Racism Part two

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The difficulty with that is a Uni is specifically there to educate the students, to provide them with different views and information. Sure they can go and get additional knowledge or experience outside Uni, but the Uni is paid to provide them with that, NOT to let them decide who gives them the talks - if they don't want to listen - stay away, don't prevent free speech at an establishment where the purpose is to provide it (within limits). The rest of your post is fair comment.

There's a number of misconceptions there. Firstly Universities aren't specifically there to educate students, they are actually there to do research and further human understanding. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge if you like. Educating students is part of what they do to fund the research and hand-pick the gifted students to continue to push the boundaries. 

Secondly, no-one pays to go to university to be educated by random one off speakers at University society events. You pay the university to provide the staff and the education tools (libraries etc) to learn in your chosen subject.

These outside speakers are almost never part of any curriculum, they are invited by Deptments or Departmental Societies (or Student Union Societies) to speak to a mainly invited audience, the invitees are also rarely undergraduates.

I would also suggest that the University is paid precisely to decide who provides undergraduates with their lectures, that is most definitely what they are paid for

The purpose of a University is not to provide Free Speech, though most do to a greater or lesser degree.

[Follyfoot]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

Where's the political bias you talked of?

Your argument seems to have changed. An employee said something in support of racial equality. The employer supported her. Good right?

The same employer potted an employee for "legitimising racial stereotypes" - so they were, like the Doctor, against racism on that one. It's not really political (in my view) to be anti-racism. That's just being a decent, normal human.

Peterson  - you might have a point to an extent, but again, I'm not seeing it as Political, more (at worst) unwisely acceding to requests from some of their students not to invite him.

I agree again, but they came out in support of her 'controversial views' not my words but Cambridge University. To use the word controversial they must have some opinion and what Peterson said re gender would be classed as controversial and what Noah wrote was his 'controversial'  that a great many academics signed a petition to state he was wrongly potted based on the free speech argument, both of which could be classed as showing political bias which was my point. Anyhow will come back later as my youngest  lad i have just been advised is 2 hours late coming back from the park and turned his phone off the little git and the Mrs is having kittens shouting get off that bloody computer and look for him (like I am bloody physic) women eh 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

How onearth has it gone wildly off topic.

I was referring to it moving on to talk of Jordan Peterson and freeze peach.

2 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Due to complaints from the student union regarding his comments which as far as I’m aware is FreeSpeech?

You provided one example of something happening. Whether or not this was an example of what you claimed, it was one example.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

Why was he stripped his fellowship then, Being in the wrong dorm at 3 am with a bottle of champagne and a cigar with his reputation

He wasn't 'stripped' of his fellowship.

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

There's a number of misconceptions there. Firstly Universities aren't specifically there to educate students, they are actually there to do research and further human understanding. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge if you like. Educating students is part of what they do to fund the research and hand-pick the gifted students to continue to push the boundaries. 

Secondly, no-one pays to go to university to be educated by random one off speakers at University society events. You pay the university to provide the staff and the education tools (libraries etc) to learn in your chosen subject.

These outside speakers are almost never part of any curriculum, they are invited by Deptments or Departmental Societies (or Student Union Societies) to speak to a mainly invited audience, the invitees are also rarely undergraduates.

I would also suggest that the University is paid precisely to decide who provides undergraduates with their lectures, that is most definitely what they are paid for

The purpose of a University is not to provide Free Speech, though most do to a greater or lesser degree.

The top hit on my search engine page says, with their emphasis not mine

Quote

The purpose of a university is to be the guardian of reason, inquiry and philosophical openness, preserving pure inquiry from dominant public opinions.

That said I didn’t go to one  so might not understand.  I don’t see philosophical openness arising from no-platforming people, nor preserving pure inquiry from stopping views being expressed by speakers. Universities blocking speakers because some students don’t want them there because “feelings” isn’t my cup of tea, personally, but like I said I didn’t go to one, so am speaking as an outsider.

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

they came out in support of her 'controversial views' not my words but Cambridge University

Controversial with racists, yes. 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The top hit on my search engine page says, with their emphasis not mine

That said I didn’t go to one  so might not understand.  I don’t see philosophical openness arising from no-platforming people, nor preserving pure inquiry from stopping views being expressed by speakers. Universities blocking speakers because some students don’t want them there because “feelings” isn’t my cup of tea, personally, but like I said I didn’t go to one, so am speaking as an outsider.

