The Telegraph opens up black Cambridge student for barrage of online abuse
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RoyalBeams
You don't need to make that point to me. I never said you did. What I want to know is why you felt my support for the Telegraph article is a support for sexist and racial insult she recieved.
She did get a taste of her own medicine. She also wrote a misleading article/letter as her proposal that would have an impact on Cambridge and white people. She was very aware of wht she was doing and did it for that intention.
There would be no point that interlinks with strawmans, hence the reason they are strawmans and why they are employed. They are mutually exclusive and arguing them simultaneously just helps the strawman thrower hide their strawmans in legitimate arguments. I am not interested in helping strawman throwers.
She did get a taste of her own medicine. She also wrote a misleading article/letter as her proposal that would have an impact on Cambridge and white people. She was very aware of wht she was doing and did it for that intention.
There would be no point that interlinks with strawmans, hence the reason they are strawmans and why they are employed. They are mutually exclusive and arguing them simultaneously just helps the strawman thrower hide their strawmans in legitimate arguments. I am not interested in helping strawman throwers.
I've already explained that your statement about tasting her own medicine had two possible connotations, and that it was as a result of this that it seemed you were supporting the response she received, though I'm glad that's not actually the case.
You've yet to explain what impact it would have on white people or why; please do so, and I'll be happy to address that point further,
I'm not sure, however, how much point there is on this discussion going further if you refuse to address the crux of the issue, namely, what the actual issue is with having more diversity in the syllabus. At this point it starts to suggest you don't have a point to combat this, though I would be interested in what you do have to say on the matter.
Original post by Tian1Sky
It doesn't matter how many the faculty has, if you use the singular form you should write curriculum.
So if I want to talk about all the curricula in the English department, which is what is being challenged, I should have used curricullum?
Original post by Tian1Sky
And yes, there is another point I would like to make. When a student wants to have a more diverse range of topics in their course, they have every right to ask for it.
And yes, there is another point I would like to make. When a student wants to have a more diverse range of topics in their course, they have every right to ask for it.
Well, if you go back to my previous posts on this thread, you would see that I already advocated any student has a right to ask for a change before you did.
And the university has a right to refuse their request if it is as unreasonable as this.
Original post by Tian1Sky
If a student wants to learn more about non-white authors, they shouldn't be told to go to Africa instead.
If a student wants to learn more about non-white authors, they shouldn't be told to go to Africa instead.
Now kindly explain to me where in Africa University of Buckingham is based.
I am always interested in learning new interesting, unknown facts.
Original post by RoyalBeams
No, it is not getting tedious. It is getting to the point you are being taught a lesson that if you know you would struggle to bring logical points to challenge another person's argument, it is actually best to shut up instead of attempting to malign them with a strawman and through them on a defensive. And when you are challenged, you resort to the defensive position of "I interpreted it as ...." or "You are implying that ......". The 2 notorious and lame defence tools of strawman merchants.
I've made it clear what my side of the argument is. It simply boils down to whether you think Cambridge academics should be forced to adopt a particular standpoint, and if so then who ought to enforce that. Two questions you've yet to actually answer.
Original post by RoyalBeams
I don't need to clarify anything. My POV is clear to any reasonable mind out there.
Well clearly you're a certified genius then, why are you even bothering posting here if you don't intend to engage in any debate?
Original post by RoyalBeams
Only SJW would want to throw some dirt to make it look like if I am an oppressor (i.e. "authoritarian", "racist", "sexist" etc.) or being "offensive" (e.g. "Go back to Africa").
Now who's presenting strawman arguments?
Original post by shadowdweller
I've already explained that your statement about tasting her own medicine had two possible connotations, and that it was as a result of this that it seemed you were supporting the response she received, though I'm glad that's not actually the case.
You've yet to explain what impact it would have on white people or why; please do so, and I'll be happy to address that point further,
I'm not sure, however, how much point there is on this discussion going further if you refuse to address the crux of the issue, namely, what the actual issue is with having more diversity in the syllabus. At this point it starts to suggest you don't have a point to combat this, though I would be interested in what you do have to say on the matter.
You've yet to explain what impact it would have on white people or why; please do so, and I'll be happy to address that point further,
I'm not sure, however, how much point there is on this discussion going further if you refuse to address the crux of the issue, namely, what the actual issue is with having more diversity in the syllabus. At this point it starts to suggest you don't have a point to combat this, though I would be interested in what you do have to say on the matter.
Am sorry, I must have missed that. What two connotations did you explain?
Can you please summarise them.
