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

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

    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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.
    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.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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 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?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with her point but she didn't deserve to get online abuse for it, it is freedom of speech after all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    Your point is?
    My point is that curricula is plural, so you should have used curriculum, which is singular.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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.
    "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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    I’m sure that the Cambridge staff would be delighted to hear your thoughts on how they’re doing their jobs wrong:rolleyes:
    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?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tian1Sky)
    My point is that curricula is plural, so you should have used curriculum, which is singular.
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I have to admit, I quite enjoy how triggered some people are by a student wanting to make a change to her university course. It's normal for students to ask to go into greater detail on a topic they're interested in, but as soon as some so-called newspaper labels it anti white, the snowflakes lose their sh*t.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    "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.
    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.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    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?
    OBVIOUSLY! ...................In the SJW world.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    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?
    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 :rolleyes:
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It is a pretty stupid idea, wanting to "decolonise" learning but she did not deserve the abuse.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    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?
    It doesn't matter how many the faculty has, if you use the singular form you should write curriculum.

    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. If a student wants to learn more about non-white authors, they shouldn't be told to go to Africa instead.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    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.
    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 don't need to clarify anything. My POV is clear to any reasonable mind out there. 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").

    You now have the option to "tediously" explain your strawman or keep quiet.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    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 :rolleyes:
    You're turning this against me, as if I was saying that Lola didn't have a right to an opinion. When in fact it was you trying to shut down another poster by saying their opinion wasn't valid. You can try to weasel out of it all you like, but I never said anything to the effect that she was unjustified in her opinion or unjustified in expressing her opinion. That said, those who are expressing "progressive" anti-colonialist (where colonialism means anything from the period when colonialism occurred and does not in fact really relate to colonialism) are given a blank cheque to voice their opinions but those expressing anything other than that view are outright mocked.

    The only criticism I have is focussing on colonialism, which is a sensitive (and perhaps unrelated) topic, rather than merely saying "we want a more modern curriculum". By including that word, and I would say criticism, unsurprisingly, the open letter became more of a spectacle. Which she should not be surprised it became.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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
    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.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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.