1 week after winning “Professor of the Year” @LincAlexLawTMU, I am also honoured to be named @TorontoMet’s “Person of the Year”.

As said in my acceptance speech (posted below): these student & faculty awards clarify that recent attacks target not hate but the university itself🧵 -Gratitude for being nominated/supported by colleagues and students

-Reprisal I have experienced, including racist hate mail, defamation as antisemitic, and kafkaesque investigations

-Reprisal 1/6 of the law school students have experienced, including the threat of expulsion

Just completed my first semester of teaching at the Lincoln Alexander School of Law (@RyersonULaw).

I collaborated w/ a brilliant group of students in “Foundations of Legal Theory”. They were courageous and engaged throughout a demanding semester of theoretical critique. 🧵 Part 1—Introduction—oriented us towards course themes. We read the Cromwell Report on the #UofTScandal & @initialvw’s critique to think about “objectivity” & the academy. We also listened to @theTILPodcast & put it in conversation w/ CLS, CRT, & Richard Posner’s CRT critique.

A thread on the hilarious @Stop_SOP—rebranded, #FullStop—movement, and its recent email to supporters (pictured below). 🧵 First things first: This movement is not—and never was—principally concerned with “free speech”. As I argued in the @RDO_OLR (see especially pgs. 221-226): “their opposition was not motivated by speech, but rather, diversity”. rdo-olr.org/2020/twelve-an…

After the final “Race, Racism and the Law” class @uocommonlaw, my incredible students compiled a video of appreciation for what the course meant to them in their legal studies.

I was incredibly touched (😭). And listening to their reflections caused me to reflect on #LegalEd 🧵 The students’ comments reflected consistent themes:

-rethinking the type of legal career they want to pursue;
-having space for candid conversations where they can be authentic;
-craving critical perspectives and gentle challenge; &
-feeling empowered by critical racial literacy

Absolutely phenomenal conversation with two thinkers I deeply admire: @policingblack & @DesmondCole.

🧵 of highlights below 👇🏽

https://twitter.com/DesmondCole/status/1369667143164456966

@policingblack: Black people are at the fault lines of abandonment and harm, yet at the same time, are at the forefront of remaking the world and imagining abolitionist futures. We are at one of the most horrific—and most exciting—times.

ICYMI: @FemLegalStudies' #Fraser panel is now live—a generative discussion on the future of equality rights:

1:35 - @DebraParkes' intro
6:16 - @JWatsonHamilton on qualified celebration of Fraser
15:26 - @JenniferKoshan on grounds and intersectionality
ubc.zoom.us/rec/play/aV2hc… 24:32 - @DanielleBisnar1 on evidence, systemic discrimination, and litigating equality
36:45 - @sonialawprof on Fraser's narrow scope and the emerging relevance of s. 1 to equality rights
47:19 - Me on binaries, diverging conceptions of substantive equality, and racial justice

The #COVID19 pandemic painfully illustrates the ways in which race denotes *process* (verb), not *people* (noun).

TL;DR: Race *is* what race *does*. Racial logic is covert. To detect it, we must interpret race with the same fluidity used in its strategic deployment 🧵 To begin, that race implicates process, not people, is not new. As one of my doctoral supervisors Kendall Thomas writes: “we are ‘raced’ through a constellation of practices that construct and control racial subjectivities.” So how does #COVID19 illustrate these racial processes?

In a recently published “Critical Review”, Bencher Murray Klippenstein claims that basic equality initiatives at the @LawSocietyLSO should be abandoned b/c more “proof” of racism is needed.

I disagree in my latest post on @ABlawg, outlined below 🧵 ablawg.ca/wp-content/upl… BACKGROUND:

Mr. Klippenstein argues that the LSO’s survey evidence indicating systemic racism is ideologically and methodologically flawed. For this purported reason, he wants to undo the LSO’s modest equality initiatives.

I have, broadly speaking, three responses.

I’m over this brand of intersectionality “critique” that fails to engage with #CRT while claiming to dunk on it.

So, a 🧵 responding to @jordanbpeterson’s latest @nationalpost piece.

TL;DR: He rejects intersectionality by denying hierarchy’s existence.

nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan… Let’s start with defining intersectionality. Coined by @sandylocks 30 years ago, intersectionality challenges a “single-axis framework” in feminist and anti-racist discourse by recognizing the “particular manner in which Black women are subordinated.” chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewconten…

THREAD on the recent Stephan decision, and how it provides a unique lens into ostensible racism in our courts.

TL;DR: The decision—which criticizes a Nigerian witness’ accent and aggression—exhibits a suspicious racial logic warranting careful scrutiny.

albertacourts.ca/docs/default-s… First, some background: Two parents—the Stephans—were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a person under their care (their son, Ezekiel), contrary to s. 215(2)(b) of the Criminal Code (para 1).

After reflecting on Trudeau’s #brownface (and now #blackface) scandal, a THREAD:

TL;DR: Racism is systemic. Policies matter. Commit to anti-racism. Amplify racialized voices. Scrutinize for consistency.

Race is complex. Its discourse must meet that complexity, not overlook it. First, be *aware*. Stop being surprised by events like this. It’s not “shocking” that Trudeau wore blackface; It’s expected. Racism is systemic in Canada. Those who deny it aren’t seeing a different society, they’re simply failing to name it.

THREAD: On anti-racism advocacy and "civility", responding to this misguided @nationalpost article by Thomas Matthews: nationalpost.com/opinion/theres….

TL;DR: Thomas fundamentally misunderstands racism, the SOP debate, and the SOP itself. 1) THOMAS MISUNDERSTANDS (MANY) SOP OPPONENTS:

He says "[n]o serious person is denying that racism exists, either within society or the bar." I actually agree that no "serious person" denies the existence of racism. Unfortunately for Thomas, however, he's in silly company:

THREAD: I’ve seen this anti-diversity piece floating around (wsj.com/articles/the-d…), and it warrants careful critique.

TL;DR: Kronman’s diversity critique artificially severs identity and experience, strawmans diversity, relies on flawed notions of merit, and overlooks optics. First, we can’t discuss “diversity” until we define it. Kronman notes two types of academic diversity: (1) having a range of beliefs, values, and experiences on campus; and (2) having a range of races, ethnicities, genders and sexual orientations on campus.