University of Warwick suspends 11 students over rape jokes Watch

Poll: Opinion on Warwick Rape Joke Students
Free speech and you should be allowed to have any opinion. (80)
17.78%
Just a joke and taking too seriously. (77)
17.11%
It was private and their business (75)
16.67%
They should have mediation and sort it out between themselves. (35)
7.78%
Officers and the ones making jokes about known students should be expelled. (84)
18.67%
The university should consider damage to its reputation and expell. (99)
22%
Lxxa14
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#61
Report 9 months ago
#61
(Original post by Robby2312)
For the record I'm one of the least racist people you'll ever meet so I resent your implication.
Classic.

(Original post by Robby2312)
It's not the comments that matter its the intent behind them.If there is malice and genuine hatred behind them then yeah punish them.If not then don't.You can't just judge on words alone you have to see the intent behind the word and the context its in.Its like when a black person like kanye west uses the word ******. Its fine for him to use the word because hes black and he's using it ironically.If a white person does it's deemed less acceptable.They both said the same word though.Surely its just as offensive if either of them say it.Yet its not generally deemed so because the intent is different.

I care about what people really think not some ill judged comments on facebook. I've made jokes that could be sexist such as telling a woman to get back in the kitchen.Does that mean I hate women? No.Its just dark humour and poking fun at those attitudes in a kind of subtle way.Clearly its too subtle for a lot of people to get otherwise we would't even be having this debate.
You're right context does matter but you seemed to have completely missed it. Maaaaybe 'n****s' could be construed as a joke if said casually, but not after talking about how 'racism is class' and after calling black people 'coons'. It is therefore not a joke and calling black people 'coons' IS NEVER A JOKE.

I'm done talking to racist sympathisers like you, you guys are almost just as bad.

Edit: As other people have mentioned they said a lot of other disgusting things too.
3
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#62
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#62
(Original post by Sataris)
Acceptable to who?
1. Society in terms of a publicly funded institution.
2. The student community, many of who will find it highly offensive.
3. The university, which is keen to uphold its code of conduct and protect its reputation. The reputation of which these students hoped to benefit from.
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 9 months ago
#63
I'll file this under my "grow a pair" dossier.

(Original post by the bear)
the authorities are right to clamp down on "humour"... it is a symptom of free thought which is antithetical to a productive cohesive society.
And as this thread proves, they have many eager lemmings to help them pursue their cause, because of some abstract bogeyman known as "hate".
0
reply
Sataris
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 9 months ago
#64
(Original post by 999tigger)
1. Society in terms of a publicly funded institution.
2. The student community, many of who will find it highly offensive.
3. The university, which is keen to uphold its code of conduct and protect its reputation. The reputation of which these students hoped to benefit from.
Personally I don't think that messages in a private group chat have anything to do with the wider community, or that the fact they are offended should matter. Unless such messages can be considered to be dangerous, I say that it should only matter whether they are acceptable to the people in the chat itself (since they are the only ones who should be concerning themselves with its contents)
1
reply
hanley9
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report 9 months ago
#65
(Original post by bones-mccoy)
Everyone using the defence of free speech on this thread shows exactly where the problem lies.

Free speech is purely a legal term, it simply means that an individual cannot be prosecuted for voicing an opinion. It doesn't mean you can say what you like and have immunity from any consequences that occur as a result. Freedom of speech means, yes, you can have an opinion, but it also means other people can challenge you about it. Freedom of speech means, yes, you can be as nasty and disgusting and hate-filled as you like, but it also means that you will undoubtedly get backlash should what you say be deemed offensive. You can't say the things these guys have said and expect not to get pulled up about it when it becomes public. As an adult you, and only you, are completely responsible for your own actions and words, you're not a child anymore. I only hope these morons get punished adequately, why can't people just be nice for a change?
I do not wish to defend these people. However, your definition of freedom of speech is slightly different to how I understand it. If you are punished for saying something (like being kicked out of university/imprisoned - that is not freedom of speech. You are prohibiting the freedom of speech. Under freedom of speech, you can challenge these views, but you can't punish them giving their opinion. We do not have freedom of speech in the UK. For the record, I believe that these people should be kicked out of uni and don't believe in free speech as a result - not because these views are offensive, but because they are indicative of dangerous people.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#66
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#66
(Original post by TCA2b)
I'll file this under my "grow a pair" dossier.

And as this thread proves, they have many eager lemmings to help them pursue their cause, because of some abstract bogeyman known as "hate".
So is it acceptable to be racist and misogynist plus talk about raping fellow students with impunity?

Doesnt the uni have the right to enforce its own rules to protect its reputation? The rules these students signed up to?

I dont believe other people have mentioned hate until you came along.
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#67
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#67
(Original post by Sataris)
Personally I don't think that messages in a private group chat have anything to do with the wider community, or that the fact they are offended should matter. Unless such messages can be considered to be dangerous, I say that it should only matter whether they are acceptable to the people in the chat itself (since they are the only ones who should be concerning themselves with its contents)
What you say doesnt really matter though compared to what the Uni rules say and they have broken those. If you think they are unfair then join a different university. It has to do with the wider community now because their views are known. They dont live in a bubble.
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#68
Report 9 months ago
#68
(Original post by Lxxa14)
Classic.



