Vice Chancellor of Kathleen Stock's University will be on R4 sometime between 8-8.30

Langclegsinspace
Yes that 'very news' stood out as weird and wrong. I wondered if he meant the newfangled ideas about gender are new, but I doubt it was that on second thoughts. I remember that statement. It was good at the time. I keep an eye on statements in favour of freedom of speech by unis. Surprisingly uncommon, and that's the problem. But you are right, even if his watch it's got worse.

@Polmuggle
I was thinking of this section of the linked letter:
Unsurprisingly, the employers have begun following the lead of the more hawkish of their members and threatening our jobs, essentially saying that we must choose between our jobs or our pensions. As Adam Tickell, vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex and a Universities UK spokesman and the chair of the Employers Pensions Forum, said in mid-July in the Financial Times, 'if employers have to make higher contributions then that will be felt very, very quickly in job losses'. We are appalled, but sadly not at all surprised, at the cavalier attitude Universities UK is taking towards the lives and livelihoods of their employees. It is all the more offensive when it comes at the end of a decade of universities expanding with fancy new buildings and far-flung campuses while wages have been in steady decline in real terms. The higher education sector desperately needs leaders who can lead without resorting to the expedient of threatening their staff.

We call on the university to publicly rebuke Adam Tickell and Universities UK for this threat and to commit to a policy of no job cuts in response to the outcome of the USS dispute

So, UCU were referring to him as “hawkish”, “cavalier” and making “threats”, and that this was “offensive when it comes at the end of a decade of universities expanding with fancy new buildings”.

You are of course quite right that the letter does not mention pom-poms and dance routines. My mistake.

As it happens, I did not take part in the last of the UCU strikes (the one that ran right up against the start of the March 2020 lockdown), not because I disagreed with the union’s stance on serious questions over the methodology of the USS valuation but more because it was all getting very disingenuous with the “four fights” which were dragging important questions about casualisation etc together with essentially a wage demand for already well-paid staff. Our local branch had these fliers with an outstretched hand grasping a £3500 pay rise.

And as it happens I have since left UCU because I see the leadership as essentially misogynistic. Doesn’t mean that I think VCs like Tickell are particularly trustworthy.

But back on the subject of today’s interview. It was a start. People questioning how things can have been allowed to come to this over the last three or four years have a good point though.

I thought it was quite good until he said this was a 'very very new' thing.

Kathleen Stock has suffered repeated harassment at Sussex Uni for over three years now. Adam Tickell has been VC throughout this period and is well aware of what has been going on. He published a statement about it in 2018. The statement itself appears to have been memory holed but a chunk of it is available here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301937-Sussex-Students-Union-defames-Dr-Kathleen-Stock-Title-Edited-by-MNHQ?msgid=79396741

So while it's good that he's speaking out and investigating, I am stunned that he can claim this is 'very very new'.

How has he let things get this bad over the past three years? Why hasn't he taken action earlier?

[quote MidsomerMurmurs]**@Polmuggle* I wouldn't call pointing out that paying higher pensions means less money for posts - in your capacity as employer persons spokesperson - is "cheerleading for redundancies"*

www.ucu.org.uk/article/10255/Open-letter-to-USS-members

Yeah I suppose university “leaders” do have to pay for all the vanity project buildings and if that means firing staff, so be it.

I wouldn’t call that guy a good egg, but each to their own.[/quote]
There was nothing in that link of cheerleading?

I suspect we just disagree on the UCU pension strikes, which is part and parcel of HE life!

@Polmuggle I wouldn't call pointing out that paying higher pensions means less money for posts - in your capacity as employer persons spokesperson - is "cheerleading for redundancies"

www.ucu.org.uk/article/10255/Open-letter-to-USS-members

Yeah I suppose university “leaders” do have to pay for all the vanity project buildings and if that means firing staff, so be it.

I wouldn’t call that guy a good egg, but each to their own.

Pleased to see a minister stand up for Kathleen Stock

twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1446391522832834572

I was pleased to hear it. It's sad that in the current climate it was quite brave, but it was. He did sound nervous and careful when he was trying to answer questions (second half of the interview) but it was an important move in this whole thing. Both the bullying of gender critical feminists and academic freedom more generally.