Don't worry, I am keeping note of your other questions, and I promise to do you the honour of going back to answer every single one of them after I clear up what I see as a strawman.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
You're turning this against me, as if I was saying that Lola didn't have a right to an opinion.
I suggest you go back a re-read the posts that you replied to. I was replying directly to someone who was stating that Cambridge staff were wrong and you then misunderstood that interaction.
Original post by Dez
I've made it clear what my side of the argument is. It simply boils down to whether you think Cambridge academics should be forced to adopt a particular standpoint, and if so then who ought to enforce that. Two questions you've yet to actually answer.
Well clearly you're a certified genius then, why are you even bothering posting here if you don't intend to engage in any debate?
Now who's presenting strawman arguments?
Well clearly you're a certified genius then, why are you even bothering posting here if you don't intend to engage in any debate?
Now who's presenting strawman arguments?
None of these explains where you saw me state Cambridge should be forced.
You would have demonstrated more intellect if you had taken my suggestion of keeping quiet once you realise you cannot defend your strawman.
Original post by RoyalBeams
So if I want to talk about all the curricula in the English department, which is what is being challenged, I should have used curricullum?
Well, if you go back to my previous posts on this thread, you would see that I already advocated any student has a right to ask for a change before you did.
And the university has a right to refuse their request if it is as unreasonable as this.
Now kindly explain to me where in Africa University of Buckingham is based.
I am always interested in learning new interesting, unknown facts.
Well, if you go back to my previous posts on this thread, you would see that I already advocated any student has a right to ask for a change before you did.
And the university has a right to refuse their request if it is as unreasonable as this.
Now kindly explain to me where in Africa University of Buckingham is based.
I am always interested in learning new interesting, unknown facts.
Once again, it has nothing to do with how many curricula there are at the faculty, if you write "a curricula" that's grammatically incorrect.
Great, we agree on that then. Though we don't agree that the request is unreasonable.
I never said Buckingham is in Africa, but some of the other places you mentioned are.
Original post by Dez
Universities are independent academic institutions. That means the government cannot force them to change what they teach, study or research. Cambridge has the freedom to change the curricula as they please, and their freedoms are far more important than your opinions on the matter.
Same for students. Why did they apply to Cambridge if they dislike the curriculum so much?
Original post by Tian1Sky
Once again, it has nothing to do with how many curricula there are at the faculty, if you write "a curricula" that's grammatically incorrect.
If I ever said "a curricula" that is a typo, most likely forced by the freezing of my laptop caused by TSR's numerous scripts.
If I am talking about more than one curricullum, I prefer to use curricula. The English Department have curricula to change, not curricullum.
Original post by Tian1Sky
Great, we agree on that then. Though we don't agree that the request is unreasonable.
Great, we agree on that then. Though we don't agree that the request is unreasonable.
Well, now we realise I shared the right answer in the first point "her right to ask" with you.
For the second point "her request is unreasonable", unfortunately for you, I hold a monopoly on being right there.
Original post by Tian1Sky
I never said Buckingham is in Africa, but some of the other places you mentioned are.
I never said Buckingham is in Africa, but some of the other places you mentioned are.
So some of the places I mentioned are not in Africa, so why did you decide to say "I asked her to go back to Africa"?
You wanted to malign me with a strawman?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by edd522
Same for students. Why did they apply to Cambridge if they dislike the curriculum so much?
The suggestions for changing the curricula came from a group of staff and students.
Or are you saying that the staff should work elsewhere if they don't like the curriculum? Cos that's kind of missing the whole point about how universities design and develop their courses
Original post by RoyalBeams
None of these explains where you saw me state Cambridge should be forced.
Here it is again:
Original post by RoyalBeams
They need to be corrected and encouraged to stand up for what is right without, or despite, fear of being called racist.
Original post by RoyalBeams
You would have demonstrated more intellect if you had taken my suggestion of keeping quiet once you realise you cannot defend your strawman.
This isn't a bloody contest, for goodness sake. This forum is for discussing ideas, not for endless semantical nitpicking.
Original post by PQ
The suggestions for changing the curricula came from a group of staff and students.
Or are you saying that the staff should work elsewhere if they don't like the curriculum? Cos that's kind of missing the whole point about how universities design and develop their courses
Or are you saying that the staff should work elsewhere if they don't like the curriculum? Cos that's kind of missing the whole point about how universities design and develop their courses
Can you tell me where did you see that it came from a "group of staff"? and give their names?
The Guardian article says "English students signed the letter after concerns that the department’s reading list was dominated by white, male authors."
Original post by RoyalBeams
If I ever said "a curricula" that is a typo, most likely forced by the freezing of my laptop caused by TSR's numerous scripts.
