The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Israeli lecturer row

You probably know the score. The AUT and NATFHE (the two largest lecturers' unions in the UK) have recently passed - by the narrowest of margins - a bill boycotting all Israeli lecturers who refuse to sign up to a document condemning various bits and bobs of Israeli foreign, and possibly internal, policy - the big one that everyone has heard of is the clause referring to the "Apartheid Wall".

Now, it's pretty common knowledge on this board that I don't have a lot of time for some of Israel's policies, but it seems to me there are two problems with this boycott business - one trivial, and one extremely non-trivial.

The trivial one: Use of the word "Apartheid" is just as sensationalist as the nutcases who call the Israelis "Nazis" on the basis of their policies - although not quite as offensive. Given that these lecturers will be instrumental in the formation of tomorrow's intellectual élite, I would rather they got their terms right. It's like the Berlin Wall comparison. Is the "Security Fence" designed to stop the flood of emigrants abandoning a communist state? No.

And secondly, the more important one: Again, given the key rôle that these educators will play, it seems worrying that discrimination is now occurring on the basis of political views, not on merit. To take an example: If a hypothetical maths lecturer is an out-and-out racist, but good at his job, I would employ him. That's what this is about - whether lecturers can do their job.

Of course, if your Lecturer in Recent Middle Eastern History is a pan-Arabist who vomits when they hear the word "Israel", then you've got slightly more of a problem, because it is going to affect their teaching, in a way that racism cannot affect the teaching maths. I defy anyone to insert racist propaganda into vector calculus. But this only serves to underline the point - as long as the quality of their teaching is not compromised, lecturers' views should not matter. In a normal interview, any sensible human being would be outraged if their employer asked them their views on an issue (say, abortion) and then dismissed them from the interview upon recieving the "wrong" answer. Why should this not apply to the upper echelons of the education system - where objectivity and a focus solely on the subject matter surely matter most?

Anyway, rant over. My point is that it shouldn't be about Israel, so please don't turn the thread into another Israel one. The issue is one of objectivity in the selection process, and the division between private views and public life.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for Teehar
Teehar
10
I think the reasoning behind thhis, IMO, is that, whilst it may not directly affect the subject being taught in all cases, there is a chance that the lecturers can influence the students on this issue if it were to ever come up, and that this influence would be detrimental to what AUT and NATFHE believe is the correct view.

what i dont get is that surely they can just sign the document and carry on preaching what they want? all in all, i think it should only really apply to lecturers of subjects where their opinion would act as a hindrance to the teaching, like ethics subjects etc.
Reply 2
Avatar for Teehar
Teehar
10
Bismarck

Wow, I never realized that ethics is so black and white that taking a position on any given issue make you de facto unethical.


it isnt, but IMO, having strong convictions on this issue, on EITHER side would hinder the study of the subject. once again, this is my opinion.
Reply 3
Avatar for Agent Smith
Agent Smith
OP
11
Bismarck
The only reasoning behind this is that people in charge are rabid leftists from the humanities, who don't know the first thing about the Middle Eastern conflict, but nevertheless feel the need to insert their brainwashed selves into it so they can sleep better at night knowing that they've showed those evil Jews Zionists who's boss.
Humanities = Leftist, Sciences = Rightist? Come on! :p:
Reply 4
Avatar for Bismarck
Bismarck
13
6+6=6
it isnt, but IMO, having strong convictions on this issue, on EITHER side would hinder the study of the subject. once again, this is my opinion.


How's that? Is ethics all about the Middle East conflict? Is even 1% of ethics about that conflict? According to you, having strong convictions on any issue would hinder your ability to teach the subject.
Reply 5
Avatar for Bismarck
Bismarck
13
Agent Smith
Humanities = Leftist, Sciences = Rightist? Come on! :p:


Humanities = far leftist. Hard sciences = leftist, but apathetic. Economics = center right (I'd say right wing, but there are still too many Keynesians, who are left wing).
Reply 6
Avatar for Agent Smith
Agent Smith
OP
11
Humanities aren't far leftist. Music (with some exceptions :biggrin:) is inherently conservative. Historians are quite often centrist because they're likely to be well-informed about both sides of any given issue. And Politics usually pushes people right through the discovery of the wonderful world of Realpolitik. But then I was counting economics and politics as humanities, whereas you seem to be classing them entirely separately.
Reply 7
Avatar for Teehar
Teehar
10
Bismarck
How's that? Is ethics all about the Middle East conflict? Is even 1% of ethics about that conflict? According to you, having strong convictions on any issue would hinder your ability to teach the subject.


im sorry, ethics was a poor example, perhaps a subject more directly related, like mid east studies, if there is such a thing.
Reply 8
Avatar for Bismarck
Bismarck
13
6+6=6
im sorry, ethics was a poor example, perhaps a subject more directly related, like mid east studies, if there is such a thing.


Wouldn't we have to take out the professors who uncritically support the Palestinians then?
Reply 9
Avatar for Bismarck
Bismarck
13
Agent Smith
Humanities aren't far leftist. Music (with some exceptions :biggrin:) is inherently conservative. Historians are quite often centrist because they're likely to be well-informed about both sides of any given issue. And Politics usually pushes people right through the discovery of the wonderful world of Realpolitik. But then I was counting economics and politics as humanities, whereas you seem to be classing them entirely separately.


