Leigh Revers: the not-so-good, the bad, and the dirty
UTM claims to be an inclusive place, but that’s hard to believe with faculty that openly speaks against it.
The view that only “hard” sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology are “real sciences” is an antiquated opinion that has been held by academics since Newton discovered gravity. Criticizing social sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology for being “too soft” or unworthy of being labelled as legitimate science is getting tiring, and in the 21st century, we’d think professors teaching at such a prestigious and diverse institution like the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM), would be above such childish gibberish. Apparently, that was too much to ask for.
Our very own Leigh Revers, associate professor under the Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences at UTM, holds the very same opinion. According to an op-ed in the National Post, real scientists would never be activists or concern themselves with the political state of the world and trying to bring about change, stating that real scientists like him “see politics as a distraction, a pastime that, [and which] inexplicably absorbs our colleagues in the social ‘sciences’ (a broadly understood joke among colleagues), leaving us enlightened thinkers free to make useful discoveries.”
Over the last couple of months, Professor Revers has been an unequivocal voice in objecting to what he calls “the febrile ideological skirmishes that have begun to break out across Canadian university campuses,” by which he means the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives. Revers claims that the liberalism pervading institutional spaces has created an atmosphere of political sensitivity and the death of critical thinking, where members of the university administration are mandated to promote “political correctness” — language and policies intended to avoid offense — in their classrooms, labs, discussions, and more.
Now, back to the idea that science is somehow divorced from politics, we must remember that though chemistry and physics certainly don’t call on any political or social awareness to succeed in, science, any science, never happens in a vacuum. In fact, science, just like everything else, is a product of the political, social, cultural, and economic forces shaping a society and ideology in each place and time. No scientific advancement or inquiry is immune from this, even if people don’t immediately realize it. In my opinion, Professor Revers takes a rather simplistic approach to representing this, and in the process, uses inflammatory language to communicate his ideas.
In the same op-ed, Professor Revers goes on to call scientists timid and weak in the matter of expressing political opinions and standing up for what is right, making it sound like they were akin to a caveman, ironically, and stated that all they should be concerned with is the “hard science, facts and truth.” From these statements, it’s clear that he feels the only thing that should be expected of scientists is that they come up with new hypotheses and prove them. After that, don’t ask them for anything. God forbid they be held to any sort of standards of social and moral responsibility.
“Don’t ask me about gender ideology, don’t bother me with magical ideas about sex falling on a spectrum, don’t trouble me with questions of race or class. We have evidence, mountains of it, and we will point to it; now go away!” Professor Revers exclaims.
It doesn’t seem like he is keen on making the world of academia a more inclusive and welcoming place for young people—especially under-represented and marginalized individuals—eager to take their first steps into the world of STEM. With someone like Leigh Revers acting as a gatekeeper of academia, I can’t exactly blame them.
UTM prides itself on being an institution with a multicultural and ethnic cohort, welcoming students from all walks of life in search of higher education. It presents itself as being committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to making education more accessible for everyone. Evidenced by the Principal of UTM, Alexandra Gillespie’s speech, where she declared that “equity, diversity and inclusion will permeate all aspects of UTM’s future, as envisioned by our new Strategic Framework: from research to student engagement, and from teaching to infrastructural development.”
This is all well and good, and there have been many well implemented steps taken to ensure that campus is a more inclusive space. But in my opinion, the issue lies in the fact that some of UTM’s own faculty clearly detests this change. Who would take up such a noble pursuit, I wonder? Leigh Revers!
UTM’s recently appointed dean, Professor Nicholas Rule, implemented a DEI policy that required all faculty to submit a DEI statement as a part of the faculty’s annual performance evaluations. Revers expressed his clear dislike for this shift in policy, calling it “an ideological litmus test” and further went on to imply, “we might well be drawn into a lie to ensure our continued good standing in the eyes of the watchful administration.” You might think, at this point, that I am just a clout chaser and taking things out of context, just to make for a clickbait worthy headline. But I encourage you to read Professor Revers’s published writings and arrive at an informed opinion yourself.
For now, Professor Revers believes the DEI awareness and quotas in universities not only hamper genuine debate of critical issues due to a need to be “woke,” but are actively opposed to the rationality and western Enlightenment values that have made science so successful. He expresses worry about the future students who will flow through UTM’s campus, stating that Canadian tax dollars are “supporting the mass infantilization of the next generation” of students.”
Alright, so Revers has a few controversial opinions. Why should you, the students of UTM, care? Because isn’t it awfully hypocritical of UTM to pride themselves on their diversity, forward thinking, welcoming and inclusive environment and attempts to open new doors for marginalized communities, all while professors like Leigh Revers, who are so strongly against every one of these things, are employed at our university? They are representatives of UTM, yet for some reason, no one seems to have a problem with the continual jokes they crack at the expense of a very serious issue?
In fact, they can go to a huge news platform like The National Post and write how this is all a game to them, and they don’t think any of it should be taken seriously. Is this the impression UTM wants to give off? Is this what they stand for? Leigh Revers may be the most qualified person in his field, but is it really acceptable for him to slander DEI initiatives put forth by the institute the employs him?