If I am talking about more than one curricullum, I prefer to use curricula. The English Department have curricula to change, not curricullum.
Well, now we realise I shared the right answer in the first point "her right to ask" with you.
For the second point "her request is unreasonable", unfortunately for you, I hold a monopoly on being right there.
So some of the places I mentioned are not in Africa, so why did you decide to say "I asked her to go back to Africa"?
You wanted to malign me with a strawman?
If I am talking about more than one curricullum, I prefer to use curricula. The English Department have curricula to change, not curricullum.
Well, now we realise I shared the right answer in the first point "her right to ask" with you.
For the second point "her request is unreasonable", unfortunately for you, I hold a monopoly on being right there.
So some of the places I mentioned are not in Africa, so why did you decide to say "I asked her to go back to Africa"?
You wanted to malign me with a strawman?
Pretty impressive to make the same typo twice in two lines. And once again, it doesn’t matter what you prefer, “a curricula” is grammatically incorrect.
You hold a monopoly on being right about something subjective, alright then.
You’re right, you didn’t technically ask her to go to Africa, it was one of the options you suggested. Btw, I love your “clever” attempt to get people to call you racist for suggesting she go to Africa, so that you can then counter with something along the lines of “Buckingham is not in Africa, look at these SJW’s crying racism”.
Original post by Dez
Here it is again:
This isn't a bloody contest, for goodness sake. This forum is for discussing ideas, not for endless semantical nitpicking.
This isn't a bloody contest, for goodness sake. This forum is for discussing ideas, not for endless semantical nitpicking.
Here i what?
The forum is for discussing ideas, not throwing stramwans.
Strawmans are not ideas, they are a weapon for destroying ideas.
Stop throwing strawmans, you are detroying the forum.
I would have thought that the clue is in the title of the course: English Literature.
Original post by PQ
I suggest you go back a re-read the posts that you replied to. I was replying directly to someone who was stating that Cambridge staff were wrong and you then misunderstood that interaction.
Well, if you did read the letter, it calls for consultation with students about what should be on the curriculum. Therefore, to suggest this open letter was as a result of a consultation process with the faculty is more opportunism of that faculty than a description of reality. Also to suggest that the curriculum risks institutional racism should be considered a criticism, if true.
Original post by edd522
Can you tell me where did you see that it came from a "group of staff"? and give their names?
The Guardian article says "English students signed the letter after concerns that the department’s reading list was dominated by white, male authors."
The Guardian article says "English students signed the letter after concerns that the department’s reading list was dominated by white, male authors."
From the statement from Cambridge staff
https://twitter.com/NicholasGuyatt/status/923929890814033922
The letter was part of an ongoing set of discussions including staff and students. Signatories of the letter they're specifically talking about included alumni, students, PhD students, supervisors and even staff from the English faculty library. The majority of signatories are students but that doesn't really justify attributing it to a single student and putting her face on the front page of a newspaper implying that the letter was "forcing" cambridge to "drop white authors"The letter is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qji9ojNzumOeKboLLBBWs5fxJfEPVAw4JDNtdz2yAtU/edit - there's 161 signatories
Original post by Tian1Sky
Pretty impressive to make the same typo twice in two lines. And once again, it doesn’t matter what you prefer, “a curricula” is grammatically incorrect.
And so?
Original post by Tian1Sky
You hold a monopoly on being right about something subjective, alright then.
You hold a monopoly on being right about something subjective, alright then.
Yep. I reasoned intelligently and logically.
That is required for subjective isues.
A top university should focus on materials that mostly intellectually develop its student body, not the ones that make them politically correct.
Original post by Tian1Sky
You’re right, you didn’t technically ask her to go to Africa, it was one of the options you suggested. Btw, I love your “clever” attempt to get people to call you racist for suggesting she go to Africa, so that you can then counter with something along the lines of “Buckingham is not in Africa, look at these SJW’s crying racism”.
You’re right, you didn’t technically ask her to go to Africa, it was one of the options you suggested. Btw, I love your “clever” attempt to get people to call you racist for suggesting she go to Africa, so that you can then counter with something along the lines of “Buckingham is not in Africa, look at these SJW’s crying racism”.
So you were strawmanning?
