Durham University makes itself a laughing stock

You know why no one has made a thread before you?

Because it's normalised behaviour at Durham. It's systematic.

It's been festering for years, and now here's the result.

Students are entitled to walk out when in the same way I'll walk away from the pub bore when he starts his tedious monologue.

The college invited Rod Liddle to speak at an event. Students, who paid to attend the event, weren't told you the speaker was going to be and only found out on the day. When they realised, some students chose to leave before Liddle spoke. Some more students left after he began speaking. The college professor, Tim Luckhurst, then hurled abuse at them, saying they were "pathetic", they "didn't belong at university", etc.

I think the university is right to suspend Luckhurst. His comments were totally unnecessary, even if we do assume that all the students who left did so out of protest (which itself isn't necessarily true either).

And right on cue, we hear the argument "you shouldn't be at university if you don't want to encounter views that disagree". So if you don't want to listen to one speaker then you must be incapable of encountering any views that you disagree with, or something? Utter *******s. At some point in their degree all students will encounter people who disagree with them (if not already). Not wanting to listen to someone at a poxy Christmas event doesn't mean they're incapable of hearing all viewpoints they disagree with.

Oh come now, Liddle might be a inebriant old wind bag but its not like they were hearing Yaxley Lennon give a diatribe. Whilst they have every right to walk out in protest, or for whatever reason, equally the right to mock them for having overly sensitive ears stands, does it not?

Oh come now, Liddle might be a inebriant old wind bag but its not like they were hearing Yaxley Lennon give a diatribe. Whilst they have every right to walk out in protest, or for whatever reason, equally the right to mock them for having overly sensitive ears stands, does it not?

Once the laughing stops, and you look at this seriously, it is about the wish to exercise power. The control the public discourse, the movement of the Overton Window, by one side of the debate is the aim here, it is a power play nothing more nor less. You may say that Durham students are utterly powerless individually, and thankfully that is largely true, but (a minority) are attempting to impose their view as the only one which it is acceptable to articulate in public. What else is their purpose?

And if Professor Luckhurst is fired they will have succeeded. For what future individual in his position would dare to invite Rod Liddle to such a dinner, again? The point of "cancelling" people is not so much the individual cancelled. It is "pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire said about the hanged Admiral. Self censorship is still censorchip.

And this is my case. If preventing your opponent from speaking in "respectable" outlets (a great example is what happened to David Starkey, now de facto banned from the mainstream media) isn't a prototypical example of the suppression of free speech I don't know what is.

It's a wish to exercise power from both sides here. Do you honestly think that Luckhurst invited Rod Liddle to speak because they thought Rod Liddle would be a good guest that students would enjoy? Of course not, he invited Rod Liddle to speak probably knowing that they would say something controversial to annoy students, all under the guise of wanting to 'promote free speech'. The students weren't interested in that so they left. Luckhurst then threw his toys out the pram, insulted the students and responded like a "jabbering infant". Hence why he's now in trouble, and rightfully so.

Why would anyone want to invite someone like Rod Liddle to a dinner anyway? Get real for a second, it's a paid event for students and staff to enjoy. If you end up having a speaker that is just going to spout things that people don't want to hear then you've failed as an organiser. I'm all for free speech and having open discussions about the topics that Liddle brought up, but a paid dinner that guests are meant to enjoy isn't the place for that discussion.

I have no idea why Prof Luckhurst invited RL to speak. He's a friend of his, since they worked together in journalism back in the day. Sometimes it is hard to find speakers for functions like these, and it's going to be even harder after the shenanigans that took place that night.

Sure he probably agrees with some of Liddle's critique of the bien pensant academic shibboleths, and wants to get them aired. You'll be surprised to learn I suspect that a lot of people agree outside the intellectual kindergartens that universities seem to be becoming.

The point is, whatever your view, left or right, universities should be places where ideas are debated and fought over. Intellectually. They shouldn't be arenas where only one side of the argument gets to be discussed and considered. Why are "post modernists" so afraid to have their views subject to robust intellectual debate and ridicule? Because I lay all this at their door. They have universities in the USA and increasingly here, in their grip.

Jordan Peterson was mentioned earlier in the thread. He was a canary in the mine in this regard realising early on the danger that we being posed to free speech at his own workplace. His robust defence on free speech at Toronto University has made him an intellectual rock star of word wide fame. He debates the assumed truths of modern day academia all over the web, at great cost to himself and his health.

And free thinking students find it refreshing. He was banned by Cambridge as discussed above, then they backed down. Check out recent his appearance at the Cambridge Union, you can find it online. For such an evil, wicked man, he is received very warmly. His audience often don't agree, clearly, but they respect his intellectual integrity. That is how universities ought to be. Intellectual debate, with sincere disagreements not only allowed but actively encouraged.

If you were in the position of the students and if the situation were reversed I'm sure you would leave as well. I'm sure you wouldn't want to spend your free time at an event (that you paid for) being lectured by a woke SJW feminist, would you? One that you didn't know would be speaking, no less.

I have been to many dinners where the speaker has been either boring or unacceptable to me, some of which I've even paid for. And I've never walked out because it would be bad manners.

As for Luckhurst calling the departing students "pathetic," that seems pretty much on the money, they were.

I can't see a thread on this subject which rather amazes me, maybe I missed it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yZg_Nvh6aY

It is hard to contain one's laughter at Durham University and retain any respect for it. There was I thinking it was a pretty decent uni, a bit Oxbridge rejecty, and a tad too posh and lacking in diversity, but solid. A proper university.

Now we learn that its students walk out when they hear views they don't agree with because they feel it "upsets them." Aw diddums! Having specially turned up so as to be offended.

It's laughable. And there is a serous dimension, you shouldn't be at university if you don't want to encounter views that disagree with your own. it's the whole point of being there. And wait till you leave!!

The students here are behaving like cry baby children. Liddle called them "jabbering infants" which seems harsh but fair. But the university authorities are meant to be the adults in the room.

If it seeks to have any gravitas and respect as an seat of intellecetal excellence that respects freedom of speech it needs to back Professor Luckhurst.

You know why no one has made a thread before you?

Because it's normalised behaviour at Durham. It's systematic.

It's been festering for years, and now here's the result.