Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tories demand list of Brexit teachers... Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    are we not at liberty to question the teaching at our academic institutions?
    No, you are not, if you mean question by a media or political campaign. Higher education has been carved out as a space in which ideas are to be floated free from the political arena. Limitations on that freedom, promoting terrorism for example, are to be narrowly circumscribed. So important is that, that only this year Parliament has imposed a duty on the higher education regulator to ensure that academic freedom is not curtailed.

    One academic is entitled to question another. Students are entitled to question their tutors but anything in the nature of a campaign by other academics, by students or by others against the views of an academic or group of academics is to be regarded as illegitimate.

    Those are the rules of debate that our democracy has established. You may criticise those rules but that should be a criticism directed to those politicians who have made the rules, not those academics who operate within them. You are not allowed to say; "the government has prohibited me from shouting down my opponent, but I don't agree with those rules and that entitles me to shout down my opponent."
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not really, there’s always a choice- but very rarely is it a clear one.



    It’s preferable surely?

    Being paid minimum wage or even £10 an hour isn’t great but it’s s significant improvement upon what we’d have otherwise.

    Ok so assume apple wanted double the wages of its poorest workers- fine. Now prices would almost certainly rise and demand would fall and therefore there’d be job losses and an increase in net poverty. Granted some workers may get a pay rise but some would be laid off and British consumers would overall be worse off and Apple products would be the preserve of the better off- so that young poor art students (co incidentally like my step dad) do t have access to them and therefore can’t compete in the market place.





    Generally addressed by thus:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.a...i%3fformat=amp
    You perhaps aren't aware that your arguments are very similar to those put forward by the slaving interests in the debates of the late 18th Century against Abolition - all sorts of dire warnings were issued about the price of cotton clothing, the demise of the British workers, etc, etc. Yet when slavery was abolished, things continued and the mountains did not crumble.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No, you are not, if you mean question by a media or political campaign. Higher education has been carved out as a space in which ideas are to be floated free from the political arena. Limitations on that freedom, promoting terrorism for example, are to be narrowly circumscribed. So important is that, that only this year Parliament has imposed a duty on the higher education regulator to ensure that academic freedom is not curtailed.

    One academic is entitled to question another. Students are entitled to question their tutors but anything in the nature of a campaign by other academics, by students or by others against the views of an academic or group of academics is to be regarded as illegitimate.

    Those are the rules of debate that our democracy has established. You may criticise those rules but that should be a criticism directed to those politicians who have made the rules, not those academics who operate within them. You are not allowed to say; "the government has prohibited me from shouting down my opponent, but I don't agree with those rules and that entitles me to shout down my opponent."
    To be fair, it would be a very restricted free country if only registered university academics or students were free to critique the work of other academics - surely that should be an acceptable part of public discourse. The issue here is not the abstract right to criticise but rather what looked like a deliberate attempt by government (or a political faction within government in this case) to intimidate the freedom of university academics to hold views.

    I think the most unpleasant aspect is the sneaky way this MP used his own stationery and made the request seem superficially routine whilst at the same time being on the government payroll with obvious implications. This is a man who at best might be described as 'creepy'.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    The way it was done is why all the alarm bells went off. People had a right to be suspicious about this persons motives..
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Brexit is turning the Tories into every caricature they have made of the left... anti-free speech,
    Which is why only a few months ago they passed a law saying explicitly that universities must maintain free speech....

    The letter was stupid, naive and foolish. Nobody's disputing that.

    The kneejerk reaction, however, was equally childish and silly.
    Online

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Which is why only a few months ago they passed a law saying explicitly that universities must maintain free speech....


    ...but ofc you ignored that and any other news like it because it a- doesn't fit into your narrative that anyone even vaguely on the right side of the political spectrum is basically the ******* love child of Satan and Hitler, and b- even if you did accept it you'd instantaneously dismiss it as a charade and a conspiracy, such is your deep and irrational hatred and blindness to any sense of reason and rational thought.


    So in other words, do us all a favour and wind yer neck in.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Given the level of censorship on other issues in our universities i am not sure why people are so bothered about this. I mean really, is wanting impartial teaching of Brexit really worse than censoring those who choose not to praise transgender people for their life choice.

    Universities are rife with limitations on free speech and inherent bias to a generally liberal agenda. Regardless of the merits of that (for the most part most people agree with that agenda), it's not hard to imagine that some will allow their view against Brexit to cause a degree of bias.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Whut?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You perhaps aren't aware that your arguments are very similar to those put forward by the slaving interests in the debates of the late 18th Century against Abolition - all sorts of dire warnings were issued about the price of cotton clothing, the demise of the British workers, etc, etc. Yet when slavery was abolished, things continued and the mountains did not crumble.

