New Year Honours - Professor Stock, OBE

Apparently, it's an 'anodyne statement'.

twitter.com/nathanoseroff/status/1346809183384047617

Well it is philosophy and not maths... (sorry to any philosophers but as a fellow social sciences grad, I ‘get it’...)

some people are more fussy about whether particular details are right

This is from a Professor of Philosophy?! I'm actually laughing at loud. Fucking hell guys.

Wow. That’s pretty nasty. I hope some grownups take the toddlers to task. It’s like a bitchy clique at school...

Peter Singer who argues in all seriousness that disabled babies should be killed at birth has never got this level of shit. They should be ashamed of themselves and embarrassed that that letter is wrong.
The man who organised it is clearly a massive mysoginst and his Twitter feed is a big long list of how women are doing feminism wrong.

I see the witchfinders are now calling out people who haven't signed the letter. This is utterly chilling.

Also note that people who don't sign because the letter is inaccurate are 'fussy'.

There is a long tradition of philosophers writing public letters arguing against a rival philosopher's position. That's great, it's what academia is for. I'd be genuinely interested to read a proper, considered open letter written by a group of philosophers against the GC position. But no, it's just more condemnation and straw men. Embarrassing.

That letter is such a disappointment... it is the most muddled crap imagineable. It seems to roughly translate to "we are in favour of freedom of expression blah blah... people should be allowed to express GC views blah blah... because we're not in favour of cancel culture blah blah... but Doc Stock still deserves a good hounding because reasons..."

Disappointed to see someone I used to know on the list.

They’ve had to correct the letter? Who the he’ll signs a letter - let alone a very public denunciation- without reading it through thoroughly?

Actually, I have a very nice bridge for sale in London... the contract is pretty long but you don’t need to read the small print...

There is another letter in support of KS.

Hahahaha!

How embarrassing that they've had to correct their letter as they were wrong. It's just bullying plain and simple.
I hope that people senior in the organisations that have had their names ascribed to this take a look and maybe contemplate the reputational risk of their paid staff signing up to open letters such as this.
Where I work we have to be mindful of that kind of thing. Your own opinion is one thing, ascribing that to an educational establishment is another.

I actually thought that the letter revealed how weak their position has become. They had to admit that discussion of "sex and gender" is legitimate - just not in the way that KS is doing it. (huh?)

An open letter is not really covered by academic freedom as it is, by definition, not academic but advocacy work. There have been rather a lot of these open letters recently and, maybe, like so many of these open letters, it will be forgotten by tomorrow.

It would be interesting to look into the history of academics/intellectuals and open letters. Examples that come to mind are the J'accuse letter against the government in the Dreyfus affair in late 19th century France and also the letter by German academics supporting their government in World War I. But academics signing open letters to denounce fellow academics?

This letter had two main points - Kathleen has called for an end to the close association between Stonewall and universities and that she was opposed to the GRA.

They have now had to publish a correction to one of their two statements - the people that signed this should be mightily embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for being involved in such a pathetic attack on an individual.

Just seen that letter. What an incredibly nasty thing to do.

We do not say Stock should not be permitted to say the things she does. We believe in the principles of academic freedom, and note that objecting to someone being lauded or honoured for their speech simply does not conflict with those principles.

In other words: "We can't ban her from saying these things...but we will do our best to bully her into submission...and that's allowed...because free speech". These people should be ashamed of themselves.

I’m not sure it could work that way for a lot of the humanities though highame. It’s perfectly legitimate to write subjectively about non-scientific subjects like philosophy. (Its not legitimate to do shoddy social science research like you say, but that’s different from philosophy, ie thinking about ideas). It’s definitely not OK to effectively disallow and ostracise colleagues and students from having a plurality of subjective (legal and peaceful) views.

So universities could enforce the requirements around free speech better, defend their staff better, and they could require critical thinking to be taught for Arts subjects. Not just research skills. Honestly with the signatories of that letter I think it’s a symptom of what seems from the outside like quite a horrible academic culture for a lot of them. Of the UK ones various are junior, may not really have any particular awareness of these specific issues particularly but (I would bet) want their name going around on social media attached to virtuous-looking things alongside a few big name people making them all look like peers. It’s lazy but it comes from insecurity too.

I don’t know if academia was always this way but the low pay, job insecurity, the REF, the admin load, the hours, the requirement to be on social media, all seem to conspire against women (especially with kids) and to promote dickish signally behaviour like this ‘open letter’ ostracism tactic which has no solid foundation in actual academic argument.

Stock seems like a straw man here for most of the signatories- as they haven’t even got their objections straight. To me it looks more about self righteous, self serving careerism from junior people tilting at windmills by signing this thing. ‘Problematic views’ or insufficient commitment to the cause has always been a good way to clear out or mute the middle and upper tiers in any political hierarchy. It’s a dangerous culture to feed though because nobody is ever perfect enough when political goal posts can be moved all the time but must be stuck to. Academic work will always be political but it is also a discipline with an aim to continuously improve knowledge, it should not be just paid political advocacy with penalties for those who don’t adhere to the dogma.

That’s why its essential that academic culture needs to robustly maintain that debate is OK and is needed- debate has an essential purpose in maintaining academic rigour and freedom and defending the central purpose of gathering and sharing and testing out knowledge. #yesdebate

sorry, Social Sciences

I think it's about time the work of academics in the arts was peer reviewed, like the sciences, that would get rid of some of the crap or at least cause some professional embarrassment so that they actually thought before publishing. It would protect people like Kathleen Stock and it would show us tax payers whether we were getting value for money. At least with covid-19, science has been given an almighty boost

Agree, Fallingirl. Otherwise, what is the point of it? It's not saying anything, really. Just empty virtual signalling was what I was hoping, but your take makes more sense, unfortunately.

That letter is about more than berating Kathleen Stock. The signatories are sending a clear message to those in less secure positions in academia, that they better keep their mouths shut. -and that is a really chilling thing to do.

Lovely to see you here Ginge. I admire greatly any woman who has stuck her head above the parapet to challenge the nonsense, you have far more to lose than a thick arse like me. I'm uneducated but grateful to those who are cleverer than me, which means most who post in this forum.

Dr Moody.

Kathleen personally said to me that, when I lost my affiliation due to Stephanie Hayden and Adrian Harrop's complaint, that she could not publicly support due to being friends with the Head of Dept (all the more reason to challenge, or so I naively thought). It would therefore be easy to say "so what" about this letter. But I will not be that person. It is appalling, vindictive, bullying disguised as a progressive fight. Every single signatory of that letter really should be ashamed of themselves. You are contributing to hounding, and making a professionally accomplished woman feel ostracized. You may not like her, but most normal, sane, people keep that private and do not go on some deranged vendetta. Right now, I am thankful to no longer be an official part of the discipline.

I would love to add my name to the list of those congratulating Professor Stock OBE. In fact, I just did. Keep on keeping on Prof.