Remember When Universities Were Where The Smart People Went?

A ruling by the higher education regulator for England on freedom of speech breaches at the University of Sussex has sparked anxiety in the sector, as vice-chancellors scramble to review their policies to avoid potential violations. Two weeks after the Office for Students (OfS) handed out a record £585,000 fine, many university leaders are still not clear what it means in practice.

It seems crystal clear to me, but maybe that's because I never went to university? 

One of the few vice-chancellors willing to speak out condemned the OfS ruling as “a lesson in authoritarianism, with threats of more to come”.

No doubt they are from one of the universities featured in David Thompson's roll-call of authoritarian left-wing agenda pushers...  

Prof David Green, University of Worcester vice-chancellor and chief executive, said: “Using coercive powers of the state risks terrifying university leaders into a culture of compliance which is the very opposite of the democratic and free culture for which we should be working.”

The rise of no-platforming and speech codes in universities give the lie to that, Dave... 

Many university leaders have turned to lawyers, in some cases spending tens of thousands of pounds, to review not just transgender and non-binary equality policy, which was at the heart of the Sussex case, but a range of university statements, documents and policies. “I wouldn’t say that they were in a state of panic,” said one lawyer who did not want to be named, “but I think there is genuine anxiety they don’t know what they need to do to get this right.”

What are they paid their huge salaries for? 

University leaders are struggling to find the right balance between freedom of speech duties and a legal requirement to protect students and academics from abuse and harassment, and feel they have not been given enough clarity by the OfS.

You could always start by telling those fragile snowflakes that infest modern universities that stating biological fact isn't 'harassment' or 'abuse' and if they are at university, they shouldn't need protecting from it... 

Oh, Sure, It Must Be 'Racism'....

...I mean, what else could it possibly be?

Many have turned Mangione into a “martyr”, said Dr Joseph Richardson, a professor of African American studies, medical anthropology and epidemiology at the University of Maryland. But, he adds: “We clearly know had [Mangione] been a young Black man, the narrative would be different”.

'We' know that, prof? That's the Royal 'We' is it? 

The wall-to-wall coverage of Mangione has been interpreted as a result of Thompson’s status as a healthcare industry executive in a country where many people are frustrated about rising healthcare costs and lack of insurance coverage. But the acceptance of that explanation itself reflects a racist double standard. As Richardson sees it, the empathetic media coverage is a symptom of “white male privilege”.

Says someone feted and courted by the MSM for his take on something well outside any expertise he may have learned at a while man's university, in a majority white country.. One might say he himself was a recipient of some kind of privilege.. 

Multiple studies have shown that white male perpetrators of gun violence, especially ones in high profile incidents such as mass shootings, are often depicted more compassionately by news outlets. According to one study, publications routinely speculate about white perpetrators’ mental health as a possible explanation for their actions, painting a complex picture of their motivations, whereas suspects of color are reduced to racial stereotypes.

Is that because their crimes are mostly predictably stereotypical?  

Back in April, reporting on Terry Clark Hughes Jr, a Black man who was accused of killing four police officers in Charlotte, North Carolina, during an attempted arrest, focused on his criminal record and THC later discovered in his bloodstream. (Hughes was shot and killed by police during the incident.) In 2021, Jason Nightengale, also a Black man, shot and killed five people at random during a rampage in the Chicago area, before being fatally shot by police. Subsequent coverage of Nightengale highlighted his arrest record and “menacing” videos he had posted to Facebook.

You mean the media concentrated on factors that 'explained' the crime? How unusual! Haven't you realised that they do the very same for other races too? 

As early as the 1920s, Duxbury said, crimes committed by Black people would often be used to “justify narratives of biological inferiority” or advance claims of Black people having “less developed morals than white people”.

The media is just calling it as they see it. Perhaps if the members of your race weren't always behaving like animals they wouldn't be regarded as less than them.  

Let's Spin The Wheel Of Racism And See Where It Lands This Time...

....oh. Racist cartoon hyaenas? 