    Yeah because they realised that it would be more profitable and efficient to ‘free’ slaves and pay them a pittance. Rather than having to guard, feed, clothe and house black people (however poorly)


    Presumably if the slaves had been freed and paid on an equal footing then we would have seen some of those negative effects. IIRC Chomsky (who I don’t have much time for) spoke about in some cases blacks were treated better under slavery!
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Not really, there’s always a choice- but very rarely is it a clear one.



    It’s preferable surely?

    Being paid minimum wage or even £10 an hour isn’t great but it’s s significant improvement upon what we’d have otherwise.

    Ok so assume apple wanted double the wages of its poorest workers- fine. Now prices would almost certainly rise and demand would fall and therefore there’d be job losses and an increase in net poverty. Granted some workers may get a pay rise but some would be laid off and British consumers would overall be worse off and Apple products would be the preserve of the better off- so that young poor art students (co incidentally like my step dad) do t have access to them and therefore can’t compete in the market place.





    Generally addressed by thus:

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.a...i%3fformat=amp
    For the first time in decades there is a very real shift in attitudes against free market capitalism. The economic consensus and unquestioning support for it has been blown open. For decades the idea has been that people serve the market and not the other way round. Free market Capitalism turns to corporatism, always.

    You now even have papers like the Economist and Financial Times, as well as British business leaders, criticising capitalism, saying how it needs fixing. Only a few years ago, the same people would have been calling others who made such comments 'Marxist'.

    Some on the right are trying to comfort themselves by saying that this was all down to May being a bad speaker. It wasn't and I don't even think it's down to Corbyn that much (although he has sped the process up). It's down to the fact that people's wages are stagnating, they are priced out the housing market and the cost of living is rising. Job satisfaction in this country is 13% and productivity is appalling. And that's before we mention how our public services are struggling.

    I find it rather exciting. We are on the cusp of a huge change on the scale of Atlee or Thatcherism.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Given the level of censorship on other issues in our universities i am not sure why people are so bothered about this. I mean really, is wanting impartial teaching of Brexit really worse than censoring those who choose not to praise transgender people for their life choice.

    Universities are rife with limitations on free speech and inherent bias to a generally liberal agenda. Regardless of the merits of that (for the most part most people agree with that agenda), it's not hard to imagine that some will allow their view against Brexit to cause a degree of bias.
    Universities do not have to be impartial. Would you say they have to be impartial about the slave trade? Or about ISIS?

    Lol 'impartial teaching of Brexit' - ie 'say Brexit is wonderful'.

    Universities are independent and can teach what they please. They can teach Brexit as they wish.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Given the level of censorship on other issues in our universities i am not sure why people are so bothered about this. I mean really, is wanting impartial teaching of Brexit really worse than censoring those who choose not to praise transgender people for their life choice.

    Universities are rife with limitations on free speech and inherent bias to a generally liberal agenda. Regardless of the merits of that (for the most part most people agree with that agenda), it's not hard to imagine that some will allow their view against Brexit to cause a degree of bias.
    Sometimes there is unanimity about the way something is taught, not because academics are demented brainwash-hungry leftwing apparatchiks of hidden Trotskyite leanings, but because, er, the facts are what they are. I suspect Brexit is being taught in that light.

    It's not just academics who think Brexit is a daft idea, but most of the corporate world, the majority of international experts, most economists, all of the global NGOs and UN bodies and most international politicians.

    You have Trump on your side, which kind of says it all really.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I find it rather exciting. We are on the cusp of a huge change on the scale of Atlee or Thatcherism.
    Or Fascism
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    Presumably if the slaves had been freed and paid on an equal footing then we would have seen some of those negative effects. IIRC Chomsky (who I don’t have much time for) spoke about in some cases blacks were treated better under slavery!
    Chomsky makes that argument to show how extreme wage slavery is not much better than genuine slavery. He also brings up a defense of slavery made at the time that saying the conditions of the slaves were getting better in the slave society as being similar to defenders of capitalism now (do they anymore?) saying its fine to exploit the working class as the conditions of the working class are improving under capitalism (which is no longer true anyway).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Which is why only a few months ago they passed a law saying explicitly that universities must maintain free speech....


    ...but ofc you ignored that and any other news like it because it a- doesn't fit into your narrative that anyone even vaguely on the right side of the political spectrum is basically the ******* love child of Satan and Hitler, and b- even if you did accept it you'd instantaneously dismiss it as a charade and a conspiracy, such is your deep and irrational hatred and blindness to any sense of reason and rational thought.