By the way, for anyone interested, the full letter:
The following letter is the result of a meeting that took place amongst students about the need for the faculty to decolonize its reading lists and incorporate postcolonial thought alongside its existing curriculum:
Dear Peter De Bolla,
For too long, teaching English at Cambridge has encouraged a ‘traditional’ and ‘canonical’ approach that elevates white male authors at the expense of all others. Whilst some have argued that this approach has its merits and there have been welcome attempts to address the absence of women writers, there is more that can be done. What we can no longer ignore, however, is the fact that the curriculum, taken as a whole, risks perpetuating institutional racism. The history of the canon is a history that has wilfully ignored, misrepresented and sidelined authors from the global south. Sadly, the current syllabus is a result of this history; it is far too easy to complete an English degree without noticing the absence of authors who are not white. Indeed, this absence is widely accepted, rarely challenged, and frequently justified in order that teaching is ‘focused’ and ‘as comprehensive as possible.’ When the few chances do present themselves, students with an interest in race, race politics and any literature from outside the UK are seen as a nuisance, encouraged to fall in line or suffer because they cannot find supervisors with the expertise to provide the academic guidance they need. Edward Said teaches us that our histories are interconnected and intertwined. The legacy of colonialism means that British literature is the literature of the global south, the two are mutually constituted. It is crucial that we include the work of postcolonial writers into the ‘Introduction to the Canon’ that takes place in Part I.
We believe that for the English department to truly boast academically rigorous thought and practice, non-white authors and postcolonial thought must be incorporated meaningfully into the curriculum. Meaningful incorporation is not merely the option to take the Postcolonial Paper or the inclusion of a single ‘all-encompassing’ individual at the bottom of a reading list. Meaningful incorporation is not the act of putting quotes about diversity on the walls of the English Faculty. Meaningful incorporation requires thought, consultation with students and an overview of the course in its entirety. It means taking into account the constitutive role of colonial and postcolonial literatures and cultures as well as British imperial history; requiring students to read Victorian texts in their colonial contexts, ensuring that is impossible for students to graduate without at least a minimal engagement with colonial, postcolonial and ethnic minority authors. It means challenging the pervasive notion that reading texts in the light of gender, race, ability, class and so on is to crush them under the weight of subjectivity, dismantling the idea that white and male is the norm, unmarked by identity. It means ensuring that Edward Said’s Orientalism is as essential in preparation for the course as Barthes’ The Pleasure of the Text. Having studied in this department for three years and been supervised by a wide range of individuals, we know first hand how often postcolonial thought and issues of race are dismissed. We have been prompted to write this letter because there must be a point at which the faculty acknowledges its responsibility to students by requiring them to think outside of the bounds of eurocentricity.
We believe that literature and the act of studying literature is not apolitical. The writers deemed essential to the canon are a reflection of the eurocentric thought that is the legacy of Britain’s long imperial history and any refusal to challenge this means that BME students are implicitly reminded that their stories, indeed the stories of anyone who is not a white man, are not valued. The department cannot claim to provide students with the ‘foundational knowledge of the canon’ whilst it refuses to decolonise the curriculum. This is not a call for the exclusion of white men from reading lists, needless to say: it is a call to re-centre the lives of other marginalized writers who have been silenced by the canon. It is a call to not be so arrogant so as to assume civilization began with the writing of white men and so this should be the basis of our learning.
Our suggestions include:
– The inclusion of two or more postcolonial and BME authors on every exam paper.
– For the department to arrange a speaker series or university wide reading group that centres the voices of postcolonial authors
– The requirement to spend at least a week of Shakespeare term on an essay that looks at Shakespeare in a postcolonial context
– The introduction of a short seminar series in first year looking at postcolonial texts and thought
– A consultation between course conveners and groups of students about how the faculty can be more inclusive
– Diversity training for supervisors
– Moving postcolonial books out of the basement in the English Faculty and integrating them in the library cataloguing order
– Greater investment in the Postcolonial Paper by making it a mandatory requirement of Part I and widening teaching and hiring more staff to bring in West/East African and Caribbean materials
– A zero-tolerance policy on the dismissal of race as a subject worthy of discussion/enquiry in essays
(https://flygirlsofcambridge.com/2017/06/14/decolonising-the-english-faculty-an-open-letter/)
The following letter is the result of a meeting that took place amongst students about the need for the faculty to decolonize its reading lists and incorporate postcolonial thought alongside its existing curriculum:
Dear Peter De Bolla,
For too long, teaching English at Cambridge has encouraged a ‘traditional’ and ‘canonical’ approach that elevates white male authors at the expense of all others. Whilst some have argued that this approach has its merits and there have been welcome attempts to address the absence of women writers, there is more that can be done. What we can no longer ignore, however, is the fact that the curriculum, taken as a whole, risks perpetuating institutional racism. The history of the canon is a history that has wilfully ignored, misrepresented and sidelined authors from the global south. Sadly, the current syllabus is a result of this history; it is far too easy to complete an English degree without noticing the absence of authors who are not white. Indeed, this absence is widely accepted, rarely challenged, and frequently justified in order that teaching is ‘focused’ and ‘as comprehensive as possible.’ When the few chances do present themselves, students with an interest in race, race politics and any literature from outside the UK are seen as a nuisance, encouraged to fall in line or suffer because they cannot find supervisors with the expertise to provide the academic guidance they need. Edward Said teaches us that our histories are interconnected and intertwined. The legacy of colonialism means that British literature is the literature of the global south, the two are mutually constituted. It is crucial that we include the work of postcolonial writers into the ‘Introduction to the Canon’ that takes place in Part I.