That definition is from Pearson, they are literally not a university. Search engines are sometimes shit

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

I agree again, but they came out in support of her 'controversial views' not my words but Cambridge University.

You are the one who actually posted what they said which was:

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

 

 

The University defends the right of its academics to express their own lawful opinions which others might find controversial

 

[bickster]

4 hours ago, PaulC said:

Long term if there is inequality in the way police treat black people then it needs to be dealt with.

Hold on a mo, lets go back to this but. Long term? It needs to be dealt with now, hell it needed to be dealt with 50 years ago

[Follyfoot]

3 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

I agree again, but they came out in support of her 'controversial views' not my words but Cambridge University. To use the word controversial they must have some opinion and what Peterson said re gender would be classed as controversial and what Noah wrote was his 'controversial'  that a great many academics signed a petition to state he was wrongly potted based on the free speech argument, both of which could be classed as showing political bias which was my point. Anyhow will come back later as my youngest  lad i have just been advised is 2 hours late coming back from the park and turned his phone off the little git and the Mrs is having kittens shouting get off that bloody computer and look for him (like I am bloody physic) women eh 

Lad made it back and grounded for anyone who may have the slightest interest 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Follyfoot

[blandy]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

That definition is from Pearson, they are literally not a university. Search engines are sometimes shit

.

4 hours ago, bickster said:

There's a number of misconceptions there. Firstly Universities aren't specifically there to educate students, they are actually there to do research and further human understanding

Um, where is your definition from, ‘cus last time I saw you, you weren’t a university either, though you are smart*.. and when did universities get to be the only sources of valid definition of what they’re for?

*smart as in clever, not not scruffy - even you’d have trouble with that one 

[bannedfromHandV]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

There's a number of misconceptions there. Firstly Universities aren't specifically there to educate students, they are actually there to do research and further human understanding. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge if you like. Educating students is part of what they do to fund the research and hand-pick the gifted students to continue to push the boundaries. 

Secondly, no-one pays to go to university to be educated by random one off speakers at University society events. You pay the university to provide the staff and the education tools (libraries etc) to learn in your chosen subject.

These outside speakers are almost never part of any curriculum, they are invited by Deptments or Departmental Societies (or Student Union Societies) to speak to a mainly invited audience, the invitees are also rarely undergraduates.

I would also suggest that the University is paid precisely to decide who provides undergraduates with their lectures, that is most definitely what they are paid for

The purpose of a University is not to provide Free Speech, though most do to a greater or lesser degree.

I thought the purpose of university was to get wasted for 3 years, have obscene haircuts and dress styles and develop a serious problem with weed.........

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I thought the purpose of university was to get wasted for 3 years, have obscene haircuts and dress styles and develop a serious problem with weed.........

Haha, probably sums up my Uni years

[HanoiVillan]

17 hours ago, blandy said:

The top hit on my search engine page says, with their emphasis not mine

That said I didn’t go to one  so might not understand.  I don’t see philosophical openness arising from no-platforming people, nor preserving pure inquiry from stopping views being expressed by speakers. Universities blocking speakers because some students don’t want them there because “feelings” isn’t my cup of tea, personally, but like I said I didn’t go to one, so am speaking as an outsider.

Yes, I think this is based on a misunderstanding of what a university is and what it does. They are not simply there to provide access to all opinions equally (if students want to find different takes on an issue from people from different parts of the political spectrum, it would be a lot easier for them to watch some YouTube videos, than to try to find speakers reflecting the entire range of opinion diversity on a topic). If this were truly the mission of the university, society speeches and debates would be credit-bearing and attendance would not be optional. University societies are not a platonic ideal of the public square (that's Speaker's Corner), they are more like Rotary clubs for somewhat younger attendees (actually, many university speeches are more frequently attended by faculty, other staff and assorted adult guests than by students themselves, who mostly have better things to do - Oxford and Cambridge are not typical universities). If my dad's Rotary club announced a speaker, and then the members complained and the club rescinded the invitation, nobody would be talking about it in the newspapers as a 'free speech crisis', yet exactly the same thing would have happened. Ultimately, the membership of an organisation get to determine who attends or is invited to their events.

