPO is likely analyzing the situation. 

The first point I need to bring out here is that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Dr. Peterson's conduct meets thresholds that are applied in the Criminal code.  In fact, those thresholds are irrelevant to the matter. The bar here is the one laid out in the CPO Professional Conduct Standard, and the CPA Code of Ethics. 

At one point in his discussion, Ian Runkle says "well, this doesn't meet the standard for hate speech".  If this were a criminal complaint, that's a valid claim to make - and I would agree with it.  However, criminal law is a very blunt instrument compared to professional conduct ethics.  Professional conduct isn't about whether a given act rises to the level of criminality, it's about whether or not the behaviour is appropriate for a person who is a part of that profession.  

Let's talk a little bit about the jurisdictional issues here.  Peterson would like us all to believe that his commentary on Twitter is entirely political, and therefore stands apart from his professional credentials.  Yet, on his Twitter Profile, we clearly see the regulated title "Clinical Psychologist".  We'll come back to this in a bit. 

Professions like Law already have broad statements in their codes of conduct that pretty much say that your actions outside of the practice of law can be examined as part of a review.  In fact, we already have several former Justice Ministers in Alberta whose "personal" actions are being reviewed because of complaints about their behaviour outside the practice of law. 

So, we already have a fundamental point here that even if Peterson's commentary was not connected to his professional work, it can be considered in the context of his professional status.  So, yes, the college certainly has some right to step in here.

I think previous, I established that there are aspects of Peterson's tweets that cross the line into being matters of professional comment, where he has stepped into a discussion using his credentials to bolster his opinions.  I think it's important to recognize those specific topics as being well within the College's purview to review and comment on.  

Other comments, such as implicitly suggesting that someone kill themselves if they are so worried about population are still troubling.  Here is where we have to look at the realities of the ethics of belonging to what is broadly a "caring profession" (one in which we care for the health and wellbeing of others).

There are important principles in the ethics of psychology that are both very broad, and very relevant to the conduct of a psychologist in all aspects of their life.  The CPA code of ethics states 4 broad principles that provide a framework within which the rest of their ethical code rests: 

Principle I:  Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples

Principle II:  Responsible Caring

Principle III:  Integrity in Relationships

Principle IV:  Responsibility to Society

Most of Peterson's questionable online activity falls under the rubric of Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples. 

Is telling someone to "go kill themselves" respecting their dignity?  Remember, you can contextualize all you want about sarcasm or whatever, but it's how the person the comment was directed at sees it that matters.  Is referring to a person who has declared their personal pronouns to be they/them as "it" respectful of that person? No, of course it isn't. 

Now, let's come back around to these comments and how a regulating college might see it.  In full context, the college might well look at it as not merely harmful to the persons at whom the comments are directed, but in fact injurious to the profession as a whole, as well as injurious to society.  

Injury to the profession would occur if one could reasonably argue that these kinds of statements would cause the "reasonable person" in the public to start questioning the integrity of the profession at large.  In other words, the question that needs to be ask here is "did Peterson's comments call into question the general character of the profession?"  I won't address that directly here - that's a big question.  

Injury to society is more concerning.  Peterson has a large following on a variety of social media platforms, and his comments are taken seriously by a significant number of people. In particular, Peterson's often violent comments regarding transgender people and how he feels care providers should be dealt with are troubling.  Transgender people are recognized as a small, vulnerable population in our society and they have been subjected to an increasing level of hate over the last few years. Could Peterson's commentary be considered corrosive in that regard?  Part of a larger campaign of what arguably is a form of stochastic terrorism, perhaps? 

Again, I'm not trying to answer those questions here, but rather pointing out that from the perspective of the CPA Code of Ethics, his statements certainly should cause anyone examining them through a lens of professional conduct to be concerned.  Certainly the college would see those statements as within their purview even if Peterson wasn't opining on matters that are common reasons that people may seek out the services of a psychologist. 

If we look at this through a purely constitutional lens, we have to ask if the limits that come from membership in a regulating college are in fact "reasonable limits" as set out in S1 of the Charter.  

In general, the principle behind a self-regulating profession is that the members of the profession are the most qualified people to guide the expected behaviour of the members of that profession.  Membership in a given college is only sort-of optional. You cannot practice as a lawyer without being admitted to the Bar, and being a member in good standing of the Law Society.  This gives a regulating college a fair bit more weight than a voluntary organization that we might lose our membership from for any number of reasons.

If the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) were to find that the CPO code of conduct and the CPA code of ethics were somehow either over-reaching, or that the CPO is overreaching relative to Mr. Peterson, it would call into question the entire construct of a self-regulating profession.  I doubt that the SCC would make such a sweeping finding here.  I would expect that they would fall back on the limits in behaviour that result from membership in a regulating college are saved by S1 in general, citing the basic principle that a regulating college exists to protect the public from potential harm done by unscrupulous members of those professions. 

There is certainly a case to be made that the CPO has an interest in Mr. Peterson's conduct.  Whether the CPO's processes are reasonable and just may be a different matter.  If Mr. Peterson and his lawyers wish to challenge the ethical frameworks involved, I wish them luck in doing so - as those ethical frameworks have decades of study behind them.