Rosa Freedman told to 'Choose your words carefully'

Does it mean she's left? Or has she been banned?

Fuckers.

They got her

Just another thinly veiled threat to a woman from an aggressive man, pretending to give a shit about trans people. They never do, it’s a nice convenient shield to justify hating women. Good on you Rosa because any woman getting involved with him had better beware.

I'm not sure if "I do not intend do [sic] get aggressive" was intended as a veiled threat. All the same ...

You're writing to a woman who has been subjected to rape and death threats, and anti-Semitic abuse, online and in late-night telephone calls, and had her office door urinated on; all for the peaceable expression of her beliefs. The perpetrators hold views doubtless broadly in agreement with your own. Do you ...

(a) Distance yourself from the perpetrators by commiserating with her and unequivocally condemning their actions.

(a) Not mention the intimidation and harassment. It goes without saying that you only want to talk - after all you're at the same university - and bringing it up at all might engender some misgivings.

(c) Allude to it coyly ("you have had issues in the past"), and emphasize that the perpetrators were acting in a good cause ("trying to protect the trans community from you"); but assure her that you personally mean her no physical harm.

If you chose (c) you're a scary fanatic, and richly deserve being used as an example of one.

How anyone can read the phrases:

I don't intend to get aggressive and choose your words carefully

as not threatening I don't know.

It is explicit in those phrases that the writer will get aggressive if the words use are not chosen carefully. If he wasn't going to get aggressive at all, why mention it? Or why not state that whatever her response he wouldn't become aggressive? There's some serious twisting going on to excuse this person, he chose his words carefully to convey exactly what his intent was.

Quite apart from the ominous sense of threat, mansplaining, pomposity, entitlement and general ludicrousness of this letter, is the fact that it is so badly written.

If I were working for the Reading University publicity department, I'd be shitting myself that their academic writing standards have been displayed in the daily mail like this.

referring to men pissing on Prof Freedman's office door as 'trans allies trying to protect the trans community from you'

stupid little man

Which, to me, absolutely puts aggression on the table as a possibility.

That's how it reads to me, too.

-I know you've had 'issues' (which are your own fault because trans people need protecting from you).
-I won't be aggressive.
-Just choose your words carefully...

Sinister.

I hope this is opening the eyes of the eager wee allies.

He says, despite the fact that he is familiar with her talks, emails, press coverage and Twitter threads, that he wants to hear, again, in her own words what it is that makes trans people and their allies need protection from her.

And he recommends she chooses her words carefully.

He already knows her stance, he says so. He's goading her, and then telling her to self censor, less there be some consequences that he doesn't fully outline, but appears to say they won't be aggressive.

Which, to me, absolutely puts aggression on the table as a possibility. And then raises the spectre of her colleagues supporting him. Because he claims her stance means that the entire university could be accused of inequality.

It's a fucked up email, on every level.

And the University might be dealing with things on a case-by-case basis, but obviously the ethos has made this twat feel completely emboldened to send that to a member of their staff. So whatever they're doing, it's not working.

Well that's Reading off the list for my little darlings - I mean how did that barely literate twit even get in? Which is a shame, as one wants to do Law and Rosa seems ace!

I've encountered this kind of student and they were very very vulnerable to manipulation by academics who appealed to their sense of themselves as moral crusaders and intellectuals

I think it is a clumsy attempt at debate but it's coming from someone so mindblowingly self-righteous that they think their arrogance is just them being on the side of right and their threats are them just being firm.
Which sums up a lot of the 'activists' in this debate imo.

The really standout thing to me is the very, very poor quality of the letter.

This isn’t the standout thing to me, but it seems to be a trend. Remember that laughably bad letter written by TRAs in the publishing industry? I’ve seen plenty of other examples too and it’s interesting.

I’m remembering something a writing teacher said to me ages ago: good writing is good thinking. Perhaps it boils down to that.

AlfonsoTheMango

That sums it up nicely. Starting with the disrespectful ‘Dear Rosa Freedman’ that when read with the rest seems to reinforce the faint menace.

And the mention of people feeling they have to protect others and themselves from her.

This student knew what they were writing. They certainly didn’t expect to have it published though and to have to answer for it.

At the very least, I hope that he is removed from whatever the ‘problematic issue’ project is he is working on and discredited. This wasn’t just one throw away line.

No I wouldn't read it that way - could equally be, I know others have been aggressive but I am just going to interfere and preach etc. Self-righteous. As I said, not unambiguous.

The bigger deal in all this for me is the colleagues allegedly working with the student (and if so, abusing their positions and using him). I'd be going after them and hope Reading is too.

The phrase "I do not intend to get aggressive" is saying 'if I get aggressive it will be your fault' which is a classic abuse tactic.

Mr Wareham has informed Professor Freedman that he is working with her colleagues on what is considered wrongthink. His message makes it very clear that he expects her to justify her views and that if he doesn't hear from her within a deadline that he imposes there will be consequences.

The really standout thing to me is the very, very poor quality of the letter. It reads as if written in haste (and sans any proofreading) by a pre-teen. If "Alex" is indeed a student at the uni and is truly "working with professors", I hope those professors will refer Alex to whatever resources are available for remedial education. It's not a great ad for the uni itself, either.

It’s a modern day witch hunt. It’s just in another name.

I think calling these people out like this brat Alex Wrexham is exactly what needs to be done.

They are counting on women to “be nice” and let them run roughshod over us. They are expecting us to just be silent and if we don’t then they will threaten us until they take what they want. If this is not typical of male intimidation tactics and a common tactic of bullies, then I don’t know what is.

It's a pretty unpleasant landscape out there.

Prof. Freedman has publicised this, we can only speculate how many academics are not at that stage yet. Her thread from 2018 that I posted above indicates how long such harassment has been in progress for her and that people still feel emboldened to do this (including her colleagues in concern with AW).

Chris Whitty has been harassed and put in a headlock. I see some news organisations downplay the gravity of that.

There's a lot of minimisation on display. My conflict of interest is that I've been stalked in my life - aggressively and including at a time when it was minimised by society and before it was a crime. I know what it's like to have people telling you that you've misunderstood and siding with that person even beyond the time that they've harmed you.

I think we are just reading it differently - I don't see an unambiguous threat at all. I see a clumsy attempt at debate. I'd rather see a different reaction from a student wellbeing perspective, but she's within the law and I haven't been in her shoes. She is clearly very anxious about it and feeling vulnerable after her recent operation. I hope the university is looking after her well at the moment.

Not really - she's said the university has genuinely addressed these cases.

Only when harm has already occurred, the university have not prevented this abuse from happening in the first place. And it's happened over and over again.

@Looksgood I agree with those calling for his expulsion though. He has clearly made threats towards a member of staff, there's reams of threads on mn about how university students should be held culpable for their behaviour, including a recent one where posters have encouraged an op to report unpleasant behaviour in a houseshare with the expectation this could result in expulsion.