    So in other words, do us all a favour and wind yer neck in.


    The letter was stupid, naive and foolish. Nobody's disputing that.

    The kneejerk reaction, however, was equally childish and silly.
    That stuff about being forced to maintain free speech is in the context of stopping the "safe space" and no platforming culture which is hardly the threat it is made out to be. The bigger threat to free speech at university comes from the government in the form of stuff like the The Extremism Commission. It's more a culture war between left and right rather than caring about free speech.

    http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2017/10...sm-commission/
    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...egy-university

    Spoiler:
    Show









    "I have worked on so many cases of censorship in the past few years, that I take it as axiomatic that governments tend not to care for free speech. So when a government minister makes a great show of defending freedom of expression, I confess I become suspicious. It could be that I have become too cynical. But I suspect that Mr Johnson’s defence of this kind of freedom of expression is less than a full frontal defence of enlightenment values and more a feint-and-jab in the culture war. Those who call out the apparent intolerance of free speech on campus very often do so with a reactionary tone that wins no converts."










    Spoiler:
    Show







    "For a good summary of what a fundamental issue this is, I recommend this report of a seminar speech by Lord Ken Macdonald QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions and now Warden of Warham College. The PREVENT strategy does compel universities to suppress radical yet non-violent speech. And of course, the penalties that a government can impose on students who do engage in radical speech are far greater than the embarrassment and inconvenience of No Platforming. PREVENT must therefore be considered the greater chill on freedom of expression than a few well-meaning students who overreach their power over the Junior Common Room."








    Also what I said was true... Brexit is doing all the things the Tories war a Labour government would do. We have the leader of GoldmnaScahs threatening to reduce activity in London. So that's financial flight, the pound dropped massively, leaving the single market is seen as a threat to business. It;s the kind of "chaos" the Tories always warn about. I want Labour to win, why wouldn't I throw the enemy's propaganda back at them?

    You get very cross whenever something doesn't fit into your mr sensible middle ground narrative don't you? What I said is hardly unique to left wing commentators. Loads of centrists and right wingers are saying it. I was copying a tweet by Nick Cohen when I made that post, who loves hitting the left. My neck is staying firmly outstretched.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Chomsky makes that argument to show how extreme wage slavery is not much better than genuine slavery. He also brings up a defense of slavery made at the time that saying the conditions of the slaves were getting better in the slave society as being similar to defenders of capitalism saying its fine to exploit the working class as the conditions of the working class are improving under capitalism (which is no longer true anyway).
    Fine, but that’s not the point of relevance- the point Fullofsurprises made was that freeing slaves didn’t lead to an economic crash- my point exactly is that it wasn’t that radical change as per above.

    As to whether there’s a difference- there is a huge degree of difference between them and now- no one barring a few criminal cases born in the last few decades has experienced absoloute poverty in the UK. Conditions for working people haven’t improved recently but there are other explanations for this other than the anti capitalist ones.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That stuff about being forced to maintain free speech is in the context of stopping the "safe space" and no platforming culture which is hardly the threat it is made out to be. The bigger threat to free speech at university comes from the government in the form of stuff like the The Extremism Commission. It's more a culture war between left and right rather than caring about free speech.

    http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2017/10...sm-commission/
    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...egy-university

    Spoiler:
    Show










    "I have worked on so many cases of censorship in the past few years, that I take it as axiomatic that governments tend not to care for free speech. So when a government minister makes a great show of defending freedom of expression, I confess I become suspicious. It could be that I have become too cynical. But I suspect that Mr Johnson’s defence of this kind of freedom of expression is less than a full frontal defence of enlightenment values and more a feint-and-jab in the culture war. Those who call out the apparent intolerance of free speech on campus very often do so with a reactionary tone that wins no converts."











    Spoiler:
    Show








    "For a good summary of what a fundamental issue this is, I recommend this report of a seminar speech by Lord Ken Macdonald QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions and now Warden of Warham College. The PREVENT strategy does compel universities to suppress radical yet non-violent speech. And of course, the penalties that a government can impose on students who do engage in radical speech are far greater than the embarrassment and inconvenience of No Platforming. PREVENT must therefore be considered the greater chill on freedom of expression than a few well-meaning students who overreach their power over the Junior Common Room."









    Also what I said was true... Brexit is doing all the things the Tories war a Labour government would do. We have the leader of GoldmnaScahs threatening to reduce activity in London. So that's financial flight, the pound dropped massively, leaving the single market is seen as a threat to business. It;s the kind of "chaos" the Tories always warn about. I want Labour to win, why wouldn't I throw the enemy's propaganda back at them?