I count politics and economics as soft sciences. I'll grant you that historians are usually at least centrist. That still leaves all the English, Literature, Drama, Art, Beckham studies, etc. professors.
Reply 10
Avatar for Teehar
Teehar
10
Bismarck
Wouldn't we have to take out the professors who uncritically support the Palestinians then?


hence in the previous post i said strong convictions of EITHER side, i even put it in caps, to emphasise that point :smile:.
Reply 11
Avatar for Agent Smith
Agent Smith
OP
11
Heheh. "Is this the boot that launched a thousand ships?"

The arts are usually liberal and/or radical, yes. Historically, they always have been, and rightly so: Somebody has to push the boundaries of thought, even if they make prats of themselves doing so. And it's safer to have arts students doing it than scientists, because less people will die if it goes wrong. :biggrin:

The creative arts are by definition about what the world could be, to one degree or another; sciences are necessarily about how it is. That's the key difference, I think, and it does indeed put economics, history and politics firmly under the "sciences" heading.
Reply 12
Avatar for Chrism
Chrism
1
It was passed by NATHFE (AUT had a similar motion passed last year but then promptly rescinded it a month later) a mere 3 days before the union ceased to exist therefore kaing the entire charade irrelevant.
Taking your view on a calculus teacher being a racist: You're looking at this in a much too simplistic fashion. The teacher is there to offer support to all of the class he is teaching and so his racist views would obviously lead him to discriminate against certain members of the class and thus they would not have an equal opportunity to learn (which I'm sure they've paid for as much as anyone else). By persecuting a single person in that class they are being injust and so this racist view must be stamped out as it will have a knock on effect on education. But look at it this way: it is just so much easier to employ someone who doesn't hold those views.

I for one think that you should be able to think what you want and say what you want but that is essentially not viable. Just as being sexist isn't allowed in a working environment due to the friction it would cause and the other problems arising from that. You can't hold certain views and have certain jobs.

Whether this is right or not is open for debate but look at the employers point of view. They don't want hassle. They want to follow the PC line adopted by modern British politics. They will not employ a racist or a sexist etc because today we are taught tolerance... which is quite correct.
BUT
We also have a right to free speech. Yet out right of opinion seems to be infringed upon. For me this is a necessary evil because liberty must be restricted so as not to inflict on another's liberty.

This Israeli thing is perhaps pushing the boat too far but it is a very delicate ground to tread. Where do you draw the lines on peoples' views because they're always going to cause conflict with somebody!

It's the conditioning of peoples' thoughts in this country so that everyone thinks the same and agrees with everything. Everyone must tow the line and think the same! But when will it stop?

This whole PC line.. when you dance with the devil you've got to wait until the music stops!
Dantanion
Taking your view on a calculus teacher being a racist: You're looking at this in a much too simplistic fashion. The teacher is there to offer support to all of the class he is teaching and so his racist views would obviously lead him to discriminate against certain members of the class and thus they would not have an equal opportunity to learn (which I'm sure they've paid for as much as anyone else). By persecuting a single person in that class they are being injust and so this racist view must be stamped out as it will have a knock on effect on education. But look at it this way: it is just so much easier to employ someone who doesn't hold those views.


You don't believe it is possible to hold a discriminatory view and not act on it?

What if no evidence of any discrimination at all has been found?
Well the way you described him I thought your point was that you would employ Hitler if he was qualified enough :p:
Sorry, to elaborate a little :smile:

"as long as the quality of their teaching is not compromised, lecturers' views should not matter."

Well it is likely holding radical views will infact have an influence on a job such as teaching. See my above example.

"out-and-out racist" was the term agentsmith used and by that I am guessing he means someone who is pro-active in their beliefs.

But I do see what you mean. Like a person who looks at pictures of kids on the internet but doesn't actually go out touching them up you mean right?

(That is meant to be semi-ironic because I could see people having split views..)
I agree with you Agent Smith that in any "normal" interview situation political orientation questions are inappropriate and should be disallowed. Selection should be about teaching, quality of research, ability to develop, and other professional matters. In fact, everyone has some bias or other. The point is that that bias should not get into the job the person is employed to do. And Dantanion, any teacher can inject bias into his/her job if he/she is unprofessional. We've probably all had teachers who didn't like us for various reasons, for example, ethnicity, at times in our lives, and maybe some of them let their antipathies get into their work. In universities we are supposed to be able to distinguish among various points of view anyway.
But surely if such strong views are held which are likely to be detrimental to teaching standards then employing the teacher who would cause the problems would be a mistake?

You can't examine both things separately. He is what he is. And what he is would more than likely be a problem to his students. And yes we have all had teachers who don't like us and the reason for it is that people like this guy above AREN'T asked about stuff like this. If they were then perhaps we wouldn't get some intolerant teachers?

LoL :confused:
Reply 19
Avatar for Evil-Tuna
Evil-Tuna
2
Bismarck
The only reasoning behind this is that people in charge are rabid leftists from the humanities, who don't know the first thing about the Middle Eastern conflict, but nevertheless feel the need to insert their brainwashed selves


''oh noes! the attack of the rabid lefties. deys iz so rancid and rabid and r******* and what other words can i think of that begin with r to make myself feel important, and that i will continue to use on any matter concerning lefties.''

oh dear me. oh dear me indeed.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you