The Telegraph opens up black Cambridge student for barrage of online abuse

I disagree.

It is not unfair on her. It is a taste of her own medicine.

People should learn to not dish out to others what they would not like being dished out to them by others.

Here is the title of the letter she penned: 'Decolonising the English Faculty'

How is a historical English university based in England deciding to study mainly English history, activities and literature in the English department an act of "Colonisation"?

Is that not an attempt at intentional mislead to push them on the defensive and gain a "victim" advantage? Just like some are about to do here. Typical SJW tactics.

She has a right to request but definitely not a right to attack, which she did.

The request I made of you is to highlight to me where I argued that government should force any university or has forced any university on what to teach.

Not to throw more misalignment or accusations and expect me to go on the defensive so as to distract from the fact that you have no argument against my original argument.

Now, lets go again, please highlight to me where I argued that government should force any university or has forced any university on what to teach.

Your point is?

Regardless of your stance on her proposal, sexist and racial abuse is by no means 'a case of her own medicine'. Genuine insults and discrimination is considerably above and beyond the level of suggesting more diversity to a syllabus, even if you don't agree with the latter.

And again, even if you disagree with her idea, how is the Telegraph's article heading in anyway actually representative of what she said? She didn't propose that white authors should be dropped in their entirety, or even that any be dropped, merely that more diverse authors should be included.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that people on the course wish to study mainly English history, or wouldn't want to read works of other authors within their course? The course is hinged on reading works in the English language, not on works penned by English authors.

Is there anywhere I have advocated or supported sexist and racial abuse against her in my statements?

Please highlight where I did.

If not, please explain why you attributed that to my comments.

I’m sure that the Cambridge staff would be delighted to hear your thoughts on how they’re doing their jobs wrong

Your original argument, as I interpret it is that the Cambridge faculty should be forced to decide their curriculum based on the factors you feel are important, rather than basing it on their own considerations free from coercion. Your talk about "correcting" them in particular suggests a very authoritarian stance, as I've said. And you were replying to my post where I said the faculty has the right to decide things for themselves, suggesting you disagree with this. So again, who do you expect is going to enforce your authoritarian stance on these academics?

My point is that curricula is plural, so you should have used curriculum, which is singular.

"It is not unfair on her. It is a taste of her own medicine." - either the article was fair from that statement, or the reaction was, neither of which is true, as I outlined in my post.

I'd also appreciate a response to the other aspects of my post, namely why you seem to think that people on the course wish to study mainly English history, or wouldn't want to read works of other authors within their course? The course is hinged on reading works in the English language, not on works penned by English authors.

Please kindly logically explain to me why you interpreted my very clear first post as:

"Cambridge faculty should be forced to decide their curriculum based on the factors you feel are important, rather than basing it on their own considerations free from coercion"

Please pay special effort in explaining the part where I implicitly or explicitly recommended "force".

After that, we will move to the "authoritarian" misalignment attempt you are making.

Well the Cambridge staff were being told they were doing their jobs wrong by Lola Olufemi. Why not a random TSR too, or do you only get to criticise the curriculum if you're BME and bringing up colonialism?

Well the Cambridge staff were being told they were doing their jobs wrong by Lola Olufemi. Why not a random TSR too, or do you only get to criticise the curriculum if you're BME and bringing up colonialism?

Okay, then. That shows my response to your statement about the way the Telegragh reported the news was unfair to her.

Please now highlight to me where the Telegraph engaged in sexist and racial abuse against her.

Once we clear this up, I am very happy to respond to of your post. I just like to set the ground rules that I don't tolerate strawmans in debates and nor are they effective when used against me.

Once we establish strawmans are not allowed and would not be tolerated, then we can have healthy debate where my arguments will always triumph.

Well, I am pretty sure the English Department of the University of Cambridge, which would have many different courses would not just have one curricullum. Most likely they would have curricula.

Any other point you want to make?

This is getting tedious now. If you want to clarify your POV then please go right ahead, I've already explained what I wrote so if you think I'm misinterpreting then you'll need to provide some further clarification.

You didn't read the statement from Cambridge STAFF then - about the fact that staff and students have been working TOGETHER to come up with suggestions for additions and adjustments to curricula.

She wasn't telling staff what to do - she was presenting suggestions from a number of staff and students

On the topic of strawmans, I'd like to point out that at no point did I say that the Telegraph participated in these slurs against her

but they were a direct impact of the misleading nature of their article heading. Extending from this, the Telegraph also did not give her 'a taste of her own medicine' still, given that she made a proposal about diversity in a syllabus, and they grossly misled people about her actions, which still do not correlate in a way that makes it anything other than unfair to her.

We could debate the points simultaneously, which is generally speaking more conductive to a health and interesting debate, as points tend to interlink rather than stand alone. Your argument has yet to triumph, I'm afraid, but I'll gladly hear more in regards to why there is an issue with more diverse content, once you address that point.