You're right context does matter but you seemed to have completely missed it. Maaaaybe 'n****s' could be construed as a joke if said casually, but not after talking about how 'racism is class' and after calling black people 'coons'. It is therefore not a joke and calling black people 'coons' IS NEVER A JOKE.

I'm done talking to racist sympathisers like you, you guys are almost just as bad.

Edit: As other people have mentioned they said a lot of other disgusting things too.
Oh right so you can't defend free speech without being racist now.Just because I'm defending their right to free speech and humour doesn't mean I agree with what they say.Saying racism was class was part of the joke.Hence the follow up from the other guy.It's you who's completely missed the context here.
0
reply
Sataris
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 9 months ago
#69
(Original post by 999tigger)
What you say doesnt really matter though compared to what the Uni rules say and they have broken those
Well, time to close the thread then! What else are we here to discuss?
1
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#70
Report 9 months ago
#70
(Original post by stoyfan)
They have been suspended, not expelled.

Their lives haven't been ruined.
Suspended basically means expelled...who gets suspended for a couple of days at uni? This isnt college or gcse....
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#71
Report 9 months ago
#71
(Original post by 999tigger)
Racist remarks were only one aspect of why they were in breach. I dont believe you argument holds because it has much to do with the impact on other people about whether it is to be viewed as racist or offensive. If you follow that line of argument you are hiding behind the it was all a joke, we found it funny, so everyone else has to as well line of argument. It isnt a winner.

They look guilty on the disrepute charge and the respect and dignity breach. Bit cringe that several of them were reps for the uni in dealings with the local Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre.

Time for a gap year i'd think or clearing for some of them.
Not really because anybody can be offended by anything.If I call you an idiot then you might shrug it off but someone-else might be suicidal for weeks. Offense is take not given and is entirely subjective.If they were reps for the uni in dealing with the local rape ad sexual abuse centre then you'd think that that would lend just a little bit of credence to the argument that this whole chat was just a big inside joke not meant to be taken seriously.

If you're a genuine sexist who hates women then you're hardly going to be supporting sexual abuse victims are you? A genuine sexist wouldn't give a damn about sexual abuse or rape centres and probably wouldn't go anywhere near them.The fact that they were reps for the uni in dealing with them speaks volumes and undermines your entire argument.It would be like a Nazi working at the Synogogue or a gay person working for the westborough Baptist Church.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#72
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#72
(Original post by Sataris)
Well, time to close the thread then! What else are we here to discuss?

Sorry that is unfair.
I was just emphasising the fact no matter what people think about free speech the Uni has its own agenda to do with being brought into disrepute. Even if no one complained they could proceed on that basis.
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 9 months ago
#73
(Original post by Phoebee1998)
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. If you want to be an ******** then go ahead, but the University has every right to kick you.
No, it kinda does. If your university will punish you for something you said online, then you were not free to say those things (as a student). It's like saying "You're free to steal, but not free from the consequences!" It's nonsensical.
0
reply
Sataris
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 9 months ago
#74
(Original post by 999tigger)
Sorry that is unfair.
I was just emphasising the fact no matter what people think about free speech the Uni has its own agenda to do with being brought into disrepute. Even if no one complained they could proceed on that basis.
I totally agree that the university is right to do what they did. They have a reputation to uphold after all. I'm trying to discuss the morality of their actions
0
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 9 months ago
#75
(Original post by Realitysreflexx)
Suspended basically means expelled...who gets suspended for a couple of days at uni? This isnt college or gcse....
Ahh damn.

The punishment was perhaps a little too harsh.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#76
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#76
(Original post by Sataris)
I totally agree that the university is right to do what they did. They have a reputation to uphold after all. I'm trying to discuss the morality of their actions
Yes I agree. I was wrong.
reply
NonIndigenous
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#77
Report 9 months ago
#77
(Original post by Phoebee1998)
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. If you want to be an ******** then go ahead, but the University has every right to kick you.
Let's ignore for a minute the original incident this thread is about, and take this discussion a level higher:
- Do I have the freedom to harass someone online because I disagree with their point of view?
- Do I have the freedom to harass their employer, demanding them to fire the person?
- Do I have the freedom to maybe "hunt them down" and confront them in the street?

Am I allowed to do those things even if they did not commit a crime? This has been happening plenty, actually. "Freedom from consequence" is a nice pretext used by sinister people with ulterior motives it seems.

Let's ignore all the legal standards for a minute, tell me where you would personally draw the line. Harassing them? Targeting their family members? Maybe beating them up, you know... if they happen to be "fascists"? These things have happened to political dissidents in countries belonging to Western-style democracies over the past decade, and most of it is coming from the far-left that seems to proudly proclaim recently "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" while in various cases by now administering mob justice to people they disagree with. Look no further than Antifa.