He was right not to take a position on the substantive issue. It's clear to me that there's a conflict of rights, but taking that position puts you on one side of the debate because of the framing- one side knows there is, one side says there isn't. He was right not to go there but stick to academic freedom. So its good (and marks a change) to hear a vc say:

• She (& by extension other gc feminist academics) has a right to make her arguments
• harassing, bullying and calling to sack them is wrong
• masked protesters who do this, and staff who support them will be investigated then if necessary subject to the normal disciplinary process

If VCs had been saying this all along it would be a different landscape. If they all say it now (hello Kent, hello Edinburgh!) a large part of the tra power to prevent discussion will be removed, because it rests on potential intimidation of anyone who speaks.

So we'll done Mr vc of Sussex, and good luck at Birmingham.

I'm wondering if I listened to the same interview as some posters, I though he was good!

Very calm, very clear, measured and quite unequivocal. I honestly thought it was great.

And JW is definitely the best on this subject.

I thought he was in the current climate taking a pretty robust position and I thank him for it.

Have you seen the recent Simpsons episode where Mr Burns goes back to Yale? I only caught some of it, but it portrays the tutors and staff as terrified and cowed by the students, even the kid in the furry mascot suit. I'm surprised these kids feel the need to go to university, given that they think they know everything already and want to teach lessons to the tutors. I suppose they just regard it as a nice 3 year berth to launch their career as the next shouty Rick at the Guardian.

I haven't RTFT so this may already have been noted, but Adam Tickell is leaving Sussex for a new VC post at Birmingham next year: he's already been appointed. So maybe he's in a good position to do some sorting out at Sussex before he goes.

I think this was an important interview. The VC was careful with his words but absolutely clear that this was unacceptable and focusing on right of people to hold and express different viewpoints on this issue. If he can say it, then so can other universities.

I didn't hear the interview, but Adam is generally a good egg

Hmm not sure he is really. He was cheerleading for redundancies during the USS pension valuation stramash (which is still ongoing I see, although having left UCU, thankfully I won’t be involved).

My DD was at Sussex recently, having listened to the VC at her Graduation, the impression I got was of someone who didn’t enjoy public speaking at all, however the content was pretty inspiring.

I do think he deserves huge praise for going on R4 and supporting Dr Stock and I expect it will cause him no end of problems from the violent bunch who are attacking Dr Stock.

Ah yes, I see an extreme porn advocate is already suggesting a TRA pile on to Adam Tickell on Twitter.

I didn't hear the interview, but Adam is generally a good egg.

The way he's approaching it is so removed from the actual sex vs gender debate though. A win on this is not a win of logic but just evidence of how afraid everyone in higher ed is of the new Free Speech Bill currently going through the Commons.

Uni of Sussex quoted the VC on Twitter yesterday:

@SussexUni

In response to issues on our campus, our VC Adam Tickell has said: We are investigating activity on our campus which appears to have been designed to attack Professor Kathleen Stock for exercising her academic freedoms. [1/3]

Disturbingly, this has included pressuring the University to terminate her employment. Everyone at the University has the right to be free from harassment and intimidation. [2/3]

We cannot and will not tolerate threats to cherished academic freedoms and will take any action necessary to protect the rights of our community. [3/3]

twitter.com/sussexuni/status/1446108933702098956?s=21

I think he was reiterating the above without trying to go down the no debate line.

Also agree that he sounded like a lot of academics that I know. He would have been briefed about potential legal issues so might have sounded a bit guarded.

It wasn't the unequivocal pronouncement I would love to hear, but he wasn't talking exclusively to GC people. This was a statement for all interested parties and in that context, it was reassuring. I'd be thrilled to see more VCs being as clear about academic freedom and bullying as he was.

Also, he didn't make this issue immediately about trans rights, marginalisation etc... He stuck to the academic freedom/harassment line. That really is quite new.

Some of the comments on Twitter are just baffling. The Trans and Non Binary student rep thread is so hard to comprehend - they're furious with the university for saying threats made against Stock are unacceptable. They genuinely believe they're right.

That's the point I was making JustSpeculation, what's going on is highly asymmetrical, with the asymmetry reflecting where the power lies. Which brings to mind the dubious claim of "most marginalised".