Well. I wasn't expecting that.

The Lion King was met with near universal praise when it came out 25 years ago. It grossed 312.9 million in the U.S. It won two Oscars. But an argument nevertheless emerged concerning the two main hyenas, Shenzi and Banzai—namely, that they were racist characters. In an overwhelmingly white voice cast (for a movie about Africa), they were brought to life by minority actors, Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin, who played them as low-life gangsters, reprobates who speak in slang and live tucked away in a shadowy corner of the Pride Lands—the wrong side of the tracks.

Which the usual suspects immediatly recognised not as the usual Disney 'villian' trope, but as an attack on 'black street culture'. So, who exactly is the racist here?

Critics said their accents instantly demonized the characters. Academic pieces blasted the hyenas’ “street” vernacular. Some articles pointed out how the clever, cunning Scar—who speaks with white British actor Jeremy Irons’ King’s English—subjugates the destitute hyenas as his servants. “The good-for-nothing hyenas are urban blacks,” wrote a Harvard psychologist. A New York Times journalist dubbed them “Sambo-ish.”

Just goes to show, you can go to Harvard, or you can be educated at Harvard. People often choose the wrong one. 

When asked about the controversy in 1994, Disney spokeswoman Terry Press dismissed it. “It’s a story. It’s fiction,” she said. “These people need to get a life.”

/applause!  

As Well They Might Be Embarassed...

...even academics who learn I am working on the topic of fatphobia are often quick to change the subject, turning away in embarrassed silence.

In fact, it's a good thing. It shows they still have some shame about how far academia has fallen.

So why are we getting better on most forms of bias while becoming arguably even more fatphobic as a society? Part of the answer has to do with the fact that fatness, unlike many other forms of marginalisation, is perceived as a choice.

For a vast majority of them, it is. The fact that we have 'fat activists' at all proves that. What other reasons could there be? 

But careful attention to the evidence on this topic paints a different picture. Numerous factors – from our inequitable food environment to economic injustice to stress to trauma to common health conditions and medications – dictate our size, and a combination of these have contributed to an uptick in fatness in both the US and the UK, among other countries, in recent decades.

I fail to see how an 'inequitable food environment' contributes to anything, let alone the rise of lardarses... 

True political progress requires that we pause and look around and extend a sympathetic – better, solidaristic – arm to everyone. There should be no limit to our capacity as humans for inclusivity; there should be no size restrictions either.

Go tell gravity that, love. If it listens, I might.  

He Who Pays The Piper, Robert...

A particularly troubling aspect of Gay’s resignation concerns the apparent clout of wealthy Harvard alumni​...

You want their money, and they want...well, not to be hectored and told black is really white. And while you need their money, they get to call the tune.  

I can understand the frustrations of these donors. But to use their influence to force the ouster of these university presidents is an abuse of power. It sets a dangerous precedent of mega-donor intrusion into university life. It endangers the autonomy of America’s universities to determine for themselves how to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and hateful speech.

But they aren't using that autonomy properly, are they? They are taking that money and spitting in the faces of those who are giving it. And they've decided enough is enough. 

As have I. What is it? Is it ''We have to employ more smart well-educated black minorities to show us their worth' or is it 'Oh noes, our smart well-educated black minorities have fallen into a trap so obvious a child could see it coming'..?

It can't really be both, can it? 

The core problem is that one of the major jobs of today’s university presidents is to solicit money.

It does make the world go round, after all... 

As a Jew, I also cannot help but worry that the actions of these donors – many of them Jewish, many from Wall Street – could fuel the very antisemitism they claim to oppose, based on the age-old stereotype of wealthy Jewish bankers controlling the world.

If they really were doing that, Ms Gay would still be in the kitchen or on reception. or wearing a janitor's uniform. Assuming she's smart enough to know which end of the broom to push.  

Well, The Answer Should Have Been 'No'...

...shouldn't it, chancellors?