"Freedom from consequence" analogically also doesn't mean freedom from even further consequence. For example, if anyone where to try and slap me in the street because they didn't like something I said elsewhere (no matter what it is)... you can be sure they wouldn't get away with it under any scenario. Not at all.

Now... let's reapply this principle through the legal system: if you're going to abuse the "freedom from consequence" excuse to oppress people expressing opinions, they'll retaliate eventually. You seem to forget that they can also dish out "consequences". You can only force the lid down on the saucepan for so long before you either burn yourself, it overflows, or maybe even cracks and gets mess all over you.

________________________________ __________________________

With that behind me... I'll comment on the actual article. These kinds of 'jokes' repulse me. But even then, I find that invoking the power of authority to deal with people like this has been increasingly overused over the recent decade(s), and although 10 years ago I'd agree with expelling them, I've changed my mind in response to all the far-left radical crap that I think is a much bigger problem these days... as it is often expressed in the open, in public, and often quite shamelessly advocates, ahem, "consequences" of the illegal variety to be exercised on people they disagree with. And that goes undisciplined regardless. Yet these people get hammered even in the national newspaper.

It's a matter of priorities.

I believe it would have been quite sufficient to just expose these people in the local student paper, and been given a stiff warning from the university administrators. Perhaps in the worst cases, been given a compulsory 1 year leave, after which they'd be permitted to finish their course. Be certain, they would have been very unpopular for it. Rape is no longer "mainstream" or remotely popular or funny in Western culture. Yes, we do have feminists to thank for that. But we also have them to thank for increasingly overstepping certain boundaries themselves now, who not at all infrequently still claim that we live in a "rape culture". Bullshyt. We do not.
4
reply
Gent2324
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 9 months ago
#78
wow its so ridiculous how far a uni takes just a few words that mean nothing.
1
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report 9 months ago
#79
(Original post by NonIndigenous)
Let's ignore for a minute the original incident this thread is about, and take this discussion a level higher:
- Do I have the freedom to harass someone online because I disagree with their point of view?
- Do I have the freedom to harass their employer, demanding them to fire the person?
- Do I have the freedom to maybe "hunt them down" and confront them in the street?

Am I allowed to do those things even if they did not commit a crime? This has been happening plenty, actually. "Freedom from consequence" is a nice pretext used by sinister people with ulterior motives it seems.

Let's ignore all the legal standards for a minute, tell me where you would personally draw the line. Harassing them? Targeting their family members? Maybe beating them up, you know... if they happen to be "fascists"? These things have happened to political dissidents in countries belonging to Western-style democracies over the past decade, and most of it is coming from the far-left that seems to proudly proclaim recently "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" while in various cases by now administering mob justice to people they disagree with. Look no further than Antifa.

"Freedom from consequence" analogically also doesn't mean freedom from even further consequence. For example, if anyone where to try and slap me in the street because they didn't like something I said elsewhere (no matter what it is)... you can be sure they wouldn't get away with it under any scenario. Not at all.

Now... let's reapply this principle through the legal system: if you're going to abuse the "freedom from consequence" excuse to oppress people expressing opinions, they'll retaliate eventually. You seem to forget that they can also dish out "consequences". You can only force the lid down on the saucepan for so long before you either burn yourself, it overflows, or maybe even cracks and gets mess all over you.

________________________________ __________________________

With that behind me... I'll comment on the actual article. These kinds of 'jokes' repulse me. But even then, I find that invoking the power of authority to deal with people like this has been increasingly overused over the recent decade(s), and although 10 years ago I'd agree with expelling them, I've changed my mind in response to all the far-left radical crap that I think is a much bigger problem these days... as it is often expressed in the open, in public, and often quite shamelessly advocates, ahem, "consequences" of the illegal variety to be exercised on people they disagree with.

It's a matter of priorities.

I believe it would have been quite sufficient to just expose these people in the local student paper, and been given a stiff warning from the university administrators. Be certain, they would have been very unpopular for it. Rape is no longer "mainstream" or remotely popular or funny in Western culture. Yes, we do have feminists to thank for that. But we also have them to thank for increasingly overstepping certain boundaries themselves now, who not at all infrequently still claim that we live in a "rape culture". Bullshyt. We do not.
Nice critical thinking....

Ill award a 2:1
2
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#80
Report 9 months ago
#80
(Original post by NonIndigenous)
I've changed my mind in response to all the far-left radical crap that I think is a much bigger problem these days... as it is often expressed in the open, in public, and often quite shamelessly advocates, ahem, "consequences" of the illegal variety to be exercised on people they disagree with. And that goes undisciplined regardless. Yet these people get hammered even in the national newspaper.
There is no better cure/inoculation for being a far-left "radical" than running into one of them.

As for "anti-fa", they're just violent commies doing what they do best and pretending anyone they disagree with is a "fascist", as if they're any better.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (42)
11.9%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
11.05%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.12%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.55%
No (252)
71.39%

Watched Threads

View All