    You get very cross whenever something doesn't fit into your mr sensible middle ground narrative don't you? What I said is hardly unique to left wing commentators. Loads of centrists and right wingers are saying it. I was copying a tweet by Nick Cohen when I made that post, who loves hitting the left. My neck is staying firmly outstretched.


    The war on free speech isn’t really a left vs right thing. For instance the Government Barred Milo Yianopolous from speaking at a college.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Universities do not have to be impartial. Would you say they have to be impartial about the slave trade? Or about ISIS?

    Lol 'impartial teaching of Brexit' - ie 'say Brexit is wonderful'.

    Universities are independent and can teach what they please. They can teach Brexit as they wish.
    When it comes to facts about Isis or slavery or whatever of course they have to be impartial. It’s the commitment to finding the truth, however unpalatable. That’s the whole point.
    Moral judgements are different to factual judgements.


    Faith schools are independent- so should they be able to teach creationism?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That stuff about being forced to maintain free speech is in the context of stopping the "safe space" and no platforming culture which is hardly the threat it is made out to be. The bigger threat to free speech at university comes from the government in the form of stuff like the The Extremism Commission. It's more a culture war between left and right rather than caring about free speech.

    http://www.robertsharp.co.uk/2017/10...sm-commission/
    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...egy-university

    Spoiler:
    Show










    "I have worked on so many cases of censorship in the past few years, that I take it as axiomatic that governments tend not to care for free speech. So when a government minister makes a great show of defending freedom of expression, I confess I become suspicious. It could be that I have become too cynical. But I suspect that Mr Johnson’s defence of this kind of freedom of expression is less than a full frontal defence of enlightenment values and more a feint-and-jab in the culture war. Those who call out the apparent intolerance of free speech on campus very often do so with a reactionary tone that wins no converts."











    Spoiler:
    Show








    "For a good summary of what a fundamental issue this is, I recommend this report of a seminar speech by Lord Ken Macdonald QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions and now Warden of Warham College. The PREVENT strategy does compel universities to suppress radical yet non-violent speech. And of course, the penalties that a government can impose on students who do engage in radical speech are far greater than the embarrassment and inconvenience of No Platforming. PREVENT must therefore be considered the greater chill on freedom of expression than a few well-meaning students who overreach their power over the Junior Common Room."









    Also what I said was true... Brexit is doing all the things the Tories war a Labour government would do. We have the leader of GoldmnaScahs threatening to reduce activity in London. So that's financial flight, the pound dropped massively, leaving the single market is seen as a threat to business. It;s the kind of "chaos" the Tories always warn about. I want Labour to win, why wouldn't I throw the enemy's propaganda back at them?

    You get very cross whenever something doesn't fit into your mr sensible middle ground narrative don't you? What I said is hardly unique to left wing commentators. Loads of centrists and right wingers are saying it. I was copying a tweet by Nick Cohen when I made that post, who loves hitting the left. My neck is staying firmly outstretched.




    So a university that no platforms right wing speakers is not as dangerous as the government that is not trying to stop free speech? We are not talking in hypotheticals, Just because a university with a large amount of power over its students does something bad does not mean you can brush it off with "the government COULD do worse"

    The thing is universities have been cutting down free speech whilst the government has not really been doing so and even the things they are doing do not negate the bad things universities are doing

    This story is being blown far out of proportion, the man in question was ASKING (not demanding) to see a list of teachers that teach specific subjects and to see the things they are doing, it seems reasonable to try and ensure that places of learning are as unbiased and that the teachers are impartial, something that many schools fail to do as a large amount of teachers are heavily left leaning
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Universities do not have to be impartial. Would you say they have to be impartial about the slave trade? Or about ISIS?

    Lol 'impartial teaching of Brexit' - ie 'say Brexit is wonderful'.

    Universities are independent and can teach what they please. They can teach Brexit as they wish.
    I dont think you understand impartial,

    Impartial would be going The slave trade helped Europe and America grow at a rapid rate, it had some positives and did X and Y but the negatives far outweighed the positives and here are some of the negatives.


    Lol 'impartial teaching of Brexit' - ie 'say Brexit is wonderful'.
    Once again I dont think you understand impartial, it seems for you it means the exact opposite of its true definition, when we say impartial teaching we are not asking for my viewpoints to be taken as gospel we are asking for....... Impartial teaching where the things are impartial.

    you are just using stupid examples to try and further your argument yet all you do is make yourself look stupid

    Judges are meant to be impartial but you dont see every court case ending in the judge going "I have no strong opinion either way"
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.