As the number of serious sexual assaults escalates across universities, experts say female students often do not want to go to the police, fearing delays and traumatising questioning, and knowing only 1% of rape cases end in conviction. Universities say increasing numbers of women are instead turning to them to investigate​...

Why would a university ever decide that this is something they should agree to do? 

A student conduct panel, often comprising academics, support staff and students, takes evidence from both sides and decides whether a student has broken the rules by committing sexual misconduct and should be suspended or expelled. Universities stress this is not like a court of law.

Of course it isn't. and a court of law is precisely where allegations of wrongdoing snhould be examined and tested. But as Longrider points out, increasingly, that's not the case. Extrajudicial means are sought, even by those who should know better... 

Prof Sir Steve West, the vice-chancellor of the University of the West of England and president of Universities UK until earlier this year, said: “As expulsion is a penalty, parents of the accused often start to raise the stakes by hiring a lawyer. It is a power game, because usually the victim has no representation, and I think it is completely unacceptable and unfair.”

No, actually, it's pefectly fair. What you were doing is the unfair approach.  

West said that parents “rarely tell us that they’re going to do this in advance”, typically turning up with a lawyer to the final student conduct committee hearing. He worries that this will “drive silence”, with victims frightened of being subjected to exactly the sort of adversarial investigation they wanted to avoid by not complaining to the police.

Unfortunately, there's no avoiding it. Sexual assult almost always takes place in private, so a proper investigation is always going to be adversarial in nature.  

Smita Jamdar, a partner at the law firm Shakespeare Martineau who advises universities on sexual assault hearings, said: “There are increasing numbers of students choosing to bring cases of sexual misconduct of all sorts to their university rather than the police, and increasing numbers of very serious allegations.” She added that choking and sadomasochism (S&M) were now “not uncommon”. Jamdar said institutions often brought her firm in because an accused student had hired a lawyer and the university needed support. “Everyone ends up arguing over legal principles that are utterly bamboozling to most student conduct panels,” she said.

Because they aren't the right place or the right people to be handling them.   

But You And Your Cronies Lit The Fire In The First Place...

Oxford University’s new professor of LGBTQ+ history has accused the government of “fanning a culture war” over freedom of speech, insisting it is alive and well in higher education.

*hollow laughter* 

But wait! What on earth is 'a professor of LGBTQ+ history', anyway?

Matt Cook, who was this week named as the first Jonathan Cooper chair of the history of sexualities, a newly created post at Mansfield College...

Oh... 

Cook said the issue had been blown out of proportion and there were only a “tiny fraction” of cases where speakers were cancelled.

Gosh, imagine someone saying that about immigrant murderers, or 'hate crimes'. He'd be lucky to get out of town alive! 

“So my sense is that it’s not a huge problem. I think the issue has been blown out of proportion. I also think there’s some political expediency in this. It’s a way of fanning a culture war. I don’t think we need additional protections for free speech in the university. Free speech is pretty alive and well.”

No-one ever thinks they need protection when they are saying exactly what everyone in their tiny circle agrees with... 

“The trans people I know currently are facing real daily prejudice that’s misogynistic, transphobic. And I think we need to think very seriously about how we allow everybody in this country to have a livable life, and that includes trans people. ”

I won't bother asking exactly what 'rights' trans men and women are lacking, because it's something that never gets a satisfactory answer... 

Thank God For 'Experts'!

Ask any child their favourite film, and there is quite a high chance they will name a Disney movie, like 'Beauty and the Beast' or 'Aladdin'.

However, experts believe that these films are giving them the wrong idea about what a healthy relationship looks like.

You mean, it's not a good idea to fall in love with a thief? Or take up bestiality?  

Researchers at the University of Exeter surveyed young people and found they had the desire to learn skills to help them develop relationships at school.

What..? Really? 

Study author Simon Benham-Clarke said: 'Those we surveyed highlighted the importance of teaching skills such as relating, communication, empathy, respect, conflict resolution and repair and ending relationships kindly and safely.