Finally, dismissing concerns as 'because of "feelings"' downplays the objections in many cases, and ignores that the objections are themselves a speech act, and in many cases a more *informative* one than the speech would have been. If any potential attendees of Amber Rudd's speech at Oxford were less than fully aware of her role in deporting scores of black citizens from the country they legally lived in, they learned far more of far more value from the protests against her than they would have done from whatever platitudes she would have delivered at her speech.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

They are not simply there to provide access to all opinions equally (if students want to find different takes on an issue from people from different parts of the political spectrum, it would be a lot easier for them to watch some YouTube videos, than to try to find speakers reflecting the entire range of opinion diversity on a topic).

You can't ask a youtube video questions or interrogate arguments or challenge statements. And I don't think the suggestion is that Uni's should provide equal access to all opinions, that would be both unachievable and daft. And youtube - why should it be that it's not fine for someone to speak to a Uni, but fine for them to upload a speech to youtube? why should a Uni close down speech when Youtube does not - or is it possible to forsee a case where youtube is petitioned to take down videos (say) students don't want to look at. If it's unlawful, then sure, take it down/don't allow it, but if it's lawful, don't make Unis "safe spaces for people's feelings - and whatever you say it is only some people's feelings that something should be stopped - it's not law, it's just opinion  - " I feel this is or might be offensive, or she might say something offensive". 

It's only a personal take, I'm not trying to persuade others, and it's interesting to read different opinions here, but my preference would be to allow people to attend or not attend a speakers lecture of their own free will, rather than impose a ban on that speaker because some students would rather that speaker didn't speak. I feel that if you get to the point where students decide who may speak to them and who may not, they're closing down their own opportunities both to better understand different views or perspectives, and to potentially change views of speakers they disagree with. It seems like a worse path to follow. In some cases no platforming can be the "right" thing to do, but once it becomes a thing, it will inevitably lead to occasions where it is the "wrong" thing to do. It's also very single issue, and can ignore the wider nature of someone's views. I mean, for example (just hypothetically, and completely made up on the strength of recent news) suppose some students somewhere decided (rightly or wrongly) that they didn't want to listen to Rebecca Long Bailey, (because of the recent news story). Well what about what she has to say on the Green New Deal?  - do you see what I'm getting at? Ban someone for their thoughts on something you don't like, and fail to hear them on things you might learn about, fail to challenge or understand their views you don't like. JK Rowling could talk well about writing and making it as an author in a male dominated industry as a single mother and...but some people don't like her take on Trans rights....where does it stop?

Edited June 27, 2020 by blandy
line added about youtube

[limpid]

It fascinates me that the people that shout loudest about free speech usually don't know what it is and don't realise that we don't have it in the UK.

[Follyfoot]

Interesting tweet by black lives matter UK a couple of hours ago regarding Israel. As stated earlier in the thread distinction needs to be drawn between the movement and the actual political group as quickly as possible 

 

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Interesting tweet by black lives matter UK a couple of hours ago regarding Israel. As stated earlier in the thread distinction needs to be drawn between the movement and the actual political group as quickly as possible 

#BlackLivesMatterUK

 

@ukblm

·

3h

 

As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.

 

The 138 countries in green recognise Palestine.

 

See anything odd?

[KenjiOgiwara]

On 26/06/2020 at 20:35, bickster said:

There's a number of misconceptions there. Firstly Universities aren't specifically there to educate students, they are actually there to do research and further human understanding. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge if you like. Educating students is part of what they do to fund the research and hand-pick the gifted students to continue to push the boundaries. 

Secondly, no-one pays to go to university to be educated by random one off speakers at University society events. You pay the university to provide the staff and the education tools (libraries etc) to learn in your chosen subject.

These outside speakers are almost never part of any curriculum, they are invited by Deptments or Departmental Societies (or Student Union Societies) to speak to a mainly invited audience, the invitees are also rarely undergraduates.

I would also suggest that the University is paid precisely to decide who provides undergraduates with their lectures, that is most definitely what they are paid for

The purpose of a University is not to provide Free Speech, though most do to a greater or lesser degree.

Haven't picked up on everything. Just wanted to say, while I generally agree with this, I can't agree with your last point.  In my eyes a university is the definition of a place to promote and provide free speech. Research is done best when uncritical and unbiased phrameworks are in place.