We believe that for the English department to truly boast academically rigorous thought and practice, non-white authors and postcolonial thought must be incorporated meaningfully into the curriculum. Meaningful incorporation is not merely the option to take the Postcolonial Paper or the inclusion of a single ‘all-encompassing’ individual at the bottom of a reading list. Meaningful incorporation is not the act of putting quotes about diversity on the walls of the English Faculty. Meaningful incorporation requires thought, consultation with students and an overview of the course in its entirety. It means taking into account the constitutive role of colonial and postcolonial literatures and cultures as well as British imperial history; requiring students to read Victorian texts in their colonial contexts, ensuring that is impossible for students to graduate without at least a minimal engagement with colonial, postcolonial and ethnic minority authors. It means challenging the pervasive notion that reading texts in the light of gender, race, ability, class and so on is to crush them under the weight of subjectivity, dismantling the idea that white and male is the norm, unmarked by identity. It means ensuring that Edward Said’s Orientalism is as essential in preparation for the course as Barthes’ The Pleasure of the Text. Having studied in this department for three years and been supervised by a wide range of individuals, we know first hand how often postcolonial thought and issues of race are dismissed. We have been prompted to write this letter because there must be a point at which the faculty acknowledges its responsibility to students by requiring them to think outside of the bounds of eurocentricity.
We believe that literature and the act of studying literature is not apolitical. The writers deemed essential to the canon are a reflection of the eurocentric thought that is the legacy of Britain’s long imperial history and any refusal to challenge this means that BME students are implicitly reminded that their stories, indeed the stories of anyone who is not a white man, are not valued. The department cannot claim to provide students with the ‘foundational knowledge of the canon’ whilst it refuses to decolonise the curriculum. This is not a call for the exclusion of white men from reading lists, needless to say: it is a call to re-centre the lives of other marginalized writers who have been silenced by the canon. It is a call to not be so arrogant so as to assume civilization began with the writing of white men and so this should be the basis of our learning.
Our suggestions include:
– The inclusion of two or more postcolonial and BME authors on every exam paper.
– For the department to arrange a speaker series or university wide reading group that centres the voices of postcolonial authors
– The requirement to spend at least a week of Shakespeare term on an essay that looks at Shakespeare in a postcolonial context
– The introduction of a short seminar series in first year looking at postcolonial texts and thought
– A consultation between course conveners and groups of students about how the faculty can be more inclusive
– Diversity training for supervisors
– Moving postcolonial books out of the basement in the English Faculty and integrating them in the library cataloguing order
– Greater investment in the Postcolonial Paper by making it a mandatory requirement of Part I and widening teaching and hiring more staff to bring in West/East African and Caribbean materials
– A zero-tolerance policy on the dismissal of race as a subject worthy of discussion/enquiry in essays
(https://flygirlsofcambridge.com/2017/06/14/decolonising-the-english-faculty-an-open-letter/)
Original post by RoyalBeams
Here i what?
The forum is for discussing ideas, not throwing stramwans.
Strawmans are not ideas, they are a weapon for destroying ideas.
Stop throwing strawmans, you are detroying the forum.
The forum is for discussing ideas, not throwing stramwans.
Strawmans are not ideas, they are a weapon for destroying ideas.
Stop throwing strawmans, you are detroying the forum.
I have literally no idea what you're raving about now.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What do people wear at a Cambridge interview?
- Chadfish
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Diversity at St Andrews University
- LSE LLB Law? vs BA Law Cambridge University?
- Re: should i apply to cambridge?
- Bath uni for maths?
- anglia ruskin university
- Uni choice
- ICE Cambridge. What rights do ICE students have?
- Best university for (mechanical) engineering?
- What if I didn't reach the IELTS requirement?
- Going to uni at 41/42
- University of Oxford
- portfolio for architecture for cambridge
- Worth applying to Trinity as a state comprehensive student
- Cambridge MML Application Advice
- Easy Colleges in Cambridge to get in - should this be allowed
- Chess Question
- Personal statement advice for maths
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