'Our research shows schools need improved support to run relationships education, including specialist expertise and resources, and guidance on signposting pupils to external sources of help.

'Positive relationship behaviours should be modelled, integrated and built on throughout curriculums nationally and reflected in a school's ethos.'

Where on earth are schools to find the time for all this? What's this nonsence based on?

...the researchers conducted focus groups with 24 young people aged between 14 and 18.

*sighs* 

One female participant said: 'I think it actually does create this toxic image to some degree… it's very much the female is feeble, and she must be saved by the male, and it kind of creates a toxic masculinity.'

Another added: 'It's embedded into our heads that it's always Prince Charming and it's always the prince and the princess … you don't understand it until you actually get to it, and that's when you realise that it's not like Disney movies or anything.'

Well, love, that's life for you. Frankly, I understood that well before the age of 14...

Yes, Because The Laws You Demand Apply To You Too...

The President of the National Union of Students, who was sacked following an investigation into allegations of antisemitism, says she was 'discriminated against as a black Muslim woman'.

Is there some sort of clause that says it's OK for black Muslim women to be anti-semitic, then? 

Shaima Dallali, 27, became the first president to be fired in the 100-year history of the NUS after 'significant breaches of policy' were found. It came after she was suspended from her role at the end of August, just a month into her two-year term.

But she has rejected the findings of an independent disciplinary panel and is considering taking legal action after her contract was terminated yesterday.

Hah! What sort of law firm would take on such a... 

In a statement released on her behalf today, law firm Carter-Ruck...

Oh. Right.  

...said she had already 'apologised fully for an inappropriate Tweet which she had published in 2012 (that is, a decade before becoming President)'.

Didn't you get the memo? It doesn't matter how long ago transgressions were made... 

Lawyers added that she had also made clear her position that other tweets which faced criticism and which pre-dated her election to her NUS role 'were not antisemitic'.

Didn't you get the memo that says 'it's what those offended feel that matters' either..? 

University Isn't For Everyone...

The mother of a University of Exeter student believed to have killed himself after a “disastrous” set of exam results has accused academics of failing to make her son feel like he was “wanted”.

*sighs* Here we go again... 

Less than a month before his death last year, Harry Armstrong Evans, 21, told his tutor in an email that isolation during the pandemic had affected his mental health and his performance in his third-year physics and astrophysics exams. But neither academic staff nor the welfare team spoke to the student face-to-face after the email and his mother, Alice, told the inquest into his death on Thursday that her son had not understood he could do re-takes or repeat his final year.

Surely a 21 year old should be expected to do something for himself? It's infants that need spoonfeeding, isn't it? 

Addressing the head of the department, Tim Harries, she said academics should have done more to help her son, who had performed well until then. She said: “You should have contacted Harry and said: ‘What’s going on here?’

We were so thrilled he was going to Exeter. We didn’t expect Harry to take his life. It was definitely as a result of these exams.”

Sure, it couldn't possibly be anything else. Anything closer to home. Could it? 

A group of parents, including the mother and father of Natasha Abrahart, a University of Bristol physics undergraduate who had severe social anxiety and killed herself a day before she was due to give a “terrifying” oral exam, called for the government to introduce new laws to protect students.

Good grief! No good can come from mollycoddling adults as if they were children, yet we seem hell-bent on it, don't we?

You Should Have Spoken Up Before...

A group of academics at the world-leading institution say its policies on harassment and social media are in breach of its legal duty to protect freedom of speech as they prohibit 'speech that is lawful'.

They claim the policies 'frustrate academic freedom - the life blood of this university - and harm academic careers'.

...but of course, you're only doing so now because one of your own is affected. You kept remarkably quiet when other careers were threatened, didn't you?

In a statement, the university said: 'The university is both allowed and obliged to take action in response to concerns about the treatment of a member of the university community by a fellow member of the same community and the university is confident that its policy and procedure on harassment and its social media guidance reflect and comply with its legal obligations.'

Let's see how long that confidence is upheld when you start having to pay out, shall we?